Following the conviction of Wayne Couzens for three offences of indecent exposure and his sentence to 19 months imprisonment (largely irrelevant given his life sentence for the rape and murder of Sarah Everard), on 7 March the Today programme interviewed four women about their experiences of indecent exposure.
Three of the women (all in their twenties) were victims of this offence. The fourth was Dame Diana Johnson, Labour MP and Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which is currently looking at Violence against Women and Girls.
The key question
“Are women under constant pressure,” Justin Webb asked, “to simply accept exhibitionism and these forms of aggression?”
The victims
What the three women said in reply is worth listening to. The full interview (12 minutes long) can be heard here. They describe instances of indecent exposure which happened to them in ordinary places at any time: the park, a busy London street, the tube. “Flashing” is the wrong word for what actually happens: a man dropping his trousers in front of women in the street, a man openly masturbating in the tube while looking at a woman, a man playing with his genitals and shouting at a woman.
What do women feel when this happens? “So violated”. “Panicked” But above all, desperate to get out of the situation to somewhere safe. None of them saw any point in reporting what happened to the police or any other official because they would not “be taken seriously”. “Is anything going to come of it?” one of the women asked. A good question.
All of them said that this behaviour was “quite normalised”. They were used to “sexual harassment”; they were not in a minority. This is true. I am no longer in my twenties. But what happened to these women has happened to me and every single woman I know. The first time a man exposed himself to me was in in the girls’ toilet of my local library. I was about 13. There were other instances too — in North London in broad daylight, walking home from church or going to school.
As one of the women said:
“This is what happens to women. This is what has always happened. This is what will continue to happen.”
She is right. This is the answer to Justin Webb’s question. But this is not what ought to happen. All three felt that the stigma of these offences was on the woman; they felt blamed for it happening, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So they — like every other woman — learnt to endure it.
The Labour MP
So to Diana Johnson. Her interview was about how minor sexual offences were often a precursor to — and an indication of a propensity to commit — very serious sexual offences. A young woman in her constituency — Libby Squire — was kidnapped, raped and murdered by a man who for months beforehand had been exposing himself round town, had committed acts of voyeurism, which only came to light after he murdered Libby. She said that, too often such minor offences were laughed or joked about, were simply not taken seriously.
And then Justin Webb asked another very good — and highly pertinent — question (by reference to Jordan Gray, a trans comedian, who exposed himself on a Channel 4 show):
“Whether the idea that people who don’t want to see the male body should be allowed not to is something that we’ve slightly lost?”
Diana’s answer goes to the heart of this issue:
“the male body can be used to intimidate, as an act of violence against women and girls”.
It is not simply what a man does with his body which matters. Exposing, displaying his body is also an act of aggression, of violence. It induces, is intended to induce fear in women. And it is the male body which is being used in this act of aggression, not an identity or gender or a pronoun or anything else. No — the physical reality of a male body.
That is what is being exposed, that is what a woman sees, that is what is being used to intimidate a woman. A male body.
An act of violence
Male genitalia is a source of pleasure to men. It is also a source of pleasure for women. But only in the right settings and only if it is wanted by the woman. What men perhaps do not understand in their bones is that what is only a source of joy for them can — for women — also be a weapon, a source of pain and harm and fear. A man’s strength can comfort and protect. But it can overwhelm and harm and kill. Male bodies can be frightening. Women — faced with an unwanted exposure of a male body, of a male exposing or playing with his genitals, faced with men behaving beyond the bounds of social convention, faced with men breaching women’s boundaries — have reason to fear such acts of aggression. Men — faced with an exposed or naked female body — may feel aroused by or indifferent to or disgusted. But they have no reason to fear such a body.
Little wonder that those three women interviewees said that their immediate reaction is to get away from, get out of the situation. This is why this is not — and should not be seen as — a joking matter. Men who breach women’s boundaries with their bodies are behaving violently towards women even if they don’t touch her.
So to another MP — a Lib Dem one
Earlier in the programme (from about 7:14 am), Wera Hobhouse had been interviewed on the same topic. In February 2019 thanks to her efforts, upskirting became a criminal offence. She too was concerned at the disregard for sexual offences —
“Where are we if these attacks on women continue to be normalised?”
She too wanted a “complete culture change” so that all sexual offences, however minor, were properly reported and investigated.
Then this —
“The traumatising effect that any of these offences have on women has been completely underestimated….. Women are deeply traumatised. It’s a proper offence. It leads to ultimately the feeling in women that they’re very vulnerable, that they’re not being listened to, ….that what they feel is a proper attack on them, their freedom, their liberty, their way of life is not seen as such.”
Oh, so very well said!
Another question then
But now a question for these MPs. If male bodies are used to intimidate, to violate, to make women feel unsafe, vulnerable, under attack, if breaching women’s boundaries are an act of aggression towards women, if sexual acts like these must not be ignored, if women are entitled not to suffer trauma and have their way of life attacked, then why are the parties to which these MPs belong so intent on making it easier for men to access women’s spaces and carry out these traumatising acts of violence?
And why don’t these MPs speak up against such proposals? Little point legislating against upskirting if you then make it easier for a man to go into a woman’s changing room, after all.
Would it be too much to expect these MPs to remember what they said — with such passion — when they are next faced with proposals from their parties which will create new opportunities for sexual predators to use their male bodies to intimidate women.
It is not enough just to listen to women. It is not enough to get rightly outraged when a serial sexual offender is allowed to commit the worst of crimes. It is not enough to agree that women, forced to see male bodies when they don’t want to, are traumatised. All these words are lovely and true and welcome. But a bit of joined up thinking and action would be even better.
Photo by Mihai Surdu on Unsplash
