While I agree with your point (though not for these reasons), Julie Bindel and you aren’t arguing the same thing. She is talking “theory” – about how a legal system should not be concerned about the physical appearance of the woman in question. You are talking “practice” – the imprudence of dressing inappropriately. Both points are valid and it is necessary to have both a fair judiciary and prudent anti-crime measures.

You are buttressing my opposition to Bindel when you suggest that the male mind is corrupt enough to take advantage of any situation. I ask “Why should women cede the advantage, when they stand to lose, especially in the Indian context?”

I guess the prevalent thinking on the issue of rape in India is that it is more heinous than robbery, given the exalted status that Indian society accords virginity. In this scenario, “dressing outrageously” or “be gagging to pull a man for sex” is taking it a bit too far.

In real life, it doesn’t really matter what dress you wear. In the Indian context, rapes continue to happen in small towns and big cities and have always happened even at a time when women had never heard of mini skirts and spaghetti straps. So attire has really nothing to do with it.

Rapes happen in broad daylight, they happen in crowded trains. Are you saying that if a woman gets raped, she was “violating her individual rights”, whatever that means?