Ramifications of Kali

[saidevo]

namaste.

We can discuss sensitive issues that crop up in this kaliyugam, having a bearing on us, who follow the Hindu Dharma in our mind and life.

Here is a starter:
These 'slut walk' women are simply fighting for their right to be dirty
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/8510743/These-slut-walk-women-are-simply-fighting-for-their-right-to-be-dirty.html

Toronto police officer’s sex-assault remarks prompt reprimand
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/toronto-police-officers-sex-assault-remarks-prompt-reprimand/article1911915/

The Hemline Theory
http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2006/04/the-hemline-theory.html

Some interesting discussions about this subject here:
Women in d(u)ress?
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6839-women-d-u-ress.html

What do our members think about the subject?

[Arjuni]

Namasté,

Saidevo, interesting question, and as a quick response to the various links I'll post this one: 'Not Ever' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95-IL3C-Z8) from Rape Crisis Scotland.

I agree with one of the replies from the Tamil Brahmins thread, that dress has nothing to do with morality; what I choose to wear each day has no bearing with what I do away from the eyes of others.

For argument's sake, here are just a few reasons that a person might choose to wear short/revealing clothing:
-Pride in appearance and desire to "show off" a bit, especially after weight loss or dedicated exercise. (It's not a spiritual feeling, to be sure, but has little to do with sexual morals.)
-Summer heat. Here in Winnipeg, a recent heat wave (Humidex over 105F!) has brought many skimpy clothes out of closets.
-That's what's available in (Western) stores; it's difficult to find new clothing that isn't revealing or tight. (Even in late autumn here I see short dresses on store window mannequins, while the temperature is dropping like mad outside.)
-Films, television, fashion runways, magazines, and other media and events sending the message widespread that such clothing is attractive, vibrant, young, and imparts other qualities that people wish to possess.

How ridiculous, subjective, and seemingly arbitrary these standards are. Just a few examples of how the standards change depending on the external form:
-Men are allowed to appear publically without shirts on (and before entering temple or participating in ritual in India, are supposed to remove their shirts, as I understand it). A woman walking in a skimpy shirt is considered "slutty," and in most places, she cannot go shirtless without breaking the law.
-A stage actor may wear heavy makeup to play a role. A woman who wears heavy makeup to face the world - the biggest stage of all - is a "whore."
-A man who wears no underpants is considered a little sloppy, maybe, or a little odd. A woman who does the same is considered sexually "loose."
And the rules reach truly horrific extremes in some areas, where a woman who does not veil herself head to toe is a "slut," despite no such restrictions existing for men.
Now, if I wore the same outfit as that girl in the video, maybe someone would make a similar comment about "asking for it," and perhaps people would make snide remarks or even treat me badly as a result. If I walked outside wearing stark nothing, I would likely receive reactions of incredulity, fear, and concern, probably be considered mentally unstable and taken to a hospital for evaluation! So, it's better to wear some clothing, but the correct clothing, clothing that shows some flesh but not other flesh, depending on the particular belief about lumps of flesh in the geographic area in which I happen to be at the time, and certainly never to go naked, unless I'm being examined by a doctor, or at a nude beach, or with a lover, or on stage or in a film for a role, or.....I mean...what???

In posts on brahmacharya, we've spoken about the difficulty of controlling the sexual impulse. The attitude sometimes encountered is that men's desires are so strong that they can only be controlled by extreme effort, and thus women - the "cooler" gender - have a duty to control their actions and dress to avoid "provoking" men.

The power of sexuality can't be covered by an "appropriate" garment, it can't be revealed by "inappropriate" clothing, and it can't be controlled by following a dress code. Only the foolish try to avoid the issue completely by throwing a cloth over it.

But such is Kali Yuga, when it is easier to respond to a form than to the Truth beyond all forms.

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

[iksvakave]

Hello,

You said, "Men are allowed to appear publically without shirts on (and before entering temple or participating in ritual in India, are supposed to remove their shirts, as I understand it). A woman walking in a skimpy shirt is considered "slutty," and in most places, she cannot go shirtless without breaking the law."

Vishnu does not have a shirt on. Rama does not wear a shirt. Sri Krishna probably not. Even historically speaking, did greeks or egyptians wear shirts?

For a guy not wearing a shirt is not considered slutty. It is a sign of masculinity.

Rest of the statement about women cannot go shirtless in public without breaking the law or wear skimmpy skirts ---- are you really saying this?

Iksvakave