Moral Policing-'Kiss of Love'-Your Thoughts ?? - Page 12

Originally posted by: charminggenie

How do you set about finding the irrevocable proof for a topic which is opinion-based, there is no such thing as absolute. In most cases , the rules of the land are set in conformation with the majority , which in few cases drastically undermine the minority.

I don't see anything wrong if the state says, look do whatever you want with whoever you want but please keep away from few public areas. Thank You.

And people also have a right to protest rulings that they feel unjust or unfair. Individual freedom vs. State is always an ongoing battle.

Also I think "harm" is something that can be proven.

I have a very broad view of individual freedom. I feel everything is under individual freedom unless it limits other people's freedoms or harms them.

Narrowing it down to relationships. I believe all relationships should have a certain degree of freedom to display affections and spontaneity. Everyone displays public affections, I don't see why romantic couples should be restricted as long as they don't make out or have sex.

Personally, I'd rather have people making out than watch overprotective moms fuss over their grownup sons. 😆

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

@Genie

I have a very broad view of individual freedom. I feel everything is under individual freedom unless it limits other people's freedoms or harms them.

Narrowing it down to relationships. I believe all relationships should have a certain degree of freedom to display affections and spontaneity. Everyone displays public affections, I don't see why romantic couples should be restricted as long as they don't make out or have sex.

Personally, I'd rather have people making out than watch overprotective moms fuss over their grownup sons. 😆

@Genie

Yes the state has the onus to draw the middle line to the best of their judgment. This middle line shouldn't be majority rules, but what is fair.

I understand the laws in place are the state's best judgment on an issue. The state isn't however, isn't perfect or infallible. The beauty of democracy is that things are organic. People can exert influence to shape and change things.

There was a time in India when the word "sexy" was considered offensive to public sensibilities and was legally censored in the song "Sexy Sexy mujhe log bole". Now the word "sexy" is used more commonly with no censorship.

I think to lock lips is harmless expression of affection that need not be restricted or limited. That is why I support the ones who are protesting against the laws. I think public sensibilities need to compromise or evolve on this aspect because it doesn't go beyond personal discomfort. I don't think laws should be based on personal discomfort. The rationale should be whether something is detrimental to society or not. Still a subjective matter, but a more reasonable one than personal discomfort.

Yes, kids can be a buzz kill. But I think unless you are an exhibitionist who gets off on the thrill, absolutely no one wants to share their intimate moments or display it for others. When you are in a relationship there is difference between private intimate moments and tender affectionate moments you don't mind sharing. They are more like warm fuzzies rather than sexual.

Yes, India does have a problem with couples hanging out in secluded areas of parks or other such places to make out and go beyond just warm fuzzy moments and share more intimate moments. It is problematic because this level of intimacy is too much and bothersome. It is not suitable for kids and it prevents joggers, walkers and strollers from being able to comfortable enjoy public facilities. I understand cracking down on these. Even in countries where PDA is acceptable you get kicked out of restaurants or malls or parks for making out.

I think drawing lines between intimacy and affection and accepting affections in the public sphere is harmless to society. Although I guess it is difficult to draw the distinctions when traditional perceptions of relationships are monochromatic. Love is either passionate or companionate. When you see romantic love as purely passionate, it is hard to imagine how you could express affections that are not as passionate. When you see marriages as companionate, it is hard to imagine why you would publicly express something that is perceived as passionate.