What the hell is difference between a homemaker and a porn star?

What exactly is bothering the person who made this comment? (in response to this post  – ‘What do ‘Modest’ women have that their ‘Immodest’ sisters don’t…’)

He doesn’t like the idea of women benefiting from ‘exposing’ their bodies, even if they are not being exploited, ostracized, stigmatized, traumatized or killed. Why?

He sounds more concerned that women might ‘expose’ their bodies and not feel ashamed of it.

I feel if women stopped being ashamed of their bodies being ‘exposed’ then it would become very difficult to humiliate women by stripping and parading them on the streets. Then maybe women too will (eventually) be seen as family members and not ‘family honor’?

Maybe then a rape victim would feel angry, disgusted, shaken, uncomfortable etc – but not ashamed if a rapist threatens to share an MMS clip of a crime he has committed?

And here’s the comment.

All you women want to expose your bodies and still claim to be a perfect lady. If that’s true what the hell is difference between a homemaker and a porn star. Both do the same damn thing. Just EXPOSE! I hate all your stupid excuses and justifications. A few handful of modestly dressed women are a billion times better all the rest put together.

Imagine if nude magazines are legally launched in India or maybe for the matter a legally functioning porn industry. We would be having celebrities in every corner of the country. Immorality and immodesty would be an integral part of everyone’s life. JUST IMAGINE HELL ON EARTH!

This world would be much better off without you FEMINISTS! A handful of modest feminine women are a billion times better than all the rest put together.

About the difference between a homemaker and a porn star,

1. One is seen as a working a woman even if she a homemaker, the other is seen only as a homemaker.

2. One might face stigma and be ostracized by the society, maybe even by those who watch her videos or photographs (even in the assembly).

3. One is more likely to be married than the other.

4. Both are generally assumed to be women.

Any other?

Related posts:

Aankhon Ki Sharam

Babe In Total Control Of Herself – B.I.T.C.H.

Why do some women see western clothes and being able to flaunt their bodies, without fearing being called sluts, as empowerment?

Women, feminists and others, have been writing about their bodies, about sexual exploitation, about objectification. So, why is the SlutWalk being heralded as something that has finally arrived in India, like some colonial hangover after a rave party?  (Thanks for the link Hrishikesh)

1. I think because this protest is not a cautious plea disguised as protest. In Slut Walk women are not careful not to ‘cross their limits’ (limits set by those who seem to have no understanding of what they are protesting against, even when the problem affects them, they would rather stop a daughter from studying/working than understand the problem).

2. For the first time women are questioning the misconceptions about sexual crimes and what the victim was wearing. And demanding that they be respected as being the best judges of what is appropriate for them to wear (and read, eat, drink, talk etc).

3. Protesters are not asked to wear modest saris and salwar kurtas  (and wearing saris hasn’t automatically created an understanding so far).

Maybe protesting in saris conveyed that women thought saris were needed for women to be taken seriously? 

4. Like the Pink Chaddi Campaign, here too women are refusing to prove their Indian-ness to the molesters, law makers, law enforcers and the society, by protesting in ways that the society permits women to protest. (For example by sending bangles.)

5. Protests that were found satisfactorily modest and appropriately Indianised have not succeeded in creating awareness about how harmful victim blaming is for the society, and how it encourages crimes.

6. Women who disagree should think about what they were wearing when they were harassed on the street. Keep in mind that domestic helpers, construction workers and rural women of all ages face the same harassment.

My 17 year old cook in Pune was slapped by her uncle for carrying a cotton bag I had given her because it attracted attention to her. The small bag to hold her Entry Pass and a tiny FM radio was bought from Janpath, Delhi, and had pictures of Krishna all over it.

The Slutwalk is a minor tic, but today when everyone wants to be a concerned citizen, it could turn into a movement. I won’t be surprised if some media group joins in to sponsor the event. After all, we do have beauty pageants that already flaunt the female body as an example of empowerment.

In a society that uses clothes, to control women and their sexuality, why do some people see western clothes and being able to flaunt their bodies, without fearing being called sluts, (or being able to cock a snook at such attempts at labeling or controlling) as empowerment?

It’s the same as married women in India being ‘allowed to’ wear jeans or not be forced to wear sindoor, tali, mangalsutra are generally considered luckier.

For many women in India not being forced to do something is seen as empowerment.

The ramp is the precursor of the SlutWalk. No one calls it ‘besharmi’ because these girls are trained by ‘experts’ and Mother Teresa protégées in diction and clichés. They speak up for causes ranging from global warming to education.
Not one of them has spoken up for the real slut. The whore. The sex worker. The woman who works by getting fucked. Really.

If on the appointed day they can walk and show solidarity for those women, then these hawks can tawk.

Sexual harassment concerns everybody, all women (including sex workers). And their families and friends are affected. Why do they need to show solidarity for anybody else before they can expect crimes against them to be taken seriously?

“So why do we wear clothes again??”

‘I wish one had the liberty to slap these kids to senses and send them back to kindergarten to be taught…”Why do we wear clothes again??”’ (From J’s comment here)

So why do we wear clothes?

1. For protection from heat and cold? Most civilisations that did not need protection from cold did not have rigid rules for body being covered up.

Did traditional Indian clothing have blouses or shirts? Men and women wrapped a dhoti or sari, children generally wore nothing. Body was decorated with flowers, ‘alta’, turmeric, sandal wood paste, kohl and jewelry, wanting to look good was not considered inappropriate.

When invaders arrived from locations where clothing was necessary for protection from extreme heat or cold, they also brought along the concept of ‘shame’ and modesty. In ‘Chokher Bali‘ the newly wed refuses to wear a blouse with sari, because it was too British (modern).

Once the society starts covering women up, Margaret Atwood describes how the threshold for what is found sexually attractive changes, soon even a glimpse of an ankle becomes sexually provocative.

One example: Pakizah has the hero falling in love with Meena Kumari – after he sees her beautiful feet. Was that love?

2. Do we wear clothes to look better – to look sexually attractive?

Was there this fear that if women did not cover up, men might stop finding a mere glimpse of a part of a woman’s body attractive? (Margaret Atwood, Handmaiden’s Tale)

Mr Balvinder Singh’s experience in Nagaland shows making rules about covering up a woman’s body, is the beginning of objectification of women, to ensure ‘excitement’ does not ‘turn into monotony’.

“The men wore only a loincloth and the females wrapped just a shawl below their waists. The women folk of all ages were seen working in the fields, carrying fire wood or hay for the animals, pounding barley, washing clothes at village water points, knitting on hand looms (almost every house had a hand loom where the women would knit shawls etc) or attending to other such daily chores of life, wearing nothing on top.

While a small cleavage visible under the thin dupatta or through the pallu of a woman’s saree is certainly a pleasant sight for any man worth his salt, without harbouring any malafide thoughts in the mind, but there in the villages of Nagaland it was an anti climax to see the dangling pairs of bare boobs, available to look at in abundance in all shapes and sizes. Initially they were a cause of some excitement, which was natural , but gradually the excitement turned into monotony. I was reminded of the words of a famous poet that the ‘beauty that is veiled looks more beautiful’.” [Click here to read the entire article]

3. To prevent offending the sensibilities of those who think covering up is a religious/social/cultural/safety requirement?

This is extremely subjective.

Some people find even the glimpse of a woman’s eyes offends their religious sentiments, some find sleeveless blouses offensive, for many only traditional clothing no matter how much it convers or reveals is acceptable.

Some think it’s okay to wear anything so long as one can ‘carry  it off’.

Most people simply resist any change. So in most places,  there are rules regarding not just skin, but also how much of which clothing should not show.

So the sight of boxers and bra straps offends some people.

For many other people’s legs (shorts, bermudas), calves, arms (sleeveless) and knees (skirts), midriffs (saris, lehengas), shape, curves (fitted clothing) are offensive.

In  India showing one’s back and midriff is acceptable when one is wearing a sari, but not if the outfit is Western. Nigeria disagrees! Read Nita’s post – ‘Sari an immodest garment?’

So it seems what’s okay in some societies is not acceptable in some other societies and the rules change with times, all the time. Most societies seem to accept and rigidly follow their current – generally unwritten norms.

How do these norms get created? And how do they change?

How is it that more of these rules apply to women?

Could these rules be a means to control women’s sexuality?

Why do you think do humans wear clothes?

Related Posts: 

The way a woman dresses.

No Jeans for an Indian daughter in law.

Not just a pair of jeans.

All teachers except Indian women can do their job well enough in Western clothes?

What do ‘Modest’ women have that their ‘Immodest’ sisters don’t…

I read this article that teaches women how to dress modestly. The article recommends that women avoid wearing shirts that show anything below the collar bones, skirts and shorts that go higher than the knees, and tight fitting clothes.

The article says that women must not wear certain kinds of  clothes,  to prevent men (who may not be creeps or bad people) from being tempted to imagining what they look like beneath the clothes.

I am not convinced because I have read of many other men (who may not be creeps or bad people)  who will be attracted to the  sight  of a woman’s collar bones or ankles, or knees, or lips (with or without lipstick) or eyes lashes, or hair or the arc of her back. ETC.

If you read the comment section of “The way a woman dresses…” you will find capris or three fourths are also considered immodest by some men.  Jeans which the article says nothing against are considered suggestive by another commenter.

If you have seen Pakizah then you will know that even the sight of a woman’s feet is enough for some men to be  attracted to them.

Some other men think modesty is in the attitude and eyes, and not in the clothes.

So it does seem that modesty is a subjective term. It seems it is almost impossible for women to fit into everybody’s idea of modesty.

But more importantly how do women benefit from giving up free movement, comfortable clothing, the satisfaction of looking good, sunlight, fresh air, and a lot of personal freedom?

…In other words, what do modest women have that immodest women don’t?

They are told they have men’s respect.

Well, I am sure men’s respect is a very worthwhile thing. But seeing how millions of (immodest?) women are doing very well without this kind of ‘respect’, I really wonder if it’s time women stopped worrying about how men are imagining unprintable things about them, (because they find their clothing immodest) and started living their lives.

Thousands of women, (mothers, students, activists, nurses, athletes, journalists, engineers, construction workers, artists, actors, writers etc) are going about their daily lives without giving a thought to what every Tom, Dick and Harry is thinking when he sees them striding past.  They are all doing fine without fitting into every rikshaw-walla, coolie, clerk, politician, principal, army jawan and dhobi’s ideas of modesty.

I wonder who does a woman’s modesty empower… who do you think?

Related Posts:

1. What women ‘choose’ to wear…

2. Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work.

3. She does not ‘ask for it’.

4. Provocatively Dressed.

(who may not be creeps or bad people)