Let’s talk to Mallika Sherawat’s Breasts

If there is one ‘ism’ there is no escaping from, then it is ‘jism’. There is a class of young women in India who have made this into an ideology. It does not surprise me. What does is that they are confident in the belief that they are in charge. No insinuations about the casting couch, no complaining about “the scene demanded it”, no excuses.

They have come to make it in a competitive world, they have no godfathers. And unlike the Aishwariya Rais who simper and giggle, most of these girls can talk cogently and make their point clearly. If you look at their sensational quotes, you might find some truth in what they are saying.

Mallika Sherawat, the small-town girl who left her home in Haryana to find her feet in the glamour world, has said, “Men like talking to my breasts.” Was she lying? Was she reducing herself in any way? Only because she is not some famous person’s daughter and does not have a title of Miss World or Supermodel, does she become any less for it?

A few years ago there was a much-talked about wedding of an industrialist to a socialite. At one of the pre-marriage parties, the woman was wearing a gown that exposed her back right to the top of her buttocks and in profile shots the curve of her breast could be visible; she was dancing with a guest whose hand was where it ought not to have been for reasons of decorum. What did the media talk about? The Versace gown that was so ‘classy’.

Mallika has no such luck. Even if she has balls.

Erin Brockovich had them too

I have earlier talked about Erin as the perfect hero for our imperfect times. There was no problem with her using her cleavage and cunning to get a job. A safe thing to do, given the varied yardsticks we have for different ‘isms’. But, no, she had to work hard to earn her stripes, and it did not matter that the hardest she had to work at were her underwired bras, her “secret weapon”, which in their very flauntedness and wantonness became blunted.

In a way, her sauciness and lack of education and poise were being made use of. If anything, she ended up as the New Age Eliza Doolittle who did not have to do much, except bargain for more money from her lawyer-boss. It was he who gave her the confidence to go ahead in her task of - you’ve got it – exposing a scam. She was made to employ every womanly trick – boobs, babies, blackmail. Worse, she was pitted against a woman lawyer from another firm, who dressed and talked like a professional, but our woman with slut sense derided her for her “two feet in ugly shoes”.

What was happening here? Erin became a hero by default because she chanced upon a can of worms and this was her grand opportunity to gain respectability, not to speak of two million dollars.

I understand that steamy films and presidential peccadilloes do not have the same righteous sweep as chromium poisoning. But, is that why Mallika Sherawat and Paula Jones have been ridiculed? The reason is simpler: They do not try to save their ass by talking about saving society.

Where is Paula?

Of all the Oval office trophies, I think Paula was the only one who made the most of a bad situation. She began looking worth every dollar she got to pose nude for ‘Penthouse’ magazine. Her makeover was simply amazing – the hair, the nose, the eyes, and whatever else that had to be rectified was done. It was a triumph of determination over destiny.

There had been titters when she said, “I am a single mother now and need to support my two little boys. I need to send them to college.” I do not understand why there was so much suspicion over this. Single mothers have since ages done various things, and become victimised in different ways. Sure, Paula’s children may not be too happy about mum in the buff, but those kids would one day be watching other naked women who may be other people’s mothers.

I remember how there was a hue and cry when Jerry Hall did that towel dropping and exposing herself act in the stage version of ‘The Graduate’, and said she had invited her kids over to see it. It made perfect sense. She did not want it to be a hide-and-seek thing. It was all over the media, she was not the first person to have done it, many others watched her do so, then why not her own children?

And why do we not look at the flipside of the issue: About how parents use kids. Everywhere there are stories of ambitious mothers and fathers getting their little ones to shed their clothes, bare themselves. Whether it is a Brooke Shields or a starlet in India. There is the incident of a greedy mama of one of our Hindi film actresses who would go to offices of film magazines with her beti’s pictures; the girl was given steroids to look older than her age, and she did become a well-known star.

Don’t women have other ways?

This is a pertinent question. You rarely hear about men having to do this sort of thing to make ends meet. Incidentally, were a man to drop his pants and say he is doing it because he has to pay his taxes and look after the kids, he would be heralded as a very noble soul.

One of the major reasons is that this is the quickest way out for women. Paula Jones had insisted she would not pose in the nude, and she attributed her change of mind to an “adult choice”. Really speaking, she had no choice. Who would give her a job? Would she be able to play down the notorious reputation she earned for ironically exposing the notoriety of a President?

The equations were anyway botched up. And it was rather strange that people were talking about how she could do such a photo-spread when she had portrayed herself as a victim of “inappropriate advances”. She believed that the two issues were not related: “I don’t see how it makes me an immoral person,” she stated.

Bill Clinton continued to be Prez. Linda Tripp squealed, the lawyers got a good deal, books were written, and Monica Lewinsky got into business with a signature line of handbags. So, why was everyone so against Paula who had made a clean breast of things?

It was suggested at the time that she was being used as a pawn in the political game. It is possible that she knew about it and was willingly doing it.

But I would be more interested in discovering what Paula herself gained out of this. The money? That’s not all. At some point she probably realised that she had to consolidate her reputation. There were all those cracks at how the suave and sexy Bill could ever have made a pass at her. This must have disturbed her a great deal, which is when she decided she had to do something. For HERSELF.

Yes, a part of her wanted recognition. So what? Would a man who is being sexually harassed by a woman in power keep quiet? That it happens seldom is another matter. Paula did what any woman of today might want to do. Some of us may demur, but that does not give us the right to judge her harshly. Why should she be forced to do overtime or boring work when she can get fame in a shot?

Would her kids be proud of her? I don’t know. But what happens to young women who pose in the nude and get married later and their children get to know that mummy was a Page 3 mate or a centre-fold model? Do they have a choice? And can they have the temerity to say anything?

Paula was using the children as an excuse of sorts. Was it fair? I think so. It may not be the complete reason, but if Hillary Clinton put up with a jerk for the sake of media-created family values, then Paula could jolly well drop her clothes to keep the home (and other) fires burning.

Hillary may well become President. She owes one to the Paulas.

As for Mallika’s comment, let me ask you: Do you know of any woman who has got silicon implants to help in research or because she wants to be a well-padded mamma to her nursing infant? I don’t.