Monday, May 26, 2014

Boys will be boys?

The world is a perplexing place to live in, as more intelligent people than me (which is about all of the rest of the world's population) have found. For men, the world of women is not merely perplexing, it is downright beyond comprehension.

Since times immemorial, men have clearly indicated their fascination with the fact that the chests of women are shaped differently from those of men. By now, of course, one would have expected that this quirk of the male personality would be taken for granted and ignored, much like you do not gasp in surprise and exclaim, "Wow! The sun rises in the East" every single morning. Not so! Centuries have passed and women still find it a cause for amazement and amusement.

Not that they seem entirely oblivious of the fact. It may be that the best uplifters of the downtrodden, enhancers of the seemingly inadequate including even injections of the sealants are all meant specifically to ensure that that men do NOT take notice of the chest area and concentrate their eyes on the horizon. It is quite possible that those plunging necklines are in use precisely to highlight what men are NOT supposed to see at all. It is quite possible that it is all to ensure that they appear great to their fellow-women but my brain (I assure you that it still resides in my skull and has not slipped down to the place between my legs) refuses to see it that way.

A visit to a beauty parlor is, apparently, the feminine equivalent of a foretaste of Hell. Waxing the legs, I hear, leaves them with no reason to fear whatever Satan may do to them, having experienced the worst that he can throw at them. And, yes, they put themselves through all these tortures so that men can studiously ignore their legs and concentrate on the poetry of Shelley. I believe you - or, I am trying to! Like I also try to believe that men build six-packs and wax their chests merely to feel good about themselves and to impress other men. Like I try to believe that, if Homo Sapiens were a hermaphroditic species, there would still be a cosmetic industry and a fashion industry doing roaring business.

Since puberty, I had somehow got this mistaken impression that all this was meant to be appreciated by men, as well. Hey! Lady! Before you start on my effigy, let me explain. I do NOT mean the appreciation which expresses itself by a touchy-feely physical appraisal of the assets. I am not here to take the cudgels up on behalf of those men who seem to be under the misapprehension that the female face is situated in the region of her chest and try to make eye-contact by focusing on that area. Nor do I have sympathy for the man who prefers his communication with a woman ONLY three hand spans below her mouth OR for he who feels that such communication is solely his prerogative and the woman has no say in it. These are boors or criminals or both, and I have no intent to be counted among their ranks.  And, most certainly, I do not think that women, who beautify themselves, are actively inviting the attentions of all these chaps. So, stop imagining me with a turban, paan in my mouth and a tendency to spouting, "Humari sanskriti mein...".

My problem lies with the fact that the rest of us, who do appreciate your beauty but only as being a part of you and NOT the whole of you, are being assumed to belong to one of those categories, if not to all of them. So, you do know what we are likely to be looking at when we give you a passing glance and, yet, you feel that it is risible if not exactly uncouth. AND, simultaneously, you also laud the rebirth of female sexuality! Have a heart! At least for the heterosexuals, female sexuality would be meaningless without sexual interest being alive in males - and you know where male sexual interest centers (And, puhleeze! Do not tell me that you really believe that a good man would be rendered blind to the attractions of other women once he falls in love with and/or marries one woman). If it makes it any better for you, we too do not know WHY we get aroused by certain parts of your anatomy compared to others, but there it is - we do and that's why we gaze, more by knee-jerk instinct than conscious thought. (The same sort of instinct, perhaps, that purportedly makes success more attractive to women than character?)

Yeah, I know! Your problem is only when we gaze 'too long' and therein used to lie the nub of my problem. How long is too long? My experience, hitherto, has been that the answer depends on how handsome (or rich or famous, depending upon tastes) a hunk is doing the gazing. It is Relativity at work - if it is Quasimodo, a nano-second is too long whereas if it is George Clooney....

NOW you know why I had a problem. I was and am a Quasimodo, without the hunch in the back.

P.S : This was inspired by Purba's post but NOT meant as a rebuttal since I think she has said both point and counter-point, leaving no room for rebuttal :)

26 comments:

  1. Now what can I say to this.. :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Redhanded dumbfounded? :) All I am saying is that, just like 'being attractive to men' is NOT the same as 'trying to attract men', 'paying attention to an attractive woman' is NOT the same as 'paying undue attention' - and, sometimes, the perceived difference between the two may only be a function of whether THIS is the sort of person whom you would want to consider you attractive :) There is nothing much wrong with the first option in both cases - it is but natural instinct - and, so, there is no need to either deny it or denigrate it.

      Delete
  2. Perspicacious other side;) with a double dose (no pun) of humour:):)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :) I daresay there is no 'other side', Amit! It is just that people like arguing ONLY their side of any issue :) Me - included :)

      Delete
  3. This is a discussion which is endless and hence utterly pointless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is true of almost all human conversation - that still does not stop us talking :)

      Delete
  4. No comments but Suresh U shd have shared a link to Purba's post for ppl lyk me who score poorly in humor ....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will link it up now :) Though, like I said, it only set me off on thinking up this post AND in no way caused me to feel the need to rebut or any such thing.

      Delete
  5. Ha Ha. The other side of the coin.I Btw, I have had an experience in this regard during my engineering days - I managed to attract the ire of the most beautiful girl in class not through undue attention but by my singular lack of interest in her despite her being my lab partner.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I spot a woman in a dress plunging down to her navel, even my eyes will be drawn to her ampleness. Its human instinct. But I think most of us are smart enough to distinguish between leering/ogling and appreciative gazes. You treat a woman right and you will be treated right. You treat her as your right and you'll get what you deserve. It's as simple as that :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly what I am saying, Purba! The only point of difference is that I am not too sure about that 'most of us are smart enough...' part :) Yup, the outright leering/ogling part - the black, if you will - is identifiable. But there is a grey area, where women see an appreciative glance as leering and the possibility of THAT happening gets higher, when women adopt the attitude that looking at some parts of their body is the sign of a lecher.

      Delete
  7. Nice post, i hope everyone will like your post..

    ReplyDelete
  8. Awesome post, thanks for sharing this post..

    ReplyDelete
  9. You know what Suresh, I completely agree with you. With every single point that you make. Perhaps some day offline we will have a discussion about this topic. For now, let me just say that there are some women who confound me as well. And there are some attitudes about normal, decent men that make me sick. Of course, we all all not including the creeps here in this discussion. And not only to men the part of appreciating and being attracted to applies to women as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the point, as you know, Rachna! We ARE a bisexual race and it is in our nature to be attracted to each other - and what we find attractive in each other is, at least in part, a part of our nature. The attitude that finds interest in the so-called 'secondary sexual attributes' as 'uncouth' in men stems from the same root that finds women's interest in men and interest in looking attractive as signs of 'wantonness'. If you seek to correct the latter, you cannot do it by fostering the former - since both arise from an idiotic idea that sex is bad :)

      Delete
  10. Hehehe true actually. But its exactly what Purba has said above you know. The creepy glances and appreciative glances.. the former weight much more heavier than the latter usually. But yeah you will still find women who do all that and make a hue and cry over all sorts of glances... but isn't that a sure shot way to know which ones you should stay away from?? :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah! You see, Seeta, we all draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior and those lines are all individual and do not necessarily coincide across people. Like, you know 'dressed to kill' and 'dressed like a tart' for example. Or, as in this case 'appreciative glance' and 'leering'. The problem always comes in WHERE we draw that line and WHETHER we use the same yardsticks for all people.

      I do not think that a person who will make a 'hue and cry' over all glances is horrid - only ignorant or narrow-minded in this area. (Though, of course, like there are creeps among men, there can be horrid women as well). I only find it a sign of muddled thinking when some women both laud the rebirth of sexuality in women as well as decry men's interest in women's physical attributes :)

      Delete
  11. You have rightly said, some gentlemen I would say, when they have a conversation with a lady their glances are just irritating..for such kind of species it dos not matter if woman is wearing a revealing dress or is wearing a burkha..but their glances are sucking..

    ReplyDelete
  12. Seeing the title, I first thought that this Post is about Mulayam Singh Yadav's comment about the crimes against women in UP. He had said the same words to defend crimes & criminals... :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. That was good reply to Purba's post :) The problem lies in the type of glance - Is it the jerk who's staring with his tongue lolling and jaw dropping to the knee Or is it that really the debonair guy who lets his eyes show appreciation in a very subtle kind of way. I think the trick lies in being subtle as nobody is denying natural physical attraction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know Ash! The thing is I do not grant women any more ESP than men :) So, in reality, it turns out that if the hunk is handsome, his looks are de facto seen to be subtle appreciation whereas if it is a gargoyle it is invariably a leer (Assuming that, in both cases, we are not talking of the outright creeps) :) And, there ARE women who think that glancing anywhere below the face automatically makes the man a creep :)

      Delete