Poor Ganesha

http://www.indiawest.com/news/17251-hindus-urge-fashion-designer-to-withdraw-ganesh-swimwear.html

>>>The swimsuit looks nice though.

Rishi wrote:http://www.indiawest.com/news/17251-hindus-urge-fashion-designer-to-withdraw-ganesh-swimwear.html

>>>The swimsuit looks nice though.

not sure what to think of it, the designer obviously found beauty in the whole ganesha thing to go through the trouble of creating swimwear with hindu motifs and having the model wear the beautiful bottu. I think it is better for Hinduism to have increased visibility in this way so more people learn about it.

Why call it Ganesh? Call it a decorated elephant face (like temple elephants).

indophile wrote:Why call it Ganesh? Call it a decorated elephant face (like temple elephants).

it's the ekadantham peculiar to ganesha

thank you for posting the link

pravalika nanda wrote:not sure what to think of it, the designer obviously found beauty in the whole ganesha thing to go through the trouble of creating swimwear with hindu motifs and having the model wear the beautiful bottu. I think it is better for Hinduism to have increased visibility in this way so more people learn about it.

Why don't you send your photographs to be put on boxers or briefs of men? Gets you more visibility and men can learn about you and it may even help you in securing you 'a suitable boy'?

Poor Ganesha indeed. Turn the swimsuit inside out and you have got a whole different ballgame going.

indophile wrote:Why call it Ganesh? Call it a decorated elephant face (like temple elephants).

That is what I also thought...looks like an elephant art.

In any case, only if a 300 pounder wore this suit hindus should protest. it surely will look like an elephant.

smArtha wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:not sure what to think of it, the designer obviously found beauty in the whole ganesha thing to go through the trouble of creating swimwear with hindu motifs and having the model wear the beautiful bottu. I think it is better for Hinduism to have increased visibility in this way so more people learn about it.

Why don't you send your photographs to be put on boxers or briefs of men? Gets you more visibility and men can learn about you and it may even help you in securing you 'a suitable boy'?

oh, me on men's underwear? i'm actually kinda hot, it would burn their bottoms.

or they would have priapism which I've been told can be quite painful and damaging.

pravalika nanda wrote:
oh, me on men's underwear? i'm actually kinda hot, it would burn their bottoms.

or they would have priapism which I've been told can be quite painful and damaging.

We are already familiar with claims on the lines of - if you disrespect Ganesha you'll burn in hell ... Yours are no different. So, you don't worry about their experience girl. Just go ahead and do it. Helps them know you better whichever way. Also, for those conservative lot who care to know about the family background too.. you can create an exclusive line with a full family pic (parents, grand parents, siblings etc). All in the process of understanding you better.

smArtha wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:
oh, me on men's underwear? i'm actually kinda hot, it would burn their bottoms.

or they would have priapism which I've been told can be quite painful and damaging.

We are already familiar with claims on the lines of - if you disrespect Ganesha you'll burn in hell ... Yours are no different. So, you don't worry about their experience girl. Just go ahead and do it. Helps them know you better whichever way. Also, for those conservative lot who care to know about the family background too.. you can create an exclusive line with a full family pic (parents, grand parents, siblings etc). All in the process of understanding you better.

do as you like and make your suggestions to those who are receptive to them. you are a crude prude and a sensitive emotional hindu male who thinks your point can be made strongly by personalizing it in ways that you think would be offensive and shocking to me. I have seen the world and my familiarity and knowledge of the male bottom exceeds yours by several-fold. not unexpectedly you are totally missing the point and I have nothing further to say to you. please feel free to continue your comments, it's a free country for all.

Kris wrote:Poor Ganesha indeed. Turn the swimsuit inside out and you have got a whole different ballgame going.

LOL

pravalika nanda wrote:

smArtha wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:
oh, me on men's underwear? i'm actually kinda hot, it would burn their bottoms.

or they would have priapism which I've been told can be quite painful and damaging.

We are already familiar with claims on the lines of - if you disrespect Ganesha you'll burn in hell ... Yours are no different. So, you don't worry about their experience girl. Just go ahead and do it. Helps them know you better whichever way. Also, for those conservative lot who care to know about the family background too.. you can create an exclusive line with a full family pic (parents, grand parents, siblings etc). All in the process of understanding you better.

do as you like and make your suggestions to those who are receptive to them. you are a crude prude and a sensitive emotional hindu male who thinks your point can be made strongly by personalizing it in ways that you think would be offensive and shocking to me. I have seen the world and my familiarity and knowledge of the male bottom exceeds yours by several-fold. not unexpectedly you are totally missing the point and I have nothing further to say to you. please feel free to continue your comments, it's a free country for all.

let me guess: emergency proctology wing nurse?

pravalika nanda wrote:do as you like and make your suggestions to those who are receptive to them. you are a crude prude and a sensitive emotional hindu male who thinks your point can be made strongly by personalizing it in ways that you think would be offensive and shocking to me. I have seen the world and my familiarity and knowledge of the male bottom exceeds yours by several-fold. not unexpectedly you are totally missing the point and I have nothing further to say to you. please feel free to continue your comments, it's a free country for all.

It is already clear whose 'raw/sensitive' nerves were rubbed here. Somehow your 'libertarian prescription for awareness/understanding' doesn't seem to work for yourself. And you have the arrogance/irresponsibility to prescribe it for others all under the sanction of 'fee country for all'.

smArtha wrote:

pravalika nanda wrote:do as you like and make your suggestions to those who are receptive to them. you are a crude prude and a sensitive emotional hindu male who thinks your point can be made strongly by personalizing it in ways that you think would be offensive and shocking to me. I have seen the world and my familiarity and knowledge of the male bottom exceeds yours by several-fold. not unexpectedly you are totally missing the point and I have nothing further to say to you. please feel free to continue your comments, it's a free country for all.

It is already clear whose 'raw/sensitive' nerves were rubbed here. Somehow your 'libertarian prescription for awareness/understanding' doesn't seem to work for yourself. And you have the arrogance/irresponsibility to prescribe it for others all under the sanction of 'fee country for all'.

why wouldn't I be offended when your intent is clearly to offend? first you recc my face on underwear and when you saw that wasn't enough you decided to drag family into it. clearly you chose that garment because you associate it with dirty body parts, though in fact those parts of the body are as essential as any other part of the body.

the problem is not that you recc any of our faces on underwear, the problem is your intent to offend a person and then the entire family if it isn't working. not only do I find such behavior offensive, I am afraid of people who think this is the way to make a point.

the fact remains that any idea, once it is expressed, is no longer solely theirs anymore. other people have the right to develop it and use it and change it as they want to. in this instance, this woman is a designer and saw something of aesthetic value and designed her prints and pieces based on it. her idea was most certainly not to offend and I hate to think that a bunch of hindus made her pull out her work. if you want respect for your religion and way of life then think with an educated mind and behave in a way that people will respect it and value it.

>>why wouldn't I be offended when your intent is clearly to offend? 
And somehow you magically know and want us to believe that the intent of those designers is very much aesthetic while mine is to offend.

 >>clearly you chose that garment because you associate it with dirty body parts
My associations are of no consequence in you getting offended. It is your own mental associations that make you offended. Isn't this the line the liberals sell to the religious and expect them to buy?

>>the problem is your intent to offend a person and then the entire family if it isn't working. not only do I find such behavior offensive, I am afraid of people who think this is the way to make a point.
Thanks for making my point albeit wrongly directed. This applies as much to those bikini/chappal/toilet seat designers as you think it'd to me in this case. Their intent was not to offend Ganesha or whosoever but the whole populations who revere them. 

>>the fact remains that any idea, once it is expressed, is no longer solely theirs anymore. other people have the right to develop it and use it and change it as they want to. 
You/your family, especially so on a picture, is as much a representational symbol/idea with no existential relevance as is Ganesha or other Hindu Idols/Icons/Symbols/Chants are. Any or both are true to all those who had not validated them through their own means of 'perception' or 'inference'. In fact, in this age, your handle could as well be just a software generating some 'syntactically correct and semantically acceptable' text. 

Yet, in your 'liberal' and 'educated' mindset one group of them are flexible and at-will extensible ideas/symbols while the other are sanctified personifications that qualify 'respectful' depictions or references. And your 'abilities' to not comprehend such inconsistency and incoherence in your stand grants you the moral high ground to classify the other a 'godawful' bunch. 

PS: I rest my case here and sincerely apologize to you and your family to have suggested such disrespectful depictions purely to establish a point in the debate. The intention was never to offend but to communicate a pov more directly.