Acharya Prashant addresses the issue of public display of affection (PDA) by first questioning the nature of the "affection" being displayed. He explains that if what is being displayed is truly pure affection, which is love, then its public display can have no harmful effect on anyone. He refutes the argument that PDA sets a corrupting example by stating that a relationship founded on solid principles, depth, and genuine sincerity will only set a beautiful and life-giving example for society. The public display of pure love cannot be harmful and cannot be stopped by any external force. The speaker emphasizes that the central issue is not the "public display" but the quality of the "affection" itself. He distinguishes between affection and love, noting that books of wisdom often describe affection as a problem or an affliction, while love is the solution. Therefore, one must question what is being demonstrated. If it is pure love, it is like a pure stream that knows its own way and benefits all who witness it. Conversely, if a relationship is based merely on convenience or bodily attraction, the message it sends is not beneficial. Acharya Prashant points out that the opposite behavior—couples who are too ashamed to even hold hands in public—is equally problematic, as it indicates that their conduct is dictated by societal fear rather than a foundation of love. He stresses that individuals have a primary responsibility to themselves to introspect on the quality of their relationships. They must ask themselves who their partner is to them and why they have become so central in their lives. This self-inquiry is crucial, regardless of societal approval or disapproval. Finally, he addresses those who object to PDA, the so-called "moral police" or "cultural guardians." He asserts that they have no real authority, as they themselves lack self-knowledge and often act from a misunderstanding of culture, having substituted true spirituality with either shallow liberalism or rigid culturalism. He concludes that both those who engage in mindless PDA and those who mindlessly object to it are ignorant and in need of real inner education. However, he suggests that those who are expressive might be more open to learning than those who are rigidly certain of their own righteousness.