![]() That brings us to another bone of contention. She is someone who is not afraid of peeping-toms (the lingerie salesman who views her changing inside the trial room) or of dacoits (in the present series - continuing that K-serial phenomenon with unknown characters from her past propping up here and there). She is a city-bred, liberal and informed woman who knows the difference between lust and power, as in the recently concluded series, where she seduces a film-actor (who looks suspiciously like, ahem, ahem, the Biggy himself) to win a model contest. The point being, Bhabhi cannot be classified as a middle-class representative, because she isn’t one. How do we know sexuality is repressed there? Because they still practise arranged marriage, or because women still wear salwar-kameez and don’t talk to boys too often? Repressed middle-class sexuality? That in itself is a label we ‘supposed-urban-liberals’ love to attach to those living in Tier II or Tier III towns. Firstly, the idea that it represents a modified version of repressed middle-class sexualities is unjustified. Then why does that create issues at all?įor a couple of reasons. Why is that such a problem? Pornography has always intended to be a medium of suspension of disbelief indeed, it works on the idea of the unreachable - from the Debonair centre-spreads to Hustler’s honeys. No - she does not exist anywhere except on the web, or that eternal repository of knowledge, the mind. ![]() ![]() ![]() She is an example of the female daguerreotype we Indian males love to dream about. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |