Heidi Fleiss and Shahrukh Khan – Spot the Difference!

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

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

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

`#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.

#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.

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

Salim, where there is true love and understanding of each others needs theres no need for the man to worry about his performance and the woman to shout and scream.

``The only ``battery-less dildos`` on Chowk are the sugarcanes provided through the courtesy of Behram Rustemji Gannawala`` LOL.

HP…we are going round in circles, of a stable it would seem.

Let us just settle for the ‘I am a woman therefore I know a bit more about them’?

But…

[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.]

Boondocks? Weren’t you the one holding forth on how rural women got their jollies? And when did you visit urban India last (I might add Pakistan too because the scene there is simmering and sultry for some women).

The issue is not so much about whether women can but whether women would, and the consequences to themselves more than anything else.

[A guy who can only set the table, do the sweet talk is a goner. He is there for the moment.]

So are geishas and the classy girls on call. No one wants them for keeps.
- - -
Salim:

The two are not unrelated – as ‘events’ maybe, not as metaphors.

[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.]

Males of the opposite sex? I did not know there were males of the same sex as women. Show me the mooney! I think I was sensitive to the subject, but I don’t have the time for fairplay just for the heck of it.

There are several sentences that are very kind to men. I guess guys get satisfaction only with invisible situations...

[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.``]

I alluded to this when I posed the query about whether female clients can demand the same standards and how it was not possible.

[And was it really necessary to take that last parting shot just before the nasty footnote?]

Pity you did not understand that I was in fact rooting for the withering male ego there.

And now…

[I was merely trying to take you to new heights. :)]

That is not just a feeble excuse, but may I suggest you leave this patronising tone for those who engage you in such time-pass? Perhaps you would like to take a few hours off and see that reaching those heights has been achieved multiple times by me without any assistance, not even my own! 500 posts do not give me a high, but been there, seen it – with me merely adding the occasional whiff.

Also, is it possible for you (and some others) to stay away from your insider jokes/innuendoes about others from elsewhere? I admit you are helpful enough to post these separately to make filtering them out easy, unlike some smart people who sneak in a line or two in the main body of their ‘analysis’. A couple of your posts that have not ‘added’ to the discussion will be retained because they were responding to what I mentioned in my post.

See, I don’t always use the axe…not when a chisel works…

Thanks for the few enlightening posts, critical or otherwise.

pretty good and chowk is looking up.
However, as usual farzana is very adept at putting up questions (way too many for my liking), but very rarely answers the question.

For example she asks ``Do men and women pay the same price for pleasure?``. Then there is a rambling for a few lines without ever getting to the point. As some said here, men give love for sex and women give sex for love. Rather neatly put. If we compare this with what Farzana said above it, and then comprehend it - you need to be living on pluto forget Mars and Venus.

This article reeks of ``men are from Mars and women are from Venus`` syndrome, with a few well chosen bandages for the men.

That footnote reminded me of an article I read sometime back, and it started with the following question

Are women to be the servants of man or were they created to be a partner to man, a help mate? Did Eve`s sin of taking the apple make women lesser than man?

amansandhu #53 {``Salim, where there is true love and understanding of each others needs theres no need for the man to worry about his performance and the woman to shout and scream.``}

Aman,
You are so right, my friend. Sometimes the shouting and screaming is quite encouraging and enhances performance. As long as the noise is limited to the bedroom. :) LOL.

Farzanaversey #54
{``‘I am a woman therefore I know a bit more about them’? ``}
There we go again. This is such a copout. You seem to be saying ``If you are not hiding in a cave with smart bombs following you to the bathroom, then don`t write about Osama or his mama. ``:)

{``...So are geishas and the classy girls on call. No one wants them for keeps.``}
I know something about Geishas and Japan. Many of these relationships last a lifetime. Honto ni anata wa imantokoru fuka desiyo. Minasaan no unna wa warui janai desu. Watashi anata dai suki. Arigato. :)

{``Salim:
Males of the opposite sex? I did not know there were males of the same sex as women. Show me the mooney! I think I was sensitive to the subject, but I don’t have the time for fairplay just for the heck of it.``}
``Males of the opposite sex`` is an emphasis for actual men and not those effeminate metrosexuals feigning just enough masculinity for an inside track in the henhouse. Please don`t be so nonchalant about fairness - you might take on the dubious qualities of your predecessor and become just another two-bit autocrat with a Mushy throne. :)

{``There are several sentences that are very kind to men. I guess guys get satisfaction only with invisible situations... ``}
You mean you remembered the two sentences? Are those the ones you outsourced to Kaka to write? Oh, please shine some light on these ``invisible`` situations. That was an extremely matronly comment.

{``I alluded to this when I posed the query about whether female clients can demand the same standards and how it was not possible. ``}
Farzana, on this point I agree with you. The price per session has to be much much higher for the males - and even then they cannot expect to earn as much as the females. I don`t know which brand of calculator Ms. Heidi Fleiss is using - or did you swipe the batteries from her calculator for yourself?

{``Pity you did not understand that I was in fact rooting for the withering male ego there.``}
You call that ``rooting`` for the male ego? It`s more like ``routing`` the male ego.

{``And now…
That is not just a feeble excuse, but may I suggest you leave this patronising tone for those who engage you in such time-pass? Perhaps you would like to take a few hours off and see that reaching those heights has been achieved multiple times by me without any assistance, not even my own! 500 posts do not give me a high, but been there, seen it – with me merely adding the occasional whiff. ``}

...and here comes the 2 x 4 edict disguised as an advice. If I were to patronize you I wouldn`t be following you around like a teen-aged autograph seeker reading and rereading every time you got the urge to merge a few words here and there. :) Just because I admire your talented style of writing and your superior wit and humor, does not mean that I have to say ``Amen! right on Sister!`` to every one of your sermons. The use of ``sister`` was merely for situational effect and not meant to insinuate any sort of relationship - patronizing, fraternizing, or asexual. :)

{``Also, is it possible for you (and some others) to stay away from your insider jokes/innuendoes about others from elsewhere? I admit you are helpful enough to post these separately to make filtering them out easy, unlike some smart people who sneak in a line or two in the main body of their ‘analysis’. A couple of your posts that have not ‘added’ to the discussion will be retained because they were responding to what I mentioned in my post.``}

Farzana, are you implying that I am not smart? :) Please allow us to go on tangents during humorous situations. After all, anyone who can link Heidi Fleiss and Shahrukh Khan doesn`t need to be reminded to stay within the narrow lanes of congested monotonous traffic. Thank you for retaining any of my posts. As always, I defer to your good judgment in controlling what I and my friends are allowed to read. It`s not as if we are drawing silly cartoons, is it?

{``See, I don’t always use the axe…not when a chisel works…
Thanks for the few enlightening posts, critical or otherwise. .``}

Yes, a very sharp chisel at that. Sometimes the blunt axe would have been less deadly. I am glad that you found a ``few`` of my posts to be enlightening. I thought they were all very critical. Please continue to write in your usually effective, creative, and very stimulating style. I do request that you confer with me, via private e-mail, the subject of your material and the surreptitious message that you intend to convey. Just stick around and we will have you breaking wind through silk in no time. :)

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

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

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

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

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