What a shame.
The NY Times has this article about Bollywood actresses and the ever decreasing standards for their behavior in the movies.
I grew up watching indian movies. I’d hate to see them reduced to point where the quality of the movie is inversely proportional to the amount of clothing that the lead actress wears.
As the NY Times says:
Whether girlfriend, wife or mother, she is the repository of Indian moral values.
Let’s try to keep it that way.
Here's A Few More Related Posts
- No related posts
July 26th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
” the film established Ms. Sherawat as an Indian “postfeminist icon.”
WTF.. it’s the same bullshit cheap ass, classless people use, for having nudity and porn. If this girl wants to kiss on TV, she should not be held to a double standard.. she’s kissing a guy.. this article could’ve talked about the guy changing his role as well. Most indian men are supposed to be nice and well behaved and not kiss in public as well. Anyway.. going on a tangent.
Calling nudity, kissing and eroticism as “post feminist”, OR “empowering” is complete and utter bullshit. It’s cheap, sleazy entertainment and thats it. This reflects back to the MTV Desi comment, a lot of what people will see on MTV Desi is Indian girls without a sense of morals modeling and and dancing like Rap Video Hos..
Does anyone think of them as intellectual or powerful ? No.. everyone makes jokes behind there backs.. they’re hot.. but stupid. Girls who end up believing this bullshit about being able to wear miniskirts or very revealing clothes as “empowering” are bullshitting themselves and everyone else.. you’re attracting attention to your self, not because you’re strong.. but because you’re dressed like a slut, and men wanna know if you really are.
It’s like a girl getting offended if a man is staring at her cleavage..WHY THE HELL ELSE ARE YOU WEARING SOMETHING THAT SHOWS IT ?
If I wore really tight short shorts, I wouldn’t be offended if I caught you staring at my crotch..it’s the main reason I wore something so enticing.
Damn extremists…wanna protect everything under the guise of censorship..
July 26th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
that was a very powerful comment vid…you put a lot of thought into it…Nice article but those movies are very entertaining…
July 27th, 2005 at 10:07 am
“I’d hate to see them reduced to point where the quality of the movie is inversely proportional to the amount of clothing that the lead actress wears.”
I’m confused. By definition, a high quality movie is a good one, no? Why not have a GOOD movie WITH naked chicks? A movie in which the level of quality was inversely proportional to the amount of clothing would be ideal.
0% clothing = 100% quality. Homo.
July 27th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Vid = angry guy that has a good point.
Bobby = post whore, hehe.
Alexi = has a good point, although quite contradictory to my own judgement.
July 27th, 2005 at 11:41 am
I think he meant you can have a 100% quality porn.
Which is fine.. and great… as long as you call it porn.
Don’t call it Art.