Voyeurism in India

[letmein]

. And for ****s sake keep your judgement to yourself.

Sorry, but who made you führer of this board?

 

[booo]

To see a female traumatized, and give them 5-6 seconds of dire and desirable attention. Even if that focus is riddled with hatred and melancholy embarrassment, due to the men's sickening and obscene nature.

your english is... I wouldnt say good but seems you've prepared well for GATE/CAT exams. anyways... traumatized? melancholy embarrassment?? sickening and obscene nature? wtf dude why does she get embarrassed and traumatized when someone stares at her? dont you think these words are overreaction to something that is not at all that serious?

It is solely justified to paint a wide angled brush on Indian men: As perverted, hyper-sexual, and obscene, specially when pertinent to females of any age.

think over it again. what next? would you start advocating women to wear burkha because all the Indian men are perverted, hyper-sexual, "obscene". what does it make you?

^okay, I know where this argument will go. but before that... suppose I am walking on street and I see this girl, in mini jeans shorts and she looks beautiful. so what do I do? being an asshole I am, I click a picture of her. do you think I commited a crime? think about it and answer? because if you answer wrong, I am going to post a picture of a girl in mini shorts.

 

[asingh]

your english is... I wouldnt say good but seems you've prepared well for GATE/CAT exams.

Thank-you for the feedback...! What should be my take away on the above..? Should I stop using vocabulary, dumb down my sentences and stop using full-stops/capital letters, and simultaneously join some course to learn English..?

anyways... traumatized? melancholy embarrassment?? sickening and obscene nature? wtf dude why does she get embarrassed and traumatized when someone stares at her?

Why should she not..? Is she a monument on display, to which every male has purchased a ticket too..? Can you not see it on their faces, when men stare at females in India. I mentioned the methodology. It is so obvious (blatantly visible) out on our streets.

dont you think these words are overreaction to something that is not at all that serious?

No. Why is it not serious..? Objectification of gender sexuality is the seed and fruit, of the pathetic situation of females in India.

think over it again. what next? would you start advocating women to wear burkha because all the Indian men are perverted, hyper-sexual, "obscene". what does it make you?

Maybe: the Indian men correct their ways...? Is that not a simpler solution, rather than go full Wahhab...!

 

[booo]

Why should she not..? Is she a monument on display, to which every male has purchased a ticket too..? Can you not see it on their faces, when men stare at females in India. I mentioned the methodology. It is so obvious (blatantly visible) out on our streets.

the Indian men correct their ways...?

well, you havnt answered my question in the first place... read my post again for the question about the girl in mini shorts.

 

[asingh]

well, you havnt answered my question in the first place... read my post again for the question about the girl in mini shorts.

@booo :

Sorry to say. You went back and edited your original post. What I quoted initially in post #23, is all you wrote. You had not put in the epilogue question :

^okay, I know where this argument will go. but before that... suppose I am walking on street and I see this girl, in mini jeans shorts and she looks beautiful. so what do I do? being an asshole I am, I click a picture of her. do you think I commited a crime? think about it and answer? because if you answer wrong, I am going to post a picture of a girl in mini shorts.

I have moderator rights, and was able to see the full history. So you cannot say or post "you havnt answered my question in the first place"; it is lying and conniving. At least be honest and amicable in your approach. Thanks.

Regarding the above question:
I assume you do not know the female. You have committed a civil crime as per strict definitions. As per IPC section 509. I am not sure how updated this law is. Though from a societal PoV you have been perverted and invaded a persons privacy, which is incorrect.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100912/jsp/frontpage/story_12926804.jsp
https://noharassment.wordpress.com/tag/ipc-section-509/
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/68146/

And are you threatening me or just playing around. That you will post a picture of a girl in mini shorts. What has that got to do with this post...? Or are you going to say: looking at girlie pictures on the web (of females we do not know) is just as bad as gawking and creating and uncomfortable environment on the streets..!

 

[drkrack]

The way Indian men look at females (virtual scanner and then continue to gawk and settle on the upper body half) is quite indecent, to be honest. If I were to recollect, I have probably seen far more lecherous and perverted eye-sighted males on the streets with respect to women than decent ones. I clearly remember a girl was walking by in a skirt. Two men were staring like owls at her, from a far distance. I was observing this. She got close to them, and clicked a photo of their motorbike's license plate. And walked off. What was their reaction..? They laughed, guffawed and gave each other a high-5. Why did they do this...? Cheap kicks, and it is what turns on Indian men. To see a female traumatized, and give them 5-6 seconds of dire and desirable attention. Even if that focus is riddled with hatred and melancholy embarrassment, due to the men's sickening and obscene nature. They were not poor, and seemed well off. I am sure they had seen a girl "dressed well". And what has poverty got to do with seeing girls in good attire. What is the definition of "girls dressed well"..? Please can you tell me...? Be it: saree/salwar/denims/skirts/shorts or matter-of-fact any dress, females are traumatized and victimized on the streets.

It is solely justified to paint a wide angled brush on Indian men: As perverted, hyper-sexual, and obscene, specially when pertinent to females of any age.

If you feel it's justified to paint all the men as perverts, it's like rapists painting all women with indecent clothing (according to them) as prostitute mentality or trying take advantage from voyeuristic attitude of men.

I admire your views on gender equality, women empowerment etc but, don't you think it's harsh on those men who are honest, moral and respectful of the opposite gender??

The kind of value propositions you're recommending are only too idealistic and impractical in a developing nation, with so much different ethnocentric population like ours. Even women don't expect such a kind ideal society. It's not even possible in the so called western and mature societies too.
Even men don't have such freedom in spite of a patriarchal society, ask any honest married man.

Do you think that all women are honest enough and dress for their own pleasure without any ideas of taking undue advantage?? If you've attended a professional college in India you'll know that the dress code changes from theory exams to practical examinations.

I am not saying that all women are like that but I do resist painting all men, in fact majority of men as perverts..

 

[booo]

I assume you do not know the female. You have committed a civil crime as per strict definitions. As per IPC section 509. I am not sure how updated this law is. Though from a societal PoV you have been perverted and invaded a persons privacy, which is incorrect.

you are wrong. because I did not invade anyone's privacy.

“There is no ban on taking photographs of someone in a public place. However, if this picture is circulated among the public, the accused can be tried under the Information Technology Act,”

If this were Australia, I wont even have to delete my picture or stop it from circulating.

I asked you this question because I do a lot of street photography.

Now coming back to the issue, the guys in your scenario only watched the girl in a public space. so even if we assume that they took a photo, they theoretically did not circulate it. So as far as the law is concerned; they did not commit any crime. And now, you are asking them to change their ways because of ... some self righteousness?

As far as the editing goes, I did it even before you replied. because I can see the timestamp when you replied too. but lets give a benefit of doubt that you did not refresh the page.

 

[asingh]

If you feel it's justified to paint all the men as perverts, it's like rapists painting all women with indecent clothing (according to them) as prostitute mentality or trying take advantage from voyeuristic attitude of men.

It is again attacking the messenger...! And playing a tit-for-tat, game @drkrack...! All ready women are defined as being the "lead-on" for men committing crime, specially their attire. So what you said above, is all ready happening. And regarding "all men". I am actually tired of this misnomer. It is a generic societal statistic. We can safely say, majority of men. I mean honestly. When I walk out on the streets, specially in crowded areas: most of the men are eying women in a perverted sense. It can be seen all over the nation. Buses, trains, malls. Guys, just come in to check-out females at "hot-spots". It is so easy to spot. I am surprised, why the majority group here has not seen this.

I admire your views on gender equality, women empowerment etc but, don't you think it's harsh on those men who are honest, moral and respectful of the opposite gender??

I know it is harsh. But why do people have to get so personal about this. It is what men do in India. And we are men too. If we are not acting in this deficient manner, that is good and noble, but the majority out there, are sick perverts. I can say that. Being a guy too..! I have no qualms about it. It is human mentality to pin-point a delta, with a finger, but self retrospection is a pariah topic.

The kind of value propositions you're recommending are only too idealistic and impractical in a developing nation, with so much different ethnocentric population like ours. Even women don't expect such a kind ideal society. It's not even possible in the so called western and mature societies too.
Even men don't have such freedom in spite of a patriarchal society, ask any honest married man.

What am I suggesting..? Just that women be treated normally. Allowed to walk in freedom and not gawked, eyed like objects of desire. That too, in a lecherous and demeaning manner. People have stated: staring is not bad. The way, Indian men do it..? Please...! It is extremely easy to tell, when one is being stared at, looked upon. A kind of 6th sense kicks in, if eye-contact is not made. But we men, do not give heed to even that, and blatantly look at our women. Talk about appreciation. LOL. Imagine that feeling 24 x 7, when one is out. Would you like it. Is is shadowing / stalking -all- the time.

Do you think that all women are honest enough and dress for their own pleasure without any ideas of taking undue advantage?? If you've attended a professional college in India you'll know that the dress code changes from theory exams to practical examinations.

@drkrack, this is again questioning the morality and integrity of females in our nation. Of course you can say, "then why do the same to men here". I really do not need to tell, who is the worst of the lot. Even you would agree, I am sure. The situation of females is quite sad, here in India.

I am not saying that all women are like that but I do resist painting all men, in fact majority of men as perverts..

It is understandable. I answered above, though.

 

[asingh]

you are wrong. because I did not invade anyone's privacy.

Why are we even discussing this...? The example I stated: the guys did not even click a photo. It was the girl who took a snapshot of the guy's motorcycle's number plate, cause she was being stared at in such a manner. She was appalled, and clicked the plate, probably to report them. Well, I guess clicking an unknown persons photo is not an infringement of personal space as per you, as per me it is...! Unless you sought permission. It is a basic moral and ethical attitude. Though the IPC I listed, deems it different to your views.

If this were Australia, I wont even have to delete my picture or stop it from circulating.

Of course, it is a free and democratic world. We all exercise this license, and have full right to do so...!

I asked you this question because I do a lot of street photography.

Ok. But it adds nothing here.

Now coming back to the issue, the guys in your scenario only watched the girl in a public space. so even if we assume that they took a photo, they theoretically did not circulate it. So as far as the law is concerned; they did not commit any crime. And now, you are asking them to change their ways because of ... some self righteousness?

Read, above. I explained again, what happened. I mentioned the IPC section for that too. She could protest. Staring and gawking is no crime, but making people uncomfortable is socially considered incorrect and non-civil in nature. Which frankly, Indian men do not understand. As a society, we Indians are boorish and unemphatic to personal domain and rights.

As far as the editing goes, I did it even before you replied. because I can see the timestamp when you replied too. but lets give a benefit of doubt that you did not refresh the page.

You last edited : 8:26 PM. I submitted my post: 8:33 PM. I was probably typing my post, while you were editing. I full quoted your initial post, and broke it down for intrinsic replies. I submitted and left. So I do not need your benefit of doubt. You could have understood, better.

 

[booo]

but making people uncomfortable is socially considered incorrect and non-civil in nature.

This is a broad term. Since there is no accurate definition of what constitutes to making a person uncomfortable the law can be used in a fashion so that one can harass another person. again with laws like Section 509, you cant really talk about equality.

She could protest.

She could protest if the guys make any obscene gestures at her or do catcalling. but if they simply look at her its not a crime. because she is in a public space and when you are in public space people look at you. even if the looks make you uncomfortable. especially if you are in a country like USA or Australia where people can even photograph you and sell those photos.

Section 509 also states that a person is liable to face punishment for “intruding upon the privacy” of a woman.

If we read that quoted line above, where is the equality? what about man's privacy/modesty? I feel its just like #MLSharma saying that woman is like a flower.

Section 509 can be equally abused like the 498A.

Equality is like a double edged knife. it cuts both ways but for people like you it seems to be hard to be unbiased.

 

[asingh]

This is a broad term. Since there is no accurate definition of what constitutes to making a person uncomfortable the law can be used in a fashion so that one can harass another person. again with laws like Section 509, you cant really talk about equality.

No, it is not a broad term. This is exactly: the attitude and lackluster approach which has resulted in the pathetic condition of our society. All aspects are taken as subjective and situational. It should be understood that if one stares at a woman's body parts for a prolonged duration, it will make her uncomfortable. It is aggravated manifold if undertaken in groups and public areas. If you want to couple an IPC law to this (to define a false positive or conviction), then God help India. I gave you both sides of the coin. The societal crime and the manifestation as per IPC. Both seem passe to you. What more can I say...? Sweeping aspects like these under-the-rug, is what has beckoned the belittlement of females in India. The specific reason why men gawk and hawk at women in India: to make her uncomfortable, induce a reaction from her, and this machismo activity gives them cheap-kicks. They are not admiring a rose in a garden and being aesthetic in their appeal and doctrine. (Not saying, a woman is a rose).

She could protest if the guys make any obscene gestures at her or do catcalling.

Yes, she can. The result is: an answer which you gave. "I have broken no law". That is adding insult to injury. Sorry.

but if they simply look at her its not a crime.

It is the manner in which they do...! Of course not a civil crime is done, but again as social animals, it is incorrect and gross. If you judge everything within the bracket of "law-broken"; nothing more can be said here.

because she is in a public space and when you are in public space people look at you.

Which makes her public property, for that erstwhile moment..? Of course, people are not going to close their eyes, but the mannerisms are what manner. People can nudge and bump into each other without breaking a law. Should we as a practice...? People shove and scoffer at each other for space in public places, should we standardize this..? No, law is being broken. The above sounds nonsensical and out right weird to me. Men urinate in public, and no one reports them, should we encourage this. Please comprehend: civil law and societal mannerisms are innate temperaments. They are constructed to support each other. Not to develop a loop-hole and exploit.

even if the looks make you uncomfortable. especially if you are in a country like USA or Australia where people can even photograph you and sell those photos.

I am not sure, what context you are trying to bring to this debate, with the above. I explained above, the practical enervation with respect to women.

If we read that quoted line above, where is the equality? what about man's privacy/modesty? I feel its just like #MLSharma saying that woman is like a flower.

Sorry to say. Men in India have stooped so low and down, there is no privacy and modesty for them. Per, say. Just step outside on an Indian street and check it out.

Section 509 can be equally abused like the 498A.

Any, law can.

Equality is like a double edged knife. it cuts both ways but for people like you it seems to be hard to be unbiased.

By quoting a social stigma and cancer, I am not being biased toward females. Since when has this "equality" temper flared in India with respect to females, and the alleviation of their suffering...? 4o years, 20 years...10 years. LOL. Just such a short time, and we are harping about men not being treated as equal. PLEASE: read back on India's history (only ours) and set a reference point. Then we can talk about the double-edged sword of Damocles...! That is suddenly threatening the well-being and patriarchal status of males in India.

 

[booo]

Sorry to say. Men in India have stooped so low and down, there is no privacy and modesty for them.

This line sums up all. make a broad generalization. demonize every male. argue that they (men) deserve this.

I am not being biased toward females.

which one is true? the first quote or the second? think about it...

but again as social animals, it is incorrect and gross.

is there a definition of "Incorrect and gross"?

It should be understood that if one stares at a woman's body parts for a prolonged duration, it will make her uncomfortable. It is aggravated manifold if undertaken in groups and public areas. If you want to couple an IPC law to this (to define a false positive or conviction), then God help India

what if booo is a girl in short jeans shorts in a train station. can booo sue the south central railways on 509 because they installed CC cameras and recorded booo in mini jeans shorts thus intruded booo's modesty and personal space?

 

[Party Monger]

Sorry, but who made you führer of this board?

Führer would judge and dictate. Im appealing not to judge. Use your head before you post man.

 

[letmein]

Führer would judge and dictate. Im appealing not to judge. Use your head before you post man.

And for ****s sake keep your judgement to yourself.

This is supposed to be an appeal?

 

[Party Monger]

This is supposed to be an appeal?

That's the only way to appeal to judgmental ******** like you, in your own language

 

[Rahul]

Sorry to say. Men in India have stooped so low and down, there is no privacy and modesty for them. Per, say. Just step outside on an Indian street and check it out.

Why do you do it ? hope you are a man and you are Indian.