NOVEMBER 20 ― How did PKR’s Lumut MP First Admiral (r) Mohd Imran Abdul Hamid come to the conclusion that female athletes’ so-called skimpy attire will lead to promiscuity?
Did he mean that such garments will arouse men and women will readily say “yes” to a request for copulation? Or did he mean that women who wear such outfits are promiscuous by nature?
If it’s the former, he seems to think that men only have sex on their minds even when watching sports (possibly true to a certain extent, looking at how tennis icons like Anna Kournikova are sexualised). But he forgets that sex requires a woman’s consent and she may not necessarily want to get it on with any guy who asks her.
If it’s the latter, the opposition MP is very insulting then. One’s dressing has nothing to do with how sexually active a woman is. It’s so offensive to imply that sexily dressed women sleep around (though there’s nothing wrong with sleeping around).
Luckily, Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin is a rational fellow who countered Imran and said there is no evidence of adultery during mass sporting events.
He also shot down PAS lawmaker Siti Zailah Mohd Yusoff’s suggestion to impose an Islamic-compliant dress code on female athletes.
Siti Zailah previously mooted in 2013 a dress code prohibiting “indecent” dressing so as to prevent sexual assault.
In Malaysia, Muslim women are always told to cover their aurat. The mainstream definition of a woman’s aurat appears to be her entire body except for her face and the palms of her hand.
Unfortunately, we have overzealous religious folks here who want to make their definitions of modesty mainstream and to impose them even on people of other faiths.
I believe that we should strive to understand why we do certain things, even in, or rather ― especially in ― religious matters. Female modesty isn’t an issue exclusive to Islam; it’s preached in Christianity and also held as a general principle by other people regardless of their faith.
Why should women cover up and be “modest” in their dressing, however the term is interpreted?
If it’s to prevent sexual assault, on the assumption that “sexy” attire incites lust and drives a man to act on his desires, then women in headscarves or loose clothing should escape rape.
But they end up as victims all the same, like 24-year-old computer engineer Noor Suzaily Mukhtar who was raped in a bus and strangled to death with her tudung. She was wearing a long skirt.
Secondly, saying that women should dress modestly to prevent promiscuity, or consensual sex, is way off target. A woman’s attire has nothing to do with what she wants in bed. If anything, women dress to impress other women. Since when do men notice what women wear, anyway?
Thirdly, if women are meant to be modest to prevent men from sinning, this isn’t a very good reason either because men are turned on by different things. If a woman wears a loose top hiding the shape of her breasts, he may get turned on by her butt. If she covers the shape of her derriere, he’ll look at her legs. If not her legs, then her ankles.
And if not her ankles, perhaps the very sight of her ― even if she’s completely covered from top to toe in a burqa ― is enough to turn him on.
Will religious folks then forbid women from leaving the house at all? If this is impractical, then will they segregate women to female-only communes, where men can just come for conjugal visits? But if there are women-only communes, it renders modest dressing meaningless.
Perhaps the best solution is to just not have any women at all. That seems to be their ultimate objective.
It’s far more effective for people to manage their own actions, instead of trying to manage other people and things beyond their control. If a person is on a diet, he’s not going to ask McDonald’s to close down; he’d just turn off advertisements for fast food and avoid patronising such outlets.
What other reason is there for female modesty?
There's none.
If a woman wants to dress “modestly”, she should by all means. But she should not be doing it to prevent sexual assault or to help her fellow believers avoid sin.
The former is very dangerous thinking and the latter doesn’t help a man to “man up” and to take responsibility for his own actions.
*This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
