‘What Shri Yesudas said in public is what most of the parents are telling in private.’

I was away and did not see this positive news until Saturday afternoon. The times are changing and it’s good to hear long established lies being debunked.

Thanks for sharing Mr G. Vishwanathjee.

Yesudas strikes a sour note with comments on women’s attire

“What should be covered must be covered. Women should not trouble others by wearing jeans,” K.J. Yesudas, musician, said here on Friday, inviting protests from political leaders, women’s groups and the public.

“They [women] should not try to become like men but must behave modestly,” he continued. The attire, he said, is unbecoming of Indian culture and what lends beauty to a woman is her demureness.

Until recently comments like this were accepted as common sense and traditional wisdom.

So it’s a huge positive that no matter how obviously absurd Mr Yesudas’s comment might seem to some of us, it is still being challenged, discussed and responded to.

Unbelievable though this seems, there are many who still agree with him, and are going to quote him as the final word on what their women should be allowed to wear.

And those who quote him would not just be doing this because they hate women, but because they can’t see what options can their women be permitted.

Many of them sincerely believe that lewd comments or stares (i.e. women failing to avoid attention or disrespect from men) is amongst the worst things they can watch happening to their women, worse than their women being allowed to lose freedom, happiness, and worse than their women not being viewed as people with feelings of their own.

Everything must be sacrificed (by women) to ensure that lewd comments and stares don’t offend those who fail to see who should be outraged and by whom/what.

Because they believe that women should be held responsible for protecting the sensibilities of those respectable people who do not want to watch women being subjected to lewd comments.

This comment is a response to the article in the Hindu.

What Shri. Yesudas said in public is what most of the parents are telling in private. I would like to suggest these progressive people to just remember for a moment of the past as to whether they had ever noticed or felt embarrassed or scared when their daughter or close relatives wearing these dresses were stared upon by strangers or subjected to lewd comments.

I hope the outrage and protests bring to notice that:

1. What should be found objectionable and embarrassing, and should be controlled is the ‘lewd comments’.

Yes it’s difficult to understand after centuries of having heard otherwise.

So let me attempt to explain.

2. Making excuses for the lewd comments also means – that now, after centuries of doing this, we aren’t sure who is the victim:

i.)  the harasser – being troubled by women in jeans, or

ii.)  the women, or

iii.) those who believe they have to take decisions for ‘these women’.

3. All along, the person making ‘lewd comments’ knows he has well known figures commiserating with him. (Some of them are probably justifying their own past and future actions?)

4. Only now since more of us, including women, have a Voice do we learn that women have feelings too.

Suchithra krishnamoorthy, playback singer:
#Yesudas Men shouldn’t be allowed to talk so much and must learn to behave. Y provoke us women into wanting to slap u?


5. Though I think misogynists should be allowed to talk – Silence does not change any points of view, Dialogue does.

6. And dialogue also means that we know we aren’t the only ones who can see how absurd it is to defend an obvious wrong, and to blame the one who has been wronged.

Related Posts:

“People will say we encouraged these men to follow us, even though we are innocent”

Not Just a Pair of Jeans

The way a woman dresses…

Women and their unmentionables. Understanding Objectification.

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

“My dad tells me not to wear skimpy outfit when he is around”

“The male community, including myself, needs only 10 minutes, just ten minutes… to send what is called sperm, into the uterus of a female.”

 Gujarat Police urges girls to stop wearing jeans, shorts

This Shame belongs to Who?

“Sometimes it seems like every single thing I do has the potential to be something ‘provocative’.”

Yes, I’m a woman, I have breasts and a cleavage, Deepika Padukone slams leading daily.

My skirt is not your license, pervert. – A splash of my life…

What is this big problem with Bra Strap Showing?

Did the posters threatening acid attacks on women wearing jeans surprise you?



Women and their unmentionables. Understanding Objectification.

This is a rambling and unedited attempt to understand why there is so much tolerance, in all Patriarchal societies, to Objectification of women.   

Many believe, and see it as obvious, that since women (unlike everybody else?) have bodies they should expect to be discussed, commented upon, condemned, stalked, hated, adored, sexually assaulted, respected, objectified etc.

Specially if the parts of the body being discussed have been sexualised – like legs, lips, eyes, breasts, ankles, back, belly, neck, midriff, shoulders, thighs, knees, toes, ears, mouth; because, why else were these body parts created if not for men  – to view, approve, own, disown, love, hate, honor, decide whether they are obscene or graceful, whether they look more attractive (to men) covered or uncovered, and how much covered or revealed?

This belief that women (or their bodies) exist to serve some purpose in men’s lives is reinforced when we hear numerous statements, like those that imply that our Skewed Gender Ratio is a problem – not because it indicates something seriously and evilly wrong with the society, but because it means there aren’t enough women for men to marry.

So, it’s obvious that when Deepika Padukone pointed out, “Yes, I’m a woman, I have breasts and a cleavage.”, many of us can’t quite understand what she means.

[Yes, I’m a woman, I have breasts and a cleavage, Deepika Padukone slams leading daily.]

Because, the point for many is just that. She should not forget that she is a woman, and has breasts and a cleavage. She is supposed to keep them covered or lose all right to dignity or privacy (for want of better word).

Here’s a TOI comment that explains the attitude better:

“If a person is not ashamed to remove his/her clothes for whatever reasons there may be, then why make a big fuss about people peeking into the pics looking for something ‘more’. Lets not let ourselves down to a level where public scrutiny might shame us”

It’s not just breasts. Women are viewed as a collection of body parts and the parts have been transformed into objects that serve to attract, delight or disgust men. What other purpose do women’s bodies serve? Women (i.e. their bodies) it seems were created for men.

Try viewing legs (women’s legs) as means for moving from one place to another – it would be considered a radical and impractical idea by many – because non-radical or default or the ‘normal’ remains how they appear to the male eye. Like – whether or not they are modestly covered, how good or bad they look, what colour, shape, texture, size, covering appeals to men.

TOI says:

Deepika Padukone SHOWS off again !!


‘… when her dress went too far and a part of her unmentionable were visible for a second ..although it isn’t a blooper but we definitely caught something peeping out of her dress.’

How do women’s body parts become ‘unmentionables’?

‘Some 150 years back the women in kerala launched a feminist revolt for the right to cover their breast, women in kerala were not allowed to cover their breast; mostly this rule was applicable to lower caste women, when someone from higher caste would come she should show her breast to cover ones breast was considered a sign of immodesty. Brahmin women can cover their breast while venturing out but at home they had to be topless, shatriya women cant cover breast infront of brahmins and lower cast women couldnt cover breast infront of anyone. The cloth worn on lower part couldnt be lower than the knee.’ [Click to read more]

There are contradicting ways in which women’s bodies are objectified.

One is seemingly respectful, protective and caring, another is gallant, chivalrous and seemingly liberal, and yet another one is openly misogynistic. All involve sexualising of women’s body into parts and seeing women as objects created for men’s convenience.

1. One view claims to honor, worship, find graceful, love, adore ‘the beautiful women who give men life’ and who sacrifice their happiness and self interest for men.

They believe crimes against women would end if all men viewed all women as their mothers and sisters and if all women lived and dressed in ways that didn’t draw any attention to them (basically if women were not seen).

They don’t talk about incest or child abuse or other crimes against women and children inside their homes.

They might believe that West is the cause of all crimes against women in India. They believe sexual assaults happen because men are weak and fail to control their ‘natural’ urges and that such men should be castrated or hanged or stoned and spat upon. And they might believe that women are too good to have such ‘manly needs and urges’.

They might also believe that lesser evils in man can be reformed by the love of a good woman.

They, like others misogynists, insist that women’s bodies were created for men, the Uterus to provide male heirs (though beautiful daughters are needed too, or else there would be no one to provide loving care, tie a rakhi, wear pretty bichias and bangles, provide opportunities for kanya-daan, save the rituals, customs and culture etc. So, yes, they admit, daughters have their uses too. These are the people who would appeal to parents to have daughters but may believe that divorce and love marriages are social evils.

They don’t talk about what women in unhappy marriages should do, they believe good women know how to stay happily married and such women would rather die than bring dishonour to family.

This view urges men to ‘respect’ women like their own mothers and sisters, but says nothing about viewing women as humans – capable of feelings, failings or desires.

Those who hold this view won’t allow women to compare themselves to men. They insist that men are weak, spoilt, selfish, aggressive, crude and that’s okay because they are men. But women can’t afford to be like this and they mustn’t attempt that. Because women are special – they are mothers. (Yet they don’t think children should carry their mothers’ names and lineage forward)  They believe it’s okay for women to give up their families, names, identities and happiness for men. They are likely to admire women who suffer in silence, sacrifice and serve without complaining. And because all women are goddesses and those who are not are merely misguided, and should be still ‘respected’ and taught about their duty to ‘mankind’.

They don’t see much hope for a woman who is not found beautiful by men, which is why they feel they are being compassionate and reassuring when they insist that ‘all women are beautiful’. Occasionally they can be also be found assuring random women of their attractiveness to men, and then be hurt when women are not appreciative of their generosity.

It simply doesn’t occur to them to see women as people and not as bodies, beautiful or ugly or deserving or not deserving of men’s love. They don’t see that their view too is all about Men, because they believe it is a Man’s World and women can be very satisfied and lead fulfilling life if they made men’s convenience their life purpose.

They might also believe that everybody (not just those who can enforce it) has the right to decide what in women’s bodies is condemnable or controversial, moral or immoral, shameful or shameless, excusable, obscene, vulgar etc.

Women who ignore or disagree with this view are viewed as leading selfish lives devoid of men’s approval or worse, ‘men’s respect’ (though some of us might consider them Empowered). Which is why misogynists view women who do not wear traditional clothing as a threat to Patriarchy.

2. Another is a seemingly Modern Mindset where one hears claims like ‘I love women’.  

Why do they love women?

Because women are beautiful. Women are hot. They are perplexed when some women are not delighted (forget grateful, not even glad) to be loved by them. They admire a thing of beauty – and all women are beautiful.

This view does not see women as individuals.

But the world would be so boring (for them) if there were no women in it. They are fine with women ‘flaunting’ their bodies (the default is ‘covered’, if it is not covered, then the body it is attached to, has no rights over it). Beauty is to be beheld. So women should be free to enjoy the appreciation when they go ahead and ‘show off’. (Not covering is automatically ‘showing off’ or even consent)

Those who hold this view have been questioned by women and media for making statements like, “I love women!!” and clearly didn’t get why this was found offensive by some women. It wasn’t even about women. It was about what men loved. What kind of skin colours, hair volume and texture, clothing etc they preferred in women. What makes women attractive (to men). What women should do to win a man’s approval. Isn’t it awesome/fortunate to be born women in a world where men just can’t do without women.

This view does not talk about rights or respect and generally views male attention and approval as empowering for women.

3. A third kind of objectification is the blatant objectification where women and women’s bodies are viewed as man’s properties and dangerous for social harmony and are best kept covered, locked up, denied voices and rights. This view is generally criticised and those who hold it are viewed by all, including the other two above, as misogynists.

But for those who hold this view of women, there is no other way of life.Their honor lies in ensuring their cows, homes, women, crops etc are kept safe from other men. It’s all about men. Men own everything including women and their lives and their bodies.

* * *

Finally here’s a comment that comes close to what Deepikia Padukone probably feels.

I am astonished by TOI tweet. Would you react same if your genitals are being discussed in public.

I wonder if all those who don’t understand, would be fine if the parts of their bodies or lives and choices that are ‘not covered’ were to be viewed as ‘flaunting’ and were open to public scrutiny, leering, commenting and judgment. Though ofcourse their preferences are no reason for Deepika or anybody else to tolerate the same.

What do you think?

Why do societies get away with women being denied the ownership of their own bodies, covered, uncovered, attractive or unappealing (to men)?


The full extent of what urban India believes about menstruation is extraordinary

 Gujarat Police urges girls to stop wearing jeans, shorts

“So why do we wear clothes again??”

A response to: Why we think women activists should change their attitude of “wear what you like”

Why do Indian women like to wear western clothes?

What women ‘choose’ to wear…

Weird, funny facts about Misogynists.

Yes, I’m a woman, I have breasts and a cleavage, Deepika Padukone slams leading daily.

I think this is a positive. This simple statement makes so much sense,

“Yes, I’m a woman, I have breasts and a cleavage.” 

It should start a much needed dialogue and hopefully influence in some small way, the way women’s bodies are viewed. As of now, everybody in India seems to know who owns women’s bodies – including the bodies of women in public spaces.

I also hope we hear more about how offensive it is to those who are directly affected, than to the brothers, fathers and husbands of some of them. We also must consider the possibility of some women not having willing male relatives to feel outrage of their behalf.

At the same time, it’s not surprising that many Indians can’t quite understand what  Deepika Padukone could possible mean. Because, the point for them is just that: She should not forget that she is a woman, and has breasts and a cleavage.

These comments on the internet should be read without anger or outrage,   because those who are saying this, probably believe what they are saying.

1. For this commentator – It’s all about Men.

Why on the first place show ur body to Men? Beauty is not skin show only . Deepika must realise it someday.

What men find beautiful. And what women must realise about men’s preference, i.e. women’s skin showing versus women’s skin covered. 

It’s not surprising that they think this way – because even when we talk about the Skewed Gender Ratio, we hear it’s a concern only because men need wives. And when we talk about protecting women from sexual assaults, it’s because they are men’s sisters and daughters. 

When do we hear about women as people with rights and feelings and Bodies of their own?



I condemn the TOI article. At the same time, I sincerely think that by showing their physique only, most of these cine-stars make their living. So there is controversy here. I think we should condemn both.

Why do you think is this comment condemning ‘both’?

There is no doubt in his/her mind that a woman ‘showing’ her body is wrong – and that women need approval and deserve condemnation for attempting to view their bodies (and minds) as their own business.

So if a woman steps out of her home, and doesn’t keep in mind the preferences of men in the street outside, what else does she expect?




This comment is why objectification of women needs a post, many posts, maybe a tag. We should talk more about all the ways in which women are objectified. And if and how it influences women’s lives and safety.

what about item numbers ? what about leela ? dam maro dam . They show if they get money , when no mone?y. Rape and crime against women are increasing and they play a important part in that.

Also, rapes and crime against women are not increasing. The silence of survivors is ‘decreasing’. The confidence to report rape is increasing.The fear of being shamed, blamed and named is decreasing.

* * *

Many more misogynistic but mostly heart felt opinions on the links below.

Do these opinions matter? Do they influence women’s lives? I am sure those who hold these opinions do control the lives of ‘their women’ – their sisters, wives and daughters.  I am confident that Deepika Padukone’s assertion is a step in the right direction. Specially since she did get a male friend or relative to speak on her behalf.

Deepika Padukone Should Consider it a Compliment: ‘Defence’ of Cleavage Tweet

Yes, I’m a woman, I have breasts and a cleavage, Deepika Padukone slams leading daily; Bollywood stands in support

OMG: Deepika Padukone exposes cleavage!

Some related Posts:

A double mastectomy in a world where a woman is seen as ‘packet of behinds, thighs, hair and lips’.

That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.

Kangana Ranaut’s interview.

If pre-marital sex if here to stay, then so are HPVs and other STDs.

My skirt is not your license, pervert. – A splash of my life…



What is this big problem with Bra Strap Showing?

Sharing an email. 

And it’s not just bra strap showing, it’s also not using the word bra, or period or vagina.

What is this big problem with Bra Strap Showing… Some Lady or other will point out and some will also with confidence tug my dress to position …Yeh Chakkar kya hai… And even those women with the 2×2 see-thru rubia, through which full bra is anyways visible..

Yeh chakkar kya hai 🙄 Is it a sin to wear a bra or not to wear …? yeh chakkar kya hai…koi to batao… I don’t wear at home while I breastfeed or simply like that.

I definitely wear while running or walking as i get hurt or at risk of tearing some muscle while running..

I dry them specifically in Sunlight so that I do not get some skin infection. But this seems like everyones business including those whose Vip ki chaddi hanging on the outermost dandi on the balcony also flying in skies many times …

yeh chakkar kya hai…koi to batao…

Related Posts:

This Shame belongs to Who?


Romanticizing innocence ignorance, chastity and related taboos for women.

“Sometimes it seems like every single thing I do has the potential to be something ‘provocative’.”

Here’s why I think the society should not obsess over a woman’s virginity.

Here’s an article from TOI that I think encourages sexist fallacies. “Great things about being a virgin woman“. (Thanks for the link A and Remya)

The article tells women to “just remember that there are many advantages of being a virgin. It is one of the most special gifts god has given you.

Here’s why I think the society, men and women, should not obsess over woman’s virginity (and sex life). Rambling thoughts, might edit and add links later.

An obsession with women’s virginity makes it look like we are okay with double standards and hypocrisy. (Also, since everybody loses their virginity only after sexual experience, and only some are expected to preserve it we don’t think of questioning the need to preserve inexperience.)

This obsession starts connecting a woman’s morals with her sex life. It indicates that women who do not refuse to have intercourse until they are married are somehow not nice people. We know this is not true. A woman’s sex life is just a part of her life and personality – focusing on it makes it seem like her ‘body’ is more important than herself. It’s disrespectful to women, for a society to value her body parts more than her life – I think it is at the root of a lot of other evils and controls on women’s life.

It also prevents women (and indirectly men) from experiencing sex – obsession with virginity makes sex look like something women do for men, like something women give and men take. (“So now, save your virginity. Don’t give it away on a platter.”)

It encourages sexual crimes. One, by making a serious crime become more about a woman’s ‘lost virginity’ and secondly, by making it shameful for women to even talk about this ‘great loss’. Some Indians see it as so shameful that they kill the victims. The shame has now become a habit and the same mindset also affects how we deal with Child Sexual Abuse.

Since the obsession involves only 50% of the populace, it has also resulted in millions of children and women being trafficked and kept in inhuman conditions – because Patriarchy believes that the 50% for whom the virginity is being preserved have their ‘needs’.

When we see sex as something men want and women provide, then we see our Police and rapists (and many other people) believing that women, who are not criminals, sex workers or just bad people, cannot want sex. And once it is established that all good women hate sex, then it becomes easier to silence rape victims by conveying they ‘asked for it’.

It prevents women (and society and law makers) from seeing sex as an activity where women are equal participants. Often just their participation (and anything that leads to it) is seen as condemnable.

This also affects how widows, divorcees and rape victims are seen – as ‘used goods’. This obsession also leads to young women being killed if they are suspected of not being virgins.

Please think about it, how does virginity benefit women?

Maybe it assured a father (before the DNA testing days) that the first child he had with a virgin most probably did carry his genes – but isn’t there more to a man-woman relationship, doesn’t it indicate lack of trust and a lack of respect for the mother?

Maybe it also assured their partners that any sexually transmitted diseases they have, have been passed on by their other non-virgin partners. It also made it easier for their partners to pretend the woman was frigid.

Maybe it meant that many women never knew their bodies could not just produce babies and please their husbands, they could also be used for their own pleasure.

How is lack of knowledge and experience a ‘virtue’?

Now when women are marrying later than ever before, I wonder if it makes sense to wait to have sex until they are married. Who does it really benefit and why?

The article claims, “…there are many advantages of being a virgin. It is one of the most special gifts god has given you.”

Is Virginity a gift from god? Who is this gift meant for? Does this gift from god make women lead better lives?

Obsession with virginity affects children too. We worship mothers who have husbands (it is assumed that they were virgins till they were married), and condemn mothers who don’t – their children (boys or girls) are ostracized.

The articles lists these benefits for virgin women.

“No pregnancy fears:” – Readily available information about contraception would be a more practical option, though in some cultures married couples are advised abstinence to prevent pregnancy.

“No STDs:” Doesn’t this apply to men and women both? Today in India many married women and their children have AIDS. These women were virgins when they married and their non virgin (and not necessarily faithful) husbands passed on the virus to them. Some countries in Africa and other countries that obsess with women’s ‘purity’ face similar problems. If virginity was not such an issue, all these other related issues would not be brushed under the carpet and serious discussion would be possible.

“No emotional trauma of a relationship: Sometimes there is nothing left in a relationship after sex. Love is not all about sex so there are many things a couple can do without sex in a relationship. Remember, a sexual disappointment can make you feel hurt, lonely and angry.”

I would have thought knowledge and experience should help in such cases. And emotional trauma in a relationship is possible with or without sex, unless one of the partners insists on seeing virginity as a ‘gift from god’.

And does this imply that it is okay if there is no ‘relationship after sex’ for married couples?

Agree with there are many things that couple can do in a relationship – but didn’t understand why sex shouldn’t be one of those things, if both the partners want it and no coercion or emotional blackmail is used?

“Your man will feel so proud and happy: It’s a fact; most men still prefer a virgin woman. No guys want to think about his girl having sex with other guys. Even though virgin women are not sexually experienced, men still love them and feel more sexually excited. He will respect your innocence, and also there won’t be any arguments on your past relationships.”

Sexist generalizations. So a woman should stay a virgin to make a man ‘sexually excited’? (Such non-virgin intentions are innocent?) Also consider – what would make a man prefer a virgin? Fear of being compared to her other partners? What about the woman having similar concerns?

“You are pure as an angel: Virgins are probably one of the sanest people on earth. Most virgin women have morals and respect themselves. Also they take relationship and marriage very seriously.”

This made me wonder if this article intended to provoke reactions like this post.

Or, Poe’s Law?  (Thanks Natasha S 🙂 )

So do you think women and the society benefit from women ‘preserving their virginity’? How?

What do you think would change if such controls were not there?

Related Posts:

Why exactly do we disapprove of Live-in relationships and Premarital sex?
Driven by tradition, Kanjarbhat elders force Virginity tests.
Shameless – By: Priya Alika Elias, Ultra Violet, Indian Feminists Unplugged.
Great Things About Being A Dimwit – Women’s Web, Aparna
We like our virgins – Amit Sharma

How do you celebrate yourself?

So, how do you celebrate yourself?

I think maybe by recognizing that we are people. For women it would mean loving ourselves. Not as ‘things of beauty’ and ‘joys forever’ but irrespective of how much one’s limbs, bum or eye lashes fit the latest criteria of what the world (women and non-women) thinks is beautiful.

By loving one’s body, not by ensuring the skin is ‘fair & lovely’ but by not forgetting that the skin (and brain, ovaries and intestines etc) are useful body parts – which if kept in prime condition would ensure richer lives.

So  does it mean women aren’t celebrating themselves, if they want to look attractive? No, it means women celebrate themselves when they reject the newest fads of what makes them beautiful. And more. Like Vidya Balan in ‘The Dirty Picture’- [Female Sexuality vs Patriarchy – Towards Harmony].

Celebrating oneself would mean not-needing excuses to love oneself. Excuses like, “I take care of myself because my family needs me.” (Because then, those who have no families to ‘take care of’, and  those whose families have stopped needing them – they don’t matter?)

It would mean not competing (with other women) to fit into stereotypes of ideal women – it would mean understanding that each woman (and non-woman) is unique.

It would also mean admitting that one has needs, wants, dreams, ambitions, weaknesses, and even strengths that one is not allowed to have.

And it would mean, (quoting Shail),

…if someone tells you that women are the epitome of sacrifice, look the moron person  in the eye with amusement and ask, “Oh yeah? Nice try!” [On Women’s Day – Shail ]

What is your idea of Celebrating Yourself?

You can win some prizes by answering here, Celebrating Myself – A contest on Women’s Web.

You may also like to sign this petition: I am dark, hear me roar!

A decent man who is overpowered by desire and who does not want to fornicate… should Rape?

The only solution for a decent man who has the means, who is overpowered by desire and who does not want to commit fornication, is to acquire sex slaves. (Salwa Al Mutairi, a woman and a Kuwaiti politician)

Al Mutairi thinks Chechnya would be the right place to buy sex slaves (for their husbands) from.

The country is at war with another state, so there are some captives for sure. I say go and buy those captives, they might just die of hunger over there. I say go and buy them and sell them to merchants here in Kuwait who may otherwise commit a sin.” (Thanks for the link Sunder.)

Al Mutairi sees Fornication (willing partners, but not married to each other) as a crime, and  Rape of helpless women as the solution.

Obedient Wife Club‘s 800 members and Al Mutairi should be told that such thinking is responsible for ‘Overpowered by Desire Disorder (OBDD)’ in men. *Note: The term OBDD is my creation, not a medical term.*

When Getting Married and Staying Married is a woman’s life purpose, some justify domestic violence, some excuse the husband’s crimes, some try  being ‘whores in bed’, some attempt to control who their husbands attack when OBDD strikes.

Some facts about Overpowered By Desire Disorder (OBDD)

1. The disorder is more common in sexually repressed nations, where men and women are not allowed/ are restricted from interacting.

2. OBDD has reached epidemic proportions in nations where women are made to cover up completely. (In countries like India it is more common in places where there is poor rate of conviction and segregation.  )

3. Generally men in most of the Western countries, in Ethiopia and in Nagaland and in many Indian families do not show symptoms of OBDD. These healthy men generally don’t need to use religion/insecurity/marriage/financial dependence for sex. On the contrary, women generally enjoy having sex with them

And sometimes OBDD patients threaten these women with dire consequences for this. Violent envy is common amongst those suffering from OBDD.

It is possible that men with OBDD in these nations have not evolved, physically and mentally, to the level that the rest of the world has.

Could it be that they have genuinely got no control over their bodies and minds?

Let’s assume it is.

So what would be the obvious, intelligent, scientific and civilized solution?

1. Making women, babies and little boys or whoever they attack responsible for the OBDD patient’s condition, or blaming the victim, has been tried.  It seems to aggravate the OBDD.

2. Covering women up partially or completely, controlling their movements and lives, also seems to aggravate the symptoms.

Those afflicted with OBDD  are known to victimize anyone if there is hope of not having to face the consequences. High conviction rates for their OBD actions seems to improve the condition.

3. The most obvious solution –

a. Medication to control the chemicals responsible for  the condition (hormones?).

b. Surgery to remove the problem causing body part/s.

c. An analysis of the patients mental capabilities.

Occasional sedation to control OBDD could be seen as an option during festivals etc.

Restricted use of TV and internet to prevent what patients call ‘provocation’. Blind fold in public places would achieve the same goal.

d. Counseling might work if the condition is discovered in time.

e. Restriction of movements (no traveling alone after dark, no permission to visit lonely parks etc).

Locking up or Institutionalization in severe cases.

f. Male Chastity Belts could prove helpful for some patients.

This video is not in English, so all it does is let us see that indoctrination, extreme desperation and insecurity does not add extra noses to our faces.

Obedient Wives’ Clubs: Insulting to both men and women?

If he needs sex, obey him. “You must satisfy your husband. A good wife should be a whore in bed,” (A tip for club members to prevent husbands from straying.)

And to imagine this coming from Rohaya Mohamad a 46-year-old doctor, whose husband has three other wives, not an average woman’s idea of a successful or happy marriage.

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – A group of Malaysian women launched an “Obedient Wife Club” on Saturday, urging members to be “whores in bed” and obey their husbands to curb social ills like divorce and domestic violence.

Shouldn’t women instead be informed that the only thing that prevents them from finding real life-partners for themselves (instead of those who marry them to curb social ills like prostitution), is their social conditioning?


The club has come under criticism from Malaysian women’s groups who say the onus on keeping a family together is being unfairly placed on women.

With obedience comes submission, which may lead to domestic violence and marital rape,” Women’s Aid Organisation head Ivy Josiah told AFP.

We should really be forming equality in marriage clubs,” she added. [Click to read more]

I googled to read more reactions,

It turns out, the secret to a happy union is to let your husband have sex with you whenever he wants. If your marriage is sad or fraught with strife, simply fuck your way out. How novel.

This view is insulting to both men and women, and it’s not limited exclusively to countries with more strongly religious populations. It’s sadly pervasive in American society as well. [Click to read the article at Jezebel]

Picture of two members of Obedient Wives’ Club with their husband and children  linked to Jezebel

For Indian women (and their divorce rates), we have ‘Manju Sanskar Kendra‘ in Bhopal, where girls, often teenagers, are taught to ‘adjust properly‘ since ‘families are breaking up because girls nowadays have too much ego‘.

Hemnani says he was open to taking classes for men and their mothers too (Not fathers?) but there was no response. Maybe they didn’t want to know what caused tuberculosis?

The head of this institution (who, surprise, surprise is a man) has authored books on this topic “ Grahasth Mein Vyavaharik Jeevan (Practical Married Life) for one. For the uninitiated, this book scatters many pearls of wisdom, such as too much sex is the cause of diabetes and tuberculosis among men.[Click to read]

Here’s a letter from an Indian woman who is eager to join Manju Sanskar Kendra in Bhopal because she confesses she, started getting all bad, bad thoughts about Bill (her fiance) – I tried, I really tried to control myself but you must remember that I did not have the benefit of attending your school then…🙂

Does the fact that such schools have limited takers and face derision shows we have started putting common sense above old habits (euphemistically called traditions)?