Faith / English

Apparently, Covering Women Is Sexualizing Them

There is an argument I hear surprisingly often when people discuss hijab and Islamic modesty:

“Muslim societies make women cover because they sexualize women’s bodies.”

And every time I hear it, I cannot help but appreciate the irony.

Apparently, asking a woman to cover her body is proof that you see her sexually, but putting a half-naked woman next to a perfume bottle, a car, a watch, a burger, or practically anything else you want people to buy is simply… advertising.

Interesting.

We have somehow reached a point where concealing sexuality is considered sexualization, while commercially exploiting sexuality is considered normal.

Of course, attraction exists. Islam does not pretend otherwise. Men and women can be attracted to each other. Sexuality exists, beauty exists, desire exists. Recognizing that reality is not the same thing as reducing a woman to it.

The difference is what a society decides to do with that reality.

Islam places sexuality within boundaries. It regulates how both men and women dress and behave, commands men to lower their gaze, commands women to observe modesty, and treats intimate beauty as something that does not have to be made publicly available.

The modern advertising industry often takes almost the opposite approach: attraction is useful, so monetize it.

A beautiful female body attracts attention.

Attention sells.

Therefore, the female body becomes a marketing instrument.

And somehow the first worldview is accused of being obsessed with women’s sexuality.

Who exactly turned the female body into a product?

Look at advertising throughout the last century.

Women’s bodies have been used to sell cars they did not design, alcohol they did not produce, clothes they are barely wearing, perfumes, holidays, restaurants, entertainment and products that have absolutely nothing to do with female sexuality.

The message is rarely stated openly, because it doesn’t need to be.

Look at her. Desire her. Now associate that desire with our product.

That is sexualization in one of its clearest forms: taking someone’s sexual attractiveness and using it as a tool for another purpose.

Yet we are supposed to believe that the real sexualization happens when a Muslim woman says:

You are not entitled to see my body.

Apparently that is the oppressive idea.

“But Western women choose to show their bodies.”

Sometimes they absolutely do.

And Muslim women choose to cover theirs.

If individual choice settles the argument in one direction, it cannot suddenly become irrelevant when the woman chooses modesty.

More importantly, “choice” does not mean that culture has no influence.

Women in Muslim societies can absolutely experience unhealthy pressure concerning modesty. Religion can be misused, culture can become controlling, and men can impose standards on women while conveniently ignoring the Islamic obligations placed upon themselves.

That deserves criticism.

But Western women do not grow up inside some culturally neutral laboratory either.

They grow up surrounded by industries constantly telling them what an attractive woman should look like: thinner here, larger there, younger, smoother, tighter, more fashionable, more desirable.

Then enormous industries sell them the products supposedly necessary to achieve that ideal.

So perhaps we should be slightly more skeptical before declaring one woman “conditioned” because she covers her hair while assuming another woman’s desire to display herself developed completely independently of the society surrounding her.

Covering does acknowledge sexuality. So what?

This is where I think critics sometimes confuse recognizing sexuality with sexualizing someone.

My husband seeing me as sexually attractive does not reduce me to a sexual object.

A stranger recognizing that women can be attractive does not automatically reduce women to sexual objects either.

Islam acknowledges sexual attraction precisely because Islam deals with human beings as they actually are, not as we might wish them to be.

And then it establishes boundaries around that attraction.

The Qur’an does not place the entire responsibility on women, either. Before instructing believing women regarding modesty, Allah commands believing men to lower their gaze and guard their chastity.

That part is strangely absent from many conversations about hijab.

Islamic modesty is therefore not simply:

“Woman, cover yourself because men cannot control themselves.”

Men are explicitly commanded to control themselves.

The woman also has her own obligations before Allah.

These are two moral responsibilities existing simultaneously.

The contradiction I cannot ignore

What I find fascinating is how differently the female body is interpreted depending on who benefits from it.

A woman revealing her body for an advertising campaign?

Empowerment.

A company using female sexuality to increase engagement?

Marketing.

An entertainment industry making women’s desirability central to their commercial value?

Normal.

Beauty industries making billions from women’s insecurity about whether their bodies are attractive enough?

Choice.

But a woman covering herself because she believes her beauty does not belong to public consumption?

Suddenly everyone becomes deeply concerned about the sexualization of women.

How convenient.

I am not arguing that every Western woman who dresses revealingly is being exploited, nor that every Muslim society treats women perfectly. Neither claim would survive serious examination.

I am questioning the bizarre assumption that less clothing automatically means less sexualization.

It clearly does not.

A society can uncover women and still be profoundly obsessed with their bodies.

In fact, it can uncover them because their bodies have commercial value.

Modesty is not pretending the body does not exist

My hijab does not mean I believe my body is shameful.

It means I do not believe visibility is the measure of freedom.

I do not need every part of myself to be publicly accessible to prove that I own it.

Privacy is also ownership.

Boundaries are also agency.

And modesty can also be a choice.

You don’t have to agree with the Islamic conception of modesty. You can question it, criticize its interpretation, debate its jurisprudence and challenge the way Muslim societies implement it.

But saying that covering women proves Islam “sexualizes” them while living in a culture where female sexuality is routinely packaged, photographed, algorithmically promoted and sold back to consumers is a remarkably strange hill to stand on.

If recognizing that women possess sexual beauty is sexualization, then Islam is hardly unique.

The more interesting question is:

What does your society do with that beauty once it recognizes it?

One worldview says there should be boundaries around it.

Another built entire industries around selling it.

And somehow I am supposed to believe that my scarf is the sexually obsessive part.