Word sexual harassment and Extra Marital Affair - Page 6

Originally posted by: maahi11

But that’s what the agitation was all about, ppl hated her touching Virat even if she was helping, sexual harassment is different from harassment think about it I agree with everything and I am one who criticizes Pakhi foe her behavior and majorly have fun at her expense, but I am not supporting that she was ‘sexually harassing’

Harassment, invading peace, being obsessed I agreed everything but not sexual harassment, it’s majorly referred as more giving and taking, u give something and u take something, and again it different from molestation

Its not sexual harassment yet but its emotional harassment for sure. And her touching him when he was not conscious, caressing him when he was alone, not awake and when her intention is looking at him as a "lover" is inappropriate. In itv they cant show her touch him anywhere else !

Originally posted by: archanan14

Sorry to butt in again and keep posting long posts, but this is a topic very close to my heart (like I said, I am literally right creating training material on it with a printed copy of the Act on my lap as I type!). Sexual harassment is definitely a subjective topic AND experience, and the government handbook on prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace also says this. I work in HR and I have known of a case where a male colleague leaned over a female colleague who asked for help with a presentation - and she filed a sexual harassment complaint, which was allowed as per law, because it was her subjective experience that she felt her boundaries were crossed, regardless of his intent.

The reason I am talking about this is because, as a person working in this field, I genuinely think it's important for people (especially women) to understand that the law is not related to just physical contact or sex alone. Maybe the term "sexual harassment" is misleading. However, anything which makes a person uncomfortable or crosses a borderline is considered to be sexual harassment, the way it is defined in the country.

If the maid working in a house is uncomfortable with the way a man dresses around her, and / or is looking at her, she can make a sexual harassment complaint. It doesn't matter what the intent of the man was.

I am actually very very surprised that the actress was justifying to be honest. Everyone who works in a professional environment is expected to go through training on prevention of sexual harassment, which should cover these topics - again, as per law.

On a lighter note, I am trying to become an independent consultant in this area, and the lack of awareness on this gives me a lot of hope for my business in the future 😉

I know what you mean, like few years ago when I was working in India, there was a guy in my team who would touch people's shoulder while talking, irrespective of girl or guy. Guys brush it off and laugh behind his back (I hate this attitude) or girls would feel weird but not know how to handle it.

When couple of girls complained to me, I spoke to guy to make him understand his behavior. He was shocked that people thought like that about him. He said he never realized it as thats how he is at home, was in school and college and no one said anything to him. Though it was not his intent to harass anyone, his behavior and him being in their personal space made people uncomfortable.

His intention does not matter here as his touch and actions are invading personal space of the other person and at any point in time the other person's consent is always important even if its just matter of shoulder touch. He was visibly upset for many weeks, but started to maintain the physical distance needed.

We should not stop ourselves from telling the other person if we are uncomfortable or feel being harassed just due to the fear of offending the other person. I know few friends who said that someone at their workplace look at them wierd like they have wavering eyes and makes them feel harassed.

Some people harass knowingly, some unknowingly but the person being harassed will feel the same irrespective. People should acknowledge that and not brush it under the carpet like the leads of the show.

-------------------------------

They are leads and worse/ disgusting things have been shown so far, why to defend something now (& not at other times) and create unnecessary drama. They should have let it slide or accept that they are showing what is right vs wrong. If 70-80% people who watched the scene felt it, but show meant it differently, it only means that their acting/ direction and story telling is failing at some point.

Hated that the harasser and the actual loving wife were shown to be equal as part of the sad song for their loved one.

Originally posted by: KBBofRCIBC

Sexual Harassment

According to (Section 354A IPC), Sexual harassment is the:

• Unwelcome touching or other physical contact
• Asking or demanding sex or any other sexual activity
• Making remarks which are of a sexual nature
• Showing po*ngraphic material which may include videos, magazines, books etc.

There is a separate law on sexual harassment at workplaces - The Sexual Harassment of women at workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) Act and Rules 2013 . There are provisions in the main criminal law (the Indian Penal Code or IPC) which are different from the special law on sexual harassment:

• The IPC is not limited to sexual harassment at the workplace, but punishes such harassment done anywhere.
• The IPC makes it possible to file a criminal complaint if you have been sexually harassed, while the special law gives you the option of seeking civil remedies and damages, involving your office administration.

The punishment for the first three kinds of sexual harassment is three years as compared to the fourth type (making sexually coloured remarks) which is one year.

Peeping Toms punished

According to Section 354C IPC, it is a crime to look at or capture (say by means of a photograph or video) a woman going about her private acts, where she thinks that no one is watching her. This includes a woman:

• using a toilet, or
• who is undressed or in her underwear, or
• engaged in a sexual act.

The legal term for such acts is voyeurism.

Section 354 of the IPC criminalises any act by a person that assaults or uses criminal force against a woman with the intention or knowledge that it will outrage her modesty. Such an act is punishable with either simple or rigorous imprisonment of up to 2 years, or a fine, or both.

Indian courts have ruled that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex, ie: a woman possesses modesty by virtue of being a woman.

• Sexual Harassment

How is Sexual Harassment defined under the IPC?

Sexual harassment is defined under S. 354 A of the IPC as a man committing any of the following acts:

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing po*ngraphic against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,

This law covers a wide ambit of acts that constitute sexual harassment, including unwanted verbal or physical advances of any kind. This law is not limited by location at which the sexual harassment takes place, unlike the law to prevent sexual harassment at work places which is explained in a later section.

1. A man committing any of the following acts—
   1. physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
   2. a demand or request for sexual favours; or
   3. showing against the will of a woman; or
   4. making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment
   1. A man committing any of the following acts—
      1. physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
      2. a demand or request for sexual favours; or
      3. showing po*ngraphic against the will of a woman; or
      4. making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment1.
   2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
   3. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
3. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

the law says u need to ask for sexual favor and space in life, the examples u have were harassments (not sexual)

And if they went ahead it would be bigamy yet again not sexual harassment

Originally posted by: maahi11

lakshmi I agree with everything u say but I am talking about sexual harassment, and not harassment, what ever Pakhi does u know better I am not fan of it, Infact I am alwz up for how ridicule that behavior is

That’s why I mentioned sexual harassment, I am not saying she is right, what she is doing with sai, or ashwani or Virat himself is not correct but sexual harassment is different, I explicitly mentioned sexual harassment,

the definition of sexual harassment goes like this

Sexual harassment is a type of harassment involving the use of explicit or implicit sexual overtones, including the unwelcome and inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual harassment includes a range of actions from verbal transgressions to sexual abuse or assault.

Today many ppl pointed out sexual harassment and that why I mentioned only about touching Virat and nothing else,

According to (Section 354A IPC), Sexual harassment is the: Unwelcome touching or other physical contact. Asking or demanding sex or any other sexual activity. Making remarks which are of a sexual nature. Showing po*ngraphical material which may include videos, magazines, books etc.

I am not talking about harassment but only sexual harassment which foe me wasn’t there

IPC Section 354 has four parts. A, B, C and D. It includes 354D - Stalking

Any man who—

1. follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
2. monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
   commits the offence of stalking1;
   
   Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
   1. it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
   2. it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
   3. in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

So the point is that since law only recognizes a "man" as a stalker of a "woman", men don't have recourse to law when a woman does that. However, what Patralekha is doing to Virat after he has stated his lack of consent for the same amounts to "sexual harassment" under Section 354 of IPC if it were to be applied to men. Since it doesn't apply to men, anything that a woman does to a man unless she commits another serious cognizable crime (attempt to murder/murder/acid attack/assault/forgery etc) will be seen as "innocent". I replied to your original post to explain that what she is doing does amount to sexual harassment by all means and it is not necessary that she has to actually trip over him or drug him and molest him for it to become sexual harassment. The very fact that she pushes him to have the "personal interaction" of the kind that he does not want, amounts to "sexual harassment".

Originally posted by: maahi11

Sexual Harassment

According to (Section 354A IPC), Sexual harassment is the:

• Unwelcome touching or other physical contact
• Asking or demanding sex or any other sexual activity
• Making remarks which are of a sexual nature
• Showing po*ngraphic material which may include videos, magazines, books etc.

There is a separate law on sexual harassment at workplaces - The Sexual Harassment of women at workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) Act and Rules 2013 . There are provisions in the main criminal law (the Indian Penal Code or IPC) which are different from the special law on sexual harassment:

• The IPC is not limited to sexual harassment at the workplace, but punishes such harassment done anywhere.
• The IPC makes it possible to file a criminal complaint if you have been sexually harassed, while the special law gives you the option of seeking civil remedies and damages, involving your office administration.

The punishment for the first three kinds of sexual harassment is three years as compared to the fourth type (making sexually coloured remarks) which is one year.

Peeping Toms punished

According to Section 354C IPC, it is a crime to look at or capture (say by means of a photograph or video) a woman going about her private acts, where she thinks that no one is watching her. This includes a woman:

• using a toilet, or
• who is undressed or in her underwear, or
• engaged in a sexual act.

The legal term for such acts is voyeurism.

Section 354 of the IPC criminalises any act by a person that assaults or uses criminal force against a woman with the intention or knowledge that it will outrage her modesty. Such an act is punishable with either simple or rigorous imprisonment of up to 2 years, or a fine, or both.

Indian courts have ruled that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex, ie: a woman possesses modesty by virtue of being a woman.

• Sexual Harassment

How is Sexual Harassment defined under the IPC?

Sexual harassment is defined under S. 354 A of the IPC as a man committing any of the following acts:

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing po*ngraphic against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,

This law covers a wide ambit of acts that constitute sexual harassment, including unwanted verbal or physical advances of any kind. This law is not limited by location at which the sexual harassment takes place, unlike the law to prevent sexual harassment at work places which is explained in a later section.

1. A man committing any of the following acts—
   1. physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
   2. a demand or request for sexual favours; or
   3. showing against the will of a woman; or
   4. making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment
   1. A man committing any of the following acts—
      1. physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
      2. a demand or request for sexual favours; or
      3. showing po*ngraphic against the will of a woman; or
      4. making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment1.
   2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
   3. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
3. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

the law says u need to ask for sexual favor and space in life, the examples u have were harassments (not sexual)

And if they went ahead it would be bigamy yet again not sexual harassment

Section 354D of IPC is where PP's case fits.

Originally posted by: maahi11

lakshmi I agree with everything u say but I am talking about sexual harassment, and not harassment, what ever Pakhi does u know better I am not fan of it, Infact I am alwz up for how ridicule that behavior is

That’s why I mentioned sexual harassment, I am not saying she is right, what she is doing with sai, or ashwani or Virat himself is not correct but sexual harassment is different, I explicitly mentioned sexual harassment,

the definition of sexual harassment goes like this

Sexual harassment is a type of harassment involving the use of explicit or implicit sexual overtones, including the unwelcome and inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual harassment includes a range of actions from verbal transgressions to sexual abuse or assault.

Today many ppl pointed out sexual harassment and that why I mentioned only about touching Virat and nothing else,

According to (Section 354A IPC), Sexual harassment is the: Unwelcome touching or other physical contact. Asking or demanding sex or any other sexual activity. Making remarks which are of a sexual nature. Showing po*ngraphical material which may include videos, magazines, books etc.

I am not talking about harassment but only sexual harassment which foe me wasn’t there

Hmm, it is a little confusing when we talk about sexual harassment. Some feel it is and some don't. I didn't feel that it was a sexual harassment. But some of the posts like Janki's points stating the law says something else.

Even in what you have mentioned as sexual harassment we have

"The unwelcoming touching or physical contact"

Pakhi touching him when he was unconscious can be taken that way.

Or like I had mentioned in my post too, her helping him was also not welcomed by him and he couldn't do anything much because of his weak state. That wouldn't have arisen if she had never stayed back in the hospital when she knew that he wouldn't like it. She herself said that and also said that she will stay back and take care of him. It is a very sensitive subject.

What she did was out of care but why did it arise in first place? Why did she stay back? Why did she stop his wife from meeting him and toon that place herself? She has been imposing herself on him, she is an unwanted care taker for him, and somewhere all this care can then be seen an sexual harassment too.

I am made to think if it was a sexual harassment or not looking at the law stated and due to the above points that I have mentioned.

I know you too don't like Didi.

The reason for my post was the below paragraph in your post.

"yes time and again Virat is saying her explaining her that she needs to stop, but Pakhi is not stopping why is it only fault of Pakhi isn’t it too late and this is done by Virat himself, I am sure he must be regretting of giving Pakhi such liberty to intervene in his relationship, Pakhi kept on defaming sai, what has Virat done to stop her one or twice nothing, how ever mad u are at ur wife u dont let anyone say that she is a gold digger. "

Originally posted by: janhav

Section 354D of IPC is where PP's case fits.

Coloured remark is again a wide ambit to prove and the burden of proof is on the victim,

Anywhichways I am all up for harassment she is doing, invading personal space, asking for space in life comparing herself but that ambit will not cover sexual harassment which again is a wider ambit, coz that completely ask for sexual favors I will still stick to it

Originally posted by: maahi11

Coloured remark is again a wide ambit to prove and the burden of proof is on the victim,

Anywhichways I am all up for harassment she is doing, invading personal space, asking for space in life comparing herself but that ambit will not cover sexual harassment which again is a wider ambit, coz that completely ask for sexual favors I will still stick to it

354D - Stalking

Any man who—

1. follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
2. monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,commits the offence of stalking1;Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
   1. it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
   2. it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
   3. in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

So the point is that since law only recognizes a "man" as a stalker of a "woman", men don't have recourse to law when a woman does that. However, what Patralekha is doing to Virat after he has stated his lack of consent for the same amounts to "sexual harassment" under Section 354 D of IPC if it were to be applied to men. Since it doesn't apply to men, anything that a woman does to a man unless she commits another serious cognizable crime (attempt to murder/murder/acid attack/assault/forgery etc) will be seen as "innocent". I replied to your original post to explain that what she is doing does amount to sexual harassment by all means and it is not necessary that she has to actually trip over him or drug him and molest him for it to become sexual harassment. The very fact that she pushes him to have the "personal interaction" of the kind that he does not want, amounts to "sexual harassment".

If it was a man doing exactly what she is doing -- nothing more, nothing less -- he would be arrested under Section 354 D of IPC for "sexual harassment"

Originally posted by: maahi11

Quoting Janki's post..

So, Sexual Harassment, as defined by law does not only include the physical act. It also includes the intention of pursuing someone for a relationship, marriage etc without intending to "rape" (a woman, by law, because men are not seen as victims of sexual harassment in India). But one can't say that because someone touched unintentionally but is being stubborn about stalking/being in physical proximity to the person despite their refusal it is not sexual harassment.

Groping and touching inappropriately obviously constitute sexual harassment, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Even someone (a man) without having any intentions of being in a relationship (with a woman) just touching the person in an act of anger, in a physical fight etc is treated as "sexual harassment". Recently, there was a case where a male Minister of a state touched the collar of a woman doctor while arguing with her and he was accused of sexual harassment.

Here is what constitutes as "SEXUAL HARASSMENT" by law:
a) Physical contact and advances (so, you can’t touch someone inappropriately and think I am innocent because, you know, I didn’t rape)

b) A demand or request for sexual favours

c) Making sexually coloured remarks (so, no sexist jokes or misogynist humour)

d) Showing po-graphy

e) Any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.

Laws under Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 354 (A): A man committing any physical contact, advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or demanding or requesting sexual favours; or showing po-graphy against the will of a woman; or making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

Section 209: Obscene acts in any public place, singing obscene songs to the annoyance of others (Punishment: Imprisonment for a term of up to 3 months or fine, or both).

Section 509: Uttering any word or making any gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman. (Words like: item, mast, maal etc..)

So unfortunately men are not seen as victims because law thinks "women cannot rape"... the law is written assuming that the victim is a woman and the perpetrator is a man. But, if you apply these parameters in principle, then questions like:

"Meri life me tumhari kya jagah hai?"

"Sai mein aisa kya hai jo mujh me nahi hai?"

"Main tumhare bedroom mein dinner kyun nahi khaa sakti?"

"Tum apni biwi ke saath apne bedroom mein special moment mana sakte ho... toh ye moment special kyun nahi ho sakta?"
"Tumhari biwi hoti toh usse bhi jaane ko kehte?"
"Hamare guzre huye rishtey ko mat jhootlaao"
actually, amount to sexual harassment because they are pushing the person into a relationship he/she doesn't want -- as per the definitions laid down in law and not because we are replused by the woman in the story.

Touching Virat while he was asleep when he doesnt like her touch is wrong and physical harassment.

What i observed after sairat sepration rock dadi metalty and emtionly torturing virat .And her touching increases is day by day when she know virat is not comfortable with it , and she forcing him give her sai position in his life when virat is in pain seprating from sai ,she want special moments with him I don't what its called but for me its emtional harassment

Coming to ema I am confused here because she married samrat stay close to virat only ,I don't know she want it or not