Do Sexy Mannequins Incite Indian Men To Commit Rape? Mumbai Officials Think So

[urbestfriend]

Sorry, are you the spokesperson for all women? None of my female friends have any issue with any such things. Your thinking is just like the regressive thinking of these old men who "assume" things on behalf of others. i didn't know BJP was in power. How do these people represent the majority? Regressive thinking like this is why we have women downtrodden and seen as objects. The more we hide things and make it sacred, the more regressive our youths will be. A body is nothing to be ashamed on. Also, if mannequins turn you on, make you attack women or as a women, embarrasses you, you have serious mental issues and our laws should not be shaped for such mentally ill persons

SO you are the spokesperson of all women? You leftists dont understand that there are section of women who do not like such objectification of women in public places and they have complained to corporator.. Problem with you folks is you are always right and know what is eight and wrong , rest all are fools...

[G_B_]

Then please don't come complaining the next time a woman is assaulted or treated like an animal. Because you are one who doesn't want the ground reality to change and want the regressive mentality to continue. Ground reality is not set in stone' date=' if you want crime against women to stop, all regressive mentality should be fought[/quote'] Rape will always happen in any country in the world. However, it upto you to minimize it by taking some simple steps. The fact is this law does not encroach upon any fundamental right in the constitution. Women can wear whatever they want (provided they are not nude) What next? stopping smoking is regressive because lung cancer will always happen even if somebody does not smoke.? Now my mother is a UK national and every time she visits mumbai she is incredibly uncomfortable facing those mannequins. Believe me she is not "regressive" in the least. As i have mentioned before, all department stores in the west have women handling lingerie sections of department stores. I would say India is light years ahead in that regard considering its always men at the counters....a british women would not keep comfortable in that regard.

[Crookbond]

I didn't give the definition of democracy there you d!ckhead..:finger: My point was majority of Indian populace are regressive and backward' date= politicians are just microcosm of our society. FYI - I totally agree with the next part of your statement.

Yea, sure :giggle: 6 foot zameen ke neeche par nak upar

[beetle]

I don't know if there is a connection but if they cause discomfort to women then they should not be on peoples face. Same goes with film posters....the film has a rating and people can choose to go or skip but the posters do not have a rating and people have to forcibly suffer pictures that may make a lot of people uncomfortable. Why should the producers have the right to put sexually explicit or violent pictures in the public place and force it upon people. Keep it for your film where people have a choice to decide. I don't agree with the reason given but otherwise I do agree that people should have a right to choose.This is not an individual rights issue...it is a right to your public space over someone forcing their commercial interest over your choice. If the authorities think this is going to solve the problem of sexual crimes against women...then they are idiots.

[Crookbond]

SO you are the spokesperson of all women? You leftists dont understand that there are section of women who do not like such objectification of women in public places and they have complained to corporator.. Problem with you folks is you are always right and know what is eight and wrong ' date= rest all are fools...

So, there is a section on this forum who want porn to be freely available by the government - in particular lesbian porn. Kar de phir parliament law pass?

[Crookbond]

I don't know if there is a connection but if they cause discomfort to women then they should not be on peoples face. Same goes with film posters....the film has a rating and people can choose to go or skip but the posters do not have a rating and people have to forcibly suffer pictures that may make a lot of people uncomfortable. Why should the producers have the right to put sexually explicit or violent pictures in the public place and force it upon people. Keep it for your film where people have a choice to decide. I don't agree with the reason given but otherwise I do agree that people should have a right to choose.This is not an individual rights issue...it is a right to your public space over someone forcing their commercial interest over your choice.

And THAT is the problem. No one (including me) would mind the issue of "uncomfortable" or public decency issue. But, that is not how it is put by the BMC. The BMC are banning the mannequins with bikini (this parti is conveniently missed) + lingerie because they "feel" (note this word as well; feel not know/not studied but "feel") that they perpetrate sexual crimes.

[urbestfriend]

I don't know if there is a connection but if they cause discomfort to women then they should not be on peoples face. Same goes with film posters....the film has a rating and people can choose to go or skip but the posters do not have a rating and people have to forcibly suffer pictures that may make a lot of people uncomfortable. Why should the producers have the right to put sexually explicit or violent pictures in the public place and force it upon people. Keep it for your film where people have a choice to decide. I don't agree with the reason given but otherwise I do agree that people should have a right to choose.This is not an individual rights issue...it is a right to your public space over someone forcing their commercial interest over your choice.

Couldn't agree more..There are women who may not be comfortable with nude display of women's body part in public in posters or mannequins. This is nothing but commodication of women to sell their products , there is nothing wrong with it but people should be able to chose and not be forced upon in public places.

[Crookbond]

Rape will always happen in any country in the world. However, it upto you to minimize it by taking some simple steps. The fact is this law does not encroach upon any fundamental right in the constitution. Women can wear whatever they want (provided they are not nude) What next? stopping smoking is regressive because lung cancer will always happen even if somebody does not smoke.? Now my mother is a UK national and every time she visits mumbai she is incredibly uncomfortable facing those mannequins. Believe me she is not "regressive" in the least. As i have mentioned before, all department stores in the west have women handling lingerie sections of department stores. I would say India is light years ahead in that regard considering its always men at the counters....a british women would not keep comfortable in that regard.

G_B_, I respect your opinion but you are allowing personal bias to overwhelm few facts here. Fact #1 : The BMC wants to ban the mannequins not due to "uncomfortable" feelings of women but because they encourage sexual crimes. Problem - This conveniently shifts the women safety issue from core to peripherals. The core issue for women safety is the law & order situation. Unless that is fixed, none of these peripherals will stop. Fact #2: In modern departmental stores in India, lingerie sales are always handled by women. Problem - You are comparing a roadside small scale lingerie store in Mumbai to a sophisticated one in the UL - unfair comparison.

[urbestfriend]

So' date=' there is a section on this forum who want porn to be freely available by the government - in particular lesbian porn. Kar de phir parliament law pass?[/quote'] Kya bakwas hai yaar :wall:

[urbestfriend]

G_B_, I respect your opinion but you are allowing personal bias to overwhelm few facts here. Fact #1 : The BMC wants to ban the mannequins not due to "uncomfortable" feelings of women but because they encourage sexual crimes. Problem - This conveniently shifts the women safety issue from core to peripherals. The core issue for women safety is the law & order situation. Unless that is fixed, none of these peripherals will stop. Fact #2: In modern departmental stores in India, lingerie sales are always handled by women. Problem - You are comparing a roadside small scale lingerie store in Mumbai to a sophisticated one in the UL - unfair comparison.

I watched discussion in NDTV with the corporator and she said that many women complained to her about the explicit nature of mannequins in footpaths , so she proposed this ban in BMC..I agree that linking rapes with banning Mannequins is wrong.

[G_B_]

G_B_, I respect your opinion but you are allowing personal bias to overwhelm few facts here. Fact #1 : The BMC wants to ban the mannequins not due to "uncomfortable" feelings of women but because they encourage sexual crimes. Problem - This conveniently shifts the women safety issue from core to peripherals. The core issue for women safety is the law & order situation. Unless that is fixed, none of these peripherals will stop. Fact #2: In modern departmental stores in India, lingerie sales are always handled by women. Problem - You are comparing a roadside small scale lingerie store in Mumbai to a sophisticated one in the UL - unfair comparison.

Dude, (A) They are banning them from shop fronts. Not banning them out right. Its not shifting anything. Its not as if they are simply saying, now that this is done we will be rape free. Where has anybody said rape is now the thing of the past now that these figures are banned? On the issue of billboards, in the UK sensual billboards are banned from areas near school or religious places. While not an out and out ban. There are severe restrictions. (B) This is a women's issue. The instigator of this is a women. The Shiv sena and BJP won the elections in the BMC after fielding a record number of women candidates who won of the back of their sisters votes. Clearly women's issues were at the forefront. © What proportional of Mumbai's women shop in these modern department stores? (D) Considering Mumbai has a much lower rape rate than many other metroes in India maybe the sena and bjp combined who have run the BMC for 20 odd years are doing something right? The shiv sena especially has a hardline Mahila Aghadi Varga within their ranks who I have personally seen beat up a shiv sena cadre who beat up his wife in a drunken rage. Quite frankly the shiv sena are the more progressive of all parties in India when it comes to women's rights. The fact is India needs quick judiciary results and a special court for rape incidents. However doing that is not in the hands of the BMC. The best they can do is focus on prevention.

[Crookbond]

I watched discussion in NDTV with the corporator and she said that many women complained to her about the explicit nature of mannequins in footpaths ' date=' so she proposed this ban in BMC..[b']I agree that linking rapes with banning Mannequins is wrong.

Apart from the complaints, she also made the correlation between mannequins and sexual crimes in the very same interview on NDTV (I have posted the video on this thread).

[Crookbond]

Dude, (A) They are banning them from shop fronts. Not banning them out right. Its not shifting anything. Its not as if they are simply saying, now that this is done we will be rape free. Where has anybody said rape is now the thing of the past now that these figures are banned? On the issue of billboards, in the UK sensual billboards are banned from areas near school or religious places. While not an out and out ban. There are severe restrictions.

You are missing one point which everyone including 'urbestfriend' has agreed. The ban on mannequins according to the BJP's Ritu Tawade are due to the following reasons : Reason 1 - Women have complained to her about such mannequins which makes them uncomfortable. Reason 2 - Lingerie laden mannequins are a result of increased sex crime rates in Maharashtra. Now, if it is ONLY reason 1 I fully support the ban on shop front windows. However, that is NOT the case. Even the mention of Reason 2 is shift in goal post from the actual situation (which most posters on this thread are pointing out). The real reason for "Reason 2" is law & order and NOT lingerie ads, lingerie mannequins, Savita Bhabhi or pom pom clad bikini girls.

[Crookbond]

Kya bakwas hai yaar :wall:

Democracy tries to cater to the majority; it does not mean the interests of minorities are thrown out of the window.

[G_B_]

You are missing one point which everyone including 'urbestfriend' has agreed. The ban on mannequins according to the BJP's Ritu Tawade are due to the following reasons : Reason 1 - Women have complained to her about such mannequins which makes them uncomfortable. Reason 2 - Lingerie laden mannequins are a result of increased sex crime rates in Maharashtra. Now, if it is ONLY reason 1 I fully support the ban on shop front windows. However, that is NOT the case. Even the mention of Reason 2 is shift in goal post from the actual situation (which most posters on this thread are pointing out). The real reason for "Reason 2" is law & order and NOT lingerie ads, lingerie mannequins, Savita Bhabhi or pom pom clad bikini girls.

how do you know its not a combination of things? Many crimes have primary and secondary reasons. Law and order has always been **** in india from the days of independence. Why the sudden crime spree or increase in per capita crime stats. If anything **** law and order has been a constant in all of this. For all we know Twade simply used point 2, as a means of bulking up her argument. But the primary reason for point 1.

[Mariyam]

Today while on the way home, as I passed Lala's college and headed towards the Heera Panna junction, I saw a huge billboard of a guy only in briefs. I couldn't catch the brand because my focus was on the road and um.... elsewhere. Wonder what kind of regressive, sexist and biased municipality bans lingerie on female mannequins but not on male posters/sculptures.

[Detonator]

Today while on the way home, as I passed Lala's college and headed towards the Heera Panna junction, I saw a huge billboard of a guy only in briefs. I couldn't catch the brand because my focus was on the road and um.... elsewhere. Wonder what kind of regressive, sexist and biased municipality bans lingerie on female mannequins but not on male posters/sculptures.

:giggle: Khajuraho shld be demolished by their logic :winky:

[Swing_n_Speed]

What's the deal here? Are women embarrassed cos every time a bunch of men walk past mannequins a tent grows in their pants? Which was backed by CCTV footage thus enabling the esteemed BMCwallas to arrive at this conclusion? In the land of Khajurao to blame mannequins as western is effing hilarious.

[beetle]

Today while on the way home, as I passed Lala's college and headed towards the Heera Panna junction, I saw a huge billboard of a guy only in briefs. I couldn't catch the brand because my focus was on the road and um.... elsewhere. Wonder what kind of regressive, sexist and biased municipality bans lingerie on female mannequins but not on male posters/sculptures.

Those are the worst kind....The male undie closeups are so crass.

[Mariyam]

(D) Considering Mumbai has a much lower rape rate than many other metroes in India maybe the sena and bjp combined who have run the BMC for 20 odd years are doing something right? The shiv sena especially has a hardline Mahila Aghadi Varga within their ranks who I have personally seen beat up a shiv sena cadre who beat up his wife in a drunken rage. Quite frankly the shiv sena are the more progressive of all parties in India when it comes to women's rights. The fact is India needs quick judiciary results and a special court for rape incidents. However doing that is not in the hands of the BMC. The best they can do is focus on prevention.

I agree with you on the last part. The part in bold I can't understand. What has Mumbai's crime rate, or the rate of crime against women in the city to do with the BMC? Is that the lookout of the BMC? Since when are they responsible for crime? What they should be very concerned about is how the city ground to a halt on the 26th of July 2005, when heavy rains lashed Mumbai. For a 'Shanghai' aspirant, that is unacceptable. In fact the list of fails/instances of corruption of the BMC are numerous. Potholed roads every monsoons, hawkers/ shopkeepers who encroach on public space/footpath and are not evicted by the BMC for a handful of Rs, political parties getting BMC 'permission' and plastering posters of their leaders across walls in the cities etc. These are the issues they should be fixing. PS: Why would a woman or anyone complain to the BMC if they found a mannequin in a lingerie makes them uncomfortable. Shouldn't they ( in a group maybe) complain to the police? Under the auspices of the completely archaic Bombay Police Act, the Police can coerce the shops to remove the mannequins. That would seem like the logical progression.