On Thursday 03 Apr 2008 10:08:46 pm Charles Haynes wrote: > Let's see what is more of a problem? Bare skin on the street or rape, > immodest behavior or murder? Tough call I have to say.
There are two separate issues here which you are juxtaposing in a manner that suggests that one could be traded for the other. The British saw Indians as "half naked" at least partly because laborers were literally half naked. Male workers were bare chested and bare-legged - wearing only a loincloth. Their children were naked. The women had their chests covered and their legs showed less. Climate and poverty played a role, because the wealthier people had better ability to cover themselves. Here again - women covered more than men but being bare chested for men was normal and had little to do with poverty. May I descend into philosophical vulgarity? Is the penis is sexual organ or an organ of urination? Are female breasts a sexual organ or a limited use nutrition tap for young humans? The answer is that they are "dual use". As sexual organs the rule was always that they should be covered up and any evidence that they may not have been covered up comes mainly from temple carvings. This may well turn out to be the equivalent of finding ONLY issues of Playboy as evidence of a civilization in America 3000 years from now. AFAIK there are no references speaking of Sita or Draupadi or any of Krishna's numerous girlfriends being bare-chested in Indian folklore. But conditional, contextual exposure of skin has been accepted. A woman with an infant is allowed to expose a breast for the purpose of feeding. A man is allowed to briefly expose his penis, albeit using the body language of modesty (exposure while pretending to hide) when he pees in public. Women peeing in public use slightly more convincing body language. This is as true of public peeing in the West as it is of India. The point I am getting at is that exposure of skin, or even exposure of sexual organs are contextual and involve body language that indicates intent. The sari clad woman who keeps worrying that her pallu is falling off and tugs at its edge the minute she sees men is speaking the body language of "concern" that she might be exposing chest skin to men with wandering eyes. Even on TV and even in the West, only the most sophisticated models and actresses are able to resist the temptation to raise a protective hand to cover cleavage/chest when they are exposing a lot. The pallu-tugging woman will happily allow her pallu to fall and expose what there is to expose with her children or with close family members. Watching Indian women in saris is an edifying experience. If they think you are looking at their breasts they will pull at their pallus from the left side of the neck across the chest. If they think a man behind them my be peeking at the exposed waist, they will pull up the pallu at the back to cover the waist - assuming that it is being stared at. It is the disruption of context and the accompanying body language of intent while exposing skin that is being "used" (wrongly IMO) as an excuse for rape and assault. There is a huge Indian population out here that is not bothered about skin per se, but the body language of intent when that skin is exposed. When you have a group of 5 women in saris and 4 of them pull at their pallu to cover their cleavage and the fifth allows the pallu to fall and makes no attempt to pull it up, both men AND women take that as a sign of deliberate exposure. Just some voluminous random thoughts. shiv
