To personally meet or connect with Acharya Prashant: click here.
Question: Acharya Ji, there is a question in my mind that keeps bothering me quite a lot – this concept of ‘wearing short dresses’ and ‘not being seen in short dresses in the public’.
Usually people say that one can wear the short dresses at home, but it is not okay to wear them in public. Some of the world leaders even allege that one of the reasons that a woman gets raped is, because she was wearing short clothes.
What is your understanding on this?
Acharya Prashant Ji: There are two sides involved here.
One, the woman who is walking about wearing whatever clothes she is. And she has her own story to tell. And then there are those who are jeering, ogling, mocking, and sometimes attacking.
I would want to have a sincere discussion with both of them.
Firstly, with the side that is so articulate in saying that women should mind their clothes and dressings. I want to ask them, “What kind of person are you, man or woman, if anything is able to disturb or provoke you so easily?”
Your allegation is, that when you watch a woman dressed skimpily, then that becomes a disturbance, a distraction, even a provocation. How will you insulate yourself? And how much you will insulate yourself from the world? And what are the limits to what you want to see and not see?
Today you say that a woman’s legs or thighs provoke you, what prevents you from saying tomorrow that her ankles and fingernails provoke you? Would you then demand that she should cover up from head-to-toe?
I want to question this.
After all body is ‘body’, skin is ‘skin’, flesh is ‘flesh’, and blood and bones are ‘blood and bones’. What prevents somebody from coming up tomorrow, and saying that the sight of a naked nose is a great sexual invitation to him?
“You see, nose. I find nose quite erotic.”
And was it not so, that in Victorian England, even the legs of tables and chairs were covered, because legs are not supposed to be displayed? It’s a matter of conditioning. You can condition yourself to think that legs are highly sensible and even erotic, even on tables, even on furniture.
So this whole thing will not rest, even if you totally drape the woman in all kinds of protective clothing. Then they will say, “The very sight of the feminine figure, even if totally covered, provokes us. So women should not be allowed to even walk in public.”
And the matter might not end even at this point.
They might say, “The very thought of woman provokes us, so women should not be probably allowed to even exist. Because if they exist, and if we know that they exist, they become a disturbance to us. We are being disturbed, our mental peace is being lost, and the women are culprit. So why do they exist at all? Go ahead and attack them.”
So I want to ask this to them, “Is it really so that you cannot stand the sight of a bare arm, or thigh, or back, or cleavage? Is it really so explosive to you that you can’t stand it? What kind of person are you? When the woman is not in front of you, do you keep fantasizing about her all the time?”
This is mental illness.
Only if you are indulging in all kind of sexual fantasies and inner perversions, will you then jump upon her at the first sight.
Otherwise, there is hardly anything so very alluring in the bare body of a human being, a person, a female.
Had you had any kind of a little spiritual education, you would have known the fact of the body.
Had you paid even a few visits to a crematorium, you would have known what bones, skin, blood and all the visual beauty is really about.
You just need to see the intestines popping out of the stomach of a burning body, and you would lose all fascination for bellies and belly buttons.
So I seriously need to sit with those people who say that women, by dressing in so-called ‘loose way’ make them vulnerable, corruptible – “They are the ones who are responsible, because they provoke us.”
These people need some rigorous counselling. They are sick.
Then there are the women who say that it is a mark of our freedom that we wear whatever we like to wear. I understand, freedom must be respected. Freedom must be respected, but freedom must be Freedom, not conditioning. Freedom deserves all respect, not conditioning.
When you say that you want to come out in public, wearing this and that, would you please sit down for a moment and ask yourself, “Why exactly I want to wear what am I wearing?”?
Obviously if you are on the shore, if you are at a beach, or if you are in a swimming pool, then you have to wear the swimming costume. It could be a two-piece bikini. Then it is obvious why you need to wear only that much. You are not going to swim in a sari.
Similarly, there are other obvious, functional, utilitarian reasons why one dresses a particular way. And then there could be the ultimate reason of physical comfort. That too is an obviously valid reason – one feels physically comfortable wearing something.
And the moment you say that you feel physically very comfortable wearing hot pants, or micro-minis, or whatever, nobody holds any right to object, because it is your body. And if your body feels better wearing a particular kind of stuff, who is anybody else to object?
But then you sincerely need to ask yourself, and only you can ask this to yourself, “Is it only for the reasons of functional utility, or physical comfort that I am wearing what I am?”
If you are wearing whatever you are wearing because of your functional needs – let’s say you are an athlete and you have to dress up in a particular way, or you are very comfortable wearing this or that because it’s hot, and you can’t stand to wear something that is heavier or more oppressive in that kind of weather – then it’s fine.
But I have seen women in sub-zero temperatures, the temperature is minus four, and the woman is wearing almost nothing. That does not provoke a reaction from me, but basic simple curiosity.
“Are you cold proof? Are you weather and climate proof? Do you have some kind of divine heating mechanism inside you that men do not have? How is it so that you choose to reveal the body even in sub-zero temperatures, and all the men are walking around in heavy woolens?”
You don’t need to go abroad to test what I am saying. Just go to any discotheque in Delhi on a Saturday night, rather a Sunday morning, at two a.m., that is the time when all the discotheque shut down, and watch the women coming out, and notice the difference between the dressing of the male folk and the women.
If you are using your body to gather attention, if gathering male attention has become very important to you, then it is not a good psychological state to be in.
Are you getting it?
Please remember, I am not saying this as an advocate of the male population. I am saying this as a friend of the woman.
I am asking her, “Why is the male sight or the male gaze so important to you? If you want attention from people, if you want respect from people, why can’t it be for higher reasons? Why do you want them to look at you because you have a sexy figure? Why can’t you have them look at you because you have certain qualities or accomplishments?”
Remember, if you want men to look at just your body, then they actually be always looking down at you.
But if people, men or women, look at you because of your qualities, they would always be looking up to you.
So two hoots to all what the men say, let them go to hell. But as a woman, don’t you want to question yourself, “How has testosterone has become so important to me? For the sake of his eye, why am I exposing my body? Is he so very important and central to my existence, that I can’t live without getting appreciation and adoration from him?”
That’s the question the women need to ask themselves.
There is also the question that those boys and men need to ask themselves, who develop a gym-toned sculpted body, and then want to take-off their tees in all kinds of pretexts. That’s obviously to get the attention of ‘the other’.
I understand we live in a society, we are related to each other. We will have something to do with ‘the other’. You will always have some relationship with ‘the other’. But why can’t that relationship be on some healthier grounds? Why must the two be related because they only appreciate each other’s body?
And when I say that, I do not mean that sculpted bodies are not advisable. Obviously both men and women should have perfectly fit bodies. Right? But then relating to the other merely by advertising your body, is no good.
Watch the session video: Women in revealing dresses: liberation, or titillation? || Acharya Prashant (2020) The transcription has been edited for clarity.
Each one of us deserves the Truth. So, we made a conscious choice: to keep our work open for all, regardless of whether they can afford to donate.
A tremendous body of our work – around 10,000 videos, 3000 articles, and more – has been made freely available to all on the internet. Just one piece of statistic to put in perspective the magnitude of our charitable work: Around a million minutes of video content is consumed daily by our viewers on YouTube alone, absolutely for free.
This would not be possible without financial contributions from our audiences, who support our work from around the world.
We have upheld our independence in the face of the disintegration of genuine spirituality – with more and more contemporary spiritual content being just disguised commercialism, consumptionism, and egoism. We refuse to belong to any lineage or tradition, we refuse to identify with any ideology or community, nor do we pander to base sentiments to gain followership or financial assistance. This enables us to freely say the truth without inhibition.
Your financial support has meant we can continue to keep bringing you the truth and the undiluted essence of the scriptures. You have supported our independence, and we are grateful.
We need your support so we can keep bringing the truth to you. Any amount contributed by you towards our noble cause is valuable.
We need your support so we can keep bringing the truth to you. Support us from as little as $5 – it only takes a minute.
Donate via PayPal:
(In multiples of $5)