Desicritics Comments on Aishwarya at Cannes Says Honeymoon Is The Best Time For 'Normal' Women

Comment by UNUZKJ4

Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:05:52 EDT

Hello. UNUZKJ5 [url=http://www.tUNUZKJ3.com] UNUZKJ6 [/url] Thanks

Comment by Die Hard

Wed, 23 May 2007 02:02:55 EDT

Anadiya, I do wear pink outfits all the time. I certainly do get a lot of comments about them and I don't mind them.I certainly don't mind someone asking me whether I am gay! However, I'd mind if someone is sniggering by the water cooler about my pink jacket when he/she can ask me whether I'm gay? You didn't answer my question. Do you think Karen Johar would be offended if someone ask him if he is gay? Oh, I am hypocritical. Right! Why would speculation about sexuality offends people. Why?should I be ashamed if I'm gay? And if I'm not should I be ashamed of the fact that someone thinks I'm gay? If I'm gay, I'm gay. I think you are showing signs of phobia!

Comment by K S

Tue, 22 May 2007 11:46:04 EDT

Aditi I am glad you allow "freedom of speech". That is good. It is alright to criticize Ash as long as it based on some facts. Enough said

Comment by Aditi Nadkarni

Tue, 22 May 2007 11:33:33 EDT

KS Since you addressed your comment #97 to me, here goes: Most commentators on this site have begun to mistake "Media criticism" for "personal attacks". Celebrities by virtue of their very public status receive with good measure both, adulation and criticism from journalists/ media. These are not personal attacks. The reason some people can even respond to this criticism is because this website is liberal in its approach and as I stated earlier allows freedom of speech to commentators as much as to authors. Even the TOI publishes articles vehemently criticizing or mocking a public figure. The difference? You cannot post a comment and insult the journalist who wrote the pungent article. Here you can. Thats all. There is nothing "personal" about what we write regarding AR. It is called "media criticism" and is supposed to be taken in that light. When we are insulted on this site we reply and face the angry mob. AR doesn't need to. Hence the comparison is unfair and honestly a bit ridiculous as I said in my comment #95

Comment by Anadiya

Tue, 22 May 2007 10:13:41 EDT

Die Hard, Speculating about someone's sexuality when they are not there to correct the perception is in similar vein to your outrage over Aish's past. Questioning a person's (man/woman) sexuality is okay. What is not okay is passing judgments on his/her sexuality/sexual past. So I take it that you won't mind people sniggering about your pink shirt and whimsical ways by the water cooler? Something tells me you will be first to knock their teeth off for spreading wild 'speculations' around the office so lets not make bones about your blatant hypocracy. And no I don't live in Victorian England but very much in India where patriarchal society continues to prevail and have seen enough women being maligned by men as is being done on this board itself.

Comment by Die Hard

Tue, 22 May 2007 08:58:32 EDT

Anadiya, Anadiya, I can bring myself to say Deepti Lamba. It is easier to go by DL. I am not allergic to sex. Sexual orientations indeed fall within my definition of sexuality. If it does not, please do enlighten me. I get to see glimpses of Koffee with Karen on NDTV. I thought he speaks well and the guy is actually interesting and funny. So naturally I was curious and interested to learn more about him. I didn't ask with whom he is sleeping and how many girl/boy friends he has had. What I am trying so hard to say is that there are boundaries that even the most liberated should not breach. Questioning a person's (man/woman) sexuality is okay. What is not okay is passing judgments on his/her sexuality/sexual past. How can you question my credibility based on the above post? That Karen-Gere piece suggests that Karen's gay! And since when being gay is bad? Do you mean to say if Karen is not gay, that he will be offended by my question? Come, come Anadiya where do you live? Is it Victorian England?

Comment by Die Hard

Tue, 22 May 2007 08:51:31 EDT

Anadiya, Anadiya, I can bring myself to say Deepti Lamba. It is easier to go by DL. I am not allergic to sex. Sexual orientations indeed falls within my definition of sexuality. If it does not, please do enlighten me. I get to see glimpses of Koffee with Karen on NDTV. I thought he speaks well and the guy is actually interesting and funny. So naturally I was curious and interested to learn more about him. I didn't ask with whom he is sleeping and how many girl/boy friends he has had. What I am trying so hard to say is that there are boundaries that even the most liberated should not breach. Questioning a person's (man/woman) sexuality is okay. What is not okay is passing judgments on his/her sexuality/sexual past. How can you question my credibility based on the above post? That Karen-Gere piece suggests that Karen's gay! And since when being gay is bad? Do you mean to say if Karen is not gay, that he will be offended by my question? Come, come Anadiya where do you live? In which century?

Comment by Chusu

Tue, 22 May 2007 08:35:14 EDT

"The author simply said that Aish because of her past does not represent 'Indian' women. It is the truth. She can get away with it because she is a celebrity but none of us Indian women would be allowed to even breathe by society if such was in our case. We are expected to marry the person we fall in love not have another relationship as per conservative Indian society. And that is exactly what she meant and that sets Aish apart from us." Oh come on, do you live in a village or something? Most city girls brought up in liberal families are not forced to marry their first love or spat upon for having fallen in love more than once. "Not even allowed to breathe" hahaha yeah right. That happens in villages and small towns. Most people here do not fall in that category. Perhaps I should complain that DL does not represent the average village women and is thus talking out of her bum.

Comment by Sanam

Tue, 22 May 2007 08:20:27 EDT

Correction for #108. I am defending Shilpa and NOT Richard Gere.

Comment by Sanam

Tue, 22 May 2007 08:17:42 EDT

Anadiya, Wait a minute. I am not defending Shilpa and not Gere. If you observe carefully, I have not mentioned Gere at all. and I do not care about him. It is the victim of my country. I feel Shilpa was not allowed to voice her opinion and lot of people questioned her intelligence to make her own decisions. I hope I have set the record straight.

Comment by Anadiya

Tue, 22 May 2007 07:36:30 EDT

Die Hard, the question was asked by 'amused' and answer was given promptly. If you have a grouse to pick for the sexually explicit questions asked go after the person who came as 'Amused' and when he got the answer expecting DL (you can't even bring yourself to name her) to back down he promptly tried to change his stance 'DL' did not mention her personal life it was thrown at her face time and time again by your side and she did not even respond to them in the same nasty tone to the person who made them and others who questioned her editorial skills etc. Is she questioning your integrity or mine? No! you all were to busy sharpening your piitch forks for a witch hunt. Now you are trying to discuss the seriousness of the issue after being caught in a trap of your own making. The author simply said that Aish because of her past does not represent 'Indian' women. It is the truth. She can get away with it because she is a celebrity but none of us Indian women would be allowed to even breathe by society if such was in our case. We are expected to marry the person we fall in love not have another relationship as per conservative Indian society. And that is exactly what she meant and that sets Aish apart from us. Nothing wrong with her life style but by being an actor she can hardly compare herself to the standards that apply to us women who are bound by society. Deepti has already addressed the matter about the virginity part in comment#49. Did you read it? I see Saman and you on other post on Gere don't mind speculating about a man's sexuality and that isn't offensive? Die HArd:Is Karen Johar really NOT gay? He looks and acts so gay? May be he is bi?! Wait a minute, could it be that questioning a man's sexuality is not as important as a woman's sexual past? What double standards!! It is you have lot credence on this site.

Comment by Die Hard

Tue, 22 May 2007 06:20:46 EDT

Anadiya, are you implying that I used derogatory remarks against Adithi. I asked her a fair question. I say fair because, in this blog she has written not only one but a couple of articles on feminism referring to her parents and how their ideas and ideals affected her in her formative years. I enjoyed reading them. I asked her whether her post in #95 is based on what they taught her on the subject of feminism. I concede it was sarcastic remark may be bordering on a sneer even. But was it really derogatory? If that question offends her I regret that because my post at #102 defeats its purpose. You have assumed that I am a fan. The fact is I do not watch Hindi movies. (I don't understand the language) What I'm trying to say is there are no personal reasons for me to defend her. Anadiya, mere mention of sex certainly does not offend me. Indeed it interests me. It is the discussion in this forum on 'other people's sex' that irks me. How many before marriage? It really is absurd! Since when discussing sexuality involves numbers? If I say I have slept with a dozen, does that mean I'm discussing sexuality? Please don't insult the sensibilities and intelligence of the people who are in this forum. If I was promiscuous before can't I be monogamous now? Every time I do something now, do I have to apologise for my past behaviour and explain the change? You are so off the mark. We are not discussing Aishwarya's duplicity and how she is using the media to her advantage here. The discussion is on an actually serious women's issue. What is pertinent is that whilst attempting to address it the author and a few are slinging mud at a bystander because she happens to think she is 'normal'. My arguments may seem irrational (to you) but I certainly do not wish to offend any one. Oh and I do not belong to any 'lot'.

Comment by S

Tue, 22 May 2007 05:38:02 EDT

Who says she lived with Salman? When did she claim to be a virgin? How often does she actually talk about her personal life at all that she would make a statement on things like that? If she's not a virgin what's your problem with that? Why do you look down on traditional women and then look down on her for not being as traditional as you thought? Is it the fact that she doesn't keep updating you on the status of her personal beliefs and personal life that bothers you? If you have the right/means to express yourself, what's your problem if she does too? Here's some news for you: she said it's probably the most enjoyable time for *a* normal girl, not necessarily a normal *Indian* girl. Can I take the liberty to say that at least an equal number of women (i.e. not only Indian women) *do* enjoy their honeymoon? I hope that's ok with you.

Comment by Amrita

Tue, 22 May 2007 03:53:15 EDT

DH - It's a "legitimate observation" if it's based on something concrete: who exactly are these "Desicritics" who think all of AR's fans are male? As for the rest, I believe Deepti has already answered those issues, but it's up to her to repeat it if she wants to.

Comment by Anadiya

Tue, 22 May 2007 03:49:56 EDT

Die Hard, you need to scroll through the comment section to see how far your crowd can fall and continue to slide down. The only people agreeing here with your argument are those who were first in arms that the author was maligning a traditional girl and now act offended when it comes to light that she was anything but traditional and you take the liberal route. Your flip flopping impotent irrational arguments are offensive especially to commentators like Aditi and the author who have not even once called you lot any derogatory words. You owe them apologies but thats the last thing they expect from people like you and it speaks volume about their integrity and the lack of it from your front. If there is any duplicity here it is on Aish's front but you would rather close your eyes to her past and accept her born again image for media consumption. You might be that gullible but the rest of us can smell a rat when we see one. You don't like reading stuff on female sexuality then don't. No one held you down and made you read it and are your sensibilities so tender that the mere mention of sex offends you? Sorry, but nowhere on the board have I read that people cannot discuss sexuality. K.S BTW you are right all Salman Khan and Aish did was sing and dance around the trees and babies fall from trees. I stand corrected.

Comment by Die Hard

Tue, 22 May 2007 03:04:51 EDT

Amrita # 92, My comment was an observation. And I believe it's a legitimate one looking at all these posts. I do not flatter my self thinking that you were talking about me. Didn't I say I will wait until I'm spoken to? Adithi #95 & Anadiya #100, No one here agrees with Aishwarya's comment that she is a 'normal girl'. Who is 'normal' really? Are you guys normal Desi girls? Does it really matter whether or not she had slept with men and that she wasn't a virgin when she got married? Isn't it kinda personal? And how on earth is her experience or lack of it or what ever is relevant? I really couldn't careless if she has slept with three or three hundred men. I mean I was forced to learn that someone here (Can't remember who. But hope it was not Amrita) lost her virginity on her wedding night! What's with the hypercritical, virginal-than-thou and puritanical attitude! Please loose it. It makes wanna throw up. Is this the real feminism that you are talking about Adithi? [Edited:Personal Attack] The issue raised in DL's piece is that Aishwarya being a not-so-normal-girl has no right to make a statement to that effect. I think most of us here agree with that. What 'normal' people cannot agree is the distasteful way in which a woman has written about another woman. I think DL's attempt to hide behind sarcasm and humour later on shows that she is not entirely convinced of her own article.

Comment by K S

Mon, 21 May 2007 18:46:55 EDT

Andiya chill. She did not live with Salman. Who told you that? Even if she did, how do you know they had sex? Were you there? She did not live Vivek Oberoi. How do you know she had sex with him. Last, why is the author hell bent on saying she was not a virgin at the time of wedding?

Comment by Anadiya

Mon, 21 May 2007 17:23:46 EDT

I think people are deliberating missing the term 'promiscuous monogamy' in the sentence and simply concentrating on the promiscious part to justify their arguments. Promiscuous monogamy is a creative way of indicating that a person had more than one physical relationship in a lifetime but was faithful to the partner at the time of the relationship. Aish had been in 3 relationships. She had virtually been living in with Salman Khan which means she wasn't a virgin. Why is the reference to her liberal sexual behavior pre marriage so offensive to her fans when its based on truth? She wasnt a virgin when she married Abhishek, no matter how much you people try to deny the fact it is true and in India the concept of virginity is highly prized and lack of it stigamtizes the women showing that Aish is hardly a reflection of 'normal' Indian women.

Comment by S

Mon, 21 May 2007 16:26:30 EDT

Funny to see someone make dirty remarks about a person's character and then cry about someone calling *them* names

Comment by girish

Mon, 21 May 2007 16:15:44 EDT

what a shyte article. next if she expresses how much she enjoyed eating at some restaurant you'll be bashing her for enjoying her food while millions are starving. typical crab mentality

Comment by K S

Mon, 21 May 2007 16:14:02 EDT

Aditi well written response. Here are my thoughts 1) There was no need for the author to call Ash promiscuous and all other names. We really do not know the truth here. Otherwise, the author would have gotten respect but not as much publicity! 2) I agree the Honeymoon and what follows in an arranged marriage could be a nightmare for a young bride. It needs to be discussed

Comment by Deepti Lamba

Mon, 21 May 2007 15:17:43 EDT

Amrita, I have better things to do than to try reason with people who have already made up their minds about me and my 'feminist agendas'. And I do not consider these people worthy of conversation when they come bellowing and spitting fire. Starting from Abhi to AB to this Surabhi they have all indulged in name calling, a crime they accuse me and Aditi of. Whatever be the reasoning behind their ferocity is of little consequence to me as it does not come from a sane place. No use barking back, got more fruitful things to do.

Comment by Aditi Nadkarni

Mon, 21 May 2007 15:03:57 EDT

I don't even know why and how this even is a war between feminism and tradition. While one is a concept (thoroughly misrepresented by bra-burning and other such cliches!) and the other is simply a way of life or a choice. Women can choose to live their life traditionally or in a culturally appropriate way without being pliant or submissive. They are still feminists because they made their own, well-informed choice! To me the problem is this: 1. How can a female superstar who sheds her clothes for the camera and shakes her rump to the beats of Hindi film music after claiming in a beauty pageant contest that she was going to lead her life by Mother Teresa's standards, be a "normal woman". How can she represent an every day woman? You guys here defend her honor. Not that it is unadvisable or morally unjustified or anything but I am very doubtful any of you guys would feel comfortable enough marrying a woman who earns more than you, kisses guys on screen, has heaved her bososm for the camera and has had 3 lovers. Something worth a thought. 2. To me this article is simply NOT about just AR. Sometimes in order to highlight a certain social issue, the example of a media personality or their statement is used. All newspapers do it the only difference is, there the editor will decide if your wrath towards the article can be published or not. Here the editor is kind enough to grant freedom of speech as much to his commentators as to his authors. 3. Has anybody noticed that when asked a question, Ms.Rai never answers in a straightforward manner. It is always phrased as "Oh, for anybody is it a good time..." or "Anybody would be happy...". I have certain acquainatnces who do that and frankly it annoys the crap outta me because it suggests ambiguity of expression. Why can't people just say: "Yup, I'm very happy and we are having a good time..." Where is the room for "normalcy" in this question? So lets say a woman has a very unhappy honeymoon coz it is the first few days of getting to know her husband and the whole physical experience is unsettling, does it make her "abnormal"? I don't understand. It is a very political way of answering and the media has for a very long time criticized Ms.Rai for it. 4. AR has millions of fans and an equal number of people who are bothered by her cold and sometimes very cunning use of media propoganda. So how does Deepti's article really justify personal attacks? In fact why do any of the authors really deserve such a basic lack of decency? It is unfair and crass and the only reason some of you do it is coz you can get away with it. 5. Some of you seem to suggest that only women are agreeing to this post...can you think of why? Have men stopped to think if they ever have or ever will feel their hymen rip? If not, how does this article even concern you? You cannot possibly relate to any of it and hence your comments are just superficial. 6. This article is not about tradition and feminism. It is about a women's issue that has for long been avoided: The honeymoon and the suhaagraat. Even as we move into the 21st century, we have a coy bride sitting under a ghunghat handing a glass of milk to her husband who all he can think of is sex. If you aren't bothered by this gross regression of thinking by the largest and most influential film industry in the world, you are in denial. Where are your female protagonists? Where are their stories? Who plays them: Aishwarya Rai? Nope, she is busy being Suneheri in Dhoom 2 where her shorts are shorter than a man's briefs. The one time she broaches the topic of her alleged "domestic abuse" by ex Salman Khan is at the time of a film release. And here we have men and women alike protecting her honor and insulting that of a female author. It is laughable and despicable.

Comment by As

Mon, 21 May 2007 15:03:36 EDT

#83 Start kicking huh? Yes comon,I am ready to start kicking myself.

Comment by anon

Mon, 21 May 2007 13:17:31 EDT

[EDITED - IRRELEVANT]