Cavalli Underwear Offends

[softgrey]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Jun 11th, 2004 - 3:20 pm
Well I can't say that writing about the proselytysing rhetoric of the authoritarian patriarchy on my RE exam today did my Karma much good...

But no stealing my underwear you two! Get your own sacreligous Elle McPherson hipsters...

Hypothetical situation: I am an adulterer...I find the Bible offensive because it calls me a sinner...do I have a right to have the Bible taken off the shelves because it insults me?

is that an analogy?....




.................

 

[Spike413]

Originally posted by PrinceOfCats@Jun 11th, 2004 - 3:20 pm
Well I can't say that writing about the proselytysing rhetoric of the authoritarian patriarchy on my RE exam today did my Karma much good...

But no stealing my underwear you two! Get your own sacreligous Elle McPherson hipsters...

Hypothetical situation: I am an adulterer...I find the Bible offensive because it calls me a sinner...do I have a right to have the Bible taken off the shelves because it insults me?

Of course not, but you do have the right to completely ignore the Bible and it's teachings, which is basically what's going on with these underwear. The Hindus have every right to feel offended but they have no right to expect anybody to appologize for putting religious symbols on undies.....I love the concept of artistic liscense. B)

And Iwant those hipsters soooo badly!!!!! I'd love to walk up to my local Bible hugger wearing only those and a giant pride flag!

 

[Atelier]

Back in 1999 the American Hindus Against Defamation (AHAD) protested an episode of "Xena Warrior Princess" for depicting Lord Krishna. The production studio--wanting to avoid problems--pulled the episode. But it's very similar to this thread. Here's what a respected academic had to say about it:

April 17, 1999: Dr. Ravi Arvind Palat responds to the controversy

A Furor Over Xena
by Dr Ravi Arvind Palat

Dr. Palat is a professor in sociology for Asian Studies at Auckland University (NZ) and is an expert on Hindu religion and lore. He was the consultant for the Xena episode "The Way"

Protests by some Hindu groups against an episode in the Xena television series bears an unmistakable resemblance to protests in India last year against Ms. Deepa Mehta's film, Fire. That widely-acclaimed film which screened here during last winter's International Film Festival portrayed two sisters-in-law, Radha and Sita, finding solace in each other's arms. Claiming that lesbianism is an affront to Hindu sensibilities, members of Shiv Sena - the same group that dug up the pitch at the Ferozeshah Kotla stadium in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent an India-Pakistan cricket test match - burnt down two theatres screening the film in New Delhi and Mumbai (formerly Bombay).

Now, the New Zealand School of Meditation, the Wellington Indian Association and the World Vaishnava Association allege that the episode, The Way, suggests that Lord Krishna blesses Xena's lesbian relationship. Notably, none of the protesting Hindu groups in this country have seen the episode.

Late last week, when protests first surfaced in advance to the episode being shown on North American TV, the producers of Xena sent me a video of the episode. Comparisons with Fire are surely unjust. While Fire was a powerful indictment of patriarchal society, The Way is mindless televison. But it did not contain even the slightest hint of sexual relationships of any kind, let alone a lesbian one.

But what if it had? In the wake of the ire over Fire, the Indian journalist, Mukund Padmanabhan, wrote in The Hindu newspaper "A civilisation which has produced Khajuraho and the Kamasutra and nurtured competing schools of philosophical thought cannot be so easily shocked by a Sapphic suggestion, a blasphemous thought or a politically deviant idea."

Hinduism's vitality stems from it not being a doctrinairy religion. By their protests, these self-appointed defenders of the faith are themselves undermining the very factors that make Hinduism unique. Unlike Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, Hinduism has no monotheistic God and hence no sacred book of revelations. While there are priests aplenty, there is no overarching ecclesiastical organisation. The history of Hinduism is therefore not pockmarked by theological debates on orthodoxy and heresy or by burning the losers on crosses.

Unlike other religious, Hinduism does not have a linear history with sects branching off from an original organisational system as in emergence of Protestant churches from Catholicism. It is more akin to a mosaic of distinct beliefs, deities, values, and cults which juxtapose or distance themselves from others as the eminent historian Professor Romila Thapar has demonstrated. There was no scope for inquisition, since dissidents simply founded a new sect.

The heterogeneity of India, with a population larger than Europe and Russia combined, and home to 16 major languages and over 22,000 dialects, has always precluded the creation of a single, homogenous Hindu community. Popular observances have always been accorded priority over lifeless texts.

When new deities could be created, like Santoshi Ma in the 1980s, and linked genealogically to existing ones, allegations that the producers of Xena fictionalised Lord Krishna rings hollow. The Ramnami sect in central India removes passages considered offensive to their caste from the Ramayana. At the other end of the social spectrum, usurping rulers and landlords routinely manipulated Hindu epics for purposes of political legitimation.

Every year, the film industry churns out hundreds of movies on a religious theme, each of which is a fictionalization since there are no texts that do not have variants according to caste and sect. The very notion of an unchanging religious text is foreign to Hinduism.

The flexibility of the theological framework has meant that Hinduism offers a greater scope to the privatization of religion than any other faith. Religion is almost a private matter, and even theism is no requirement. Renunciation was the most common form and was often used as a cover for private forms of worship and to the making of a counter-culture.

If homosexuality is not a prominent theme in this counter-culture, it is counter-intuitive to presume that Indians, all 960 million of them, are uniquely different from the rest of humanity. Gays and lesbians are found in every cultural group and religious affiliation. To say that lesbianism is contrary to the Vedas is sillier than fundamentalist Christian ministers quoting the scripture at the Hero Parade precisely because religious texts do not have the same function in Hinduism as they have in other religions.

By insisting that lesbianism is deviant behavior, the self-appointed guardians of the Hindu faith are subverting the very meaning of being Hindu.

Hindu bigotry is an oxymoron precisely because it is the vitality and the exuberance of popular manifestations of religious belief rather than adherence to doctrinaire religious notions that accounts for Hinduisms vibrancy. India is possibly the only large area conquered by Muslims rulers where the overwhelming majority of the population did not accept the religion of their overlords.

The narrow construction of Hinduism by the fundamentalists robs it of its distinctive features and makes it more like the Semitic religions. The fundamentalists are a greater threat to the religion than the makers of Xena. The real abomination is the caste system and the violence done to women, not supposed portrayals of lesbianism!

Copyright of the article 'Furor over Xena' belongs to Dr. Ravi Arvind Palat. This article may be freely posted on non-commercial sites with the copyright notice."

In other words, even organizations like the AHAD, Hindu Human Rights or the National Council of Hindu Temples don't speak for all Hindus. That's like generalizing Americans were offended by seeing J. Jackson's nipple. Most of that moral outrage came from already-established interest groups that have declared themselves watchdogs--not from the apathetic majority.

I'm going to write Cavalli a letter of support right now!

 

[ahhGucci]

Originally posted by Spike413@Jun 11th, 2004 - 9:33 pm
The Hindus have every right to feel offended but they have no right to expect anybody to appologize for putting religious symbols on undies.....I love the concept of artistic liscense. B)

Dont make me call your mother and say your talking about religion and politics again .
Softgrey told me not to say anything, but, arrrgh, please don't make up rights for people, of course they have the right to ask for an apology where they think its due.

 

[softgrey]

thanks for keeping it civil gucci...

atelier...that was a very informative article...thank you for sharing...i very much appreciated hearing that point of view...

 

[Spike413]

Originally posted by ahhGucci+Jun 11th, 2004 - 3:46 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ahhGucci @ Jun 11th, 2004 - 3:46 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Spike413@Jun 11th, 2004 - 9:33 pm
The Hindus have every right to feel offended but they have no right to expect anybody to appologize for putting religious symbols on undies.....I love the concept of artistic liscense. B)

Dont make me call your mother and say your talking about religion and politics again .
Softgrey told me not to say anything, but, arrrgh, please don't make up rights for people, of course they have the right to ask for an apology where they think its due. [/b][/quote]
Please don't tell mother!!!!

 

[pumpum]

OK, I'm a long-time lurker on the boards heart: tFS!). As an American of Indian descent, I actually feel compelled to reply to this thread. I generally consider myself unflappable/ unshockable, but I actually was a little shocked and offended at the picture of the Cavalli underwear posted. Mind you, while I am familiar with Hindu practice/ belief, I myself am an atheist. But let me try to depict the "average Hindu's" point of view, especially the power of imagery in Hinduism.

In popular Hinduism (as opposed to the higher philosophy of the Vedas, etc), the image of the deity is not a SYMBOL of the deity. The image IS the deity itself (I know this is probably hard to grasp from the Western monostheistic point of view). The image is worthy of reverence and worship. A Hindu temple is usually constituted of several images of gods, many the same as those on the Cavalli bikini. Hindus worship these images; they humble themselves in front of these images. They remove their shoes to the images and prostrate themselves on the floor to the images as a sign of their humility. It's not "just holy art." This is a very visceral and important thing in the life of a Hindu.

My feelings:
(1) These underwear strike me as crass commercial exploitation of religious imagery that is very meaningful to a billion people
(2) A devout Hindu may feel offended at the notion that they should worship and humble themselves to a holy image plastered on a woman's body. S/he may also feel that the wearer is not humble and is possibly being disrespectful to Hinduism.
(3) I fully support freedom of expression, but what exactly are these underwear expressing? The images are clearly not the designer's work (borrowed from some Indian artist, surely). Is the message "I too sexy for my Devi underwear" or something equally trite? Censorship is of course bad, but sometimes it worthwhile to examine the means and the ends when it comes to what is being expressed (which I guess is what this thread is doing )

Sorry for the preachy post (steps down from soapbox)
-pumpum

 

[softgrey]

Originally posted by pumpum@Jun 11th, 2004 - 6:56 pm
OK, I'm a long-time lurker on the boards heart: tFS!). As an American of Indian descent, I actually feel compelled to reply to this thread. I generally consider myself unflappable/ unshockable, but I actually was a little shocked and offended at the picture of the Cavalli underwear posted. Mind you, while I am familiar with Hindu practice/ belief, I myself am an atheist. But let me try to depict the "average Hindu's" point of view, especially the power of imagery in Hinduism.

In popular Hinduism (as opposed to the higher philosophy of the Vedas, etc), the image of the deity is not a SYMBOL of the deity. The image IS the deity itself (I know this is probably hard to grasp from the Western monostheistic point of view). The image is worthy of reverence and worship. A Hindu temple is usually constituted of several images of gods, many the same as those on the Cavalli bikini. Hindus worship these images; they humble themselves in front of these images. They remove their shoes to the images and prostrate themselves on the floor to the images as a sign of their humility. It's not "just holy art." This is a very visceral and important thing in the life of a Hindu.

My feelings:
(1) These underwear strike me as crass commercial exploitation of religious imagery that is very meaningful to a billion people
(2) A devout Hindu may feel offended at the notion that they should worship and humble themselves to a holy image plastered on a woman's body. S/he may also feel that the wearer is not humble and is possibly being disrespectful to Hinduism.
(3) I fully support freedom of expression, but what exactly are these underwear expressing? The images are clearly not the designer's work (borrowed from some Indian artist, surely). Is the message "I too sexy for my Devi underwear" or something equally trite? Censorship is of course bad, but sometimes it worthwhile to examine the means and the ends when it comes to what is being expressed (which I guess is what this thread is doing )

Sorry for the preachy post (steps down from soapbox)
-pumpum

well well well...lookee here...hi there pum pum...long time lurker eh?...

well ...ii think that was an excellent post...that gave a completely new perspective to the situation...and now that i think about it...i do remember learning that the hindus believe the image IS the deity...you're right though...it's hard to get my head around that...so that's probably why i didn't remember right away...hmmm...that complicates things doesn't it?...

religion is soooo complicated...i guess that's why people shy away from the topic...there are no easy answers...

see the thing is...to me...it's just a picture...and even knowing that someone else thinks it's something else...to me it will always and forever be just a picture...so who has priority?...me or someone else...that's what i mean by the fact that it seems that peoples' religious beliefs override the wishes of non-believers...there are lots of people in this world...and the vast majority of them are not hindu...so in this case a minority overrules the majority...that just doesn't seem fair to me...i can understand why they would not like the situation...but by imposing their belief system on others...i still think that people's rights are being violated...

and it's really not about the panties...it's about the principle...i agree that the panties are not really worth having a major battle over...but i still feel that my individual rights have been violated by by a small group of people who have personal and religious beliefs that the majority of the world doesn't share ...

but i guess people accept these little violations of their rights in order to avoid confrontation and make things easier on a day to day basis ...i just hope those same people stand up and fight when something more important comes along...because it's all too easy to let things slide...



...............................

 

[ahhGucci]

Thankyou very much pumpum. Welcome to the fashionspot,

 

[ignitioned32]

Originally posted by pumpum+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pumpum)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I fully support freedom of expression, but what exactly are these underwear expressing? The images are clearly not the designer's work (borrowed from some Indian artist, surely). Is the message "I too sexy for my Devi underwear" or something equally trite? Censorship is of course bad, but sometimes it worthwhile to examine the means and the ends when it comes to what is being expressed (which I guess is what this thread is doing )[/b]

Exactly. I too support freedom of expression, but this is just useless. What are they trying to say? It's basically, as you said, a crass commercial exploitation of religious imagery. The fact that these people don't know anything about it and just using it to make a buck just annoys. Pop culture

<!--QuoteBegin-stylegurrl
I think that designers are too willing to pillage other cultures for ideas and often do not respect, or even know much about, the culture whose symbols they are making use of. Perhaps with a little cultural sensitivity training, these types of situations could be avoided in the future. [/quote]

 

[clay]

No easy answer here guys.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by ahhGucci@Jun 12th, 2004 - 2:30 am
Thankyou very much pumpum. Welcome to the fashionspot,

ditto and a warm welcome to tFS pumpum,
about time you posted your valueable views

 

[banana]

I'm very disappointed by some of the opinions in this thread but of what I had to say was said by other members.

 

[ignitioned32]

Originally posted by banana@Jun 12th, 2004 - 1:01 pm
I'm very disappointed by some of the opinions in this thread but of what I had to say was said by other members.

lol I think you have to be a little more specific.

 

[darseen]

thank you pumpum for your post. I learned so much from it!

 

[rayncloudx]

Originally posted by ahhGucci@Jun 11th, 2004 - 2:17 pm

I don't see the logic in non-religious people speaking on religious issues for which they have no knowledge.

the assumption that non-religious people have no knowledge of religion is incorrect and insulting...

i have a vast knowledge of many religions and do not believe in any of them.

[/quote]
sorry but i'm going to have to agree with chinalove on this. i'm sure i'll probably offend many people because being called unknowledgeable is offensive but i think non religious people really don't understand and never will understand religion, any type. it's something spiritual. not anything you can learn from books.

 

[softgrey]

I don't see the logic in non-religious people speaking on religious issues for which they have no knowledge.

the assumption that non-religious people have no knowledge of religion is incorrect and insulting...

i have a vast knowledge of many religions and do not believe in any of them.

sorry but i'm going to have to agree with chinalove on this. i'm sure i'll probably offend many people because being called unknowledgeable is offensive but i think non religious people really don't understand and never will understand religion, any type. it's something spiritual. not anything you can learn from books. [/QUOTE]
that statement really bothers me...in many ways

first ...most religions are learned from some sort of written document...what do you call the bible... and spirituality and religion do not necessarily go hand in hand...

one can be spiritual without practicing a specified religion.
one's spirituality comes from within..religion is just a way of expressing one's beliefs...
the fact that one does not share these beliefs does in no way mean they do not "understand" them...

only that they do not agree with them...

it's too easy to say...oh, they just don't understand...
it is entirely possible that religious people are the ones who do not understand...

think of how many religions there are in the world...it is not possible for everyone's beliefs to be accurate and true...therefore...the vast majority...and perhaps all ...religions are wrong...and many many people's beliefs are wrong...(i don't mean morally wrong, i mean incorrect)...who knows for sure?...if we knew for sure...we'd all be the same religion then...wouldn't we?

it is all a matter of personal opinion..what is true and what we choose to believe...and in my mind...everyone has an equal right to their opinon...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone...

i say live and let live in peace...we'll all know the answers soon enough.....
after all, no one lives forever.

the point is that it should be up to the individual whether they choose to purchase such an item...accordiing to their own personal beliefs and not the beliefs of someone they have never even met...

 

[banana]

I don't believe that you learn spirituality from a bible. It takes a certain about of love and nurturing from the person who is teaching you about the religion to truly believe. Preaching doesn't do anything to convince a person until they see it in practice. That is why the underwear is offensive. The religious beleifs you develop as a child are one of the few things that are pure in this world. Some of us get jaded along the way but it doesn't help when an image that is supposed to represent everything good is shoved up someone's bumcrack.

 

[softgrey]

there is a reason they call it 'blind faith'...

blind to the rights of those who don't believe i guess...

 

[banana]

Personally, I think that freedom of expression is highly overrated. I doubt when etched that into the constitution centuries ago that it would be used for these purposes. I can think of many forms of expression that should not be allowed or censored and I think you can too. Is that against the rights of those who want to see it? At some point someone has to say enough is enough.