DAY TWELVE: Guest Post by PP – A Stitch in Time Prevents Child Abuse

Originally from

A Stitch in Time Prevents Child Abuse
Or so it seems.
This morning when I got online, a work mate sent me the link to a fb post that went something like this

“Chairman of SLBC, Hudson Samarasinghe’s solution to the rise in child abuse. “It was revealed that the girl in the incident in Kirullopone had a sambandathawaya (relationship) for some time with her relative. On that particular day the parents left her there to watch a perahera. The man took two of his friends along with him and that’s why they had to make sure the girl won’t tell. (This girl was 7.)

The 14 year old was sold by her mother (another incident)

There is a tradition in Africa that when a girl attains age (malvara vayasata aapuhama) her yoniya (vagina) is stitched, and the stitches are removed only when she marries. Perhaps it might be a good idea to follow it here too?””

I have been looking but so far haven’t found any mention of this latest method suggested to combating (child) rape except on fb, but I won’t be at all surprised if this was actually what was said because let’s be honest, this is not the first time a man in power has uttered something utterly ludicrous. Remember this gem courtesy of one of the brigade commanders in the army?

“Speaking strictly on conditions of anonymity to The Sunday Leader a senior Army official said that all the grease yaka attacks were a figment of the public imagination. “There is absolutely no evidence to support the grease yaka theory. It has been created out of thin air by an atmosphere of fear”. He went on to question the virtues of the women allegedly attacked, saying that they were ‘either divorced, widows, or prostitutes” a statement inaccurate in at least one instance.” (emphasis mine)


Advocating female genital mutilation – because that is what the African tradition of stitching up a girl’s vagina is – a procedure that has “mutilation” as part of its name, to protect children from getting raped is so far the best (and by best I mean absolute worst, most insensitive) I’ve heard in the series of imbecilic suggestions that have been put forward. The genius that is Nimal Siripala de Silva, in his infinite wisdom suggested in 2005 that the age of consent for females be dropped from the current 15 to 13. The reason, and I quote because I can’t make this stuff up – “Earlier if you had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old it would be statutory rape and consent would not have been a defence, but now one can have sex with a 13-year-old and it will not be statutory rape,” De Silva said. Apparently the best way to stop statutory rape from happening is to stop calling it rape, easy peasy.

Now we can make sure children don’t get molested by stitching the harlots up and voila! There you go folks, no more rape. Because rape victims, including the 975 women and children who were raped in the last six months, stand around offering their unstitched girly bits to unsuspecting rapists, because they enjoy having some unknown man, many men in some cases, get together and violate them, beat them up and sometimes kill them. Because a seven year old that was raped and killed was the one responsible for being raped and killed, not the depraved animals who though it was ok to abuse a child and then toss her in a drainage canal after they were done.

All over the world, women are being told what is best for them and decisions are made on those beliefs. In Sri Lanka the authorities first decided to arrest couples who were seen together. Then they decided to take down “indecent” hoardings, here indecent seeming to mean those with women on them. Some of the comments on that article are telling of the attitudes that are out there.

“very good suggestion. rape will drop quite a bit if women do not invite people to rape them by dressing indecently”

“You are mistaken my dear, exposing female body is not development, it is lawlessness…. ”

“To all men & women who think that exposing our bodies are fine: – what purpose does a lady have to expose her body more than necessary? I stress here “more than necessary”- other than to attract men! All women like to look attractive, but this does not mean to go semi-naked, and does she realize that the male(s) would only see her flesh and not her mind and the other virtues even if she had loads of them. this does not mean to say that we women should be wearing the burka or go covered from head to toe, no this is a good move for women to dress tastefully, with class and portray herself as a woman and not as some item to be praised and lusted after”

Two months ago when I was driving back from work two punks on a motorbike decided they would not let me pass them. I don’t know the reason for this, but if I had to bet any money on it, I would put it on the fact that I was driving alone and they saw a chance to “have some fun”. What followed was 15 minutes of them revving ahead of me, swerving into me and tapping on my window. I don’t take very kindly to being bullied on the road, least of all by hoodlums who think they own the road so between ensuring they I didn’t get into an accident and making sure I don’t kill them in anger, I was too caught up to think about it too much. Until the two followed me home. I will admit, that rattled me more than a little bit.

That rattled me, and it angered me. I shouldn’t have to kowtow to punks or worry about my safety, I shouldn’t have to watch over my shoulder or trouble the men in my life when I need to get places or do things, I shouldn’t have to worry about exposed penisesor of men masturbating in buses, or outside schools, or in clubs or anywhere in public (all of which has happened to me and/or friends), I shouldn’t have to worry about getting molested by the cops if they stop me for a traffic check or stop me in the night for anything. No woman should, but they do. The picture below says why very clearly and succinctly.
So yes, let’s all go mutilate ourselves and get stitched up against trouble until we get married and handed over to our respective husbands for safe keeping. Because even in the 21st century, after fighting for the vote, after female presidents and prime ministers and judges and lawyers, women are still things, not beings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s