Sunday, August 9, 2015

These Painful Terms!

Nowadays I don't really understand what 'decent' stands for. What is decent? Who decides what is decent? Sometimes I feel the word is so badly misused that it has led to hundred many problems of our times. 
What conventionally decency means is conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behaviour.
Conformity, generally accepted, standards, respectable/moral behaviour. Such heavily loaded words that my eyes twitch when I look at them, let alone read. Conformity is something which is now being questioned on so many levels- conform to what, why, how and when it is okay not to. Why do we need to conform is often quoted as the 'rebel's phrase'. But no one has an answer to it. The answers vary, but aren't satisfactory. 'Because we don't want anarchy', 'because that's the way it has always been' are two topmost replies. Anarchy? What do you think is going on now? Superb simple democracy itself has turned into a anarchical institution. Sometimes I feel it is almost a widely accepted misnomer. 

 The word conform means  behave according to socially acceptable conventions or standards. The last part of the sentence again clashes with what decency means.  Generally acceptable- Socially Acceptable. Accepted Standards- Conventions.  But who determined the generality? What makes something 'acceptable'? Many would say what most people do is what most people are okay with. That is one easy way to say what 'widely accepted' is. It is what is widely done. This is why left handers are still seen as potential murderers ( sorry for the exaggeration, sense my frustration) because well, they form just 10% of a population. If it isn't practised by many, maybe it isn't right.

But we never tend to question WHY in this case. Why is something not practised by many? Fear? Ignorance? Bias? If bias, then of what kind? 

For ease, let me take an example. Couples were thrown out of hotel rooms for public indecency. Many people said it was right- not everyone takes 'get a room' literally. But then, when PDA is seen as something 'indecent', now sharing a bed with your loved one in a private space is indecent too. The argument provided is- they aren't loved ones approved by law, hence they can't stay in a public property to carry out personal shenanigans. But wait, isn't a room in a hotel my property when I have paid the expenses? People will say it is just a matter of glossed over prostitution. Wow, that escalated real quick. 

I never really understood what law has to do with relationships which are made out of mutual consent. Laws should be for problems after the mutual consent, or problems where there is no consent but force. Two people, who are happy with each other, what is a public rule got to do with that? Maybe I am being myopic, but then I feel our government just wastes time in petty things while there are issues in the same domain such as sexual harrassment, domestic violence looming at large. 

Conventions-standards-morals- high time we take individuals' individuality seriously, see them as wholes and not as a random figure in a murder of crows. This group-thinking will lead us closer to the point of nadir, point of no return.

1 comment: