Now that there is going to be a ‘Slut’  walk being planned in Delhi , there are heated discussions everywhere on the Man – Woman relationship and its intriguing intricacies.

Came across an article in The Independent by the noted institution herself  Christina Patterson . Altho if this had been written by a male , there wud have been hell to pay .

Anyways reproducing it verbatim.

Sex can be very, very, very, very nice. It can also be nasty. It can also be tedious. It can leave you screaming out for more. It can leave you longing for a nice cup of tea. But whether you’re Dominique Strauss-Kahn or Mother Teresa, one thing’s clear. Sex was here at the start of things, and it’s here to stay.

Ever since Eve bit the apple, and discovered that she wasn’t even wearing a thong, which was, like, so embarrassing, there’s been a lot of fuss about what, in the light of this, women should wear. The author of Deuteronomy said that women “should not wear that which pertains unto a man”, which may, or may not, have ruled out a bikini or a boob tube. The apostle Paul said that women should “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety”. He also said that they should cover their heads when they worshipped and avoid displaying “broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”.

For the past 2,000 years, this has been the main dress code in the Middle East. The prophet Muhammad made a few adjustments in the Koran – women “should draw their veils over their bosoms” and “not display their ornaments except to their husbands” – but the general trend remained. If you were a man, you could wear whatever the hell you liked. If you were a woman, you should stick to long and loose.

In Africa, and South America, and Australia, and New Guinea, the rules were different. If you were a man, you wore – well, not very much. If you were a woman, you didn’t wear much either. If you were raped, then nobody said you were asking for it, because you were only wearing a loin cloth, because everybody was only wearing a loin cloth. But if you were a woman you might still get raped, because in every culture throughout the world, and throughout history, women have been raped.

In the West, we did things differently. We didn’t bother all that much with what men wore. There was a brief fashion for periwigs. There was a brief fashion for codpieces. There was a brief fashion for doublets and hose. But mostly, what men have worn is a tunic, or a jacket, and trousers. What women have worn is dresses with hoops, and crinolines, and petticoats, and bustles, and corsets, and frills, and flowers, and, more recently, maxi dresses, and miniskirts. What women have worn, in other words, is what emphasises the fact that a woman’s not a man. What women have worn is what emphasises her value in the sexual market place.

Forty-odd years ago, there was an attempt to redress this. Women, largely Western women, said that they didn’t want to be defined by their value in the sexual market place. They didn’t want to be defined by the size of their breasts, or the shape of their bottoms, or the length of their legs. So they started wearing clothes – often rather ugly clothes – that made them look more like men. Some of them burnt their bras, which made running quite uncomfortable, but not, as the African women could tell them, once you got used to it, and some of them wore dungarees. And some of them posed naked in magazines. They did this, because they wanted to show that when you were naked in a magazine because you were in control of your body, and in control of who you had sex with, it was different to when you were naked in a magazine because a man wanted to use you to sell something. Though not everyone could tell the difference.

And then something changed. It’s not absolutely clear why it changed. It’s not clear if it’s because the women got bored with dungarees, or if they secretly missed the wolf whistles in the street, or if it’s because fashions come and go, and the dungarees were just a fashion, but suddenly the women who had worn the dungarees, or perhaps the daughters of the women who had worn the dungarees, said they were still feminists, but that they were something called “new feminists”, and this meant that they still wanted to be treated as equals by men, but that now they could wear very, very short skirts, and very, very low tops, and very, very high heels. They said that they didn’t dress this way to please men, but to please themselves, although when they were sitting at home, they didn’t dress like this. When they were sitting at home, they wore tracksuit bottoms and trainers.

It must have been quite hard for the men to tell the difference between the women who wore very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels who wanted to meet a footballer, or be on a reality TV show, or in the pages of a magazine, and the “new feminists” who said they just wanted to be taken seriously for their brains. It must have been quite hard for them to tell the difference between the women who were offering sex because they thought it might give them some power, and the women who said they wanted power, but not sexual advances.

It must be quite hard for them, too, to tell the difference between the women who went on a “SlutWalk” in Newcastle on Saturday morning, wearing very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels, and the ones who went to drink a lot of alcohol in nightclubs in Newcastle on Saturday night, and maybe have sex with a stranger. The ones during the day were, it’s true, waving signs saying things like “My Clothes Aren’t My Consent” and “It Doesn’t Matter What I Wear or Where I Go… No Means No”. The ones during the evening weren’t.

And of course the men should understand that very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels aren’t an alternative to consent, that nothing is ever an alternative to consent, and that very, very short skirts, and very, very low tops and very, very high heels, and even very, very large quantities of alcohol, are never an excuse for rape. And that women have as much right to control their sex lives as men. But perhaps the women who say they are “new feminists”, or “post- feminists”, could also understand that, since human beings (unless they’re women over the age of 50) aren’t yet invisible, and since we are part of a species that’s programmed to want sex, and which seems to have found the technological means to make images of sex available to anyone with a computer, every single thing you wear sends out a message.

They might think that wearing very, very short skirts and very, very low tops and very, very high heels is sending out a message saying that they are very, very keen to become a very, very successful doctor, or lawyer, or politician, and that they are only wearing them because they like to get some fresh air on their legs, or breasts, and because they happen to like the way that high heels push your breasts forward, and your bottom out, but only because they like the way this feels. They might think that men who are talking to you when you’re wearing very, very low tops, and very, very short skirts and very, very high heels, shouldn’t look at your breasts, or your legs, or at the way your heels make your bottom stick out. They should be thinking about how you’ll be a brilliant doctor, or lawyer.

They might also think that the thing to do about “the sexualisation of children” is to commission reports from Christian organisations for mothers run by men. And maybe it is. Maybe it will help. But little girls dress like their mothers, and if their mothers dress like sluts, or even like “sluts”, then they’re quite likely to be as confused on the subject of sexual equality as the mothers who briefly saw a flicker of progress, and then watched it fade.

Christina Patterson in The Independent

The many views on this makes for very interesting reading and can be a topic for heated arguments.

One reader says ” May I state as a male that I find the latest trend in how women dress is simply stunning, the shorter the skirts get and more flesh is displayed, the better I feel!!
Is anyone complaining?”

Another “Very funny article. Although I’m of the However I’m dressed, No means No school, I have to say there seems to be an element of hypocrisy about the way some women justify their clothing choices. It’ll be interesting to see the responses she gets. ”

I am in agreement with this one  – that a No shud always be a NO , though there is much much hypocrisy in some women’s attitudes.

There is however a point at issue here . Dress does not matter. There are places and men where rape does not differentiate the target by what dress she wears.

Another girl’s (Ursula) coments which seems level headed on most points , but over the top at some places

Quote :

Hold your horses and, forgive the pun, do not press the eject button yet.

A writer’s gender has nothing to do with content. And that article’s content is utter rot.

What’s feminism, old, new or post got to do with rape, dress sense, the meat market, sex, indeed anything?

The article is a monumental INSULT to MEN. Prick over brain, is it? Wow. Who’d have thought it. 

The author misses the point. Sex is sex, rape is violence. If I dress in a very very very short skirt with a very very very low cleavage (what’s it with that journalist repeating everything as if her readers were brain dead!?) and sky high heels on a Saturday night – indeed on a Monday morning – I send a very strong message. And any woman who denies that is talking rot too. However, that does NOT make a woman prey and available to ANY old Dick(!), Tom and Harry. Scant clothing is not a GREEN light. At best it’s a come on. A tease. A toe testing the waters.

Don’t give me dress as an excuse for a man to stick anything where it shouldn’t be. Ever heard of nuns in their shrouds being raped? Wonder what the excuse is there, don’t you? I suppose one could say “at least the woman doesn’t have herself to blame”. If that is what is implied with that responses it’s vile, with a big V. And if I were a man I’d take issue with that. In fact, I, woman, take issue with that kind of ‘modesty’.

Odd isn’t it, don’t you think, how most men are perfectly able to keep their zipper up? (Barath hit the nail on the head – EYE Candy. Doesn’t mean you have to put your fingers in the sugar bowl UNinvited). I defy anyone to prove that dress has anything to do with when a man resorts to violence to relieve himself.

And please do advise the Marlon Brandos and Paul Newmans of this world not to strutt their wares in tight jeans and sleeveless vests. Wafting their pheromones (fresh sweat). In court I will plead that I thought they were “asking for it” on the strength of which I ravished their helpless muscular selves across the bonnet of a car or against a garage wall. Not that I do gate crash, you understand.

No one “is asking for it”. In terms of the law, ethics, morals, a woman’s dress is theeeeeeeeee most feeble and lame defence for rape. Neither do I have any time for females who tease relentlessly before, forgive the pun AGAIN, hitting the eject button and let it happen. Only to then cry ‘rape’. Oh purleesee. Go home, have a hot shower. And don’t get so drunk the next time you don’t know what you are doing.


On another note Leila Ahmed had a fascinating article in a recent Foreign Policy Magazine. She says she was surprised that a lot of modern Muslim women are returning to the veil for the sake of feminism, so they will be regarded as serious, intelligent human beings, not just judged/regarded as sex objects . Its amusing that the French have a problem with that.

Though imagining to take the side of  the French, perhaps they are upset that women feel they need to cover themselves to be taken seriously


Just read this from a column by Yogesh Pawar in DNA today .  So truly he has commented on the shenanigans of the dhongi baba.

Repeated invocations of Mahatma Gandhi at the recent mela at Ramlila grounds in Delhi causes one to compare these events  with Gandhi’s satyagraha against the British salt tax in colonial India in may, 1930. A scene that particularly holds one  in thrall is what transpired outside the Dharasana salt works, Gujarat. I was only in the 5th or 6th standard when Attenboroughs Gandhi was released and I had watched it with gusto . The scenes of the lathi blows on the hapless satyagrahis of the Dandi yatra is particularly rivetting. BTW this film had also given the first Oscar to an Indian – Bhanu Aththaiyya for costume designing —  way b4   Amir  Khan and his entourage were vying for one for his Lagaan
Following the conclusion of the salt march to Dandi, Gandhi decided to march to Dharasana next. The Mahatma, who never believed in subterfuge, wrote to then-Viceroy Lord Irwin on may 4, 1930, about his intention. He was promptly arrested and so were other leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabbhai Patel.The responsibility of leading the march fell on Sarojini Naidu. she warned satyagrahis of potential violence and told them not to retaliate or even ward-off blows. on may 21, as batch after batch of satyagrahis approached the salt pans, police charged and began clubbing them with steel tipped lathis.
American journalist Webb Miller of the United Press, an eyewitness to this British barbarism, wrote a moving description of how no marcher resisted. “they went down like ten-pins (sic). from where I stood, I heard the sickening whack of clubs on unprotected skulls. the waiting crowd groaned and sucked in their breaths in sympathetic pain at every blow. at times, the spectacle of unresisting men being methodically bashed into bloody pulp sickened me so much I had to turn away… I felt an indefinable sense of helpless rage and loathing, almost as much against the men who were submitting unresistingly to being beaten as against the police wielding the clubs…” he said in his report, and added, “bodies toppled over in threes and fours, bleeding from great gashes on their scalps. group after group walked forward, sat down, and submitted to being beaten into insensibility.
Finally, enraged by the non-resistance, the police commenced savagely kicking seated men in the abdomen and testicles. the injured men writhed and squealed in agony, which seemed to inflame the fury of the police who then began dragging them by the arms or feet, sometimes for a 100 yards, and throwing them into ditches.”
The ensuing publicity attracted world attention to the Indian Independence movement and brought into question the legitimacy of british rule in india like never before. how does this compare with the modern air-conditioned satyagraha in full view of as many as 50 television crews? Surely  is this milking of gandhi and his signature protests even worth a comparison?
The dhongi baba’s  escape in a salwar kameez is even more amusing. In fact, when the camera ( the TV crew assembled there ) panned to the restive crowd picking up bricks, stones and even fire extinguishers to use as missiles. fleeing, worrying about safety and then the retaliation by Shriman Ramdev calling to create armies of volunteers from each district of the country may be as easy as his stomach-pumping. but it requires a real brave-heart to face blows and shame the attacker into stopping.

nuff said

Just read in the papers a few days back the verdict in the Shiney Ahuja case . Mr. Ahuja was sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment after his 2 year long battle in the court, accused of raping his maid servant.

There were a few reactions from his filmmakers and co-stars , makes for interesting reading  – their take on it :

Celina Jaitly was in a state of shock after hearing the verdict. She said, “It’s shocking. I don’t know if his lawyer gets to reappeal. My heart reaches out to his family. What they must be going through. It just shows one impulsive moment can ruin one’s life. Many rapists and criminals roam free. I feel Shiney paid for being a celebrity.”

This is a comment  which defies logic , does she want to say that since many rapists and criminals roam free , therefore Shiney should also have been let free and now he is only behind bars , just because he is a celebrity and is paying the price for it.

Soha Ali Khan
who worked with Shiney in Khoya Khoya Chand and the unreleased Accident expressed shock on being told about the verdict. “I am shocked. I can’t even begin to imagine what he and his family must be going through. I don’t know the actual facts. So I can only pray for them to have inner strength. I wish them well.”

This is a somewhat fair comment but still the sentiments are about Shiney’s side , what about the maids and her family nd what all they went through , though she does admit that she doesn’t know the actual facts.

Sudhir Mishra
who had introduced Shiney to the Hindi cinema in
Khawishein Aisi
and later gave Shiney his career’s best role in Khoya Khoya Chand, said, “I really shouldn’t be commenting. What can I say? I am numbed. But we can’t get emotional about this. The verdict of the court is unquestionable and I completely believe in it. If the court has found Shiney guilty so be it. It is still unbelievable what has happened to him. I can’t even begin to think what went on in his head. Or how he might do what he is supposed to have done. Because what he was accused of is beyond the realm of my imagination. I don’t know what went on in his head beyond the cinema.”

This looks like a reasonable comment. He says wth full integrity that he doesn’t know what went on in Shiney’s head beyond cinema and so he knows only that side of his character, and thus he doesn’t pass judgement on the happening of the said “ act “

Pritish Nandy,
who has been his producer in
Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi, says, “The Shiney I know is very different I read about these days. It saddens me to see such a gifted young life wasted behind bars particularly when the alleged victim has withdrawn all charges. The Kasliwal boy got away scot free on the same heinous charge on the same day that Shiney got 7 years RI. The price you pay for being famous I guess. Sad.”

Again a biased comment , comparing the case with the kasliwal one , even though the Kasiwal boy himself may also be guilty , but why should that case be brought in here when it is Shineys guilt or innocence that is being discussed.

Chitrangda Singh his costar (Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi and Kal) is very upset by the verdict. She says, “I’m stunned. I hope this is not an exceptionally harsh sentence simply for his being a celebrity. I hope the law is just as unsparing and quick with the Kalmadis of this country’s politics who’ve raped our country.”
Others associated with Shiney chose not to react.

Again similar as above. But all in all many of our filmy fraternity have done a good job of standing behind one of their folks

I got this from a friend of mine – Ronny Rajan , who used to be sailing with me , when I was sailing in a car carrier in Maersk  — Maersk Taiki ..

It is too good  and hilarious and will have you in splits.
LUNGI, The Legend ( Author: Unknown – might be a US Citizen, born in Kerala )

Just as the national bird of Kerala is Mosquito, the national dress is ‘Lungi’. Pronounced as ‘Lu’ as in loo and ‘ngi ‘ as in ‘mongey’, a lungi can be identified b…y its floral or window-curtain pattern. ‘Mundu’ is the white variation of lungi and is worn on special occasions like hartal or bandh days, weddings and Onam.

Lungi is simple and ‘down to earth’ like the mallu wearing it. Lungi is the beginning and the end of evolution in its category. Wearing something on the top half of your body is optional when you are wearing a lungi. Lungi is a strategic dress. It’s like a one-size-fits-all-bottoms for Keralites.

The technique of wearing a lungi/mundu is passed on from generation to generation through word of mouth like the British Constitution. If you think it is an easy task wearing it, just try it once! It requires techniques like breath control and yoga that is a notch higher than sudarshan kriya of AOL. A lungi/mundu when perfectly worn won’t come off even in a quake of 8 on the richter scale. A lungi is not attached to the waist using duct tape, staple, rope or velcro. It’s a bit of mallu magic whose formula is a closely guarded secret like the Coca Cola chemicals.

A lungi can be worn ‘Full Mast’ or ‘Half Mast’ like a national flag. A ‘Full Mast’ lungi is when you are showing respect to an elderly or the dead. Wearing it at full mast has a lot of disadvantages. A major handicap is when a dog runs after you. When you are wearing a lungi/mundu at full mast, the advantage is mainly for the female onlookers who are spared the ordeal of swooning at the sight of hairy legs.

Wearing a lungi ‘Half Mast’ is when you wear it exposing yourself like those C-grade movie starlets. A mallu can play cricket, football or simbly run when the lungi is worn at half mast. A mallu can even climb a coconut tree wearing lungi at half mast. “It’s not good manners, especially for ladies from decent families, to look up at a mallu climbing a coconut tree”- Confucius

Most mallus do the traditional dance kudiyattam. Kudi means drinking alcohol and yattam, pronounced aattam, means random movement of the male body. Note that ‘y’ is silent. When you are drinking, you drink, there is no ‘y’. Any alcohol related “festival” can be enjoyed to the maximum when you are topless with lungi at half-mast and a towel tied around the head. “Half mast lungi makes it easy to dance and shake legs” says Candelaria Amaranto, a Salsa teacher from Spain after watching ‘kudiyaattam’ .
The ‘Lungi Wearing Mallu Union’ [LUWMU, pronounced LOVE MU], an NGO which works towards the ‘upliftment’ of the lungi, strongly disapproves of the GenNext tendency of wearing Bermuda shorts under the lungi. Bermudas under the lungi is a conspiracy by the CIA. It’s a disgrace to see a person wearing Bermudas with corporate logos under his lungi. What they don’t know is how much these corporates are limiting their freedom of movement and expression.

A mallu wears his lungi round the year. It’s all weather, all season versatility has no match. A mallu celebrates winter by wearing a colourful lungi with a floral pattern. Yet in summer, a lungi provides good ventilation and brings down the heat between the legs. A mallu is scared of global warming more than anyone else in the world. If despite wearing a lungi you feel the heat, you can use the ends of the lungi to fan your heated parts.

Jai Lungi

P.S.  : for those of u looking to get info on how to tie a lungi here’s a link :  , also another :

2 men wearing the white lungi or “Mundu”   as its called in Kerala and Tamil Nadu . This is the favorite attire of any mallu.

As Vishwanathan Anand is now engaged in his World Championship match against Veselin Topalov , it promises to be an exciting series . Topalov  has sworn to abide by the “ Sofia rule “ so named after the Bulgarian city  Sofia  which is quite a popular destination on the Chess circuit . A group of players here decided amongst themselves that they wouldn’t offer a draw across the table to the opponent as is common practise , but instead that in case it was absolutely necessary, they wud rather go to the adjudicator . Also they want that they will not go in for drawish openings  but will fight it out till the maximum possible for an outright victory . Any chess afficionado will know that this theory is hogwash ( at least that’s what I think )  . There are times when u have to go in for draws ,,, what will Veselin do if he is say leading  4 – 1 in the series , will he not go in for a draw  in order to clinch the series and get to the 6 points mark ?? If he says otherwise  then it is wishful thinking and he will see that the tables have turned against him

Also if the game enters into a line where say black has achieved equality soon in the opening and and the game veers towards a dead draw position ,  there is also the danger that it may boomerang on the player still wanting to continue in such a dead position and try to overreach himself .

And Anand  has wisely done exactly this and steered the game in the third match , wherein after the pieces were exchanged there was nothing that Veselin cud do except  to accept that the position was dead and the match was drawn by a repetition of 3 moves.

Btw all games have been mirror copies – 1 st one was the Grunfeld defence ,,, 2nd  turned out to be the Catalan opening which is again Grunfeld opposed . 3rd  the Grunfeld ,, and again  Catalan in the fourth.

Its been such a long time since I gave up being fanatical about chess . It is quite an amazing game , wherein it tests your mental skills , in an actual battle like play , stratetegising  to outwit your opponent , trying to second guess his moves , reading his mind , and  outfoxing him or her.

The best part about taking up this game is that in which other game do u get to sit across the table and gaze to your hearts content at a pretty female’s face  for hours on end   : )    ; ) , but it is only enjoyable when it is a pretty face , otherwise it is torture . ( and in chess u dont find many pretty female faces – they are few and far between at tournament level play .

A classy knock from VVS Laxman and the Kapitan  MS Dhoni has ensured that the Springboks have been pushed into a corner, from where they can only hope and pray to the elements to let them escape defeat in this test . Bhajji is finding his rhythm and flight back , as also his confidence , Mishra is looking good after fading out at Nagpur . Zaks will be moving in for the kill .

All in all looks like an engrossing match is in store for us ( the rain gods willing ) India have all to play for and win as they will then stay on top of the rankings . On the other hand if  SA escape with a draw , they can they dethrone India from the number One spot as they wud be then taking the Series with a  1-0 win  and getting more points in the bargain for an Away series win.

Just caught the new movie by RGV  titled  Rann –  The New (s ) battle .

That is a nice play on words – the news battle : )

Amitabh is as usual Amitabh ,, getting into the skin of his role. Liked the new guy – Sudeep too , intense  —  he was there in Phoonkh also I think .. Mohnish was good  and Paresh  and Riteish too lent admirable support.

Amitji is named as Vijay Harshavardhan  Malik ( or is that Mullick ? ). Vijay is hs standard  pseudonym in the movies , has used it in many movies .. like Rahul is for SRK

Also cudnt help noticing that in Kaala Paththar , Amitabh had played  an ex-naval officer who is court-martialed and dismissed from the navy for his role in and as captain of a ship “M. V. Harshavardhan “ that sank and many lives were lost.

Rann is a telling comment on the workings of the fourth estate nowadays.

There is a line in the movie which says that   actually the News should be the Goal and money shud be only a means to the goal ,,, whereas in reality now the Money is the Goal and News is only a means to this goal .

When the executive and the media are in cahoots with each other to further their selfish interests , then objectivity suffers ….