Please enlighten me on what exactly they want to achieve. What is the
aim of those who are supporting the movement of “Kiss of Love”?
Supporters of “moral policing” are at least not hypocritical in
their approach. One class of the “moral police” in their own way
admit that open expression of love often spark urge for sex in them
and therefore seek others' help in avoiding such occasions. The other
class of supporters of “moral policing” unilaterally assumes the
responsibility of their parents and feel equally concerned. But what
are the supporters of “kiss of love” looking for?
If the demand is that their open expression should not create any urge for sex in the onlookers then it would imply that they want to “control” the events that should become irrelevant for sparking desire for sex? If that is so, then how is this different from their own definition of “moral policing”. Are they trying to teach morality while projecting that they are actually against it? Isn't that an attempt only to expand the list of 'morally acceptable acts'?
Or do they want only to hurt those who admit that they get sexually aroused when they witness an open act of expression of love? Then this act for me falls under the category that includes 'rape' - where sex is misused to hurt someone – physically, mentally and psychologically.
And lastly if it is to make that class of “moral police” behave 'sensibly' who unilaterally assumes parental concerns upon themselves, wouldn't it be more effective to hit the root of the problem. Would it be misplaced to ask them to “show their expression” before their own parents to make their point. That way they would slap those elements of the “moral police” by making them understand that they must stop having unnecessary concerns for them as their own parents do not feel insecure even after having witnessed the act?
Before you start loading your answers with questions and start hurling towards me let me submit my own understanding on the issue. In my view, both the attitudes are misplaced. While one is a spontaneous reflex action out of rural innocence while the other is planned with motives much beyond what is apparently visible. Disappointedly though, both talks only on an issues that is less relevant in our society and point towards the events that can potentially spark an urge for sex in individuals. It is only stupid to assume that in a country as vast as ours, it could be identical in each one of us as it depends mainly on our individual experiences and the environment around us. But, both the sides want to have a control on that. “Moral police” wants to avoid the fire by asking us to place the matchboxes at designated places whereas the “immoral police” wants to control the fire itself.
Just as a crime even if done in isolation can not be excused by terming it as 'personal' or 'traditional', an act involving two individuals does not remain 'personal' if it is done in full view of public. And then it must be subject of public scrutiny. 'Decency' and 'morality' is neither absolute nor fixed but any claim that it does not exist for someone only confirms that he/she is being blatantly hypocritical.
Ironically what India requires is not a control on the urge for sex.
Instead what we need to learn is to understand, accept and respect a
'NO' from an unwilling partner. We need to learn that as soon as the
partner hints at an objection it is criminal to still think of
'enjoying' your act.
