Betrayal of beauty?

What Jian saw and committed to

The Chinese man who sued his wife for being 'ugly' and won the case can be seen as a study beyond beauty.

Jian Feng did not know about the lack of pulchritude in his wife. When she delivered an “incredibly ugly” baby, he figured out that this is what she looked like. She had, in fact, undergone several cosmetic surgeries.

It is interesting that he assumed she had cheated on him. This made her confess about her surgeries before marriage, where she spent about $100,000.

This was another form of cheating. It makes one wonder about betrayal. What really does it mean? He says she used false pretense. We are living in times when nips, tucks, implants, botox shots have become commonplace. In fact, if you do not have any of the new fashion “accessories”, you might still be suspect.

He got attracted to what he saw. That was the reality for him. Would he know about other forms of ugliness? These are often revealed when people are forced into situations or because these are suppressed emotions that cannot be surgically altered.

Did his wife lie to him? Did he ask her about her past? Would she have confessed to this? Regarding physical aspects too, there are so many that are not immediately visible – what about depilation, push-up bras, corsets, cosmetics that enhance looks? Needless to say, the standards would apply to men as well.

What if Jian’s wife had met with an accident after marriage? Would that be a betrayal? If he began looking at her with pity and tolerated her, then would he not be betraying her? If she underwent reconstructive surgery, but there were a few changes, would that be betrayal? What happens as she, and he, age?

As for the child, what would happen if the daughter was born cute? There would be no reference to false pretense. Would that diminish the betrayal? Is it then about the real false pretense which in turn is about destiny’s denial?

The court has granted him a substantial amount in damages. The child is a product of both of them. What is his responsibility towards the daughter who is unaware of what transpired? If she revealed to him the big truth about his wife, then should he accept her as the harbinger of news or reject her for being a part of it? Will the mother hate her because it was her looks that brought out her secret in the open?

Aren’t these additions and subtractions to the body a betrayal of the self first? Such betrayals are often choices. If people are expected to change habits and values, then why the chariness about physical traits? 

PS: I don't see any reason to post her 'before' picture. This is what she is now. 

A close shave?

 
Imagine if one fine day men turned around and said they want all women to wear lipstick or they will not listen to them. Sounds bizarre? Something quite similar is happening. The “No Shave, No Lipstick” movement by a razor company is reducing women, men and relationships to such basic common denominators.

It is true products use several tactics to subliminally convince potential and existing customers to go for better options. Will an ad such as this convince men who like their facial hair to shave? If it does, then it reflects rather poorly on male self-esteem, and much more poorly on how women strike a bargain. This is a strike of a petulant kind. The women will let go a bit of vanity, a cosmetic, to ensure that men turn up the way the majority supposedly like them. The implication in the words is that women are exercising this power. In fact, they are denying themselves something. Or, worse, assume that their appeal lies in what they wear on their lips. They are limiting themselves.

The “common platform” is an “aversion to stubble”. The basic philosophy is that if men cannot groom themselves for women then they must not expect the same from them.

Is there a single yardstick to measure grooming? Is it all right for the man to be unhygienic, loud and crass so long as he shaves? What exactly does the ad wish to convey by saying that men think a woman looks less appealing without a lipstick? There are thousands of women who do not wear lipstick, and I mention this because the ‘movement’ has talked about middle-class women too. And don’t we often read in style magazines how the nude-lips look is so in? What about it, then? Besides, the lipstick is an external object that can be applied. A stubble grows naturally. A man may not be able to deal with it immediately or everyday – he could be unwell, he may not be in the mood, he might be busy with other things. This is a kind of pressure to perform, and it is unfair.

I also dislike the manner in which words are used to describe the hirsute man as untrustworthy, giving rise to suspicion that he could be hiding something. He is hiding his chin, if at all, and sometimes this could be the real reason. Like women opting for a fringe if they have large foreheads. Although clean-shaven is mentioned, I am intrigued by the reference to stubble, and not a moustache.

On the other hand, guys who shave are confident, affable and hardworking. There is a small little footnote which says the ad is not intended to hurt the sentiment of any gender or community. This is about men and men with hair on their face. So, forget the hurt, the message could rule out the good qualities of people from certain communities. Are Sikhs not trustworthy? Are Muslims not hardworking? Do cultures where many men sport beards, like Malayalis or the goatee among Bengalis, less affable?

Perhaps the women who are taking part in this silly movement, wasting their time to support it, should ask the organisers to give them a list of criminals in the past few years who have not been clean-shaven. Ask them to provide a list of wife-beaters, drunken drivers, those with poor performance in the office, those who slink in corners waiting to molest, rob, even kill. Ask them to check out what the clean-shaven men wear, if their shoes are polished, whether they bathe regularly.

Let us not forget, there are women who might like men with facial hair. Think about some artists, philosophers, scientists, academics, and even pop stars. If, in the latter case, women can cry out of sheer joy if they get hold of a sweat-soaked T-shirt, then they certainly cannot really mind the stubble.

And if they really care about ‘issues’ they should wake up to reality. I know, I can hear those smirking voices say, chill, this is an ad. But an ad is not just an ad, especially if it purports to be a movement. We have reached a stage where everything is a movement, and it assumes the stupidity of women by making them seen like ‘concerned citizens’, in charge of the whole ‘clean up’ operation, so to speak.

And the poor dears are sacrificing their lipsticks for this. They do not realise that some smart chap might flash the razor in front of them as bait. They are just fishes in the huge sea…

PS: I wonder whether men trust women who do not shave.

The Axe Defect

This guy has been using a deodarant for seven years but as he rues, "No girl came to me." He sued the company.

Deo ads are in trouble in India at the moment for being suggestive and showing " women lustily hankering after men". The ads also "brim with messages aimed at tickling men's libidinous instincts".

If there were no deos men would not get tickled?

There is no escaping these ads but they are quite humorous and will work on adolescent boys. I mean, to tell us that Axe is now offering more we get to see the bottle's phallic-like head growing. If they'd have shown a man's wallet or his mind displaying similar growth maybe it would have some effect.

It is pretty hilarious to watch some guy spraying himself and suddenly women go all pouty, eyes glazed and follow him. This is more Pied Piper than serious sexy.

And what is wrong with women getting attracted to men? Don't we see ads where men eye a woman for her clothes, makeup and how she even manages to do well at her job because of some talc?

And what about the ad where a woman makes carrot halwa with some readymade mix due to a last-minute demand by her husband who is bringing home his boss and colleagues? This too can be construed as hankering.

We see ads of men's underwear - so who are they appealing to? Saif Ali Khan does a joker on the track laidback act and reaches the finish line before the athletes. Duh. Any sensible female would notice their toned legs rather than this guy's Amul chaddi that needs a dhobi, not a woman.

So, please don't worry about women. The only time they swoon is when they feel light-headed. Or when they look in the mirror.

Because he is worth it?

Talk of getting a make-over. The French are known for their personal vanity, and I mean that in a nice sense, but President Nicolas Sarkozy has just taken it a bit further. There are allegations that L'Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt gave a substantial 150,000 euros in cash for his presidential campaign.

Donations to political candidates are a norm all over the world. It is a bit ridiculous that if the accusations stick, then it would be deemed illegal since it crosses the permitted amount of 7,500 euros for political parties.

In India industrial houses give huge sums to see that the favourite, and favourable to them, candidate and party wins. It is quite the done thing in the US and the UK too, and the kind of leverage business groups as well as communities manage to get has a lot to do with how much they can shell out.

L’Oreal is an established brand internationally and whatever murky deals the owners are in, there ought to be questions raised regarding the way the political system works. Did Sarkozy win the elections because of this money and not any other? Since he is the guy ruling the country, it means people elected him. Was it because of the public image, the beautified face, the superficial things? Then, who is to blame for such a victory if people fall for the façade?

Why has it taken three years for the ‘scandal’ to be outed? I think it is all cosmetic. Rivals. L’Oreal’s own brand imaging – notoriety in a fairly liberal society is seen as quite charming. And who knows – possibly Sarko’s own mean PR machinery ready to make him feel like a million bucks. In a down-in-the-dumps economy, this is rich and reassuring.

I suspect in the next elections, the new guy will not have to bring something better, but something snazzier and beat the figures.

Beauty and the Beast of Consumerism

She exposed pink underwear worn under a short black leather kimono. Japan’s finalist for the Miss Universe, Emiri Miyasaka, caused a bit of a storm in the preliminaries. Is the reaction prudish? I think not.

I am often amused by how these beauty pageant winners are termed ambassadors of nations. We send a young woman from our country after she has won the title at home, she is trained and trimmed and pruned to fit into what is considered international requirements. Requirements for what?

We fall for this standardised idea of beauty, and these days of humaneness and larger concern for social development as well. Do we realise that for many it means altering their identity besides their bodies? What sort of independence is this that the woman becomes a puppet who has to learn to walk and talk in a particular manner? Where is the individuality? And on what grounds do they represent national culture?

The kimono has specific connotations to convey myriad values and nuances. The lady is made to wear a leather one – fine, and I can hear some people call this a feminist statement of power, as though horse or cow hide can make anyone powerful. It would make better sense if she just wore some leather thingie – what is this about pink panties showing through? It isn’t sexy. It does not convey beauty, feminity, class. It is indeed crass and appears more like an ‘oops, I forgot to button up’ moment.

There are bikini rounds where she can wear whatever she wants. There is no need to combine it with a kimono. Geishas wear kimonos and we know what their job is, but there is such subtlety and class in their demeanour.

This brings me to the Indian national dresses that get flaunted at such pageants. The traditional ghagra-choli (long skirt and blouse) have enough scope to show skin but how far can you go? The saree is considered one of the most sensual garments, but some film actresses and models tart it up wearing it so low that you fear it might fall; the graceful pallu (the loose end) instead of resting on the shoulder in a flowing manner is scrunched up like a snake so that the full impact of the washboard gym-toned – if not lipo-sucked – midriff hits you in the face. The cleavage is not a hint of promise, but thrusting of a Size A cup to tell the world you can fit into anything on a ramp where women are merely human mannequins and must draw attention to the clothes and not their bodies. Ironically, they have to abuse their bodies to reach this state of robotic perfection.

These are not ambassadors of our countries but just young women who are out to make it outside. Home is their last refuge. Many have to return and then they need to alter their identities and bodies again. Pump up the breasts, add some bulk to the hips, change your walk, change your talk. They want to be in the movies and Bollywood likes them to look like they can fill up the screen and pre-pubescent fantasies of mama’s boys.

Meanwhile, pageants have a whole lot of money riding on them and the women have to be what cosmetic companies and designers expect.

It is okay as long as it is a person’s choice and they represent themselves. I see no reason for them to be hailed as symbols of their countries.