“Its all about money”; says Police, Women!
Posted April 9, 2012on:
Tehelka’s spy cam journalism followed with the corporate media hype injected yet another dose of ‘cocaine’ into the nerves of young girls. Though, public is unaware of the kind of questions or the circumstances in which police made their comments it is clear that the intention of this spy cam episode is to serve a basket of carefully filtered thoughts for forceful consumption. Was the police making comments based on a couple of cases? Were they commenting for the department? Were they aware of the purpose of deliberation? there are hundreds of such questions that people forget to ask.
Looking at the heated arguments that occurred in the comments section of the said article, there is no point to disbelieve that the public happily consumed what was served to them with no signs of rejection. Almost 99% of the people participated in the debate were repeating the same slogans chanted by the media. I graciously took the opportunity to do a ‘brain surgery’ of a few participants out of curiosity. My findings were intuitively astonishing! Some of the hard-wired believes of young women are
- Patriarchy did serious damage to women.
- System is prejudiced against women.
- Insecurity feeling.
- Feminism brought new options to woman’s life.
- Men do not like empowered women.
Patriarchy is a subject that I wrote about previously in the handbook Equality for Men – Myth or Reality. This word was imported to India in order to fertilize feminism. After this debate I got a feeling that without this word, feminism will not move an inch ahead. As I mentioned in the book earlier “patrilineal” is a word that wasn’t even present in the spell checker of software giant Microsoft’s popular word processing tool until 2003 when “matrilineal” was already there. Most Indian languages still do not have a translation for this. Then how did these young girls made this word their arch rival, is an interesting topic to research about.
They strongly believe that values, morality, virginity, marriage etc were inventions of Patriarchy to restrict the freedom of women. “Arranged marriage in one sense is a socially sanctioned form of prostitution”, said one girl. Men used to make frequent visits to brothels in order to satisfy their desires because sex with their wives was seen only as a means of procreation, she continued.
I curiously asked, as opposed to socially sanctioned prostitution, women start dating and physical relationships at early ages followed with a couple of break ups for whatever reasons; then a live-in relationship for a few years before another couple of break ups; then a marriage and few divorces before they die. So someone please make me understand what “prostitution” really mean (in one sense or the other)? Does that mean living and having long term physical relationship with one person in an arranged marriage or having multiple short term relationships?
The answer to that indeed exposed the real mindset of young generation and underscores the comments made by the police. She said,
women have a right to be sexually active. I do not see anything wrong with prostitution if a woman willingly sells sex for money what is wrong with it? People sell religion, spirituality, art in exchange of money why cannot women or men sell sex for money? Men for years have controlled woman’s sexuality by limiting it in terms of money through marriage so if a woman controls man’s sexuality through money what is wrong? What is immoral with a woman living in a relationship or having boy friends? Or getting a divorce? I will tell you what is wrong. Because today i have a choice, a choice earlier made unavailable because of patriarchy. And you seem to have a problem with the “morality” of women and “feminists”. This article is about the aberrant morality of men and not about feminists. You find feminists immoral and threatening to the older set of beliefs.
Another girl said,
“The sole desire of every girl’s life is not to find her Prince Charming and get married, although most fairytales, novels and films will have you believing otherwise…so I understand your confusion. Women now enjoy the freedom to connect with several men on an emotional and/or physical level throughout their lifetime if they choose to do so; it allows them to gain a deeper understanding of the type of person that is best suited for them and thus make an informed decision when and if they choose to get married. And this may come as a huge surprise to you but…women actually enjoy sex just as much as men, if not more. There is no need for you to pity women who choose to exercise their right to sleep with whoever they want because they are doing something they enjoy. Shocking, right?
And I know what’s going through your head right now…”Slutty, slutty slut-slut”. Yes, I am a mind-reader. See, I told you they had you brainwashed….
Anyway, hopefully that clarifies some of your misunderstandings. You’re welcome “
All my efforts went in vein to make them understand that I’m not bothered about what lifestyle a woman want to choose; all I’m asking is to “Take Responsibility of Their Own Actions”. If one choose to sell sex for money, or exercise it for pleasure, Its their choice. But do not abuse the process of law to get that money. We have to keep the sanctity of the justice system. That is the whole point.
Since the subject matter was all about RAPE, and one of the comment made by the police was “It is consensual most of the time.” I tried to dissect what do they think about this and found a deep rooted misconception. She said, selling sex for money is not immoral and if anyone exploits a woman or a man in the profession then there should be laws to protect the integrity of the prostitute. Also as i have said a million times in different comment threads that if a woman or a man for that matter consents sex for an amount “x” and later on the amount is not paid to him or her then the criteria of consent is not met. So what is non consensual sex? Rape? Moreover, are you suggesting that prostitutes cannot be raped?
It appears that women failed to understand that, here, women give consent for sex based on something called “Trust”. If at a later point, the amount “x” is not paid, then that is a BREACH OF TRUST (Section 420 applies) Not 375. If the integrity of the prostitute is to be maintained then the prostitute has to get the money in advance. That’s where the role of Pimp comes in. Abusing the legal process to get the lost-money is tantamount to making judiciary do the pimp’s role, which is not acceptable at all.
There were other women in the debate but unfortunately their language was way below publishable standards, so I’m not quoting it here.
Food for thought - “All vehicles on our highways have braking system installed. Assuming this, will you recklessly cross the road expecting the drivers to stop their vehicles or will you opt to wait for the signal?