Tuesday, April 19, 2005

love, lust...

OK everyone. This is a very very immature and childish representation of something I wrote in school. I was this agony aunt back then, still am I think, and this was a parcha I wrote.
Someone asked me to share it today and I quickly rewrote the gist. so it's not written properly, but it's fun. Please feel free to disagree, add etc

It's the definition of infatuation, crush, love and lust and the difference in the four states...

> infatuation is the first stage - it's more like mild lust. you are attracted to the person, in awe of them, more fantasy. you know like in a trance, you are just infatuated by them but don't really think of following it up with action. like with a celeb
> crush is when the person is more in year league, in your vicinity. not so much lust but mild stirrings of love. you find them cute, like their actions, they are not fairy tale and totally out of your world. they exist in your world, you can see them, talk to them. you want to talk more see more, and maybe think of like holding hands kind of thing
> a crush often develops into a relationship
> but infatuation taken too seriously can become an obsession
> also both are temporary states of being, they cause exhilaration and raise the spirits and the blood pressure. but none last too long
> but then the serious ones. lust
complete and absolutely carnal. you don't even want to or need to go into what they do, where they live, do you think you can meet, go on a date, none of that. it is completely unreasonable and is extreme attraction. and when you are 'in love' with a person it is love cum lust. but when you just love a person it can be without lust
> love. not the pehli baar dekha. love at first sight is only lust at first sight. love has to take time to grow because you love a person in their entirety, and in fact forget loving them for their physical attributes plus others, sometimes you don't even notice the physical attributes. they come into play, or into your notice only later. you are actually almost blind to their faults, their physical shortcomings, and many times the physical aspect or the sexuality is a manifestation of the love, the emotional quotient.
> lust can't survive without lust and the minute the physical attraction weakens the relationship is over. but love can survive without all of these. that's why you can survive on love and fresh air but not lust and fresh air

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

The Dance Bar debate

It's the biggest controversy in Mumbai and all of Maharashtra (may even spill over to Hyderabad and Bangalore) right now. Dance bars have been banned across the state. For the past few days, newspapers, magazines, TV channels, radio stations have devoted footage, cc and air time to discuss the issue. Here's my take.
Should dance bars be closed:
NO. Here's why:
> It's a step to repress. Most girls in Mumbai are worried that all these men with their repressed sexuality will now spill over to other nightspots and to the roads and Mumbai's safety will be under threat. It will become like Delhi, they lament. They have a point.
> It's not exploitation. These women are there on their own accord. We may think they don't want to be there but the truth is they have families to feed and responsibilities to shoulder. Many of them say they started as domestic workers (maids, cleaners etc) but the money in dance bars is better. They get to dress up, be in an AC atmosphere, with music, with a lot of bouncers, and can dance earn good money and go home. Plus no one can touch them if they don't want to be touched.
> The men. It's their choice. Like smoking. Have you banned cigarettes? That spoils not the moral fibre but the physical fibre. But you let people take that call. Similarly if someone chooses to go to a dance bar and spend his money who is anyone to pass judgement. It's another form of entertainment. Aren't strip bars, the Lido in Paris all very-watched shows? A guy on the radio this morning suggested that dance bars be spruced up, made into a chorepgraphed show and turned into a tourism money-spinner.
> Honestly, it really isn't affecting the youth because most bar owners say the youth hardly have the means (money) to be there. Because if you're not spending you ain't getting any attention, from either the dancers or the waiters. It's mostly middle-aged and above men who go there. Plus a young guy may or may not have access to a dance bar but he has free access to TV and the kind of music videos that are shown are far worse than the kind of 'dance' in the dance bar. But yes you can't touch them on TV. At dance bars most women are in lehengas and saris (yes it's almost like a 'ladies sangeet') and they only imitate moves from Hindi movies. So will you ban Sheesha, Julie, Hawas, Zeher etc. The youth again can access that Hindi movie much more freely and without any stigma than a dance bar.
> A regular nightclub is not much different. If prostitution goes on in dance bars then let's not kid ourselves. How many nightclubs don't have girls being picked up or guys being picked up? For money and for kicks. So if this is concensual then why isn't sex solicited in a dance bar concensual? And the clothes we wear and the gyrations we see, isn't that morally damaging to the youth, who frequent these places? Bullshit. So will all discos and nightclubs be shut next? Then private parties? So people can just start raping the first person they come across. Why don't we replace democracy for dictatorship?

Wednesday, April 06, 2005


OK. I am not dead; just resting. Resting my thoughts. First, replied to some comments on the blog. Whoever wanted to know about Abhishek Bachchan...ummm I don't know if he's the 'helping type' star, but yes he was polite, well mannered, and gave stacatto boring answers just like his dad used to (in the TV interview he was giving). He spoke about how he was almost happy being in his father's shadow and how he knew he could never get out of it so might as well enjoy it and revel in it. But hey, I wanted to tell him, that's professionally, please don't remain in his personal shadow as well, speaking like him, giving the same answers, coming across as this propah guy. You're young man, you're just about tasting success after some 19 flops (his words), you've lost weight, you carry yourself well, you've got a high drool factor, so loosen up. Chill out a bit, have fun.
As for Anurag Kashyap; demonizer! Why would you think that? Is that his reputation? To me whatever little I know him and have interacted with him, he's a guy with a lot of passion for his work. It's not really the best of times for him, but he can't see himself doing anything else so he will stay, and write, and film, and create... and in his case, fight. Till his film sees the light of day. Correction: till his films see the light of day. Both Paanch and Black Friday are currently in the cans, waiting to tell their story. It's been 6 years. Some patience, huh.