Heidi Fleiss and Shahrukh Khan – Spot the Difference!

FarzanaVersey #45 {``Salim:
Only because someone assumes that this could turn into a RSS type board, do you have to start on that?
I still have no idea what ideological problems you have with the piece. That would make for far more interesting reading. Like water for chocolate? ``}

Farzana,
I was merely trying to take you to new heights. :) Honestly, before Mr. Giani even pondered the reference to Indo/Pak and Hindu/Muslim aspects regarding your very witty article, I was thinking about introducing the Jinnah/Gandhi contest. It was intended to run your posts past 500, which is an established benchmark of accomplishment, popularity, and playing to the bleacher crowd - yes the ones in the cheap seats.

I have expressed my admiration for your superb literary talents, your ability to see issues when none obviously exist, and the inimitable manner in which you connect totally unrelated events. I wouldn`t be surprised to read a captivating, funny, and intricate article from you linking the bird flu in Turkey to the results of the recent Super Bowl in Detroit.

The issues I have with this article are certainly not ideological - they are more related to logic, fair play (no, not foreplay), and your total lack of sensitivity, when it comes to males of the opposite sex. At a time when cartoonists are having a blast in the face of religious sensibilities, why shouldn¡¦t you take an axe to the phallus? Isn`t it rather heartless of you to deny even dead men the satisfaction of knowing what women want? What you are saying is that we should forget this life. We men will not figure women out even if we were to come back from the dead. Thank you very much. So much for cross-gender understanding and cooperation!

How can anyone advocate sexual balance when the very act demands performance from one and, at the most, pretensions of passive satisfaction from the other? Nature has not been kind to the ``killers of bears.`` Their most cherished attributes are vulnerably placed in an external setting, while their partners, and most ardent critics, have safely secured and hidden theirs from mutual scrutiny. They celebrate procreation only to be forced to invent DNA tests to validate `appiness. They have to put up with wild screams and passionate cries as they try to focus on the mission. Then, they have to recognize that wild screams and shouting mean something totally different in other rooms of the dwelling.

Farzana, I did not understand your ¡§liquid chocolate¡¨ remark and am too afraid to guess. The worst insult was inserting that footnote with the quote from the extinguished old hag. I mean you are not supposed to mention her name in mixed company. And was it really necessary to take that last parting shot just before the nasty footnote?

Oh, one more thing. The only ``battery-less dildos`` on Chowk are the sugarcanes provided through the courtesy of Behram Rustemji Gannawala. Thank you for another wonderfully crafted and beautifully written article and for taking the air out of our inflated tires. ļ

#45 by FarzanaVersey

“If you think classy men are the ones who keep house and the marriage going, then you are not quite right (certain exceptions might be there). Most women would seek outside avenues because they are not getting what you call sissy stuff. To return home to an uptight neck-tie being loosened is not such a high. I am afraid but men who may be swines at least get the wine-roses-candlelight stuff right. And if he can hold a conversation together with his Chardonay, then he is no wimp. “

Let me break this statement into chunks so you see where we are headed.

“If you think classy men are the ones who keep house and the marriage going, then you are not quite right (certain exceptions might be there).”

The classy men are the ones who keep the society going, the men who do all the things that I said they do. Like maintaining the marriage, taking care of wife, other little things and making sure kids are happy. After doing all that they still wear Italian Suits and Italian boots. A person who only wears Italian Suits and boots is not classy. He drives a pimpmobile. A classy man does not have to be married to be all that. This person can be responsible, a stalwart and source of strength. That is what women like (most).

Have you heard people say, “She likes studs”? All it means that she wants to have fun; she is not ready to settle down. When she is ready to settle down, she would look for a classy guy. A person she can hang on to. A classy man is just an average Joe with an aura around him. He is your dark horse who will go the distance; galloping and sometime will break into strides. He is not a jerk. Some married men are jerks so they are not classy because they are not doing all the things that they are supposed to do.

“Most women would seek outside avenues because they are not getting what you call sissy stuff.”
No! They are getting what I call the sissy stuff but they miss the stud. Women and men look outside for what they are not getting inside. Two and half babies sometimes get on nerves. One needs to reinvigorate. Here Heidi Fleiss comes in with a recipe for both; a stud farm and a classy woman on demand. (You know who the half baby is.)

That is where differences between Indian/pak women and western women show up.
Back in the boondocks, they have limited choices; here you have Heidi Fleiss and credit cards with benign names for merchant on the statement.

“I am afraid but men who may be swines at least get the wine-roses-candlelight stuff right. And if he can hold a conversation together with his Chardonay, then he is no wimp. “

No! A guy who can only set the table, do the sweet talk is a goner. He is there for the moment. He is not a keeper. Classy men can do all that and more. That is why they are in a short supply.

“The real game is called mind f......g.”

That is for the simple minded…that is all they can do. The real game is way beyond that. Some day you will figure that out.

`#38 by FarzanaVersey on February 7, 2006 5:50am PT

It is they who claim to be the “knower of women”. I would really not have placed such a heavy burden on them or anyone. We know as much as our vision permits and feet take us.`

Dear Chief Editor in Law,

All these songs of vision and feet are fine and randy, but kindly explain where and how Fleiss have claimed such knowledge so as to warrant a challenge from you. Can we compare her claims to knowing women through her `stud farm` announcement.. to her claims of KNOWING MEN through her regular prostitution operations? This, girlfriend, is called `building a straw-woman`..

`So, it was a sensational headline. Even heaven is marketed as a houri-haven`

Since heaven is heavily advertised as offering sultry whoors, therefore you can go ahead and do something like that and defend it on the basis of, `since God did it`?? If you have no defence other than that, then let kaka congratulate you on becoming a Chief Editor because that really is an achievement for a dumbo like you.

editor...
chowk guidelines are being violated...take action.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#39 by irfanhamid:

[Make up your mind will you. On one hand you are sniping at a statement which is remarking a difference between men and women, and on the other hand you are flaring your nostrils at the opposite thing!]

Touche!

I accept the contradiction in the two statements. But let me explain a bit. When women say they want to do it the male way, they are exercising a choice; when men tell us it is ok to do it their way, then it implies following their rules.

Btw, emotional attachment does not mean falling in love.

- - -

HP:

[See if they had used just “another man” or “another predator” the story would have lost the edge. The metaphor was absolutely delectable, too subtle for many :)]

Ah, yes...just a tech problem here. Only a ghost can morph; another man comes with his own history and potential. Metaphors can be devious.

[The title “Paheli” had a reason behind it. (ah! When will people figure out the finer points in life?)]

When they are fine-tuned with content, yes. If a riddle has to be a riddle, then it must not slot people; it must become a maze. Life is about layers...

[From a marketing pov, a man needs to be a stud and a woman has to be classy. You don’t promote classy men for escort services. Who wants to spend money on a classy man doing sissy stuff?]

The Derby is classy. A dark horse (literal and metaphorical) is classy because he is not in your face, yet can gallop.

If you think classy men are the ones who keep house and the marriage going, then you are not quite right (certain exceptions might be there). Most women would seek outside avenues because they are not getting what you call sissy stuff. To return home to an uptight neck-tie being loosened is not such a high. I am afraid but men who may be swines at least get the wine-roses-candlelight stuff right. And if he can hold a conversation together with his Chardonay, then he is no wimp.

The real game is called mind f......g.

[Now please tell me: is there a woman (unattached) out there who does not like a little attention, who does not like a man making a move on her? (Generalization but fact). If women love an attempted seduction, done with respect and politeness, why should a man NOT love it when the role is reversed? (At my age, I would love it even more. (If wishes were horse…))]

Your posts did not convey all this so sensitively...I prefer to use the word assertive rather than aggressive. You do realise that there are many men who love to brand women witches, dragons etc. It conveys no respect. I have not said anything against women taking the initiative, irrespective of whether the men love it or not (women too get unwanted attention).

If only horses were wishes...
- - -

Salim:

Only because someone assumes that this could turn into a RSS type board, do you have to start on that?

I still have no idea what ideological problems you have with the piece. That would make for far more interesting reading.

Like water for chocolate?

...i am sure #40 #41 #42 and #43 have added to the discussion...am i right editor sahiba...?

FarzanaVersey #38, {``I could have used ‘Canonising the clit’. ``}
Farzana,

I have seen it from so many different angles - but never on top of a cannonball. :)

FarzanaVersey #38, {``I could have used ‘Canonising the clit’. ``}
Farzana,
It`s not nice to refer to Joan or Arc or Mother Theresa in such a manner. :) But, then you could be talking about that Betty Friedan, who recently kicked the bucket.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

giani_240 #19 {``I am waiting to see when does this degenirate into Pak vs Indian, Kashmir, RSS etc...Salim, do you post articles on chowk. You should your gift for the gab is fantastic (and stay away from that creep)
``}

Giani, my friend,
Thank you very much for the compliment. Yes, I have submitted an article to Chowk, under the previous management. That editor did not even have the decency to acknowledge receipt of my submission. As for the creep, we are all better off to ignore him/her. :)

You mentioned the Paki vs Indian and Hindu vs Muslim angle for this article. You must be a mind reader. :)

Now watch this sucker hit 500+ posts. :) LOL

I had planned to help Farzana attain 500 posts for this excellent article. She can write about lawn mowing and manage to keep the essay interesting, witty, and humorous.

Here is what I was going to suggest. Now that we have Shahrukh Khan involved, to add a desi element to Heidi`s hedonistic hallucination, let`s bring in some really interesting characters. First of all, I would like everyone to comment on whether Jinnah or Gandhi , in the prime of youth, of course, would make a better stud for Heidi`s farm in the desert. In my opinion, Mr. Jinnah, at 6`2`` urbane, suave, handsome, and well-dressed would be the better candidate. But then, as Atif2 would strongly argue, ``size doesn`t matter.`` So, don`t sell Gandhiji short. Not only would he cuddle after the romp, Gandhiji would aslo tend to have a healthier sexual appetite - if his memoirs are to be believed. The bottom line is that Gandhiji would definitely be dressed appropriately for the occasion. :)

#38 by FarzanaVersey

``[(Don’t they all become husbands once the eyes are closed?).]``

I had to put this in parenthesis for you to pick on it and you did. The point was not how men or women achieve orgasm but it was abt how all men become husbands when a level of intimacy is reached. Husband is just a model to satisfy the social and legal requirements. If you read that in the context you will know what I was saying. “caused the use of a ghost, who morphed into her husband(Don’t they all become husbands once the eyes are closed?).” From a director’s/story writer’s pov that was a great statement. See if they had used just “another man” or “another predator” the story would have lost the edge. The metaphor was absolutely delectable, too subtle for many :)

The title “Paheli” had a reason behind it. (ah! When will people figure out the finer points in life?)

We have a communication gap here. Let me explain.

“I was trying to draw a connection between mere ‘studs’ as opposed to the classiness she expected of women on call.”

For you the “mere ‘studs’” has certain connotation in the normal use of the word but it is not so in the US. For an American woman the word has certain deliciousness, tastiness to it. Stud is Fabio, stud was Marlin Brando. From a marketing pov, a man needs to be a stud and a woman has to be classy. You don’t promote classy men for escort services. Who wants to spend money on a classy man doing sissy stuff? These are the stereotypes that a business uses. Businesses sell dreams- beautiful cars, great houses etc. Heidi is selling dreams. Men like classy women and women like delicious men. Classy men stay at home; they work on marriages and help with kids. Only studs play and you pay for a stud and not for a classy man. Women woo classy men. A classy man is a keeper, a stud is to play. So your umbrage on Heidi’s ploy is not right because you miss the context. (Btw, most women love to ride horses here, given opportunity. No, I am not implying anything. Nothing implicit! Just literally! They love to ride horses.)

More communication gaps.

“The fact is that you too use the term “aggressive” for women who take the initiative.”

It is pretty normal for me to see a woman in a bar or in a party trying to make a move on a man she likes. Aggressive is taking initiative like you said then why is it a bad term? You think “aggressive” is a hostile word but it is not. It is about the initiative like you wrote, it is about overcoming several hundreds years of “taking a back seat” attitude. Aggressive is a good word. Men are aggressive why is it bad to use aggressive for women?

“And then you go on to say “men will love it too” (being seduced).”

Now please tell me: is there a woman (unattached) out there who does not like a little attention, who does not like a man making a move on her? (Generalization but fact). If women love an attempted seduction, done with respect and politeness, why should a man NOT love it when the role is reversed? (At my age, I would love it even more. (If wishes were horse…))

Hi FV,

You say in one excerpt

[quote]
Also, why does it have to be commercial sex? Are we being told that women cannot have flings? Do all men with moolah end up in brothels? No. They have one-night stands, or find arm candies, or have no-strings-attached liaisons. Can women not initiate such relationships?
[/quote]

And then further down you state

[quote]
Besides, I find the contention of Heidi’s partner so pat and cocky. He stated, “Say a guy gets into an argument with his wife. What does he do? Lot of times, he goes out, gets a drink, goes to a place to be serviced. Now women can say, `Hey, if you can do it, I can too`.” Whoever said that women’s independence was about cloning men?
[/quote]

Make up your mind will you. On one hand you are sniping at a statement which is remarking a difference between men and women, and on the other hand you are flaring your nostrils at the opposite thing!

As for your concerned sensitivities about women becoming attached to their studs, I say, good for the studs. It`ll make those women repeat customers. According to Ms. Fliess that`s exactly what the more successful prostitutes do (her remark about a 7 making a man feel like a 10). If there are women desperate enough and stupid enough to fall for a gigolo then let them. Just as there are bound to be some men desperate enough and stupid enough to fall for a prostitute.

Regards,
Irfan.

Right. Come again…I could have used that as a headline; I could have used ‘Canonising the clit’. So, it was a sensational headline. Even heaven is marketed as a houri-haven. If this is an invitation to a “brothel of social commentary”, then let us see how things have gone…

How difficult is it to fathom a simple concept like ‘spot the difference’? Why does it have to be like, “Shahrukh and Heidi...taubah-taubah, yeh kya ho rahaa hai?” Why does all comparison have to be literal? This is about how both have used female sexuality in a snide manner to talk about emancipation.

It is they who claim to be the “knower of women”. I would really not have placed such a heavy burden on them or anyone. We know as much as our vision permits and feet take us.

HP (various):

[(Don’t they all become husbands once the eyes are closed?).]

Really? Then you have been contradicting yourself in several posts where you talk about openness etc. Are you trying to say women do not fantasise? I will not refer you to any academic treatise; just read the Shere Hite Report – it will tell you a few things about what women do when their eyes are closed and how many of them reach real orgasm without men.

I agree with you that not all women are “moom ki guriya”; in fact the ones who ‘keep’ their men are often in traditional/structured settings…As I wrote, “According to this premise, prostitution is a developed institution where the female gold-digger and the wife who, after a quarrel, runs her hand up her husband’s thighs come up high in the evolutionary ladder.”

I have no problems with Heidi calling it a “stud farm” or even a gelding ghetto as a marketing ploy…I was trying to draw a connection between mere ‘studs’ as opposed to the classiness she expected of women on call.

[At least in the US, we have come to accept aggressive women. They are aggressive in their professional and also in the sexual lives…A feminist from the subcontinent may consider that an aberration in women’s liberalism or even call it canonizing of the clit, but that really does not exist in Heidi Fleiss context.]

I did not call it an aberration; I delved into the psychological dimensions and firmly believe that canonising the clit is counter-productive. Even when one talks about women using their own sexuality, they become objects in a non-emotional intimate situation.

The fact is that you too use the term “aggressive” for women who take the initiative. And then you go on to say “men will love it too” (being seduced). This is what I meant when I talked about the ‘liberal’ attempts ending up with the male pajama strings and the male prism.

[You and Farzana are arguing the same thing. She thinks women should be treated like a sati savatri. Her camouflage is women’s lib and yours is the “pious village”. Women should be treated like the way you treat yourself. Nothing more or nothing less.]

Where did I even imply that a woman ought to be treated like a sati-savitri? Do the following words sound anything like it: “Also, why does it have to be commercial sex? Are we being told that women cannot have flings? Do all men with moolah end up in brothels? No. They have one-night stands, or find arm candies, or have no-strings-attached liaisons. Can women not initiate such relationships?”?

I do not need the camouflage of women’s lib. As a matter of fact, I am condemning the misuse of it.

I won’t go into your comments about rural life, but it is interesting that you have used that segment to hold forth on…confirming my misgivings about Shahrukh’s film too:

“Interestingly, the film is based on a folklore set in a village – the message being given is that we are essentially talking about a backward people, just like tribals with no real laws.”

- - -
I agree that generalisations should be avoided. Perhaps even about writers of articles that strive in however small a manner to discuss some of these issues?

[...sex, prostitutes, pimps, male domination, sexual frustrations...only a farzana versey could write with such feelings (sic)]

Sure. Whatever be the insinuation, I take it as a compliment. I leave a bird’s eye-view to the birds (usually of a feather).

#4 by Salim_Chauhan:

[Alas, the hard reality of the cruel world manifested itself in your statement ``But many more women’s wet dream is to spend 250 dollars in a chocolate spa or on some impulsive shopping.`` That was a terrible letdown. Leave it to the female obsession with emulating males to desecrate every last bastion of male sanctity. Somehow, chocolates, candy, and self-induced orgasms involving images of George Clooney, will forever negate the pleasant memories of the Mustang Ranch and Bunny`s.]

You might be surprised at the number of women who have pleasant memories of the Mustang Ranch and Bunnies, too…while in a chocolate spa.

And let us not go where no man has…women do not even want to emulate men. Honest. Read the last sentence in my article. Again.

#18 by amansandhu:
[In Paheli the ghost is also shown to take care of the woman`s emotional needs also and not just lusting after her.]

Oh yeah. So must we wait for the men to be dead fro them to suddenly develop that sensitivity? He is a ghost – he has no job, nothing else to do. So when he gets physically exhausted (drat, ghosts too?), he does a bit of tear-wiping, lip-syncing and making allowances for headaches.

Why can real men not be clairvoyant?