jump to navigation

Diya Mirza February 28, 2007

Posted by K in contemporary, Gender.

Puts her foot in her mouth fairly frequently, doesn’t she? First there was that article she wrote for HT in support of Salman Bhai. Then she declares that it makes her upset when people view actresses as sex objects. We’re also (my emphasis; her foot, her mouth) responsible citizens too, feels the lady. Hm.

edit: This post obviously needs clarification. I cannot link to the articles I talk about, but they can be found in the Hindustan Times(Delhi edition) archives.

The object of this post was not to say that Diya Mirza is a sex object, but that she doesn’t articulate too well. I am firmly on her side as far as the image of actresses go- I abhor and deplore the view that seems to persist that if a girl dances on tv, she is ‘easy’.

It has now become necessary to further tag this under ‘gender’.



1. Manas - March 2, 2007

That’s unfair! No reference to the original articles. I can hardly guess what you are talking about.

2. sporadicblogger - March 2, 2007

Sorry, heh. Wait, let me look.

*comes back post-look* Sorry, can’t find. The salman khan article was long back when the sentence was pronounced on him and he was in jail. The other reference can be found in the HT City(Delhi edition) Take 5 column, dated february 28.

3. Manas - March 3, 2007

But how is Salman’s going to jail is related to actresses being sex objects?

And how can I not view a woman in bikini as a sex object? Her breasts and legs do stick out before my eyes; add to that she often shakes both.

I would have needed to see a doctor if I didn’t.

4. sporadicblogger - March 3, 2007

No, the salman article was example one of her putting foot in mouth.

And secondly, you need a doctor if you view a woman in bikini as sex object, just as a woman/man needs one if they view a man in a swimming trunk as a sex object.
I’m not even sure of what a definition of sex object entails; it is so debasing that it shouldn’t and cannot be applied to a human being.

It is social conditioning and a misogynistic attitude that has, unfortunately, deemed fit to term a woman a slut/sex object/whatever if she thinks her body is beautiful. Not all displays of body are for mens/womens eyes, and every woman in revealing clothes is NOT thinking of sex.

5. Manas - March 3, 2007

I need not. That is huaman and natural.

6. sporadicblogger - March 3, 2007

I think not.

7. R-E-D - March 4, 2007

Sex OBJECT? Manas, the worst you are allowed to think is that the woman is sexy. Sex OBJECT no, sexy human maybe. You can’t stop thinking of a human being as a human being no matter how sexy they are (or are trying to be).

I personally think it’s a stupid idea for women to wear bikinis and for men to debase themselves by fantasizing about women in bikinis, if a woman thinks her body is beautiful GREAT! for her but she can’t expect a man not to hold the opinion that she is probably very ****able, (yes I’ve heard men use that word to describe women it sickens me to the core) that’s why they should just compromise and women should not wear bikinis.

How is that a compromise? Okay, it’s not. But it’s probably the easiest way… lol.

SORRY *hides under big metal shield, anticipating a shower of rocks coming my way*


8. Manas - March 5, 2007

*Retaliation Rocks*

Nay, RED, sex object was perhaps a misleading word. I meant when I can see some woman’s breasts and legs etc. I feel aroused. And that, I strongly opine, is a perfectly normal male reaction.

I think it is wrong for a woman to wear bikini in public. And it is wrong for a man to wear shorts in public.

*hides under big metal shield, anticipating a shower of rocks coming my way* 😛

9. sporadicblogger - March 5, 2007

lol, throws shower of rock at the both of you.

Look, yes, it is perfectly natural to feel aroused by the way someone dresses, as long as you keep your arousal to yourself. As long as that doesn’t translate into leching, gesturing, lewd words, or worse still, physical overtures, it doesn’t create problems for anybody. Your libido is yours, and as the woman(I refer to the kind who dress for themselves) dresses for her satisfaction and her eyes, she won’t care.

Oh and btw, men in shorts are really not such an appealing sight. I can gaurantee that it will not arouse too many people.

10. sporadicblogger - March 5, 2007

Oh and btw, men in shorts are really not such an appealing sight. I can gaurantee that it will not arouse too many people.

11. sporadicblogger - March 5, 2007

I can gaurantee that it will not arouse too many people.

12. sporadicblogger - March 5, 2007
13. R-E-D - March 5, 2007

LOL sporadic your last 4 comments are like:

la la la la la
la la la
la la


It’s perfectly natural to feel aroused, and feeling aroused is unnecessary and unproductive especially if forced to keep it to yourself, therefore ppl should not arouse other ppl if they can help it :p if you’re dressing for your own eyes u can wear whatever u want get urself photographed and put all over ur house, or stand in front of the mirror, clothed unclothed is upto you. Why torment other people :p

I usually don’t know what is an appealing sight and what is not with men. But I used to find Raul and Iker Casillas (and most spaniards actually..) very attractive in shorts. And one non-spaniard – SAVIO!

But that is another story. I have not looked at footballers legs for years. I doubt I’d be attracted now. Anyway, I’m not sure it was the shorts that made me attracted. I liked those guys even in full suits. lol

Ah what is this horrible conversation *leaves with little bits of rock stuck all over me* goosespeople! lol

14. sporadicblogger - March 5, 2007

Ah, but you see, my comment didn’t get published by &*$%#@@&*(& wordpress :X

I disagree with para 1 after LOL. 😀 ut ofcourse. Did you think I’d agree 😉
One should not arouse other people you say. But how do you know what arouses a person? The bit of my comment that got deleted included a bit about naked tribes- bare naked breasts and legs don’t attract ogles from their men. And fat women are arousing in one african country where they fatten up would-be-brides. What is ‘arousing’ is a social cntruct therefore, and since it is, it follows that it can be un-constructed. You can re-condition yourself to NOT be aroused by a strangers body parts, particularly the oft quoted breasts and legs 🙂

And dressing up at home to get yourself photographed doesn’t serve the purpose- you express yourself through you expressions, words and clothes, for many people(including me) Its a part of who you are. Why should you be yourself only at home?

Also there is a difference between finding something appealing and finding something arousing. Arousal has sexual connotations, and I dare say if sex was not on your mind for long stretches of time(for whatever reaon; even if its only because you want to keep faar awaaay from it 🙂 ) you wouldn’t immediately get ‘aroused’. Finding a body beautiful can be quite spiritual and innocent. I don’t see how the latter can be the same.

Don’t blame others for how your body behaves 🙂 You are the master of your body 🙂 You train your eyes to see what you want 🙂

About the rocks- you guys started it 😀 I just kept your expectations;)

15. R-E-D - March 5, 2007

Finding a body beautiful can be quite spiritual and innocent.

– I agree. But not all people can think like that. So in their best interests I hold my views. lol

16. sporadicblogger - March 6, 2007


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: