throbbing wrote:
It seems to me that if a man walking down a street sees a woman undressing in her bedroom, then he is guilty of being a peeping tom, whereas if it were the woman staring at a man doing the same, the man would be guilty of indecent exposure.
Queen Victoria is said to have refused to outlaw lesbianism because she didn't believe that it could happen, yet was quite happy to believe in and outlaw male homsexuality.
Does our law assume that any man engaged in unconventional sexual behaviour is dangerous and probably needs locking up, while a woman doing something similar is, at worst, a little eccentric, but probably just a little frustrated?
Interesting point, throbbing. Germain Greer wrote a lot about how we should react to flashers. She wrote that laughter is a great tool against them. If we see the actual penis as the thing to be feared (rather than a warped person behind it) then we get our tragets wrong. It's like when people call for rapists to be castrated. It's not the penis that's the real weapon and a rapist doesn't need one to hurt someone. It's also a reaction that can make feel men feel like the very fact they have a willy makes them some kind of potential rapist.
I loved Greer's early writing (not her of late, she's gone a bit batty) when she says we should treat rape as a violent crime of hate, not passion. I't's something that crops up in novels and movies a lot. The 'she-was-just-too-seductive-to-resist!' notion instead of standing up and saying that a real man wouldn't do this to another human being.
No bloke can be around an attractive woman without raping her, right guys? Le sigh. If I was a man I would be incredibly offended that the actions of a minority of haters criminalises my entire gender.
