Story out of Sudan – woman fined for wearing pants. But at least they didn’t lash her with a plastic whip and scar her forever on top of it. They’ve done it to other women who dared to show off the fact that they have legs, apparently.
The law in contention here is Article 152 of Sudan’s penal code. Concisely stated, the law says that up to 40 lashes and a fine should be assessed anyone “who commits an indecent act which violates public morality or wears indecent clothing.”
But what exactly is indecent clothing?
In Sudan, some women wear veils and loose-fitting dresses; others do not. Northern Sudanese, who are mostly Muslim, are supposed to obey Islamic law, while southern Sudanese, who are mostly Christian, are not. Mrs. Hussein has argued that Article 152 is intentionally vague, in part to punish women.
Rabie A. Atti, a Sudanese government spokesman, said the law was meant for the opposite reason, to “protect the people.”
If a guy can’t get a grip on himself because of a woman’s shapely leg, how is that the woman’s fault? Why does she need to be punished for having a woman’s body?
This religion business gets in the way of living life. All the ridiculous rules and hard to follow edicts and bizarre rituals that only make a lick of sense to those who pledge to follow them. It’s mental.
I’m reminded of Victorian England all of a sudden. Didn’t they used to dress tables so as not to show their legs as well? How indecent, a curvy table leg. A man just might get ideas… No, apparently that’s a bit of nonsense that no research has verified. It had little to do with modesty. Many leg coverings were done to feminize a drawing room or merely to hide the fact that the family was too cheap to buy a classy table. And maybe just to keep dust off and cushion the wood so random dings wouldn’t ruin ruin the finish. Sensible, rational reasons.
There’s no sensible, rational reason to punish a woman for wearing pants.