The Kerala High Court on Monday raised pertinent questions regarding how society perceives and treats radically differently the nude or semi-naked male and female bodies. [XXX vs State of Kerala] Judge Kauser Edappagath pointed out that nudity should not automatically be considered sexual but must be viewed in the right context. “Nude should not be associated with sex. Just seeing a woman’s naked upper body should not be considered sexually suggestive by default. Similarly, depicting a woman’s nude body is not. may in itself be considered obscene, indecent or obscene. the same can only be identified as such in its context,” the court said. The sole judge pointed out that nude female sculptures in temples and other public spaces are considered art or even sacred. He also addressed the incitement of Kerala women against the discriminatory breast tax or mulakkaram in British-ruled India, which involved a woman named Nangeli having her breasts removed in protest.
“It’s wrong to categorize nudity as fundamentally obscene or even vulgar or immoral. This is a state where women from some of the lower classes used to fight for the right to cover their breasts. We have murals, statues and artworks of deities displayed in a semicircle in ancient temples running across the country. Nude sculptures and paintings offered for free in public spaces are considered art, even sacred. Although idols of all goddesses are topless, when praying in the temple, the feeling is not sexual provocation but divine,” the court said in its ruling. The court rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of treating the naked male body to a different standard than the female body.
“Male body painting is an accepted tradition during the ‘Pulikali’ festivals in Thrissur, Kerala. When ‘Theyyam’ and other rituals are performed at the temple, the painting is done on the body. body of male artists. The male body is shown as abs, biceps, etc. We often see men walking around without a shirt. But these acts should never be considered obscene or indecent,” the court commented. Furthermore, it has been speculated that people who consider the female body inherently obscene do so because they are accustomed to seeing it as a mere object of desire.“If the male half-naked body is considered normal and asexual, the female body is not treated equally. Some people are used to seeing the body as naked. Nudity is either too sexually suggestive or simply an object of lust.Another aspect of the view of female nudity is that female nudity is taboo because of the female body. Female nudity is used for erotic purposes only.The court also noted that although women’s physical autonomy is often restricted in patriarchal societies, similar differences may be observed in terms of physical autonomy.“Body autonomy, in which an individual is free to choose his or her body, is a natural right and part of freedom. Everyone has autonomy over their body and there is no gender choice. However, this right is often restricted or denied to women. While male bodily autonomy is rarely questioned, female bodily autonomy and self-determination are often threatened within patriarchal structures. Women are bullied, discriminated against, isolated and abused to make decisions about their bodies and lives.”
The male half-naked body is considered normal and sexless, but the female body is not treated as such. You cannot commit crimes or prosecute people because of the morality of society or the feelings of some people. – High Court of Kerala The Court’s comments came in a ruling that dropped a case against a women’s rights activist for crimes punishable under different provisions of the Child Protection from Crime Act. Sex (POCSO). The case was filed against her after she posted a video on her social media platforms showing her two underage children, a 14-year-old boy and an 8-year-old girl. age, painted on his half-naked torso. The court viewed the video at the public hearing and noted that it was not a sexual gratification act with sexual purposes, but a video with a message opposing the disregard for the female body. The court noted that the plaintiff had put out a detailed message below her video in which she claimed that the nude body was a response to a society of sexual control and frustration. According to the description below the video, no child who grows up seeing his mother’s body and nude image can abuse another woman’s body.
Therefore, the video in question cannot be described as an actual or simulated sexual act, nor can it be said that the same is done for the purpose of sexual gratification or with any sexual intent. education, the Court said in dismissing the case. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is vulgarity. – High Court of Kerala
Sandeep Pareek, B.A LL. B 2ND SEM , RNB Global University
0 Comments