Sometimes women do not have a case

@vandana7 (98826)
India
October 10, 2018 10:21am CST
There has been a lot of resentment against the men and their sexual bad behavior. In India, the latest is Tanushree accusing Nana Patekar. Naturally, I do not know the facts of the case. Apparently, Mr. Patekar held her hand to teach her how to dance and touched her inappropriately. Yes, it is not Mr. Patekar's job and is not expected of him. He should not have done it. And IF HE HAS TOUCHED HER INAPPROPRIATELY, HE IS WRONG. But I feel, in this case, Tanushree did not take the right step in time. I am not saying 10 odd years ago, she should have come out with it. No...back then people would not have supported her and made her feel ashamed of herself. Now, people are more understanding what with increased number of crimes against women. So that would not be the question I would raise. But I would certainly ask her, Madam, the dress that you wore in that sequence with choreographer, would you have traveled in Buses or local trains in that dress? Do you wear it at beaches? What about malls? What about dancing...do you dance like that in beaches, or malls or bars? If not, why not? You have a fan following they would copy your style. Why is it that they do not copy this style of yours? Is it because you expect some misbehavior in such dress and with such dances? If so, why did you not expect similar behavior in work sphere? If somebody had bottom pinched you in bus or train, you would not have been able to identify him. Would you still have been under depression? The time to say no was when dress was shown. The time to say no was when choreographer was showing awkward movement. Parents need to tell children what can be ok, and what is not. They want to be broad minded with some part, and not broad minded with other part, it does not work. I am not saying wear traditional clothes and be covered from head to toe. I am saying wear practical things, that suit you, and keep you protected from climate as well as help you in emergencies to run as fast as you can, or kick easily. I also do not agree with the statement that there is nothing wrong with the clothes, it is something wrong with the thinking. That supports fashion designers. If the clothes are not designed for practical usage, time we made fashion designers feel stupid. If we compare how men dress and how women dress, invariably it is women who are trying to expose some part of their bodies. Why is it so? If we are equals, we are at equal risk, right? If we choose to wear clothes that titillate others, how can we blame them? Our intentions were naughty! Time up for the bluff. Women are not innocent in all cases. Ignorant and not mature, I will agree. But innocent... if declared innocent in this case, I would understand why men are resenting women in this country. Let us not make it a gender war.
4 people like this
4 responses
@wolfgirl569 (95134)
• Marion, Ohio
10 Oct 18
I feel a woman or man can wear as little or as much as they want. No will always mean no. If the other person cannot respect that then they have the problem. Why are women expected to hide behind layers of clothes while men can go shirtless with no second thought given?
4 people like this
@vandana7 (98826)
• India
10 Oct 18
How many men have you seen moving shirtless each day. Or half clad. Maximum they do is wear sleeveless t shirts, and shorts.. the song in question had almost harem like dress. She most certainly does not wear such clothing in her day to day life. Then why wear it for the film. If she is ok with it in day to day life, there is no issue. She knows what sort of treatment is possible with such attire outside the studio. In any event, there is no clear cut evidence that he touched her inappropriately.
In the video, Tanushree Dutta can be seen leaving the sets as Nana Patekar enters.
1 person likes this
@ptrikha_2 (45467)
• India
10 Oct 18
@vandana7 one also needs to question why can't a movie plot be strong enough to have an item song thrown in. Yet bad and unacceptable behavior is unacceptable. If Nana Patekar is indeed guilty, he ought to be punished. But I am wondering if some police case has been lodged by Tanushree now?
1 person likes this
@ptrikha_2 (45467)
• India
11 Oct 18
@vandana7 well I will have to read more closely about the case. And today I read about a case where an anonymous female accused Lasith Malinga of harassment.
1 person likes this
@NormanDarlo (1071)
• Ireland
10 Oct 18
In my opinion, regardless of what a woman is wearing, it is never permissible to touch her inappropriately against her will, nor can her appearance or behaviour in any way mitigate a man's actions if they are against her will. If I understand the context here correctly, the accuser was wearing a revealing outfit solely for the purpose of making a film. Actors can be asked to do and wear all sorts of outlandish things for a film, but everyone knows it is 'pretend' so I don't see how her attire can provide any rationale, however distorted, for the alleged inappropriate behaviour of her choreographer, who was, after all, in a position of trust. I know and understand that we cannot ignore the context of culture, and I know that some behaviours that are acceptable in the west are considered wholly wrong in India. But still, I believe some principles are absolute, rather than relative.
2 people like this
@ptrikha_2 (45467)
• India
11 Oct 18
@vandana7 I wonder if Nana is innocent in this case, why he is not apologizing?
1 person likes this
@jstory07 (134456)
• Roseburg, Oregon
15 Oct 18
No is no and when a women says no the nan should stop no matter what.
1 person likes this
@Ladanger (14582)
• United States
10 Oct 18
Some women love to look sexy then get disrespected. I know where you are coming from.
2 people like this
@vandana7 (98826)
• India
15 Oct 18
Thank you for understanding. What are they trying to prove, look I am going to titillate you but you gotta be titillated and yet not be able to anything and I gotta know that I succeeded in titillating you. Weird. Unfortunately, the victims can be those who did not titillate simply because the guy was not able to do anything with the coquette.
1 person likes this