Aren’t we blaming the victim when we say that women’s revealing dresses are the cause of crimes against them?

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada Hare Krsna, prabhu. I must say I don’t agree with what you wrote. We have plenty of examples of women who were raped and were not dressing anything indecent. We also have plenty of examples of kids being raped or even very old women, who were definitely not dressed in such a way to “provoke” man. That is the same kind of argument that makes muslim women to cover themselves from head to toe and also the same kind of argument that makes them sometimes be forced to be at home. Although it is an ok argument from the perspective of mental exercise of thinking, it is not completely according to the truth, as I said, since even kids are raped, and also it does not address the real problem – that is men behaving like animals. Women are NOT responsible for men’s lack of control or lack of intelligence, and they should not shape their behavior or life as if they were the culprit. That would be like legitimating what men are doing, even though it can be covered under a speech that “ok, women are not to be blamed but…” but actually it is blaming women when it said it is because of the way they dress they are inviting these kind of things. Please, don’t take it as an offense. I have a deep respect for you and I appreciate your articles a lot. But I must give my opinion on this matter.

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Hare Krishna. Question from Kamalakshini Rupini Mataji. This is based on an article on the website thesmillscientist.com about whether do women have the right to dress however they like? Is modern dressing, is modest dressing old fashioned? So that article said that just as thieves, as if a person walks in the dark with money protruding out of the pocket, that person will be more likely to attract thieves.

Similarly, women wearing revealing dresses are more likely to attract sexually violent men. So isn't this blaming women for the crimes that men are doing? Answer, not at all. We have to recognize the difference between blaming and recognizing the factors involved.

Blaming means that we say this is what has caused it. Recognizing the factors means, okay, this was also one of the factors that contributed. So if you consider the example of arson, if houses are being burned down in a city repeatedly, then we have to find out who are the people who are the arsonists, who are setting fire, we have to catch them and punish them.

But along that we also have to see, is it that the houses are made of inflammable material? That's why they're catching fire too quickly and before people can come and help or when these people want to set fire, then immediately that fire burns up and it destroys everyone, it destroys the houses. So that is a factor. Now the inflammability of the houses is not the cause of the fire.

The cause is the arsonist, but the inflammability is a factor. So similarly, when we are talking about the inflammability over here, Krishna says, दुष्पूरेण आनलेन च दुष्पूरेण आनलेन च दुष्पूरेण आनलेन च, lust is like a fire. And what triggers lust is, ध्यायतो विशयान बुम्स, when there is contemplation.

Now, when there is contemplation, there is the arousal of lust. So now, now certainly it is the person who is doing contemplation, but it is important that we also don't give the person unnecessary fuel for contemplation. So just like the inflammability of the house makes it easier for the arsonist to set fire and burn things down.

Similarly, when women wear revealing dresses, we may dress scantily, then that ध्यायतो विशयान बुम्स, there is greater trigger for that, stimulus for that. And that trigger, it's like putting fuel in the fire of lust. So now, very important point is that ultimately it is the arsonists who are responsible.

So like that, you know, if a woman may even be walking unclothed, and that doesn't justify any man's attacking her, that man is responsible. Even if that woman is known to be a woman of low character, even if that woman is a prostitute, and if a man attacks that prostitute and forces himself on her against her will, it is the man who is responsible. You know, when a prostitute is not meant to be attacked or mutilated, for whatever circumstances, the prostitute is acting in a particular way, and she has to be paid for that.

So in no condition can the woman be blamed. In the sense that the primary cause is certainly the men acting brutally because of the lust, and they are responsible for the lust. Krishna also makes it very clear, when Krishna says that where is lust situated, when he talks about this in the third chapter, he makes it very clear that in 3.40 he says that Indriyan mano buddhir asyan dhishthanam uchyate etair vimoha yathetam jnanam avritya dehinam So he says where is lust situated? It is in senses, mind and intelligence.

So he doesn't say that lust is situated in the female form. He says it is situated in the senses, mind and intelligence. But at the same time Krishna also says in 2.62 that dhyayato vishaya and pumsa, so vishaya is the sense objects.

sangas te supajayate sangat sanjayate kamaham So he says kamaham is lust generated. So we have to understand the difference between where lust is situated and how lust is generated. So lust is situated in the peoples, in their minds, in their senses, in their intelligence.

But how is it generated, how is it activated, how is it stimulated? It is stimulated by contemplation. So when people contemplate, they get attracted and they get infatuated and that obsession happens. So now ultimately the important point is not to assign blame, the important point is to solve the problem.

So yes it is men who contemplate and there are men who will contemplate anyway, people when men want to see women with exploitative eye then they can even go on the net and there are so many sites available where they can see women. So that vishaya, if somebody wants to do dhyayato, that we can't stop that, people will do it anyway. But do we want to become the vishaya on which people do dhyayato? That is the question here.

So the less properly, less modestly women we address, then the more they are becoming vishaya. This is not just what Bhagavad Gita is saying, this is not something which old fashioned moralist, over moralistic religions are saying. This is as I have quoted in the article from a book by American researchers.

The book is called The Porning of America. Porning comes from the word porn. The Porning of America.

So the whole book is an analysis of how the social values have been changed. That in 1950s, so these two authors, now they are professors in colleges and what are these two professors? They are researchers Carmine Serachino and Kevin M. Scott. What they say is in 1950s, if the parents had told a girl, you know, you are dressed like a slut.

So she would say, you are old fashioned, you don't understand modern dresses. You don't understand the way we dress in today's times. So she would have protested the use of the word slut.

But today the parents say, you are dressed like a slut. And they say, oh, thank you. So actually being dressed like a slut is considered to be smartness.

So there are doctors, there are doctors who do sort of cosmetic surgeries, making the nose smaller or bigger or putting some and enhancing different parts of the body or whatever. So there are doctors who advertise that we make you look like a porn star. Now, we would say, what woman would want to look like a porn star? But that's what the advertisements are.

And people say, oh, I want to look like a porn star. And people are attracted by those advertisements. So there is movie star and a porn star is that person who stars in pornographic movies.

And then there is nothing but sexuality over there and often brutal sexuality. So the social values have become so warped, so distorted that actually the right and wrong, what is the objective analysis that has become completely a matter of confusion for people. So now, certainly, it is not the women who are responsible for if men do violence.

And as has been pointed out by the questioner also appropriately, that men can do sexual violence, sexual abuse against children also. Men can do sexual abuse against very well, very properly dressed women also. That is definitely true.

So lust, when lust is there, men can brutalize anyone. That is true. At the same time, do we want to act as triggers for that lust? So if we don't want, then we dress modestly.

So by making this into a rights issue, then the whole frame of reference gets confused. Certainly, women have a right to wear whatever they want. And it's not that because they wear improper dresses, that's why the violence happens against them.

Violence happens because men are uncontrolled. Men have lust. But the point is, do we want to become triggers for that lust further? So even if we become triggers, it is they who are responsible.

But still, when we become to dress in a particular way, then we are becoming food for Dhyayato Vishayan Pulsa for them. So is that what we want to do? And again, this is the American Psychological Association. We did an objective survey of people.

And we may or may not want to believe it, but the way we dress sends messages to others about what we stand for. So there, in general, it was found that, this is a survey which they did, that in colleges, there are different girls who dress in different ways. That's what the survey, the observation.

And those girls who would dress more scantily, or those girls who would dress in see-through clothes sort of thing, and thongs and things like that, basically, then the boys would make more nasty comments about them. And when they would be passing by, the boys would even try to grab them and touch them inappropriately. And basically, the boys would not do that so much for others.

Now, when the survey was done over there, when the questions were asked, they found that the overall perception was that when women dress scantily, then, basically, that conveys a message. Whether it is intended or not, that is not the issue. That conveys a message that these women are sexually available.

That they exist for the sexual use of others. And this is what the American Psychological Association is saying. And this is the way perception happens.

So what Bhagavad Gita is saying, ध्यायतो विश्यायन्पॉंसा, that karma comes up, the American Psychological Association is confirming in a different way over here. So, essentially, by confusing a factor to be a cause, we end up blaming the victim. And that is tragic.

It is monstrously insensitive to blame a victim for the crime that has happened against her. That is never ever supported in any civilized society. And definitely, that is not the ethos of the Bhagavad Gita.

That is not the ethos of the Gita Vista. We don't see that. Say, when Sita was abducted and when Sita was reunited, it was not that Lord Ram, first of all, blamed her.

It was you who wanted that deer and that is why you sent me away. And then that's how you got into all this trouble. At that time, he did his duty and rescued her.

He did not say that. You only sent me away. You only sent Lakshmana away.

You spoke all this word. Now you suffer. So, Sita had become a victim and Lord Ram did not blame her for that.

Never. There is no question of that. Lord Ram punished Ravana.

But still, the Acharyas have analyzed that, okay, this was a factor also. That Sita, she was attracted to the deer. And then because of that, Lord Ram went away on her insistence.

And that is also a factor. So, there are two different issues. One is the analysis of what are the factors that led to a particular victimization of a person, led to a particular crime.

Analyzing the factors. And then second is punishing the criminals. So, punishing the criminals should be done.

And analyzing the factors is not meant to let the criminals off. Another point over here is that, then people who use these kind of arguments, and there are extremist Muslims, who say that women should cover every single part of their body and they should stay at home only and not do anything, not come out of the home also. Well, that is an extremist reaction.

And Srila Prabhupada gave us the example of that women can also engage in devotional service. They dress modestly, but then they do various services. And there was one disciple of Srila Prabhupada, who was cooking for Srila Prabhupada.

And there were many Matajis in the kitchen. And then he also had to cook over there. So, he was a Brahmachari.

So, he said, Prabhupada, I am feeling very agitated. So, then Prabhupada said, if you are feeling agitated, that is your problem. You have to do the service.

So, Prabhupada did not let him off like that over there. So, the point again is, there is a whole culture, we cannot take one statement out of context and say that this is a statement which is, which will, which indirectly says that we are blaming women for being victims. So, and the overall important point is to recognize that lust is there everywhere.

And it is, it just, it just, things can, it can get activated. So, when it gets activated, it can make people do mad things. So, yes, it is men who are becoming mad, and they are responsible when they become mad.

But the point is that do we want to become part of that madness? And especially, do we want to justify becoming triggers for their madness as our right? This is a very insidious propaganda, where women are miseducated to believe that their sexual value is their only value. So, there is a, so in this book, The Porning of America, these researchers quote, there was some American girl, she got a perfect 2400 in SAT. And when she was interviewed, she said, actually, you know, in my college, it is more important to be hot than to be smart.

So, they were asking her how you're so clever, you got such good marks. She said, it doesn't matter, what is important is to be hot. So, you know, there is such a complete distortion of social values that has happened.

And if we as devotees, and those who are trying to practice spiritual life, if we don't understand the fundamentals clearly, we don't want to be a part of those who blame the victims. No, never. But at the same time, we don't want to be a part of this distortion of social values and this misconceived understanding of what are one's rights.

So, now, does the Vedic culture promote prohibitiveness, like the extremist Islamist culture? No, as I said, one could say that, okay, these houses are made of all more inflammable material. So, what is the solution? Is it that we should not make any houses which are made of inflammable material? So, all wood houses are banned from now onwards? Well, that is not necessary. And then there has to be more precautions to be taken when there are wood houses.

So, it's not that just because some inflammability is there, that metal has to be banned. So, it's not that women have to be absolutely covered in every way. That is not necessary.

That is not what the Avar Acharyas have told us. So, the fire brigade may tell, okay, if you are going to use wood as a material, then you have to take these precautions. Should have whatever material.

So, the point is, recognizing that inflammability is a factor is not at all the same as blaming that as the cause. So, the extent of regulation will vary and we have to look at the broad Vedic culture. We have to look at what the Acharyas have told us.

We have to look at the principle of devotional service and then we have to decide accordingly what is the appropriate way of dressing and acting. But we should not become a part of this confusion of morality and confusion about rights where we think that dressing inappropriately is not a factor at all and dressing inappropriately is our responsibility. We should recognize that.

So, we recognize that and then we set an example for others also that by dressing properly, modestly, we set an example even in this culture and that is no guarantee against crimes but that is a step forward in recognizing that we don't have to become triggers for the lust unnecessarily. Thank you. Hare Krishna.