“What were you wearing?”: This exhibition is called like a question from the bottom Andrew Tate drawer

This time things are getting serious here, dear reader, because unfortunately it is important to remember for the umpteenth time that an outfit is never a call to action. Just because a person dresses a certain way doesn’t mean they are consenting to any activity, let alone sexual activity. This is underscored by the multifaceted and highly acclaimed exhibition “What were you wearing?”, which after stops in Kiel and Hamburg can now be seen from April 12 to 28 at the Kunsthaus sans titre in Potsdam.

Its organizers Emely and René Unger describe it as an “exhibition on sexualized violence and false victim guilt” (www.washattestduan.de). It is hung up on hangers, on which: outfits that are based on what anonymous victims of sexualized violence were wearing at the time of the crime. Both the clothes and the reports of those affected about what happened to them show how misleading and hurtful it is to ask people who have experienced sexualised violence: “What were you wearing?” It implies that there is a causal relationship between the textile and the act . This is victim blaming, perpetrator-victim reversal.

Worst, archaic Male Supremacy crap from the bottom drawer of Andrew Tate

The question may come from the idea that men (are allowed) to take what they want and that their sex drive is so uncontrollable that you – especially women – have to think carefully about what “signals” your outfit is sending. But come on, this is lousy, archaic male supremacy crap from the lowest Andrew Tate drawer.

The exhibition wants to break down the taboo on talking about sexualised experiences of violence – and hardly shows any outfits that would traditionally be described as “sexy”. There is a bikini, but also a combination of tapered jeans, a yellow T-shirt and a wide men’s jacket. The problem is not the clothes, but the perpetrators. And yes, even in a pop magazine like this one can think about it. Especially in pop, questions of (self-)empowerment are negotiated through clothing – often through skimpy, sexually allusive outfits.

This does not imply sexual availability for everyone, on the contrary: on stages and in music videos, outfits are tools of self-affirmation and thus tools of self-determination. This can become a role model for the audience, precisely because self-determination is the opposite of heteronomy – i.e. of being forced into something. For everyone who wants sex, the following still applies: Ask first. And no means no.

This column first appeared in the Musikexpress issue 05/2023.