“Satyamev Jayate mums should have gone on a ‘sex strike’” is a response to Episode 1 of Satyamev Jayate by Amir Khan. (Thanks for the link Biwo)
Satyamev Jayate mums should have gone on a ‘sex strike’
However pitiful the plight of these mothers, there’s one thing though that I don’t quite get. After the first instance of being battered or tricked into having an abortion, why did the women not go on a ‘sex strike’ – by denying their respective husbands the one thing they evidently craved for in the relationship?
Why did they surrender themselves repeatedly and offer sex to their husbands when they had learnt from experience that the husbands and the in-laws were cruel, and would likely abort the foetus if it turned out to be a girl?
Of course, the classic counter-argument to this would be that they — and other women in similar marriages — would be battered into submission if they withheld sex, which even the courts ruled recently was grounds for divorce.
But that theory doesn’t fly far: the women were anyways being beaten and/or abused, so in effect every time they submitted themselves to having sex, they were ‘rewarding’ their tormentors. Whereas if they had “crossed their legs” — or better still, walked out of their marriages (which they eventually did), they may have been spared much more agony.” [From here]
The author seems to believe,
1. That sex is something women give and men take.
2. Sex is ‘surrender’ by one partner (woman), conquest by another (man).
3. Women who are not able to walk out of abusive and violent marriages despite being forced to have repeated abortions should be able to stop their husbands from raping them.
4. That the solution to female foeticide is women denying sex to their husbands. (This is not seen as a denial to the women, because Indian women do not like sex anyway).
This thinking is not unheard of. Don’t you think Patriarchy’s basic principle is complete control over women’s sexuality?