More a Stud than Slut Walk
Follow @sanjayausta
This sadhu was the only skimpily clad person at Slut Walk Delhi.
Following is the story and pictures I did for a magazine on the much publicized Slut Walk Delhi.
The hot humid Sunday morning at Jantar Mantar Delhi was pregnant with the promise of a momentous event on 31st July, 2010. A group of brisk young girls and boys dressed in white t-shirts that read Slut Walk Delhi were talking to each other on shiny walkie- talkies where a shout could do. Even the Gay Pride Parades or the Anna Hazare candle-light marches lacked such meticulous preparations.
The media fell for it. The TV OV vans started trooping in early. Cameramen with heavy tripods fought for vantage positions. Journalists with spirals and microphones stood waiting for it to begin. Hobby photographers stood poised with their DSLRs hoping to try their photography skills on skimpily clad women.
But the girls did not oblige. The organisers of Slut Walk Delhi- a motley group of college students, had made it clear. This was India so no revealing outfits. The Slut Walk Delhi was christened Besharmi Morcha and the organisers were at pains to explain that the walk was not just about women’s right to wear skimpy clothes. The only skimpily clad person for miles around was a resting ascetic who sat topless bang in the middle of the Slut Walk route.
Dressed in baggy jeans and a loose t-shirt, Umang Sabarwal the 19 year old college girl who started it all with her facebook page, stood up on a table and announced that there would be a delay as participants were awaited. But those that arrived were only more journalists, more photographers and more men.
Most of the girls were students and were thrust in the media limelight for the first time.
And when the walk started it was more a stud than a Slut Walk as men far outnumbered the women. One female participant objected to the photographers taking her pictures. But soon relented when reminded she was in a public walk and a much publicized one at that. This was just as well. Almost all participants were college students and this was their first brush with the media. Participation from working women was almost negligible. Nafisa Ali was the only celebrity who showed up albeit after the walk. Theatre group Asmita and Delhi Drum Circle were the saving grace giving the shutterbugs something to work their lenses on. In the end there were approximately 700 people including almost 350 policemen, 200 journalists and photographers. The participants were lost in this crowd and journalists were left talking to each other. The walk itself was only a 15 minute affair around the block.
“ The turnout does not matter. Its not only about the walk . It was important to highlight the issue. We know we have lots of support’’, said Umang Sabharwal bravely when asked about the no show.
Going by the facebook page Umang Sabarwal started, the support was indeed tremendous. Thousands of women pledged their participation online. Many called it a `path breaking movement’. Some said it was `a new era in women’s rights’. But ultimately it was only a fraction of them who walked the talk. “ Its sad that not many women came out to show solidarity. It shows how people just like to talk behind closed doors and not stand up when its counts’’, said Prachi Chopra a first year college student and participant at the walk.
Pallavi Jain, a third year student had a more charitable view, “ Ours is a closed society. I think the parents or husbands did not allow their daughters and wives to participate since it was called a `Slut walk’’, she said.
Umang Sabarwal a 19 year old student of Kamla Nehru College Delhi addresses a largely male audience.
Some participants felt it was good to see so many men, though they were not sure if they were curious onlookers or actual participants. “ I see it in a positive light that there were more men than women. The fact that men are aware of the issues women face is heartening’’, said Vibuthi Verma another student organizer of the event.
Many women like 27 year old Swasti Pachauri , a development sector consultant, who chose not to participate, felt the term `Slut’ was sexist. “It is the most skewed approach to feminism. Debating right to wear of all things! What a shameful way to advocate feminism’’, she said.
Many feminist writers and activists thought the same. Writer Shobhaa De called it a , `cheap stunt’ which served no purpose. “ It’s such a `me too’, depressingly `wannabe’ thing to do. Why not come up with something truly original…My main problem with this approach is the actual degradation of women implicit in the word `Slut’’’, she wrote in her blog.
It was felt that the organisers took their facebook page support far too seriously. According to the Delhi police, permission was sought for a gathering of 20-30 thousand people. No wonder why the organisers had arranged for 14 walkie- talkies. In the end they were used to talk to each other from one end of the narrow Jantar Mantar road to another.
Asmita theatre group is a regular with their street theatre at most walks or candle-light marches in Delhi. Their stellar performance gave some boost to the Slut Walk Delhi.
doesnt look that slutty to me!!
Niru. Why didn’t you see the topless picture of the ascetic 🙂 Just kidding. It wasn’t mean to be slutty Niru where did you get this idea.
Nice!
Third picture is awesome, showing lack of interest among the participants.
Thanks Himanshu. My first choice is the first one though 🙂
Sanjay, i don’t think you were listening to what the women were saying, and for several reasons.
one, the notion of the slut is only marginally related to what one wears. women remain at risk regardless of what they wear. in many ways, dressing up would defeat the purpose of giving a patriarchal world, a dressing down. while women should be able to wear what they like, there are certainly other markings (like class and culture that require constant negotiation, but you’re bring too deterministic in your article)
two, the notion of the slut is linked especially to sexuality and sexual agency. generally a woman who solicits sex, would be a slut. you don’t seem to have commented on the poster which speaks of consent. these women probably want to be called sluts, have as much sex as they like, as long as it is consensual.
three, seven hundred is a fucking great number, whoever the people are.. it brings in publicity and forces one to keep thinking about the issues being raised.
fourth, shobaa de and swasti pachauri would do well to sit in some of the classes and discussions on feminism in delhi. the fact that slut is seen as a derogatory word, is a patriarchal project that seeks to discipline women’s sexuality and desire. the point is to reclaim it. the slutwalk has much solidarity with sex workers, who are marginalised, simply by having sex for a living.
fifth, no march can provide the last word. it is a significant intervention, and hopefully, the young women involved with continue to talk and work on the troubling issues of gender and space.
sixth, one may go into the troubling gender neutrality of the word, besharmi. it could have been different, a more feminine and disparaging word perhaps.
Hi Ammel,
Thanks for your views. I know you have written a long comment but I am sorry I cannot answer you fully because it seems to address Shobhaa De’s criticism more than my article. Unlike Shobhaa De , I have not given my personal opinion about the Slut walk anywhere in the article- though of course I have one. I went there as a photojournalist to shoot the event and wrote what I observed . I was not there to write about whether Slutwalking was good or a bad thing etc. For that I quoted both sides including the organisers who thought it was a great movement and those like Shobhaa De who thought it was a `cheap stunt’. Perhaps you mean I was not listening to you? I would have been happy to lend you an ear had I seen your around.
I can only answer your fourth contention. Yes seven hundred is -to borrow your phrase -`a fucking big number’. But this was not a fresher’s party or a college canteen get together. For that yes it is indeed a fucking big turn out. For a much hyped walk like this one there should have been many more participants. If you minus the media the cops and the onlookers, there were barely 150-200 participants- almost all of them college students. I don’t know if you are a student yourself but for an average college-goer, even if 50 people had showed up it would have been a big deal because their frame of reference is seldom beyond the college get-togethers. More importantly they were on tv and page-3 for the first time and this can be indeed overwhelming. But over the years I have photographed dozens of much less publicized walks and in comparison the Slut Walk was indeed a damp squip.
One needs to have four pair of eyes to get the first picture!! 🙂 Just a chance or the observant eyes??!!
Hi Richa, What or who are you referring to here?
Girls everywhere and all you emasculated “men” who are trying so hard to be politically correct at the expense of your masculinity, listen up.
Men and women are equals. This does not mean that they are equal in every single aspect. For example, men are, on average, physically stronger than women. It is much easier for a semi attractive (even a 6/10) woman to go out and get laid. The same cannot be said about men. Men have to work at it, have some skill (game) and thereby get a woman to sleep with them. It is a LOT harder for an equally attractive man to get women than it is the other way around. This is one of reasons behind why we, as a society, naturally celebrate men who are successful in bedding multiple women; while at the same time shame women who bed multiple men.
Let us briefly visit the topic of virginity from both perspectives. Virginity in a man is not a desirable state or label when it comes to an attribute that the opposite sex wants. This is because he has obviously not been preselected by other women. However, female virginity is not looked at negatively in the least by men. If she looks decent, no man cares if the girl is a virgin or not. In fact, a female virgin is often wanted more.
Now don’t get me wrong, men LOVE sluts. We will never turn down an opportunity to sleep with a good looking slut. Partly because she’s good in bed, partly because it’s sex. But any decently intelligent, self-respecting man will know that it is a terrible idea to emotionally involve himself with(i.e. date) a slutty girl. That would be a very dumb move. Why would any man want to get emotionally involved with a girl who’s had 15+ sexual partners? We would just be setting ourselves up for failure. There are many nice worthy girls out there who don’t have daddy issues and haven’t slept with an entire fraternity house. But, by all means, fvck the brains out of sluts in the meanwhile.
Most guys can detect when a girl is a slut by the first few dates and by what he hears about the girl from other people and from the girl herlself. We put this information together and figure out if she is dating material or not. If not, I like most guys, will still go in for the prize but have no intention of following through with dating the dirty little tart.
To put it simply, a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock and of little worth. But a key that can open many locks is a master key and is valuable.
Women complain about how unfair it is that men are called studs when they sleep around, yet women get called sluts for the exact same behavior. It’s actually not a double standard though, because both scenarios are pretty different in terms of circumstances and consequences. I can think of at least four crucial differences:
First, sleeping around is easier for women. Regardless of how you feel about promiscuity, we can all agree that a guy who manages to rack up a lot of sexual partners has to have some skills. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. A man needs social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women, though, a vagina and a pulse is often enough. Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline. People respect those who accomplish challenging feats, while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained feats as weak, untrustworthy or flawed.
Second, women have potential to do more harm by sleeping around than men do. Say a man sleeps around with a bunch of different women. He’s definitely doing harm to these women if he pretends to be monogamous while sleeping around. He may cause them emotional pain by his promiscuity. He may cause unwanted pregnancy. He may spread VD. When women sleep around, however, they can cause not only all these same ill effects but one additional crucial ill effect: the risk of unknown parentage.
If one guy sleeps around with five women, each of whom is monogamous to him, and they all get pregnant, it’s a safe bet as to who the father is. If you reverse genders and have one woman who sleeps around with five men who are monogamous to her, and she gets pregnant, the father could be any of the five men. And if one of those men is tricked into raising a baby that isn’t his, he’s investing time, money, estate and property to provide for a child that isn’t carrying his DNA into the next generations, a costly mistake from an evolutionary standpoint.
Our two basic primal drives are to survive and to reproduce, and promiscuous women traditionally make it hard for a man to know for sure whether he is truly reproducing or is secretly raising another man’s child. Men stand a lot more to lose from promiscuous women than the other way around. And it’s no picnic for the child to not know who his real father is either. And it’s a mess for the women carrying on the deception as well. Or just look at any random episode of the Maury show if you don’t believe me.
Since the DNA test and the birth control pill didn’t exist until recently, there were no reliable ways to prevent pregnancy or prove parentage for most of human history. For this reason society developed a vested interest in preventing promiscuity among women, and society accomplished this by creating the slut stigma. And even though the creation of birth control and DNA tests have made this less of a risk than the past, longstanding traditions and customs are not easy for society to break so the slut stigma remains.
Third, men have evolutionary reasons to be programmed to sleep around more. A lot of women roll their eyes when they hear that men are “hard-wired” to sleep around. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes total sense. If the two primal drives of humans are to survive and to reproduce, nothing leads to maximum reproduction like one man sleeping with multiple women. If one women sleeps with many men in a nine month period, she can only get pregnant just once. Nine months of rampant promiscuity would give the same result as nine months of highly sexed monogamy: one pregnancy. Now if one man sleeps with many women during a nine month period, you can get many pregnancies during that period. The more women he sleeps with, the more possible pregnancies.
So from an evolutionary standpoint, there are concrete advantages to men being promiscuous compared to women being promiscuous. This doesn’t mean that women have evolved to be strictly monogamous. Women have evolved to be somewhat promiscuous too, something men badly underestimate. However they haven’t evolved to be as rampantly promiscuous as men.
Fourth, promiscuity poses more risk to women than to men. A woman has more to lose from choosing bad sex partners than a man does. She’s the one who gets stuck with going through a pregnancy and taking care of a baby alone if she chooses a deadbeat. For this reason, promiscuous women throughout history have historically been viewed as being a vastly more irresponsible risk takers than promiscuous men, who rightly or wrongly could always run away from the consequences of unwanted pregnancies easier than women could.
These four reasons explain why the longstanding tradition came about of men being rewarded for multiple partners while women get socially punished for similar promiscuity. Of course all this is gradually changing, but we’re up against millenia of evolutionary and cultural conditioning here, so don’t expect any dramatic overnight reversals.
Understand that I’m just explaining why the double standard came into existence and not condoning or condemning it. This is not an attempt to pass judgment or be self-righteous in any way. It’s just an explanation of why the two conditions are treated differently.