This difference is a consequence of the fact that women were traditionally considered the property of men. Just as we prefer to acquire any type of property (such as a car or an appliance) brand new rather than second-hand, men throughout history have also preferred to obtain “unopened” women rather than “used” ones. Hence the obligation for young women to remain virgins until marriage, the loss of “honor” if they did not, and the humiliating virginity tests.

This is why, for example, in the Bible, adultery is punished by death for both the woman and the man when the former is married or betrothed, as it is considered a violation of the husband’s property rights over his wife. In contrast, a man is not penalized if he commits adultery with an unbetrothed single woman, as he is not infringing upon anyone’s sexual property.

It is for the same reason that the Quran obliges women to remain covered unless they are in front of relatives or children. Since she is the husband’s property, a way to prevent the theft of the use and enjoyment of that property by other men is by covering it, in the same way that one might put a lock on a bicycle or an alarm on a house to prevent others from accessing those possessions.

The same can be seen in the Code of Hammurabi and in most cultures around the world, with some exceptions such as the Vikings and, above all, from the 18th century onwards, the liberal culture that emerged from the Enlightenment and the French and American revolutions.

Therefore, in different cultural traditions, it was expected (and is still expected in many places) that a woman be sufficiently covered, especially if she is married, but also if she is not. In the latter case, she was not a free being either, but the property of her father until he transferred her to the husband he chose for her. If someone were to “use” that object called a woman before marriage, she would lose value and it would be harder to “place” her, as happens with furniture and almost all commodities.

Consequently, parents have had an interest in keeping their daughters modest and virginal. Once married, her sexuality could only be used by her new “lord,” her husband, while he could have sex with other unmarried women, as well as with multiple wives, concubines, or slaves depending on the culture and era. In times of war, he could also rape women, married or not, in conquered territories, as the victors held the right of conquest, by which they could take possession of the properties of said territories, including women, who were considered mere objects.

It was well-regarded for a man to be a “macho” or a “champion.” In fact, in some places, having harems was a sign of prestige and status—the larger the better—a privilege sometimes reserved only for emperors and kings, or having mistresses in addition to the official wife. But woe to the woman who had sex with someone other than her “master.”

Because of this mentality based on domination, women who have broken or continue to break these sexist rules were and are subjected to punishments ranging from unfair judgment, contempt, finger-pointing, and gossip, to exclusion, stigmatization, great suffering, or being killed in cruel ways.

The film The Magdalene Sisters, based on true events in 1960s Ireland (the 1960s of the 20th century, not the 12th), shows how single women who had become pregnant—sometimes even because they had been raped—or flirtatious girls were confined in a Catholic boarding school and physically and psychologically abused for years without being able to escape, as this was supposedly the punishment they deserved for being “wayward.”

All of this is not a thing of the past; it continues to happen today. For example, in Iran, the Religious Police beat women who do not wear the veil “correctly,” and in African countries with conservative Christian majorities, there are laws that force women to be modest and “guardians of tradition” who strip and humiliate women in public if they consider them indecently dressed. In Mexico, there are many murders and acts of violence against women, often met with institutional passivity and impunity when it involves young women dressed sexily who go out at night, whereas the same does not happen when the victims are grandmothers, as the latter are considered pure and honorable while the former are seen as somehow deserving it for being “sluts.”

The victimization of females who deviate sexually or in their style of dress from strict and stifling social norms is widespread in all countries and environments where patriarchy and puritanism still exist.

In some countries, pregnant single women face total stigmatization, being expelled by their families and from their jobs, rejected by their friends and society at large, treated poorly in the hospitals where they give birth, and driven to prostitution as the only way to survive. Their children are called “children of sin,” denigrating both them and their mothers despite their innocence.

In fact, not so long ago, the same happened in the West, where fortunately the rejection of sexually free women has been greatly reduced, though it still exists with less intensity, especially in conservative circles. For example, I knew some idle ladies who spent their time sitting on a street bench watching the girls pass by, ranting and treating those who wore crop tops or who, in their opinion, did not dress decently as “cheap,” even though they were not harming anyone.

There are still people, especially traditionalist Muslims, Christians, and Hindus, who believe that dressing sexily is a justified reason for rape, as they consider it to be
provocative.

I have a friend who dresses very sexily; she loves to be attractive to men and have adventures. Even though she has every right in the world to do all that and is a good person who does not bother anyone, I have repeatedly perceived the rejection and contempt of some individuals, even in places considered among the most tolerant in the world, such as Barcelona and Ibiza. In fact, in schools, the typical insults remain “whore” and “faggot.”

Honor, reputation, and dignity are important values for any person and should never be unjustly trampled upon.

Fortunately, in the most advanced and open places, all of the above is changing, although at the same time another front against these types of women has appeared: that of far-left pseudo-feminist matriarchs, who disapprove of their way of dressing and behaving because they believe they are lowering themselves to mere sexual objects for men. This clashes head-on with their intransigent doctrine, rather than considering that these women are simply following their nature and sexual instincts, which are natural and harmless. Let us not be deceived, as true feminism is freedom for women and equal rights compared to men. Therefore, true feminists respect the freedom of any woman (and man) to dress and do with their sexual life as they see fit.

In conclusion, the problem is never these innocent women, but rather the unbalanced and abusive societies that have created patriarchal and toxic cultures and religions that are unjustly disrespectful toward them.