Sex and sensitivity

Will we ever develop a sense of humour about sex, learn to be playful about it?

What is it about underwear, in particular men’s underpants, that offends our sensibilities? If you think about it seriously, philosophically even in etymological terms, it’s just another word or piece of cloth. How bad can that be for the soul? All of us who use the offending article of clothing are very grateful for its existence. However, for the minister of information and broadcasting plus some viewers, what’s worn beneath is rated R: revolting, repulsive.

Is it the garment itself or that it ‘arouses’ carnal thoughts? The latter might help explain the minister’s aversion to underwear, why in January he banned AXN for The Worlds’ Sexiest Commercials, then FTV for Midnight Hot. Both showed skimpily under-dressed people. This could be the (only) reason he has now banned TV commercials for Lux Cozy and Amul Macho underwear. The ads have been found “indecent, vulgar and suggestive” and thus violative of Rule 7 (8) of the Cable Advertising Code.

We may understand what prompted the minister’s outraged action, but can we excuse it? No. The Amul Macho ad shows a newly-wed woman (a wife, please note) defiantly washing her husband’s ‘innerwear’ at a dhobi ghat in full view of censorious older, and presumably, married women. Nothing indecent here except the women’s disapproval of her, nothing vulgar unless merely holding up said undergarment is so, and if suggestive, it is of Indians’ (hypocritical?) primness (read narrow-mindedness). This ad is not sexy, it’s saas-bahu all over again.

The banned Lux Cozy commercial is presumably the one with a man in his hotel room, dressed in a towel, expecting the laundryman, opening the door to a curvaceous woman in a short uniform. Towel drops, so do woman’s eyes. (Would have been indecent, vulgar if the man had not protected his virtue with Lux Cozy!) Man says: Nikaal do (pause) — kapde. This is not indecent or vulgar — it’s a double entendre. Meant to be funny, risqué. Laugh everyone.

Both commercials were playful about sex. Where’s our sense of humour? On Sunday’s We The People (NDTV 24×7) some participants were in serious denial: no sex education please, we’re the hypocritical Indians. So, as Barkha Dutt reminded us, several states have rated sex education, X, and banned it. Renuka Chowdhury, recently, asked us to reject this hypocrisy about sex. It exists, as over one billion people will testify.

Also, there is something offensive about the implication that the female sexual gaze (in both ads women behave suggestively — whatever that means) is inappropriate for viewing, worse, that women should not think of the subject, or God forbid, enjoy the thought. When men pass ‘admiring’ glances at women in ads ranging from hair shampoo to automobiles, they’re not ‘suggestive’. That’s a normal male response.

Puhlease!

Last week was women’s week on TV. Pratibha Patil was sworn in as president, Kiran Bedi was not appointed Delhi Police Commissioner, Monica Bedi was released on bail, Haneef’s wife Firdous Arshiya stood tall for her husband, a woman was beaten with branched leaves to kill her evil spirit, another raped, a third… And the minister worries about the TV ads.

Story continues below this ad

The TV world is divided between those who believe Hindi news is different from English news and those who believe news is news in any language. Thus, on Friday morning while English news channels reported that charges were dropped against Haneef in Australia, the Memons were sentenced in the Bombay blasts case, and there were stories that the military had asked Musharraf to resign from the presidency (Times Now), the Hindi channels were preoccupied with the marital plans of one Indian woman: Shaadi ke liye taiyaar Monica, Doli mein bethengi Monica (Aaj Tak), Monica se galti ho gayi (Star News), Abu Salem se koi rishta nahin rakhengi

Monica (IBN-7).

Question: Who made these distinctions?