Defending Vulgarity?

Today I came across an article with the title of this post, minus the question mark. Here it is:
http://www.mybitforchange.org/2012/defending-vulgarity/#comment-1954

My response:

This is an important issue that must be raised in Pakistani society. I wholly agree with the author’s contention that there is a section of the press bent on portraying as chic that which is ‘ultra-liberal’ and possibly (you may say ‘undeniably’) alien to Pak society and Islamic ideas of decency.

But the author, to some extent, makes somewhat the same mistake as those ultra-liberal forces in generalizing a bit too much, and in not defining certain terms and limits. He writes:

“Treating woman as an object is the worst form of slavery, because the victims (women) usually don’t even know about it and they don’t realize the repercussions they have to face afterwards. Women objectified as a commodity in the commercial world often lead to their worst slavery.”

First, it would be helpful to show exactly how, and to what extent, women are objectified by these liberal quarters. Is all western dressing directed at ‘objectification’? Is there room for aesthetic concerns without objectification? (After all, very often beauty –as well as other things — is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?)
I suppose another question that women whom the author describes as ultra-liberal would ask is whether it is only the so called objectification of WOMEN that should be a concern. Are men not objectified? If so, then is that not slavery? (This raises deeper issues, related to the very dynamics of male-female relations and the relevance of old structures; which perhaps men more than women are concerned to preserve.)

Once objectification is defined and established, it is the author’s job to show how it is “the worst form of slavery.” Is wearing a low-cut dress, and perhaps being oogled at by some men really a more miserable position to be than in, say, a shuttle-cock burqa on a hot summer’s day, when a simpler hijab is an option (if Islamic code is to be maintained)? Why is there never concern voice for the latter group of women? What is this slavery spoken of? Who’s word should we take on this? The respective women’s? Their menfolk’s?

So, while I agree that there are many valid questions that can and should be raised, the author hasn’t really done that quite enough. In stead, he has chosen to repeat the platitudes of objectification and slavery. And while he has chosen relevant verses from the Holy Qur’an, he has not answered the questions as to what constitutes lewdness, which is warned against. For some, lewdness may be not covering the face. For others it may be the forearms. While the liberal press/quarter errs by lumping all concerns with acid-throwing, the author isn’t being very helping by not identifying where the line between the acid-throwers and blog-writers lie on matters of lewdness.