All you guys are immature dorks, who didn’t understand the point of my post. In fact I doubt you read the article or my post. I was not advocating feminism, but rather a liberal approach towards imagery that is being displayed on the screen. India being a very conservative country is attempting to step out of its restricted borders and explore sexuality for the first time. This shift results in two things: 1. much opposition from the traditional society 2. increased assault by men. In other words, I am condoning eroticism, however being that repressed feelings are let loose people don’t exactly know how to handle them, and make it worse by creating a scandal, thus dipping sexuality further in the gutter. So I asked how a society makes a smooth transition without meeting such fierce and unbalanced reception.
The only thing in my post that had anything to do with feminism was the Human Rights organization which is specializing in religious underwear instead of protecting human rights (women in this case). Anon on many occasions you’ve raised a point that feminism is an empty political movement, instead Human Rights should be enforced for all. Interestingly enough I brought up Human Rights and you instantly connected it with feminism, without a trace of that word mentioned in my post. Strange isn't it?
The only thing in my post that had anything to do with feminism was the Human Rights organization which is specializing in religious underwear instead of protecting human rights (women in this case). Anon on many occasions you’ve raised a point that feminism is an empty political movement, instead Human Rights should be enforced for all. Interestingly enough I brought up Human Rights and you instantly connected it with feminism, without a trace of that word mentioned in my post. Strange isn't it?
Comment