Article 377 will socieis brain drain advantageous for developing economicsgroup discussion
Answers
Answered by
0
My opinion - It is one of those weird laws the Victorian Christian moral police imposed on India, and then conservative Indians made it their own (like we tend to do with just 'bout anything - good or bad. Force it on us long enough, and it is ours). It had no business being legislated in the first place, and has no business being on the books today.
That was the short version. Now for the longer explanation of why I hold that opinion.
I think it should be struck from the book all together, and the rape laws made gender neutral and consent-centric (at the same time I also think the judiciary has no business legislating, so the judgement went as far as it could). What is “natural” has nothing to do with what is good for civilization, and should or shouldn't be legal.
Medicine, Agriculture, Clothing, Housing - all man-made. Unnatural. Good, Right and Legal. Hell, even moral.
Rape? Nature made. Perfectly natural (just look at the animal world). Bad, Wrong and Illegal. Immoral too.
As long as all parties involved are capable of providing informed consent, and have done so without fear or favor, no one else has any business policing what they get up to.
Oral sex? Anal sex? Threesomes? Orgies? Asphyxiation kink? Have at it. I don't care, I have no right to care, and neither does the law, as long as, consent.
On the other hand,
Bestiality? It is rape, because an animal is not capable of providing informed consent. Irrespective of the gender (or number) of the animal or human involved.
A person above the age of consent having sex with a person under the age of consent? (Which I believe should be repealed to 14 btw) It is rape. By very definition people under age of consent are not capable of providing informed consent. Irrespective of the gender or number of individuals involved in the act.
A spouse forcing their spouse to have sex? Rape. Marriage is not equivalent to selling oneself in to sexual slavery. Irrespective of the gender or number of the spouses involved in the act.
An adult having sex with a person below 18? Rape. Because a child lives under protection of adults and can't consent without fear or favor. Irrespective of the gender or number of either party.
Man forcing anal sex on another man? Woman forcing oral sex on a man? Woman forcing asphyxiation link on another woman? Rape. Rape laws have no business defining sex as penis-in-vagina. It should cover any and all forms of non-consensual sexual intercourse.
See? No need to invoke “nature” (because inspite of what a lot of people say, nature is neither kind nor moral) - #LogicIsEnough
And to all those crying “such sexual acts runs afoul of our culture” - Abrahamic Religion enforced culture? Probably. But most traditions are terrible anyway and have no business anywhere except in ancient history.
Hindu culture? Have you ever visited a temple built before the British brought their moral policing to our shores? My mom and I have. We are both interested in sculptures, so we talk. Here's the gist of our most recent conversation, in a temple near Mysore, Karnataka. It is a temple from the Hoysala Dynasty, and it is a “live temple”, meaning regular worship happens there till today, unbroken for centuries.
Mom: Oh, this row is dedicated to wars! See, elephants in one panel, chariots in the other, cavalry in the next …
Me: *Excited* Oh yeah, and this one's entertainment. Tablas in one panel, dancing in the next, some other musical instrument there and * oh, okay, oral sex. Let's skip the panel. Oh dear, is that a threesome with three women? How does that posture even work? Oh, concentrate. Next panel. Oh good lord! Who even thought of that? Ok, you know what, this conversation is over *
Mom: Yeah, very detailed work on the dancer's garments. Let's look at those walls over there shall we?
Me: * I am never discussing temple architecture again *
... Thanks...
plz mark me as brainliest if it'll helpful to you
That was the short version. Now for the longer explanation of why I hold that opinion.
I think it should be struck from the book all together, and the rape laws made gender neutral and consent-centric (at the same time I also think the judiciary has no business legislating, so the judgement went as far as it could). What is “natural” has nothing to do with what is good for civilization, and should or shouldn't be legal.
Medicine, Agriculture, Clothing, Housing - all man-made. Unnatural. Good, Right and Legal. Hell, even moral.
Rape? Nature made. Perfectly natural (just look at the animal world). Bad, Wrong and Illegal. Immoral too.
As long as all parties involved are capable of providing informed consent, and have done so without fear or favor, no one else has any business policing what they get up to.
Oral sex? Anal sex? Threesomes? Orgies? Asphyxiation kink? Have at it. I don't care, I have no right to care, and neither does the law, as long as, consent.
On the other hand,
Bestiality? It is rape, because an animal is not capable of providing informed consent. Irrespective of the gender (or number) of the animal or human involved.
A person above the age of consent having sex with a person under the age of consent? (Which I believe should be repealed to 14 btw) It is rape. By very definition people under age of consent are not capable of providing informed consent. Irrespective of the gender or number of individuals involved in the act.
A spouse forcing their spouse to have sex? Rape. Marriage is not equivalent to selling oneself in to sexual slavery. Irrespective of the gender or number of the spouses involved in the act.
An adult having sex with a person below 18? Rape. Because a child lives under protection of adults and can't consent without fear or favor. Irrespective of the gender or number of either party.
Man forcing anal sex on another man? Woman forcing oral sex on a man? Woman forcing asphyxiation link on another woman? Rape. Rape laws have no business defining sex as penis-in-vagina. It should cover any and all forms of non-consensual sexual intercourse.
See? No need to invoke “nature” (because inspite of what a lot of people say, nature is neither kind nor moral) - #LogicIsEnough
And to all those crying “such sexual acts runs afoul of our culture” - Abrahamic Religion enforced culture? Probably. But most traditions are terrible anyway and have no business anywhere except in ancient history.
Hindu culture? Have you ever visited a temple built before the British brought their moral policing to our shores? My mom and I have. We are both interested in sculptures, so we talk. Here's the gist of our most recent conversation, in a temple near Mysore, Karnataka. It is a temple from the Hoysala Dynasty, and it is a “live temple”, meaning regular worship happens there till today, unbroken for centuries.
Mom: Oh, this row is dedicated to wars! See, elephants in one panel, chariots in the other, cavalry in the next …
Me: *Excited* Oh yeah, and this one's entertainment. Tablas in one panel, dancing in the next, some other musical instrument there and * oh, okay, oral sex. Let's skip the panel. Oh dear, is that a threesome with three women? How does that posture even work? Oh, concentrate. Next panel. Oh good lord! Who even thought of that? Ok, you know what, this conversation is over *
Mom: Yeah, very detailed work on the dancer's garments. Let's look at those walls over there shall we?
Me: * I am never discussing temple architecture again *
... Thanks...
plz mark me as brainliest if it'll helpful to you
Similar questions