Originally posted by: janhav
Yes but like I had said and even quoted a few sections of law last time during the discussion when someone started a similar topic, the law clearly defines sexual harassment as being of a 'woman' from a 'man'. So, men cannot approach the police to book a woman who's making such advances of disrespecting the choice of the man.
Consent is an operative word to decide sexual harassment. Unless it is explicitly conveyed, it is not sexual harassment. This time, Virat has actually done it -- not once but twice in clear words that he doesn't want any other private relationship with her except the one they have by the actual relation in the family.
For anyone who is interested, you could google Sections 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and read. Then there is section 377 but it is not used for a man's harassment by a woman but for man from man or woman from man, again. Essentially, law in India (which is based on British law) believes that women are biologically incapable of sexually harassing men simply because by nature, it is a man who can 'violate' a woman and not vice versa --so law believes, "woman can't rape".
I suppose this law was heavily loaded in favour of women deliberately. Since :-
1) There is a taboo against women reporting against sexual harassment. If there was a leeway for guilty men to shift the blame on women - no woman will ever report.
2) In our country, 95% victims would be women. So in order to protect more victims, law has accepted male victims as collateral damage.
It is vexing and complicated. How do we protect women without punishing innocent men?
I think if one goes to the root of the problem, it is society's veneration of women's chastity. It is one thing to be conservative, and totally another thing to be fake-moral, hypocritical and insensitive. If not for this nonsense, women will be more willing to file a complaint and lop-sided laws will not be needed.
I don't know if my viewpoint is correct.
Edited by nethraa_99 - 4 years ago
Arjun
3