She lived at a time of immense knowledge, yet suffered the fate of fools.
The turning of time invited fresh abuses from within and without, none sparing. For those who managed a dose of pity, she still remained an object of shame, a disgusting reminder of her infidelity and obscene promiscuity. It was hard to be associated with her.
Society felt betrayed and were very willing to establish it.
Her company best remained with emptiness, as she sunk into an abyss of despair, counting the days as years, without sight of what another story could present.
What mattered was that she had illegally held a penis in her vagina. Judgment was passed! She was guilty!
It is a very foolish thing to assume a man’s penis is a rod of conquest, devouring through many caves to establish its owner as the Lord Knight of the Multiverse while holding a woman’s vagina as an emblem of shame after it has drowned many penises.
It is equally impotent and worse than a minute man, any attempt to exalt a penis over a vagina out of society’s convenience. While this is no attempt to establish equality between the two sexes, it is important to rehash the fact that it profits little to exert overbearing indulgences on one sex over the other.
A misplaced construction is any effort, even sparingly, to suggest that the social construction of sex should regulate the private affairs of an individual so much that it gives absolute legitimacy to any court of public opinion to deliver ‘justice’.
At any rate what remains to be said is critical. The dignity of any individual, male or female is in his or her individuality. It is fine if anyone wants to propose the tenets by which a person’s dignity may be accounted for. The burden to dispel the futile notion that situates a woman’s in her vagina is already notably prominent.
Religion and society are by far the worst things that ever happened to a person who can’t think on his own. They suggest a form of life and subtly declare it ‘the form of life’. In this way, all of its subscribers are compelled to adjust to this dogma.
It is this vain truth that establishes the unfortunate treatment any woman who has been raped or who has committed adultery is subjected to. Religion declares that the vagina is not the woman’s but her husband’s. Society declares that the vagina is not for the woman but society’s.
By the former, a woman has no right over what happens to her body. She is enslaved by a righteous fear of indignation from the powers that be, characteristic judgment from the pulpit and mats and the accusing fingers of the sisters in the Lord who declare a thing law by their standards.
By the latter, she is an element of social discussion for a decision that predates her very name. She lives as society wills it. If there ever arise a time where she is raped, society finds reason to establish why she ought not to have been raped.
Modest as the thought is, society is brutal in establishing why she allowed herself to be raped. By the time she is ready to be held in the public thought, it would have been okay to say ‘the man was only moved by what he saw’, ‘the woman was not pious’ or a more foolish saying as ‘the man only acted like a man would’. The prejudice wins anyway.
A woman’s vagina does not belong to society. It is hers alone and she can give it to whoever she wants, in much the same way as she can look with her eyes at whatever she pleases. It is not freedom to decide the characteristic good and bind all persons to it.
The dignity of a woman is in the values she upholds. I dare suggest that until a woman’s interactions with another creates an inconvenience for the other, there is no legitimate ground to call her integrity to question.
What happens in the privacy of a woman is hers to deal with, not for society to pass judgment.
When a man rapes a woman, the woman has not lost her dignity, neither has she lost her pride. She remains the smart and amazing woman she always was. The only thing that changes in the world is the statistic of what useless men exist. A man does not establish his dominance over a woman after sexual intercourse. He only establishes his craving for the woman.
Maybe like Scott said, you can only like a person when you like him or her. This is exclusive of their genitals. In excluding the like for their genitals, be honourable and establish a substantive indifference to what they might have done with those genitals previously.
When we successfully dissipate the condescending notions of what a woman ought to do with her body from what it really is, we would be ready to welcome a world where rapists suffer the fate of fools.