Saint-a-wear

[anileve]

This is once again the "I think outside of the box and you don't therefore you must be an idiot" attitude. Sexuality is seen as something very private by many, many people. It's not the way of thinking here in America, but I still don't see why you can't accept that.

What exactly do you mean by "sexuality"? Are your private parts only associated with sexuality as if they were detached from your body and given this specific function of having to be concealed, and frowned upon because they are considered to be vulgar? I don't understand this mentality, you and violette both consider this blasphemous, yet you can't explain why. Are private parts so diabolic, filthy and not worth being adorned with sacred images on some undergarment or a swimsuit?

As I said before, this is some sort of repetitive conditioning without an ounce of rationalization as to why people feel this way. Why the heck is it wrong???!!!

And as for the flag....I am sorry but what would you prefer a clean white comfy underwear with Virgin Mary on it or a flag with the blood of your ancestors? Which one do you think is more disturbing, and if you think that a bloody flag is more appropriate then you should be examined.

[anileve]

Shouldn't that darn Human Rights organization worry more about the following problem than some stupid bikini? I swear people have a twisted sense of priorities and values.

Definition Of Dowry - Dowry or Dahej is the payment in cash or/and kind by the bride's family to the bridegroom' s family along with the giving away of the bride ( called Kanyadaan) in Indian marriage . Kanyadanam is an important part of Hindu marital rites. Kanya means daughter, and dana means gift.

Dowry originated in upper caste families as the wedding gift to the bride from her family. The dowry was later given to help with marriage expenses and became a form of insurance in the case that her in-laws mistreated her. Although the dowry was legally prohibited in 1961, it continues to be highly institutionalized. The groom often demands a dowry consisting of a large sum of money, farm animals, furniture, and electronics.

The practice of dowry abuse is rising in India. The most severe in bride burning, the burning of women whose dowries were not considered sufficient by their husband or in-laws. Most of these incidents are reported as accidental burns in the kitchen or are disguised as suicide. It is evident that there exist deep rooted prejudices against women in India. Cultural practices such as the payment of dowry tend to subordinate women in Indian society.

Though prohibited by law in 1961, the extraction of DOWRY from the bride's family prior to marriage still occurs. When the dowry amount is not considered sufficient or is not forthcoming, the bride is often harassed, abused and made miserable. This abuse can escalate to the point where the husband or his family burn the bride, often by pouring kerosene on her and lighting it, usually killing her. The official records of these incidents are low because they are often reported as accidents or suicides by the family. In Delhi, a woman is burned to death almost every twelve hours . The number of dowry murders is increasing. In 1988, 2,209 women were killed in dowry related incidents and in 1990, 4,835 were killed . It is important to reiterate that these are official records, which are immensely under reported. The lack of official registration of this crime is apparent in Delhi, where ninety percent of cases of women burnt were recorded as accidents, five percent as suicide and only the remaining five percent were shown as murder .

According to Government figures there were a total of 5,377 dowry deaths in 1993, an increase of 12% from 1992. Despite the existence of rigorous laws to prevent dowry-deaths under a 1986 amendment to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), convictions are rare, and judges (usually men) are often uninterested and susceptible to bribery. Recent newspaper reports have focused on the alarming rate of deaths of married women in Hamirpur, Mandi and Bilaspur districts in the state of Himachal Pradesh.

[xBaron Dants]

Sexuality is not something to be frowned upon.
But you yourself are calling them PRIVATE PARTS, meaning that there should be some discretion. There's a reason why it's illegal to walk around naked, as glorious and beautiful as you may believe the human body to be.

Other than that, while I am not a religious person, I'm not a fan of wearing any pictures of Jesus or Vishnu or whoever simply because I believe it cheapens the whole concept of a holy figure. Same goes for the huge crosses people wear. And I also am not too big a fan of people putting the colours of their flag everywhere, as I believe it cheapens it too.

[Inna]

on the most part I agree with Baron...and I feel that it is degrading..at least its degrading to me....but if they choose to make and sell and wear these products, then so be it....if every time a religious organization jumps in to stop something that is degrading to them then I wouldnt be able to get my junior bacon cheeseburger from Wendy's cause a muslim or jewish or hindu organization will state that its degrading their religious values by allowing people to kill and eat pigs/cows.

[anileve]

Sexuality is not something to be frowned upon.
But you yourself are calling them PRIVATE PARTS, meaning that there should be some discretion. There's a reason why it's illegal to walk around naked, as glorious and beautiful as you may believe the human body to be.

Other than that, while I am not a religious person, I'm not a fan of wearing any pictures of Jesus or Vishnu or whoever simply because I believe it cheapens the whole concept of a holy figure. Same goes for the huge crosses people wear. And I also am not too big a fan of people putting the colours of their flag everywhere, as I believe it cheapens it too.

Ok, now we are going into cheap taste, which is different from disrespect. I am not a fan of such fashion either, although after this discussion I really feel like purchasing religious underwear.

Private parts is the term which is prescribed, due to human shame of nudity. Once we are exposed completely we feel vulnerable, thus we must create an excuse to conceal our discomfort with the nudity. Which I think is fine, however that doesn’t imply that our genitalia somehow symbolizes vulgarity and lewdness. Therefore wearing underwear with godly images could be just as private and pious at the same time.

And I still fail to understand how “it cheapens the whole concept of a holy figure”, when one of the most prominent figures of Christianity was called the Virgin Mary, in this case clearly connecting sexuality (or lack of) with divinity.

[xBaron Dants]

Agreed. Nobody should dictate what others can or cannot wear. (Unless of course a grade 1 teacher shows up to work in a thong).

[anileve]

on the most part I agree with Baron...and I feel that it is degrading..at least its degrading to me....but if they choose to make and sell and wear these products, then so be it....if every time a religious organization jumps in to stop something that is degrading to them then I wouldnt be able to get my junior bacon cheeseburger from Wendy's cause a muslim or jewish or hindu organization will state that its degrading their religious values by allowing people to kill and eat pigs/cows.

Inna perhaps you can be the first one to really explain what is so degrading about religious underwear? Everyone seems to be hammering the same phrase, but no one can really explain the reasoning behind their claim.

[xBaron Dants]

Therefore wearing underwear with godly images could be just as private and pious at the same time.

It can be whatever you want it to be. If you were religious, and felt that it was something that you wanted to do, you could do it. It's on sale isn't it? And then there will be other people who won't like the idea, and won't wear it.

Why you still can't accept that some people don't like it is still a mystery to me.

[Inna]

Inna perhaps you can be the first one to really explain what is so degrading about religious underwear? Everyone seems to be hammering the same phrase, but no one can really explain the reasoning behind their claim.

its more personal to me..thats why I said I dont care what anyone else wants to do or wear...but I wouldnt do it...I'm not comfortable with the image of jesus on any clothing material, whether it be a shirt or underwear.

[anileve]

I wanna meet the morons the would buy this stuff. I think these things are good because they say "hey look at me I'm a moron". If you know who all the morons are ahead of time, you could save a lot of time.

Just like tatoos on the face are illegal. They should be legal so when you see somebody with a face tatoo, you recognize them as a degenarate and don't waste time talking to them.

This is just some ranting badrjan.

I personally commend them for producing such controversial items. It's more of a confrontation with peoples' discomfort, rigidness and their twisted ideals. It sheds some light on what people are most concerned with and how easily insulted they become with issues that trigger their personal demons.

Look at how easily people ignored my post about dowry related deaths in India, and instead fixated on holy characters and private parts.