Saturated with clever semantics and not in the least persuasive - that was what I thought of some of the recent opinions expressed, purportedly to advance the cause of fighting sexual crimes against women.

Has anyone not considered it a turnoff to read self-serving salvoes piggybacked on a very pressing issue? Does the message get across better when it is laced with catty remarks?

Perhaps the cause would be better served if the debate emphasised on the following:

A woman should have the unquestionable right to be attired as she wishes, as do men, to the limits of accepted norms of course. That is how a healthy, progressive society should function.

There have been cases where victims presented not the slightest appearance as to arouse. On the other hand, there have also been cases where attacks were precipitated by visual temptation and opportunity.

The onus is on men to exercise civility, decency and respect towards women, their fellow human beings. Then it would not be too much to expect reciprocation. And that is just a start.

Above all, the immutable fact is that rape is immoral, repugnant and a crime in any configuration. No circumstance will lend it legitimacy. There's no excusing it.

But for all the aforementioned points, there are other salient ones to note as well and they are as follow:

There is statistically a small class of cunning, determined and dangerous fiends in our midst. They may be called men by birth and by appearance but they are certainly not men in conduct. Laws, education, conscience and even the fear of God do not discourage their criminal ways.

So it bears repeating that they do not by any measure represent this half of humankind. Any attempt to misrepresent all men (whether inadvertently or not) as having such tendencies would be a self-inflicted wound on any cause.

This is also worth mentioning: regardless of where you stand on the issue of rape and social mores as a causal factor, it will not have an iota of influence over what the attacker thinks.

If you are a woman, taking precautions does not compromise your principles. Not taking any, however, will compromise your safety. After all, crime is a function of intent, temptation, opportunity and the means to act. These cannot be truly eliminated, only mitigated.

And finally, in furthering any argument, it is effective to debate factually and to moralise cogently with meat on the issue. Emphatic and receptive readers will appreciate this.

It is certainly not effective to direct alienating (and unsubstantiated) invectives at specific persons or groups. Often, it diminishes the impact of any useful message that might be had for the readers and it becomes too easy to dismiss the whole letter as the writer's camouflaged vehicle for venting emotion.