"It is a fallacy that "provocative" dressing leads to sexual crimes. And yet this fallacy persists, not just in the minds of some men, but also in the minds of some women."-NST
This statement needs to be qualified first before it is being dished out as a matter of fact.We ought to conduct a study between "provocative" dressing and sexual related crimes. Perhaps the best way to do this ought to be conducted by sociologists, comparing Asian countries that still maintain a degree of moral dress codes with that of the open dress codes of Western countries.
Looking at previous statistics, studies and reports, it seems that sexual crimes against women in Western countries far exceed those of Asian countries. Although this is not a direct cause and effect, it does seem to point to a certain direction and we may speculate with a high degree of probability what the outcome of the studies mightt be had it really been undertaken.
We may also ask some questions. If dressing provocatively is not reason for fear of increasing sexual crimes, then why do we not allow topless bars, nude shows, and playboy magazines (we will not mention pornographic films) and the like to operate in this country?
Will the presence of such increase rape in the country? From the argument of those who oppose the linkage between proper clothing attire and crime such as rape, we would suggest that their answer would be a resounding "No". But of course we know that this is not true.
In Thailand a few years ago, there was a trend for young women/ school going teenagers to wear a top without bra, because this would be more attractive as one would be able to take a peak at the jutting nipple. This mode of dressing was subsequently banned because it was deemed immoral.
Would we allow women in Malaysia to dress in the same manner? Perhaps we should allow it because some say that there is no relation between dressing and sexual crimes.
I remember not too long ago when people were shocked to see the natal cleft of a women through the exposed part of the back of her jeans. Now, it can be witnessed everywhere since there is a new trend of donning low cut jeans. Nobody screams anymore but if this "indecent exposure" is not indecency, I dont know what is.
And if men see this as sexually stimulating, who are we to blame?..those wearing them or those looking at them?
We may then pose another question, if everybody starts to dress in this manner, even if the men wanted to avoid looking at what attracts them the most, could they really have avoided it, when they are surrounded by these 'attractive' ladies? And in the course of one's daily goingabouts, if images of these women constantly bombard the brain of virile men, and as a result, increase their baseline/resting sexual arousal, and with that, tip them over the scale....then who are we to blame?
Is this not sexual harrasment of the visual kind, I may ask? We have no choice but to look at them although we wish it would be otherwise. As a matter of fact, we would be happier going about without having to be caught staring down someone's backside or bossoms. If it does not incite sexual cravings in virile young men, the least harm it does is distract someone from their work and attention.
But mind you we know that most women care for attention. Well, who doesn't, its human nature. Exposing some parts of their anatomy is one way of gaining attention because women know what attracts men. And women like attention, as do men.