Melville Cooke THERE HAS been some furore in The Observer over a sermon that Herro Blair delivered on Sunday. Speaking at his place of business, the Faith Cathedral Deliverance Centre, Waltham Park Road, he let his feelings about the skimpy and sagging fashions of young people today be known.
And, coming from the point of view of an older person - and from the vantage point of his pulpit, to boot - I can understand his feelings of revulsion at some of the undress that passes for fashion.
SKIMPY CLOTHES
What is especially relevant, though, was Blair's differing viewpoints on the repercussions of skimpy clothes on the 'undressers'. On August 1 (Emancipation Day, to boot!), he related, he "turned back a girl" who had on a midriff blouse, telling her "you are a prime candidate for a rapist".
The crux of the matter - and this column - was the difference in how Blair saw the repercussions of 'fashion' on the two genders. The Observer's story (published on Monday, August 9) ended: "On the issue of young men with their low-riding pants, Blair remarked that this was how homosexuals in prisons identified themselves, and warned that those on the streets may find themselves "inviting company to come home with them". And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have the heart of the matter. A woman who shows her belly button is a 'prime candidate for a rapist'; a man who shows his bottom may be 'inviting company'.
The difference is force. A woman invites sex to be forced on her, a man invites an approach. He has the choice of saying yes or no, she does not.
Blair's statements, which met thunderous applause in the church, are not surprising, coming from a male Christian. The Bible repeatedly puts the blame for male indiscretions on women. In fact, take up your Bible and turn to Judges and read chapter 14, as well as 1 - 7 of chapter 15. Samson was a greedy man who could not keep a secret from a woman, hence his conflict with the Philistines (not some great religious war, as is popularised). Added to this is the fact that the woman was threatened with death (by fire) if she did not cajole the secret out of Samsom. Who was she threatened by? Men.
To make it worse, Samson was twice stupid, as he divulged the secret of his strength to Delilah. She, however, was bribed by (you guessed it) - men (see Judges 16: 4 & 5). Five kings offered her 1,100 pieces of silver each, so even taking inflation into account Jesus' life was worth far less than Samson's hair. When the story is retold, is the role of the men in coercing or coaxing the women outlined? Hell no.
From the snake and Eve in the opening myth of the Bible, through to David's trickery in killing the husband of a woman he had slept with, the Bible does not put much - if any - responsibility on the male, in his relationship with women. In our highly Christianised society, where Marvia Providence can go on stage with Elephant Man on Red Stripe Reggae Sumfest Danceall Night 2004 and 'rip it up' with Hear My Cry Oh Lord before a crowd of 17,000, many of whom were dressed in less than Mr. Blair would care to see, it is not surprising that the responsibility of rape should be put on the woman.
NOT SURPRISING
Over in the US, it is not surprising that the defence in the Kobe Bryant rape case should want to use the accuser's sexual history; after all, if she had sex with many men before, then she obviously wanted to have sex with Bryant, right? Back to Blair. It is impossible for a woman to invite rape upon herself. Can a man not control himself in the presence of a woman? And do good-looking men in fashionable clothing invite tacitly women to approach them? Or, in the Christian context, women are not supposed to want sex? I need to go to church.
Melville Cooke is a freelance writer.
