MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

I recently read about some Telugu film actresses being caught ‘Red – handed’. I yawned and caught my flight. I really like Shamshabad airport. When I came back, I happened to bring it up with a retired Brahmin gentleman in the AP Express – I, expressing my agony (as in – must we suffer such news? / is it even news?) at the topic and he sheepishly expressing ‘shock’ at the news. It made me think – Are we really surprised that our film actresses are not chaste? I doubt it. The casting couch is not even a complaint anymore, it’s considered a biased ‘opportunity’ that is prejudiced against men!!! And as equality between the sexes would have it, the men refuse to be left behind - in this race at least. Thus we have shady stories of how women directors need to be kept in good humour, and worse – how men with different preferences need to be kept amused as well!

It really makes a lot of sense. It’s unofficially accepted. The list of A listers, anyone with an iota of common sense would’ve noticed, is endless. Some are not even impolite to talk about – I mean, what exactly was Jayalalita to M.G.R? A dear friend?? And Mr.Bachhan might choose to act doting father to his adult kid now, but there was a time when he doted on a certain Miss.Re for years and years. I knew it, you knew it, Jaya knew it, and his kids had to know about it. So much for prudence. Then we have the un-romantic, but business associations. Thus, Sri dear visited producers and directors with her mother in tow and so did Karisma Kapoor dearies, yes with mother in tow – she was even caught visiting a Bombay officer with the Income Tax at night while she was having serious tax problems. The picture is not even of a dirty drooling old man trying to entice young innocent women, it’s the other way round. Poor old men are being enticed by young things.

Once the A listers are willing to sacrifice their dignity for commercial success, then, it naturally ensues that the B and C listers would follow suit. Thus by the time you reach the D listers, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a producer or a director anymore. I mean isn’t it all just the same anyway? I mean, how do you grade loss of dignity?? When you lose it for a movie role or success, what’s the harm in losing some for money? Isn’t a movie or success, equal more or less to money? Aren’t they all roughly equivalent to ‘material things’? Then what’s the hue and cry all about? I certainly hope that it’s not about being caught per se. The issue should not be about whether you get caught or not. If everyone is doing the same thing and only those that get caught are condemned, then it’s just plain foolish.

I’m not acting jaded or anything. I’m just saying – I knew it was a distinct possibility, I’m not going to act shocked. I mean, when someone I don’t even know is doing these things with some dirty old men, the last thing I’m asking is what the men’s profession is. If they are producers or directors, then she must be a ‘career oriented’ girl’, so forget it. If they are not, then she is just a cheap girl ‘embroiled’ in the ‘flesh trade’. How foolishly we think. Wrong is wrong everywhere stupid. Don’t ask whether it’s this or that. This and that is all wrong. The bottom-line is, once you compromise on your dignity, then the pits the limit!

What I was extremely bothered about was that none of the male ‘clients’ were taken to task, much less booked! Does anyone even know the identity of those men? Why have the actual villains – the men not been named or identified?? Bring them out. Let the world see their faces, let their wives, partners, mothers, sisters, fathers and neighbours know what they like to do in their free time. Why have the names and even the pictures of the victims been publicized? It’s a shame, a bloody sad shame. In case everybody has forgotten how to read, the law clearly states that it is the ‘clients’ that perpetuate the flesh trade and that it is them that must be severely punished. All women are actually required to be treated as victims. And this makes perfect sense.

The oldest profession in the world is a cheap male attempt to subjugate women and it’s a pity that it still exists today. The reason it does is because society has relegated women to ‘objects’. Women who think or women who refuse to be ‘objects’ are mercilessly worn down by the world’s most stringent laws – social laws. Thus, when her own women folk and everyone around her create an environment where ‘normal’ is a woman being subjugated, objectified and encouraged through acceptance to manipulate, then, more often than not, she succumbs to being an ‘object’. If she valiantly bears it out, then society does her in, so that men can show the rest of the women what their plight would be should they choose to follow her path. Thus it becomes imperative that any woman who refuses to become an ‘object’ must be made into an example of – ‘do you want to be her?’ Pathetic excuses like men have needs should be given a decent burial.

Prostitution apparently exists because men have more persistent needs than women, and require the outlets that prostitution provides. But this is an implausible explanation. Most women seem capable of developing their sexuality in a more intense fashion than men (Hyde 1986). If prostitution existed simply to serve sexual needs, there would be many male prostitutes to cater to women, which is not the case. Therefore, the best conclusion is that prostitution expresses and helps to perpetuate the tendency of men to treat women as objects who can be used for sexual purposes. It represents the inequality between men and women, and orthodox society’s tendency to encourage men to seek a variety of sexual outlets, while condemning those people who cater to these very needs.

My take on the issue? Grow up, stop pretending and realize that YOU are actually responsible for the flesh trade!





August 2010