FischerTal Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 wait....to take away from this serious discussion, i also have a serious question. what does a sexy mannequin look like in comparison to an ugly mannequin? iska toh pehle jawab do :hmmm:
beetle Posted May 30, 2013 Posted May 30, 2013 Really' date=' people are uncomfortable looking at mannequins? How regressive are we that we are so uncomfortable with the human body[/quote'] If it is just about being comfortable with the human body...then I have a few questions. These mannequins are all of very fit, good looking women and men.Most people specially men wouldn't mind them whether are fully clothed,scantily clothed or even without clothes. 1)How many people would be as comfortable if the mannequins were of very old,fat,flabby ,wrinkly men and women Fat ,old,flabby women in lingerie....old wrinkly men in micro briefs? 2)How many people would be comfortable standing and waiting for a bus with your little daughter,mother or grandmother,surrounded by obscene posters shouting out captions like"jawaani ki hawas' or something worse? 3)How many people think parents have the right to be nudist irrespective of whether their children are comfortable? Whose rights are more important in this case?
Muloghonto Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 If it is just about being comfortable with the human body...then I have a few questions. These mannequins are all of very fit, good looking women and men.Most people specially men wouldn't mind them whether are fully clothed,scantily clothed or even without clothes. 1)How many people would be as comfortable if the mannequins were of very old,fat,flabby ,wrinkly men and women Fat ,old,flabby women in lingerie....old wrinkly men in micro briefs? 2)How many people would be comfortable standing and waiting for a bus with your little daughter,mother or grandmother,surrounded by obscene posters shouting out captions like"jawaani ki hawas' or something worse? 3)How many people think parents have the right to be nudist irrespective of whether their children are comfortable? Whose rights are more important in this case? This is circular argument really. The answer to 'how many people will be comfortable standing and waiting for a bus with your little daughter, mother or grandmother surrounded by obscene posters shouting out captions like 'jawaani ki hawas' or something worse ?' is obvious: no one. But that answer means nothing, because this question will apply to any ' how many of us will be comfortable standing around posters with , with our kid' scenario. The simple answer is, we wont be comfortable standing around with our moms or kids with a nude or salacious posters around us is because: a) *we* didnt have to handle it as a kid, we dont know how our kids are going to feel about it (no relating experience) b) we *know* our sisters/moms didnt grow up seeing this, so we are fairly safe to assume that most of them wont particularly care for objectifying of women in forms they didnt grow up with either. Sex and sexual knowledge for kids is not as terrible as you think, i had this argument with my wife (who is far more progressive than me) a while back. I was pleasantly surprised to find remarkably adult-like thought process displayed by kids when we did talk to them frankly about sex (not just the textbook stuff, we explained to our kids what sexual pleasure is,why people like unnatural sex, etc. Yeah, i know awkward conversation par excellance but i am glad i had it in retrospect). Yes, now that they know, they may try something and may mess up. Well so what, that is no different than an unmarried 18-19 year old who finally figures out about sex and is okay to try it. They too are hormone driven and i can tell you one thing: my sexual judgement decisions did not show any signs of 'improvement' between 16 and early-mid 20s and as such, i dont think my kids are going to make 'any worse decisions' than 18 or 19 year olds when it comes to sex. So i say, instead of hiding reality from your children because you feel awkward about a topic that has no business being 'taboo', try taking the reverse approach. The results will blow you away and can foster a kind of bond between you and your kids that you can only dream of. It is the most physically fun things we do as a species, this is like saying we cant talk about the biggest hit show the world has ever seen. And it carries with itself potentially serious danger related to disease. Ie, all the more reason to talk about it ! Can you imagine a world where we were very silent about the activities that cause jaundice ? Like 'hey mom, how do you get jaundice ?' is answered with 'umm..dunno beta...u should not be asking about these kinda things anyways' ?! Yes, that would be ridiculous, But no less ridiculous than the millions of parents who choose to keep their children completely uninformed and undeveloped towards the most popular human activity of alltime (having sex) that also has potentially deadly consequences. So to answer your question- how would you feel to stand beside such posters with your kid- why dont you ask your kid and try to find out what *they* think about the poster and if their answer disturbs you or not ?
Muloghonto Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 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. We do not have a choice to what we wish to see ourside our homes. To think we do, is laughable. You do not have a choice if you get to see a cement factory or not (unless you move, which then, applies to your local mannequin display shop too), so why should you have a choice on whether you get to see a manequin or not ? You dont have a choice on anything you see out there. I dont want to see the park beside my house. Do i have a choice ? You dont want to see the rickshaw stand by your house. Do you have a choice ? Manequins are physical objects, not images on a disk sped up to make it look moving (aka movies). The comparison does not apply.
Muloghonto Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 In the recent reported cases of child rapes' date='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.[b']I am beginning to change my opinion on correlation between alcohol consumption,porn and crime against women and children. If you are beginning to think that porn is good for child molestors and rapists, then you'd be moving in the correct direction. Or atleast, that is what leading expert (medical and legal) opinion on the subject matter is. In anycase, i'd urge you to actually research the matter before making an opinion. Alcohol is always a negative gain scenario nomatter what but good luck banning it- we love it too much, so dont even bother.
Muloghonto Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 and you lived in the 70s to experience that? and india most certainly has not become more regressive. Recently gay rights have received a big boost. There have been cases of a transsexual person being elected in elections. There is now a bill which should become law to make 50% members of parliament women. What are the metrics of regressive anyways? Is it like a fun word for the left wing in India? Every country has different metrics. Transexuls for example find much more acceptance in India than say a county like the UK. A pretty good metric is popularity and presence of political forms of moral police, aka religious parties or parties with affiliations with organized religious wings. In this case, India is legally moving towards liberalized policies but socially it is getting more conservative as religion is entering political sphere more and more. It also does not help that 99.99% of Indians are a big fat zero in education of anything outside of math,science,business and literature. Like ask Indians what democracy is, and the answer is 'popular majority'. Then ask them ' what about of tyranny of majority if majority is always right and passes laws that exterminates the minority for example ? ' and get complete blank stares.
Prakat Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I don't see why Mannequins and obscene posters are being clubbed together. One exhibit treats the female form in a matter-of-fact fashion. And the other perpetuates society's pathologically unhealthy relationship with sexuality. Both these public exhibits do not have the same formative effects on young minds. The protesters are so brain-washed by the culture they consume that they see nothing wrong with consuming item songs during family TV hour but consider mannequins in underwear to be vulgar. This may also have its roots in class consciousness. The mannequins wear lingeree not meant for these women.
beetle Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 This is circular argument really. The answer to 'how many people will be comfortable standing and waiting for a bus with your little daughter, mother or grandmother surrounded by obscene posters shouting out captions like 'jawaani ki hawas' or something worse ?' is obvious: no one. But that answer means nothing, because this question will apply to any ' how many of us will be comfortable standing around posters with , with our kid' scenario. The simple answer is, we wont be comfortable standing around with our moms or kids with a nude or salacious posters around us is because: a) *we* didnt have to handle it as a kid, we dont know how our kids are going to feel about it (no relating experience) b) we *know* our sisters/moms didnt grow up seeing this, so we are fairly safe to assume that most of them wont particularly care for objectifying of women in forms they didnt grow up with either. Whatever the reason may be,isn't the right of people not to be uncomfortable while going about their life more important that the producers right to advertise . Sex and sexual knowledge for kids is not as terrible as you think, i had this argument with my wife (who is far more progressive than me) a while back. I was pleasantly surprised to find remarkably adult-like thought process displayed by kids when we did talk to them frankly about sex (not just the textbook stuff, we explained to our kids what sexual pleasure is,why people like unnatural sex, etc. Yeah, i know awkward conversation par excellance but i am glad i had it in retrospect). Children should have knowledge but I am sure it should not come from suggestive posters or manmneqins.Besides children have a right to learn these at age appropriate stages as and when they are ready Yes, now that they know, they may try something and may mess up. Well so what, that is no different than an unmarried 18-19 year old who finally figures out about sex and is okay to try it. They too are hormone driven and i can tell you one thing: my sexual judgement decisions did not show any signs of 'improvement' between 16 and early-mid 20s and as such, i dont think my kids are going to make 'any worse decisions' than 18 or 19 year olds when it comes to sex. So i say, instead of hiding reality from your children because you feel awkward about a topic that has no business being 'taboo', try taking the reverse approach. The results will blow you away and can foster a kind of bond between you and your kids that you can only dream of. That is your approach for your kids....others may have different ways of dealing with it.Each child is different and so are the parents and their approach towards how they should be brought up. It is the most physically fun things we do as a species, this is like saying we cant talk about the biggest hit show the world has ever seen. And it carries with itself potentially serious danger related to disease. Ie, all the more reason to talk about it ! Can you imagine a world where we were very silent about the activities that cause jaundice ? Like 'hey mom, how do you get jaundice ?' is answered with 'umm..dunno beta...u should not be asking about these kinda things anyways' ?! Yes, that would be ridiculous, But no less ridiculous than the millions of parents who choose to keep their children completely uninformed and undeveloped towards the most popular human activity of alltime (having sex) that also has potentially deadly consequences. So to answer your question- how would you feel to stand beside such posters with your kid- why dont you ask your kid and try to find out what *they* think about the poster and if their answer disturbs you or not ? As a family...we will decide how we deal with it ...when we need to deal with it.
beetle Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 If you are beginning to think that porn is good for child molestors and rapists, then you'd be moving in the correct direction. Or atleast, that is what leading expert (medical and legal) opinion on the subject matter is. In anycase, i'd urge you to actually research the matter before making an opinion. Alcohol is always a negative gain scenario nomatter what but good luck banning it- we love it too much, so dont even bother. Who is talking about banning it?
Crookbond Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I don't see why Mannequins and obscene posters are being clubbed together. One exhibit treats the female form in a matter-of-fact fashion. And the other perpetuates society's pathologically unhealthy relationship with sexuality. Both these public exhibits do not have the same formative effects on young minds. The protesters are so brain-washed by the culture they consume that they see nothing wrong with consuming item songs during family TV hour but consider mannequins in underwear to be vulgar. This may also have its roots in class consciousness. The mannequins wear lingeree not meant for these women. Because the "generalization trick" is the most easiest way to fool others in an argument.
beetle Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 ^ Because it is the same issue.....making people uncomfortable.
Crookbond Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 ^ The noncentral fallacy - try understanding why it is NOT the same. I declare the Worst Argument In The World to be this: "X is in a category whose archetypal member gives us a certain emotional reaction. Therefore, we should apply that emotional reaction to X, even though it is not a central category member." Call it the Noncentral Fallacy. It sounds dumb when you put it like that. Who even does that, anyway? It sounds dumb only because we are talking soberly of categories and features. As soon as the argument gets framed in terms of words, it becomes so powerful that somewhere between many and most of the bad arguments in politics, philosophy and culture take some form of the noncentral fallacy. Before we get to those, let's look at a simpler example. http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/
beetle Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 They were removed because the women complained about it.It is not banned every where. The politician made a mess of it...that is another issue.
Crookbond Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I don't have problem in banning them from shop front windows (note that the ban is only on shop front windows and not inside). However, I have the following issues : 1. How many people complained about the issue? Please share the information on the complainants (anonymized to protect their privacy). For ex, did this come from a particular area? if yes, which ones / are these women in their 40s or 20s?/ etc. 2. Were these parameters looked at before imposing the ban? The problem could well be with a particular area and not the entire city. 3. M/s Tawade is the BJP corporator from the N - ward Ram Nagar, Bhim Nagar Constituency 121 . Was this problem particular in her area? I would assume so - why would other people come to complain to M/s Tawade? If so, did she take any steps to make any changes in her ward? Please share notes from the meetings with the police etc. Like most political diktats; there would have been ZERO procedures followed here. Herein lies the actual problem - when procedures are NOT followed and it suits our theories we turn a blind eye but when they aren't while not suiting our positions we cry foul. Such precedents are set by us and then we blame politicians for being inconsistent. Apna Kaam Banta, Toh Bhaad Mein Jaaye Junta Some background information on Ms Tawade Educational Background - 12th Standard Declared Assets - 1Crore+
Prakat Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 The message going out is very old. The female body has no meaning than that prescribed for it by men.
FischerTal Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 The message going out is very old. The female body has no meaning than that prescribed for it by men. in this case, its a female. patriarchy is an institution that has deep roots in our society, but the enforcer of this regressive institution need not be a male all the time.
Muloghonto Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Whatever the reason may be,isn't the right of people not to be uncomfortable while going about their life more important that the producers right to advertise . Short answer - No. Because your 'right to be not uncomfortable' is not a right at all. It doesnt exist, neither should it exist, given how vague 'uncomfortable' is in a legal definition. As i noted earlier, you simply have no case unless you can explain to us why suggestive posters should be removed for making you feel 'uncomfortable' but not the local paan-wallah where all the local hooligans gather. They make me far more 'uncomfortable', so should we ban them too ? Children should have knowledge but I am sure it should not come from suggestive posters or manmneqins.Besides children have a right to learn these at age appropriate stages as and when they are ready I have news for you: a) unless you talk to your kids about sex (not just the biology of it, but what it really means), then your kids idea of sex will come from media - be it posters, internet, tv or magazines. b) What you think is 'age appropriate', judging by Indian morality standards, is complete, utter and total bakwaas. 100% pure distilled nonsense. If you want to talk to a kid at an appropriate age about sex, try talking to them before their teens. When they can rationally comprehend it. But no, that is apparently not the appropriate age to talk about it. We shall tell them about sex when the kid is somewhere in their teens, when the 's' word is the biggest sought after button there is.Telling them about sex once the hormones have hit is nothing more than parenting fail. Thats like arriving to a wedding when the ceremony has already started. That is your approach for your kids....others may have different ways of dealing with it.Each child is different and so are the parents and their approach towards how they should be brought up. Dont give me that 'its your approach' nonsense. Last i checked, Canadian kids know what bjs and stuff are by the time they are 10. Last i checked, we also have far less sexual abuse and sex crimes per capita than India and we actually have less sex crimes now, in the day and age the kids know everything there is to know about sex very early, than we did 30 years ago. The more you keep your kids in the dark, the more they are going to mess it up. As a family...we will decide how we deal with it ...when we need to deal with it. Good luck. If you think the 'when' comes after your son is starting to grow a moustache or your daughter is starting to develop boobs, then its too late.
FischerTal Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 ^ are you CC.... its sachinlara's new bhes. beware
beetle Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Good luck to you .... Are you CC Mr Molughonto? Your obnoxious personal attack seems very familiar...
Recommended Posts