Who is more creepy? Viaan or Eshan - Page 3

Originally posted by: Niranjan256

My comment is not in particular to the show but what I have learnt through workplace, newspapers etc. I don’t know much about all these things but based on workplace sensitisation classes which the Govt mandates to be done in every offices, I am certain that an employer asking employee for sex definitely comes under work place sexual harassment. That’s not done in his personal capacity because he is in office and personal or not he is the boss. Requesting or demanding sex comes under sexual harassment under Vishakha guidelines.

wrt to show even if Katha denied the offer it would come under sexual harassment because he demanded her to spent a night. I think even in the show they acknowledged and address it as sexual harassment. They did also talk about anti harassment cell though it was just lip service

There has to be limits wrt to Employee- Employer relationship. Even if Katha and Viaans role was reversed a boss can never have the rights to demand sexual favours from an employee. Even if it was for the nonsense test how difficult would it be for the person to continue working in the same office after knowing the boss wants to sleep with them? How’s work place going to be a safe environment. Viaan could have simply refused the loan. The minute he demanded her to spent a night with him it became sexual harassment at least for me

Ultimately Katha is going to end up with Viaan. So I don’t think any of this matters😂

Ya its true, the guidelines even the law is so strict. And it aims to protect women. Tbh, it has gone out of logical parameters also at some places just to assure women of safety and give them environment where they can initiate the complaint. Because unfortunately most of the women won't even make complaints.

Its very tricky. A couple in a live in relationship breakup after sometime due to xyz reasons. Then also a woman has right to file complaint against that guy. Now it doesn't seems fair but its true Have you seen movie sec 375. It talks about the same subject.

All men are not villains and all women are not great. We all have come across cases where woman has put false charges of harassment and dowry on guys and ruin their lives. There are all kinds of people.

As far as the show dealing with sexual harrasment part is concerned. Ya it was brought up for namesake. Viaan was too guilty, he wanted to receive somekind of punishment, he himself suggested it. Since he was ready to accept it as his mistake. My points were in regard of what if a actual law suit would have been filed and viaan would not be willing to loose the case. Any shrewd lawyer could have proved otherwise and win it.

But ya, there is no point in discussing when katha is going to end up with viaan.😆 after all only two persons involved in situation can decide how to deal with it. Otherwise it will be just ..jitne log utni baatein kind of situation.

Originally posted by: Bechain_Bulbul

Thanks for the reference of indian law. But please look at the bold part I have highlighted.

First of all, it was not within her rights to ask for loan. She had asked it from jeetu bhai earlier and he clearly told her that there are no such policy of giving loans to new employees.

Your answer lies in your words only.

Viaan followed option b) and denied the loan. He clearly said company has no policy for giving such kind of personal loans to employees.

So its not workplace harassment.

Then he said, company has no such policy but I can give the money to you personally. He didnt act in capacity of boss that time. He gave his personal money. So its personal deal between two consenting adults not some work place harassment.

He also clearly said that if your answer is no then its totally fine by me. Forget that I ever asked something like this. It will have no effect on your job. Then how it can be called as harassment?

Again see the highlight part in pink. Isnt this actually happened between them. Katha knew what she was getting herself into. She did it and got the money. Contract fulfilled.

@blue I think i remember the episode pretty well and I dont think viaan threatened something like that or did something like that.

@green I am sure every first timer sex worker or even a virgin girl wont do it enthusiastically but the thing is they decide to stay in it, they go through it and complete it. Katha hesitated first and viaan gave option to back out but then she very confidently replied that she hasn't come her to go. What would you make out of it? Not enthusiastically but she did it in her right mind without any coercion.

Sorry, when a monetary prospect is conditioned in exchange of sex outside of consensual sex work, it is very much coercion. Consent is always enthusiastic. Anything else is coercion. That is the very definition of consent. Kathaa and Viaan are tied by a legal contract that doesn't include sexual labour. Propostioning sex outside of that contract is abuse by legal definition.

Employees can very well apply for loans in their firms all over the world including India, fyi. The employer is within their rights to deny or approve that loan.

https://quikchex.in/salary-advances-loans-to-employees/

Originally posted by: Deltablues

Sorry, when a monetary prospect is conditioned in exchange of sex outside of consensual sex work, it is very much coercion. Consent is always enthusiastic. Anything else is coercion. That is the very definition of consent. Kathaa and Viaan are tied by a legal contract that doesn't include sexual labour. Propostioning sex outside of that contract is abuse by legal definition.

Employees can very well apply for loans in their firms all over the world including India, fyi. The employer is within their rights to deny or approve that loan.

https://quikchex.in/salary-advances-loans-to-employees/

Thanks for updating my knowledge regarding industrial laws.

Btw, the link you have provided, just check the topic of making policies regarding loans. Its clear that company can make eligibility criteria depending on duration of employee's tenure. Jeetu bhai said that katha is new employee and hence not eligible. Anyways, leave this debate for some other time.

Coming to the point, Ok, fine, if its so important, then I accept that what viaan proposed comes under strict and firm definition of law as harassment. However we all know how these kinds of laws favour women and are unreasonable at some places. I agree that it was necessary to assure women of justice but nobody can deny the fact many women also abused these laws due to their loop holes.

Based on whatever you have shared about the law. Viaan's act comes under the definition of law only and only because he made that proposal in office. What if he would have made it somewhere else outside the office premises?

Now, would it change anything? Would it make viaan a hardcore criminal who should be jailed and punished and judged only on the basis of that one mistake while neglecting all his good deeds and nature in general?

If yes, then if viaan is so toxic person then what is katha? What kind of woman agrees again to work under her abuser even after she has alternate job offer? Now isn't katha is toxic too? Then why all blames on viaan and sympathy with katha? If viaan is not ideal man then katha is also no ideal woman. If viaan is toxic then katha is shameless by that logic.

And if putting someone strictly into the definition of one law and labelling him as criminal is justified then katha broke the law of contract too. She lied to get job and committed breach of contract. We all in some point of time have broken traffic rules, travelled without ticket, flirted with someone from office, may be dated our senior/subordinate, watched po*n, threatened someone, may be indulged in physical fights etc. So does it make all of us as hardcore criminals and despicable persons?

Intentions makes all the difference. Even if you label viaan actions as criminal under the definition of law. Its been clearly established that it was not his intentions and he is not that kind of person who jumps at woman at first opportunity. And makers are no law expert, they cant deeply dive into any technical stream to execute one scene of the show. If it was the norm then whole tv industry would have shut down as our tv shows keep making a total mockery of serious subjects such as rape, law suits, adoption, surrogacy, bigamy, cheating, physical abuse, mental trauma etc. As compared to them, katha makers have atleast shown some sensitivity while dealing with it.

Anyways, the point is, viaan is no saint and he definitely committed a mistake but je is not some hardcore criminal. And judging him only on that basis, completely ignoring his repentance, his efforts to change will be unfair too.

Katha committed her share of mistakes too. She is no ideal woman either.

P.s. by the definition of law, any unwelcome physical advances can be called as sexual harrasment. So now by that logic, even ehsan is sexually harassing Katha because she is never enthusiastic on his arrival and suggestions of date/outings and she looks uncomfortable when he hugs her or touches her.

See, everything cant be put into legal definitions.

Originally posted by: Bechain_Bulbul

Thanks for updating my knowledge regarding industrial laws.

Btw, the link you have provided, just check the topic of making policies regarding loans. Its clear that company can make eligibility criteria depending on duration of employee's tenure. Jeetu bhai said that katha is new employee and hence not eligible. Anyways, leave this debate for some other time.

Coming to the point, Ok, fine, if its so important, then I accept that what viaan proposed comes under strict and firm definition of law as harassment. However we all know how these kinds of laws favour women and are unreasonable at some places. I agree that it was necessary to assure women of justice but nobody can deny the fact many women also abused these laws due to their loop holes.

Based on whatever you have shared about the law. Viaan's act comes under the definition of law only and only because he made that proposal in office. What if he would have made it somewhere else outside the office premises?

Now, would it change anything? Would it make viaan a hardcore criminal who should be jailed and punished and judged only on the basis of that one mistake while neglecting all his good deeds and nature in general?

If yes, then if viaan is so toxic person then what is katha? What kind of woman agrees again to work under her abuser even after she has alternate job offer? Now isn't katha is toxic too? Then why all blames on viaan and sympathy with katha? If viaan is not ideal man then katha is also no ideal woman. If viaan is toxic then katha is shameless by that logic.

And if putting someone strictly into the definition of one law and labelling him as criminal is justified then katha broke the law of contract too. She lied to get job and committed breach of contract. We all in some point of time have broken traffic rules, travelled without ticket, flirted with someone from office, may be dated our senior/subordinate, watched po*n, threatened someone, may be indulged in physical fights etc. So does it make all of us as hardcore criminals and despicable persons?

Intentions makes all the difference. Even if you label viaan actions as criminal under the definition of law. Its been clearly established that it was not his intentions and he is not that kind of person who jumps at woman at first opportunity. And makers are no law expert, they cant deeply dive into any technical stream to execute one scene of the show. If it was the norm then whole tv industry would have shut down as our tv shows keep making a total mockery of serious subjects such as rape, law suits, adoption, surrogacy, bigamy, cheating, physical abuse, mental trauma etc. As compared to them, katha makers have atleast shown some sensitivity while dealing with it.

Anyways, the point is, viaan is no saint and he definitely committed a mistake but je is not some hardcore criminal. And judging him only on that basis, completely ignoring his repentance, his efforts to change will be unfair too.

Katha committed her share of mistakes too. She is no ideal woman either.

P.s. by the definition of law, any unwelcome physical advances can be called as sexual harrasment. So now by that logic, even ehsan is sexually harassing Katha because she is never enthusiastic on his arrival and suggestions of date/outings and she looks uncomfortable when he hugs her or touches her.

See, everything cant be put into legal definitions.

I am sorry but Katha very much resigned and applied for a job at another firm. Viaan exerted his influence even there and manipulated to her to stay at his firm. The false equivalency is victim-blaming. Why should any person have to give up their job and financial security just because their rich boss is a lecher? How is the onus of character certificate on the victim rather than the abuser? Lol

Women don't have to be ideal to not be sexually abused lol.

P.S. My orginal comment which you quoted initially stated clearly that Kathaa or anyone in a similar situation should sue both Eshaan and Viaan irl.

There are lot of misconception about harassment in workplace. I will try to clarify as much as my knowledge (every year we have to go through session/videos about harassment as per latest Indian law in our company)

1. Anyone (male/female) can complain for harassment.

2. Usually in first complaint, accussed are given warning and he has to submit written letter that he will not made any further approach to complainer.

3. If not followed above, Accussed/Harasser can be shifted to another department which will not involve any work with complainer.

4. Further complain can result in harsh punishment like suspension without salary for some months and direct termination (termination usually happen when company have solid evidence and accussed is not an asset to company).

5. Legal approach usually happen in case when big names are involved and company is not taking any action.

Here Katha's demand that she will not directly work with Viaan is within guidelines.

I think Katha never accussed Viaan for ONS as she accepted his offer. If she hasn't then she can file for harassment. Katha's main concern is after trouble especially Dubai tour.

What Viaan did comes under sexual harassment. Man can't approach any woman sexually in office in under any circumstances. Man can propose (I love you) or mild flirt with woman collegue unless woman has given directly warning to that Man. But sexual offer is big NO.

Regarding loan, Katha becomes eligible for loan as she become permanent (doesn't matter if she has completed 1 day) but no company offer such big amount. Katha knows very well that such big amount can't be given by any company. She was trying her luck as she desperately needed money. What Viaan did is used this information to purchase her. He might not get chance to ask her for ONS if she doesn't need money.

Originally posted by: Deltablues

I am sorry but Katha very much resigned and applied for a job at another firm. Viaan exerted his influence even there and manipulated to her to stay at his firm. The false equivalency is victim-blaming. Why should any person have to give up their job and financial security just because their rich boss is a lecher? How is the onus of character certificate on the victim rather than the abuser? Lol

Women don't have to be ideal to not be sexually abused lol.

P.S. My orginal comment which you quoted initially stated clearly that Kathaa or anyone in a similar situation should sue both Eshaan and Viaan irl.

Ok, clearly this debate is not ending anywhere.

So I'll rather end it here.

Just to clarify, I dont appreciate viaan's offer and his earlier behaviour. And I am not into victim blaming or anything like that. I know how difficult it is for women to come out and work. At some point of time every woma has gone through some kind of abuse or harassment. So I support all those women who are putting efforts to be independent.

I tried to put my points as logically as possible without getting into the emotion of "lets blame the man" for everything.

But its ok if you don't agree. No two persons can think alike.

Nice talking to you.