beetle Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 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. Can't be compared.Those timeswere different...besides when you go to kajurao...you exp[ect that.It is like going to a rated movie.You get to see what you choose to.It the case of these mannequins...or crass posters...people do not have a choice.
beetle Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 >>>>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. Maybe because the ground reality in most cases is that the police walla will just see it as another opportunity to extract money...while going to your representative puts extra pressure on the authorities.
beetle Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 In the recent reported cases of child rapes,very often the accused drank alcohol,watched porn(mostly on the mobiles) and then went out looking for a victim...most often a helpless child.I am beginning to change my opinion on correlation between alcohol consumption,porn and crime against women and children.
Swing_n_Speed Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Can't be compared.Those timeswere different...besides when you go to kajurao...you exp[ect that.It is like going to a rated movie.You get to see what you choose to.It the case of these mannequins...or crass posters...people do not have a choice. Culture is ubiquitous. You cannot put culture in Khajurao, then separate it from Mumbai. That said you need to remember, we are contesting the logic put forth by the petitioner. She stated that such public displays of were not in our culture. Which is blatant crap. Yes I recognize an alternative argument where apparently good folks like you are scandalized at the sight of a mannequin because apparently there is no warning. Then again women being scandalized does not amount to "Inciting Indian Men to Commit Rape'! I hope you now comprehend the fallacy of the argument!
Mariyam Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Maybe because the ground reality in most cases is that the police walla will just see it as another opportunity to extract money...while going to your representative puts extra pressure on the authorities. Beetle, so will the representatives at the BMC. They're cut from the same cloth. Do not be under the illusion that the BMC are very receptive, and lend a ear to the grouse of the common man. They're just as easily swayed by the hari patti as the Police or any other arm of the state. Issue here is twofold: 1) Does banning 'sexy' mannequins unilaterally even fall under the ambit of the powers of the BMC? Is this how we are going to set a precedent for the future? 2) While I agree that mannequins at times maybe distasteful, is the causality as claimed by the BMC officials even remotely true?
beetle Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 BMC members are elected .....they at some level have to keep the people happy for their votes .It can work both ways....it depends on which people they want to keep happy. There is no co relation to the sexy mannequins and assaults on women and women's discomfort should have been the reason for removing them from aggressively being in people's faces. The BMC official is a politician and her stupid reasoning could be put to that...or just using the sexual assaults as a reason to build up their case because it is a hot issue.
beetle Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Culture is ubiquitous. You cannot put culture in Khajurao' date=' then separate it from Mumbai. That said you need to remember, we are contesting the logic put forth by the [b']petitioner. She stated that such public displays of were not in our culture. Which is blatant crap. Yes I recognize an alternative argument where apparently good folks like you are scandalized at the sight of a mannequin because apparently there is no warning. Then again women being scandalized does not amount to "Inciting Indian Men to Commit Rape'! I hope you now comprehend the fallacy of the argument! It is not just my discomfort...it is about the discomfort many people have to go through everyday.You walk through crowded streets and have to pass by suggestive posters with suggestive captions with woman with dis propionate body parts flashing out in your faces. These are also places where men hang out and make people more uncomfortable Why should women ,children and people walking with their families be made uncomfortable just because some people have to advertise whatever they want to advertise.People should have a choice to see what they are comfortable with. People have right to watch porn in private.That does not mean everyone in their family and neighborhood has to see it or hear it .
Crookbond Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 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. Same question to you - how do you know sex crime rates are related to lingerie mannequins? You are supporting the assertion the logic of which most of us here fail to see. In that light, I would expect you to provide some details on that matter. The very fact that Ms. Tawade chose not even to launch any interrogation on "Reason 2" (clearly outlined in her interview) is a good enough hint to me that there is no genuineness in the argument. Also, I would go on to add that if there was a hint of genuineness Ms. Tawade and her party would have launched a push for police reforms - I don't see any such manifesto from her or her area. I also don't see any written petition to the local police seeking cooperation neither do I see any formal letter to the legislators or a PIL in lieu of her concern. Before you reply, take some time to think over my basis. I am NOT saying a ban on lingerie on shop front windows is an issue if it causes public decency but do consider the other sides of the argument as well.
zumi Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 hehe equilibrium restored after congress' stupidity banning Comedy Central, BJP come back with great upper cut full of lunacy. on side note, maybe these lunatic political parties should think about handing out sex dolls for male votes during elections. they should consult Japanese men.
Swing_n_Speed Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 It is not just my discomfort...it is about the discomfort many people have to go through everyday.You walk through crowded streets and have to pass by suggestive posters with suggestive captions with woman with dis propionate body parts flashing out in your faces. These are also places where men hang out and make people more uncomfortable Why should women ,children and people walking with their families be made uncomfortable just because some people have to advertise whatever they want to advertise.People should have a choice to see what they are comfortable with. People have right to watch porn in private.That does not mean everyone in their family and neighborhood has to see it or hear it . Fair enough dude. I have no shauk to see these mannequins either. The argument at hand is indecency. Cite indecency! And in your previous post you attested to that line of reasoning. So I guess there's notin else left to say :two_thumbs_up:
beetle Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 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. like
Lord Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Fair enough dude. I have no shauk to see these mannequins either. The argument at hand is indecency. Cite indecency! And in your previous post you attested to that line of reasoning. So I guess there's notin else left to say :two_thumbs_up: beetle is not a dude :headshake:
vandokkum Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 I think every country in the world should adopt the saudi model... there are no rapes in saudi arabia because women are not allowed to show their face.. and if you rape a woman then its not considered a crime unless there were 3 other witnesses..
ganeshran Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 The proposal is supported by Sunil Prabhu, the mayor of Mumbai and a member of Shiv Sena. "I have always supported women [lawmakers and councilors] in their initiatives, and I agree with her that such scantily clad mannequins do invite unwanted attention of men and the resulting surge of sex crimes," Prabhu said. Is this guy an elected official? :facepalm: What next? Make purdah and burqa mandatory because seeing women's uncovered faces invites unwanted attention of men? No politicians talks of improving the judicial and police system so there is an actual deterrent against committing heinous crimes against women, but they jump at the opportunity to implement hollow self righteous steps.
Rocky Balboa Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 If u feel these rules stupid and u can't take it, y don't u the so called educated ******s like u join politics. ?The reason y our country is backward is becoz of u folks don't have d guts to join politics. Don't start blaming me....I am already a member of Shiv sena.
Sachin=GOD Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 Sir Ravindra Jadeja @SirJadeja The Maharashtra Govt has banned mannequins?! This means Manmohan Singh can't visit anymore.
urbestfriend Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Sir Ravindra Jadeja @SirJadeja The Maharashtra Govt has banned mannequins?! This means Manmohan Singh can't visit anymore. They have only banned nude/mannequins in lingerie, so no problem for maun mohan :finger:
zumi Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Sir Ravindra Jadeja @SirJadeja The Maharashtra Govt has banned mannequins?! This means Manmohan Singh can't visit anymore. They have only banned nude/mannequins in lingerie' date=' so no problem for maun mohan :finger:[/quote'] so no skinny dipping for MMS at the taj pool
gaurav92 Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 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. :cantstop:
Recommended Posts