Abhi,

You are not with the program if you have not heard of Ms. Priyanka Chopra. She was Miss World 2000.

Too much of UCLA, I guess.

I’m not about to make a comment about any of Ms. Chopra’s attributes, just in case I ever meet her.

LOL.

I also read the Playboy is trying to get into India and before all of you jump on me, they are trying to print a Maxim-like (read no naked women) mag.

Just to make things clear. The LOL was WRT this.

I also read the Playboy is trying to get into India

Dammit... I thought I read it else where. I really need to get my s**t straight.

I find the Maxim intro and the playboy proposal in India (and initiation in Indonesia) somewhat disturbing in light of recent convos in India. Just got back from the homeland and was surprised to see how much more steamy the tv commercials are (ie two women kissing in a hunday commercial; a woman sucking another's pendant in a jewlery commercial; women in tank tops slipping off on tissue commercials/boxes). It's in line w my observations from latest bollywood films, like serious sex scenes-yet still without kissing and nudity. In my opinion, the subtle references are steamier than porn but also bad because its still condemned and cant be actualized, ie the nyt article/sepia discussion featuring the crackdown on PDA.

What I learned from my circle of Indian friends/friends living in India was that social norms towards sex have not changed and most nonmarries are not having sex! And they are frustrated. Of course as an American I tried to do my part .... ;) But in all seriousness, wtf? First, is this true? Is premarital sex really that rare?

Going on the premise that it is true (w the understanding that I may have surveyed a skewed group), and people have no or limited outlet w increasing sexualization in society, my friends higlighted another problem: there appears to have been a surge in rapes and assaults as women. The reasons we threw out were effects of outsourcing on female independence and their new hours (spesh in light of the recent brutal murder of an hp outsourced worker), but mainly, we focused on the increased sexualization of women without a socially acceptable outlet to release those tensions. So I worry about the potential correlation with magazines like maxim and the increasing various sexual stimuli in the commercial market. When I got back, I checked out the anecdotal incidents I had heard and indeed there have been many and it seems increasing horrific rapes and murders.

I know this argument is always controversial, and I for one air on the side of freedom of all press. But this does raise important and complex issues of Westernization conceptions of sexuality being introduced into India. It's not that violence against women did not rampantly exist in India before the last several years; but I wonder if it there is a link to the increasing Western porn that sends the message that women are your objects to have at your disposal, they want it even when they say no, blah blah blah OR whether it is increasing a desire that can't be fulfilled with a women bc of cultural norms.

Here are some examples:

Gang rape epidemic:
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/5042.asp
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2554.asp
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=55142
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050514/delhi.htm#1

Rape and murder of HP outsource worker taking cab:
http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=84&num=22129
http://in.news.yahoo.com/051217/139/61l50.html

this is dispiriting :( cultural diversity is being destroyed and everyone is trying to imitate the west! A+ not T&A i say!

I'd like to be on your blogroll!

eteraz, allow me to quote our FAQ (a great place to go for stuff like this):

We add the blogs we love, are addicted to and read daily.

dude don't even have SM on their blogroll. classless :)

hi razib,

i just added them. i had thought i had already done it.

Thanks Abhi..and the rest of the mutiny gang for actually taking the time to read tips! I was very excited to see that this article made it to the storyboard.

I like how Maxim entered the market quietly as compared to the hooplah with Playboy. India is a country with a readership very similar to other countries so it's just a matter of time before magazines such as these become common place. I read femina india every now and then and they definitely have a lot of tongue in cheek references to sex and the like. Some are outrightly open. In fact, I read not so long ago that there is a show that focuses on just the topics that most people in repressed countries spend hours oggling about.

What I learned from my circle of Indian friends/friends living in India was that social norms towards sex have not changed and most nonmarries are not having sex!

Anji, from my experience, parents and others from the older generation still assume that virginity is a virtue that is to be cherished till marriage. The children of these same parents think otherwise. Our society looks down upon sexual expression prior to marriage after marriage too, for women in some cases) so people who are actually doing the deed are forced to deny it. The stigma attached to such freedom makes most people lie about it. A close friend of mine in tke UK who is almost thirty and unmarried and has dated numerous times expects me to believe that she's a sati savitri. I respect her decision so good luck to her and others like her. However I am also glad that magazines and interaction is allowing people to be normal. After all, we are from the land of the Kamasutra! (Don't hate me people, I simply had to add the cliche`)

Msichana,

having sex with non-brown doesn't count as sex you know.

(speaking as a brown virgin)

having sex with non-brown doesn't count as sex you know.

(speaking as a brown virgin)

Haha..what is that then? Brotherly (sisterly) nation-building?

Btw, guess who else is on Maxim

Btw, guess who else is on Maxim

okay....I remember a post about Sheetal Sheth's 'attributes' last week. These guys at maxim need to teach the folks who made her website the wonders of photoshop. Is it just me or is she well, more 'womanly'?

Btw, guess who else is on Maxim

man, respect the brown!

once you go brown
you never turn it down

Btw, guess who else is on Maxim

Abhi: Said it before, saying it again. Karma is a b***h.

Anji, from my experience, parents and others from the older generation still assume that virginity is a virtue that is to be cherished till marriage. The children of these same parents think otherwise. Our society looks down upon sexual expression prior to marriage after marriage too, for women in some cases) so people who are actually doing the deed are forced to deny it.

That was very well put. But in all honesty, if you are in the "right" circle of people, you will very quickly know that pre-marital sex is more common than what the rest of the country thinks it to be.

i must say that seeing that picture makes me feel like my little sister is giving her body up to my friends. it was ok when white girls wanted to commodify themselves and be our sluts. i get sad thinking that brown mamis are also misusing their agency. paradise lost.

eteraz,

whatever happened to for brown eyes only? uh, wait...never mind.

I like how Maxim entered the market quietly as compared to the hooplah with Playboy.

Not really. They apparently used a doctored picture of movie actress Kushboo in the inaugural issue (with a headline that said something along the lines of "Here's who you won't see in the mag"). She is now suing them for publishing "immodest" pictures of her, in spite of their apology. Links here and here. Can't beat getting sued to generate some pre-launch buzz.

They apparently used a doctored picture of movie actress Kushboo in the inaugural issue

Kushboo issue, it doesn't seem to die. I do not know whether Sepia Mutiny blogged about her statements but I thought she was treated very badily by some of the "righetous" groups in India. Even, Sania Mirza was dragged into it.

I disagree with Kushboo's on picture thing. It was supposed to be fun on Maxim. The entire print of Maxim's first issue was sold out in less than 2 days.

Kush, Sania was not 'dragged' into it. She was just a sucker that the media used. She's young and naive and has a view on pretty much everything. She didn't know what she was getting into when she made the statement.

In any case, yes, Khushboo was really badly treated. Mind you, this in the same state where a temple was a built in her honour!!! DO NOT QUESTION THE CHASTITY OF TAMIL WOMEN!

Can we get back to Priyanka Chopra's attributes, anyone?

abhi says:
What I learned from my circle of Indian friends/friends living in India was that social norms towards sex have not changed and most nonmarries are not having sex! And they are frustrated.
---
I have to say, my single cousins in India tell me they have lots of sex and so do their friends. Much more than I'm having over here.
I think it is hard to stereotype about indians, even about sex. it all depends on the particular situation/community they are from.

Now, where can I get a copy of this magazine? ;)

Why do we have to carry the baggage of our dated culture? We must move ahead and be liberal and free about pre-marital sex

Kush, Sania was not 'dragged' into it. She was just a sucker that the media used. She's young and naive and has a view on pretty much everything. She didn't know what she was getting into when she made the statement

Sania was targetted because she was from the minority community. Unfortunately the manuvadi forces think that *all* religious beliefs share their doctrine of forcible subjugation of women liberty

About sex in India. First of all, it's certainly happening. But more importantly it always has been. In the olden days, upto 50 or so years ago, women married very young and virginity was certainly important. But then they got a lot of action after they were married where they routinely had affairs within the family, within their social circles (army specially) or generally where-ever. Speak to your grandparents' generation about this, preferably outside your immediate family, for the whole scoop. People just don't talk about these things. It's sort of like the kissing thing in bollywood. You don't see it happening but it happens.

I have to say, my single cousins in India tell me they have lots of sex and so do their friends. Much more than I'm having over here.

This should help your situation.

This should help your situation.

Maybe a NSFW disclaimer would have been appropriate for that questionable link?

Whats NSWF

NSFW: not safe for work

My bad!

Asked my mate in Bangalore to enquire about the Maxim India magazine. Seems it is no where near to Cosmopoliton India or even Filmfare in ahem... "flesh quotient".

I'm still reeling from Abhi never having heard of Priyanka Chopra.

Whoa.

Whoa.

Seriously dude, I am entirely re-assessing my view of you as a person.

That's messed up man.

I don't think I can talk to you anymore.

Correct me if I am wrong on the Gandhi issue..but aren't the first two points referred to in Maxim's 'Why you should hate Gandhi' blurb (see link above) from 2000 essentially true? the third point is a crass attempt at humor, but whatever. I agree that Maxim's 2003 images where a guy is beating up on Gandhi is uncalled for. And I have great respect for Gandhi as a politician, idealogue, and leader of a nation; but as is often the case with great men, they often have giant egos and horrible personal lives. Am I wrong in assuming Gandhi was not so cool at home as he was in the public eye? Anyone?

For the benefit of Abhi and and other SM participants who have somehow miraculously been unaware of the charms of the lovely Priyanka Chopra, here are 2 nice photos of her: Here and here.

(Perfectly safe for work)

Correct me if I'm wrong but Priyanka Chopra looks a lot like her

joe-

>Correct me if I am wrong on the Gandhi issue..but aren't the first two points referred to in Maxim's 'Why you >should hate Gandhi' blurb (see link above) from 2000 essentially true? the third point is a crass attempt at >humor, but whatever. I agree that Maxim's 2003 images where a guy is beating up on Gandhi is uncalled for. And I >have great respect for Gandhi as a politician, idealogue, and leader of a nation; but as is often the case with >great men, they often have giant egos and horrible personal lives. Am I wrong in assuming Gandhi was not so cool >at home as he was in the public eye? Anyone?

I never understood this line of attack on gandhi. It seems like the line of attack my far-left marxist professor once did, too. After a class going thru all of gandhi's amazing values and feats, we then spent 45 minutes on the fact that his eldest son didnt get along with him, became a drunkard, and then converted to islam, and this was supposed to show--- what? There are several things wrong here.
-first things first - my professor failed to mention, by the way, and i had to find this out on my own, and most people who bring up this point also similary fail to mention -- that that runaway eldest son eventually came back to gandhi and they made up; that nearly all of gandhi's other children had a PERFECTLY fine relationship with him (in so far as one can with a father as famous and as busy as gandhi was) - several of them have written remininsces of their childhood and all of them come out in the end quite in awe of their father, quite admiring, while being frank about the difficulties of being so close to the most important mass movement in indian history (and is that part really a surprise? talk to the children of any mega-famous person). gandhi's children by and large came out quite well - two of his sons and some grandchildren are STILL involved in non-violence and pro-toleration movements, all over the world - there is a center in the US, there are centers in South africa that they still run; one of his children was instrumental in helping to bring about the end of apartheid, helping to mediate between the different groups; another is active in middle east peace campaigns and writes about it online somewhere. Thats quite a remarkable legacy. Similarly feminists (and my marxist prof) sometimes lamented about how difficult it must have been on poor kasturba - of course it was difficult! It was difficult for anyone who took gandhi seriously, because what made him amazing was precisely the demands he made on people in the cause of self discipline for social toleration and justice. We can debate to death whether his path is the only possible path towards those goals - but why are we expressing surprise that his wife would have often found it difficult? any more or less than his sons or his children? Or his followers? She did not have to stay with him, and she did not have to actively participate (as she increasingly did throughout her life) in his projects. he always respected her freedom to withdraw, as she also did from time to time, and he certainly had the right to show his dissapointment when she did - as he showed it to anyone who didnt live up to the ideals he felt so strongly. Is that really a surprise? My marxist prof loved to point to the famous 'beef tea' episode in his autobio (short version: kasturba is very ill. doctor prescribes beef tea. gandhi has debate with her: dont drink it, its better to die. she's not sure. he says you are free to do what you like, but i would say its better to die. in end she agrees and doesnt drink it. she survives.) in our class, our prof went on and on AS IF GANDHI DEMANDED THAT OTHERS DIE, AS IF HE NEVER PUT HIS OWN LIFE ON THE LINE, FOR SIMILAR REASONS AND SIMILAR CONVICTION, TIME AND TIME AGAIN - which of course he did. But for our professor, these facts did not come into the picture - he simply COULD NOT get over the fact that gandhi had told kasturba not to drink it.
-All this talk about his family having a hard time living with such ideals (by the way, they didnt always go along with him. During his experiments with eating only fresh fruit (which he did for a while i think in early 1910s), his family - whole family - openly mocked him for it and refused to go along. he was dissapointed; he also thought it was funny, noting to a friend that they all thought he was nuts! Yet, they were free not to join, and he was free to continue with his experiments - and all they were were experiments; he later abondoned it, agreeing that it had been silly. but he learned something from his experiment, and that was the point). All this talk about his family having a hard time, is therefore a) highly selective in its examples, b) is it really a surprise that there would be SOME hardship? c) and what is the point of it? To say that gandhi should have become an engineer so that he could get a nice middle class job and give his wife a washing machine and give his children ipods? I mean seriously, isnt that a bit beside the point for gandhi?
-it seems to me the 'gandhi was mean to his family' business is more reflective of a general rejection of gandhi's core methods and values, which being embarrased to just come out and disagree, or perhaps not knowing how, one thus focuses on silly things like this.

just my 2 cents... ;)

Now onto more important things: Mujahid_for_debaucher, your link didnt work! ;)

happy to hear that premarital sex is more common than i had heard anecdotally. the modeling/ particular form of commodiification that maxim brings sux but i guess as someone pointed out cosmo india and other pop culture stuff has already been doing it.

to follow up from my earlier comment about the feeling of mourning at seeing brown skinned women objectified, i would alert my fellow bloggers to an interesting exchange i had with an egyptian woman, the results of which i've placed on my blog in the form of a post entitled "Patriarchy, Boys, Eroticism, Female Kindness."

Ever since i moved to Bangalore for med school last august...ive been pissed i cant get my usual magazines for decent rates or that Maxim (i have a free subscription back in Cali) isnt here. Then one day comming back from school i stopped at the newstand and i saw Maxim...and i was like...HOT DAMN I MUST BUY THIS!. The issue was pretty good and defiently not as much skin as the US or other versions...which isnt that bad considering the content and layout is pretty much the same, with some adjustment for the indian market. Yah Priyanka Chopra doesnt show much if anything at all...and she's pretty covered up for the shoot, but there is another girl in the mag that shows more of herself (some model whose name i forget, lol)....On the topic of Pre-marital sex...i think it is becoming more common, wat with the sex scenes hotting up in bollywood (Ashiaq Bayne Apne, Neal and Niki...jsut to name a few examples) and on tv as well. The commercials, as someone said earlier, are definetly hotting up as well. But yeah..unfortunetly, violence against women is seeing an upswing as well..so i guess its both good and bad.

Prinkya: Just read she has a Malu mom and a Punjabi dad...doesn't know what to eat when she goes home, idlis or aloo paratha..god bless Filmfare magazine!

So I'm ashamed to say that I just read about this whole Maxim-in-India thing in the Guardian today for the first time. And while the SM crew is clearly way ahead of me on this issue - I can't resist commenting... the whole thing brings up so many of the things that we brown-kids-in-the-West wonder incessantly about our brothers and sisters back in the motherland. Do you guys date? What does that mean? Do you do it? Really?!

Of my friends there, I'd say 1/8 are comfortable even discussing sex - and I can usually get anyone talking about it. And we're all in our mid-twenties. Isn't this the age to talk about sex to death? To brag, compare, exchange naughty anecdotes, make dirty jokes, talk about technique? Apparently no. So (and of course this whole thing is discussing the westernised urban elite - the flip-side of India is just too much to bring in) while people are doin' it, they're clearly still too coy to talk about it.

Which brings me to the topic of hand. Maxim. What is it that makes me react so violently to Maxim as opposed to something just as vapid and sexual like say Cosmo or Femina? Both objectify women, commercialise sexuality and package it so it falls right in line with sex in the West (no matter how tamed down and how much Sunil Mehra decides to show only cleavage and no nipples because that's just not done in India). Maxim however, seems to go a step further. It's importing its offensiveness on a whole different level. The Guardian talks about the incident regarding Khushboo who promoted safe pre-marital sex (and was pelted with tomatoes, rotten eggs and old shoes - okay now, hitting people with jutas is BAD):

"Instead of celebrating her stance, Maxim's inaugural edition had a mocked-up photograph of Khushboo half naked beneath a slogan declaring: 'Of course, I am a virgin if you don't count from the behind.' Khushboo threatened to sue and Maxim was forced last week to make a public apology."

Oh good. Let's not *just* adopt the basest of Western culture by turning sexuality into a freak show, but let's throw in some of its healthy misogyny as well. These magazines exist (and drive me up the wall) on this end of the world too. The same things that scare me about them here make me cringe for them being in India. Girls with eating disorders, a reinforcement of patriarchy, the objectification of women, the turning of sex into something that's even dirtier (and more bland) than it's already percieved as. People may be having more and more promiscuous sex in India (yay!) but as long as there is the collective culture of puritanical shame, embarassment and a need to slip it through the back door, so to speak, the impact of these magazines on Indian society will not be mediated (boo).

So India's opened its borders. More and more corporations are realising the potential of its markets and more and more people have the money and the consumer savvy to pick, choose and buy buy buy. Wow isn't this revolutionary? Now India can look at half-clothed underweight BROWN women with implants! Hot!

I hope this increasing availabilty of good(ie)s promotes an upsurge in activist and resistant groups in response - that would be amazing. Brown punk movements. Feminist groups. Queer groups. Anti-oppression groups - and not just in the pot-smoking, Marx-reading, theatre-performing fringes... Even just an increase in safer-sex/healthier-sex education would be good. Unfortuantely, as always, there seems to be a bit of a lag between product placement and public awareness. I hope ordinary people get talking, get critical, get angry, thoughtful or intrigued as they get pelted with an increasing number of Western-style uh, crap. And please, let there be a voice that grows louder and more accessible than just Shobha De's facile weekly "social critiques".

A counterpoint:
its funny, for the longest time when my family first moved to the states (i was in my early teens), I always felt about brown women here that they were my 'sisters', like we were all related somehow. Try as I might, I could not get myself to objectify them and see them as sexual, sexy objects. I had no trouble doing that to nearly all other women, and as a result I dated only white women or other asians for the longest time (and became 'good friends' with browns, even when, on occasion, they expressed sexual interest (yes, it happens from time to time, even between geeks!)). It wasnt until my late 20s that I finally, for the first time, dated a brown. It took me that long to see brown women as individual, sexual, and as objects (in the GOOD way - i've come to believe there is such a thing as 'healthy objectification,' even sexually-- especially sexually!).
That was then. Today, a brown is miss universe, priyanka is spellbindingly beautiful and sexy, and a culture of brown sexiness, brown sexuality, looks like is going to explode both into indian culture and seep into world culture (capitalism - and Maxim and other media businesses - will ensure that).
And I wonder: is it so bad? For that change to happen? Both in me and in world culture? There is a bad side to objectification, which plenty of people have pointed out, but there is also a healthy, good side to it. I wonder if we bourgeois dont often mix the two sides of it up together, sometimes too hastily. Of course no one wants to see bulemia or violence against women. But objectifying and being objectified is also often great for self esteem, very positive, and certainly is a key component of the psychological process of sex with all its rewards, too. The matter is more complex than a simplistic "objectification causes bad things". No, a host of factors combining in particular ways, causes bad things. Objectification on its own, does not. It can often cause good things, too.

Haha. This is probably the first time I've heard anyone articulate that "objectification can cause good things". But it did make me stop and think. And I see where you're going with this except I would argue that it's not the objectification of women that we need more of, it's a greater awareness and comfort with sexuality as a whole. I'm not advocating for a minute that brown women should somehow not be blatently sexual in whatever way they choose or that they should not be free to articulate both thier desires and thier enjoyment of sex. And I think you're right - there needs to be a revolution in the way a lot of brown men and brown women relate to each other. I sympathise with you Rks - I predominantly date white boys because I often have a hard time seeing brown men as "sexual objects". My perception of brown men is that they can be repressed, are often controlling, tend to be chauvanistic and end up treating you like a either a doll that's going to break or a surrogate mother. Is this a fair generalisation? Probably not - but the discourse is framed that way; chaste unobtainable women vs. lecherous/misogynist men.

Magazines like Maxim are not in and of themselves the answer to any of these issues - other than the fact that it might propel a conscious critique of them and (fingers crossed) change some of these problematic relationships desi culture has with expressions of sexuality - opening up the sphere for more freedom in that regard. Maxim supports a pretty monolithic and a very (*insert "western" here*) culturally specific view of what "sexuality" means - both in its potrayal of the ideal woman and in its promotion of a certain type of interpersonal relationship. And while it's clear you don't support violence against women, I'd ask you to consider who exactly is benefitting from this "objectification" in these glossy men's magazines? It certainly isn't your average brown chick. She doesn't look anywhere close to Prianka Chopra - just as no white girl I know looks like oh I dunno, Angelina Jolie. And while I'm glad it's got you thinking more about brown women as sexual beings as opposed to your sisters, I don't think the large majority of brown men have that problem, given our gold standing in overpopulation and from what I can gather from what gets hollared at me every time I step into the street in India. India is already immensely sexual - in the way that 14 year olds are - it's there, it's raging and everyone's fascinated, but it's shameful and hidden and largely uninformed, other than a few stupidly brave examples who then get pelted with stuff at recess. Yes we need a sexual transformation. But sexuality is historically and culturally contingent and we're just importing something in hopes of playing catch-up. Why? The revolution needs to be on brown terms, and Maxim is hardly the prime candidate to lead the way.

"The revolution needs to be on brown terms"

Brown terms were supposed to be that the individual does not matter and all actions must be such that they are beneficial to one's community or society at large. It was in this context that sex was considered insignificant to one's happiness and an entire cultural ethos developed around it. The Kamasutra and Tantra are very ritual and rule bound and have long lists of do's and don'ts and do not resemble western sexual habits in the least.

With rapid westernization Indians too are developing a strong sense of individuality. Personal pleasure is way more important than social cohesion. It's too late to do anything about it now and impossible to think in any way other than individualistically. But we're certainly importing all of the west's problems along with western "liberation". There will definitely be more neurosis in India because of this and the family will not be there to fall back on. But I suppose these things are cyclic and it will not surprise me if many decades from now, even in the west virginity and eternal faithfulness become strongly cherished values once again.

Aaak I'm getting sucked in. One more comment and I'm off to class; not for a moment did I mean to suggest either the "Kama Sutra" or "Tantra" are somehow cultural blueprints for brown sexuality. You're right - one is extremely ritually bound and the other is an insignificant text or being a dandy, blown out of proportion. Both have extremely complex histories tied in with issues of colonialism and Orientalism and thier histories and the public perception of them have been forever altered by these discourses. We've only recieved the knowledge of both and the "knowledge" from both within this problematic framework So no... that's not what I was thinking of. There are countless examples of the erotic in desi culture that don't involve either the KS or "Tantra" and it's not fair to distill the culture to either.

Yes, India (just to be specific) is rapidly being embraced by the rapture that is late capitalism. And so ideals like individualism, free markets, 'global culture' etc are becoming inevitable parts of the country's and culture's landscape. That doesn't mean that there isn't a way for India to negotiate what is coming its way without being closed off to it. Japan is always touted as a great example of a culture able to both negotiate and in many ways, transcend the thrust of western modernity. We, as consumers and voters (democracy and capitalism - it's what we sing) do have a say in what gets marketed to us and what we choose to embrace and what we choose to reject. But it takes responsible choices and a willingly educated and politically mobilised people to do so.

there needs to be a revolution in the way a lot of brown men and brown women relate to each other. I sympathise with you Rks - I predominantly date white boys because I often have a hard time seeing brown men as "sexual objects".

yes, this is exactly what i mean - believe me, it works the other way too - the vast majority of brown men who i know who grew up here have only dated white women. at least, those who have made any real attempt to become a part of this culture, that is. its almost like dating brown women would be 'awkward' in some way. Why is that? Isnt it absurd, if you think about it?

I would argue that it's not the objectification of women that we need more of, it's a greater awareness and comfort with sexuality as a whole.

I agree. thats why i'm saying lets not pick on Maxim too much; maxim is just a small part of the whole picture; in fact, its when we FORGET that, that we run into trouble. That is, arguably, those who use Maxim to objectify women in bad ways - have forgetten exactly that - that maxim is just a small part of the whole picture, that there is more to sex than just objectification. So lets ourselves not also forget that, by arguing objectification is itself bad. That is, if we do that, we wind up 'forgetting' the big picture exactly like those whom we're criticizing. I think the right way to fight bad objectification isnt by denying the validity of objectiication, but by drawing attention to the small place it has in a much larger scheme. Thats a subtly different argument to make, but the devil is in the details, I think.

And while it's clear you don't support violence against women,

I'd ask you to consider who exactly is benefitting from this "objectification" in these glossy men's magazines? It certainly isn't your average brown chick. She doesn't look anywhere close to Prianka Chopra - just as no white girl I know looks like oh I dunno, Angelina Jolie.

Here's another counterpoint: I disagree with you on this, on the following terms: Who is benefitting from angelina jolie's picture being splashed across our media and held up as an ideal beauty? Not white women? OF COURSE WHITE WOMEN! Yes, they dont look like her, for the most part. Yet, can anyone deny that PART of the reason that we americanized desis more easily jump into white relationships rather than brown ones - as both you and I have done - is because it has less baggage precisely because it is more mainstream, validated, legitimated, for white folk to BE sexual objects, A LA angelina jolie? Or let me put that as a question: Isnt that so? I think perhaps it is part of the equation. IF thats the case, would not the same validations seep into brown desi culture precisely BECAUSE of maxim's objectificatinos of brown priyanka and others? and who benefits - brown women, brown men, in their mutual objectifications. no? Its a question, I think an open one.

India is already immensely sexual

we're just importing something in hopes of playing catch-up. Why? The revolution needs to be on brown terms, and Maxim is hardly the prime candidate to lead the way

Hmm... I don't know if we are quite saying the same thing RKS. By your logic, I should want to be dating what the media props up as the sexual "object" par excellence i.e. white women. And to a certain extent - fine. Girl on girl action keeps getting fetishized in the media and there's an increasing number of videos of "ordinary" girls on spring break making out, girls on the desi bus back from some "culture show" in my undergrad making out with each other etc. etc. Coincidence or correlated? Sexual freedom or base debauchery?

Who is this beneficial to exactly? The problem isn't trying to get people to HAVE sex with each other (and Maxim India is not playing to those of us with white "back up plans" - its target audience is desi who hook up with other desis) the problem is trying to get people to admit the fact that they themselves (not other people) are sexual and therefore open up about it. People will have sex, not to worry - with or without the insights from this magazine.

Maybe it seems like I'm harping on about it. But as a feminist - I can't see why we have to first turn women into objects before we're okay to have sex with them. What's wrong with the complexities of real women? And where is the male counterpart to your argument? Are we coming up with a quick and easy formula to make male sexuality more palatable too? Or is it okay as long as the women are being turned into sexualised domesticated playthings? And just to get personal for a second, I didn't "jump into" relationship with white men because they had less baggage - they each had all KINDS of baggage. Sex isn't easy. Relationships aren't easy. No matter how many sexy girls you put on a hood of a car or have bent over a couch or pouting up at you from on the floor - that's not what's going to ease our tensions with our partners.

I'd like to end this by tempering what I've been arguing: all this is on a idealistic level. These issues exist and are just as much a thorn in my side here in the west. Of course Maxim is going to be in India and of course people in India should have access to all kinds of media. But as people who read and post and analyse South Asia, it's important to also be critical of the media available in South Asia to and to be as hard on issues of female representation/identity, homophobia, patriarchy, race relations etc. as we would be if it were part of the mainstream media here.

Anyone has a scan - ed version of her pictures man...???

You're right, we're not connecting!

By your logic, I should want to be dating what the media props up as the sexual "object" par excellence i.e. white women.

not sure where i said THAT...

Girl on girl action keeps getting fetishized in the media and there's an increasing number of videos of "ordinary" girls on spring break making out, girls on the desi bus back from some "culture show" in my undergrad making out with each other etc. etc. Coincidence or correlated? Sexual freedom or base debauchery?

I think the point is - is it for YOU to decide? Surely you dont think india has been free of sexual debauchery until the West showed up!
THis is a perpetual problem with trying to inject ethics into the complexities of sexuality and its representation. There is nothing wrong with objectification AS SUCH. The only thing wrong is when it - like anything else- becomes a monopoly - and as you say, thats a problem both here as well as there. It is the monopoly that causes the "complexities of real women" to be buried - not the simple fact of objectification.
The difference is important. The difference is what will allow feminism - which I'm all for - to not simply become part of the politics of reactionism. The difference would allow feminists (and i consider myself one) to not simplistically see all objectification as part of the 'assault' on womanhood (or manhood). Young women having fun in the back of the bus does not AUTOMATICALLY constitute an ethical assault on the nation. We have to be able to let local situations remain local, or to be able to tell the difference between what is local fun and what is national assault. The only way to do that is to modify what we're looking for: I say look for evidence of monopolies and criticize those; dont just simply demonize the ACT of objectification. Doing the latter is a very de-contextualizing act. Thats bad.

Rks - I enjoy your responses. And I do appreciate both your engagement of this issues and your aligning yourself with the term "feminist" - something that's getting scarier and scarier (??) for a lot of people. And there's a lot that you say that I agree with. This for example:

"Young women having fun in the back of the bus does not AUTOMATICALLY constitute an ethical assault on the nation."

An ethical assault on 'the nation'? No way. A theatrical enactment of frat-boy fantasies perpetuated and reinforced by the media perhaps? Uh huh. I only mentioned they were desi girls to draw the parallel between what happens in "western-style" media and within "brown" circles - and sure, if the girls want to suck face - whatevs.

My issue isn't that it's brown women being objectified. I don't like seeing women objectified in general. And because this new medium is being introduced to India, it's worthy of comment. It's just as outrage-inducing when it happens.

As for the monopoly issue... yes... fine. If the brown public (and here I'm talking about general masses not the intellectual elite) are somehow more critical and astute and picky than the general audience in the west and reject this one mode of heterosexual, misogynist sexuality promoted by magazines like these that would be really great. If we see a response in India where these magazines co-exist with a conscious effort on the part of the public not to privilage the kind of sex it sells, I'll both be amazed and extremely happy.

I should probably let you know RKS that I'm currently TAing a course called "Sexual Ethics" and my focus is South Asian Studies so if I seem obsessed... there's a clue why :)

Surprise! i'm a TA too... ;) South asian studies/cultural theory.

I don't like seeing women objectified in general.

I understand where you're coming from, totally. But I still find this approach problematic. I cant get myself to condemn the ACT, the way you do. In certain contexts this act - objectification - by men OR women at and by either gender - seems to me could be perfectly valid and even natural.
Remember what Freud said; the difference between a neurotic and a 'normally' functioning person isnt the acts they do but that one obsesses and one doesnt. Thats what I mean too: its not the act; its the monopoly.

somehow more critical and astute and picky than the general audience in the west and reject this one mode of heterosexual, misogynist sexuality promoted by magazines like these that would be really great.

Again, I resist the 'automatic' assumption that objectification is misogynistic. Context must matter.

If we see a response in India where these magazines co-exist with a conscious effort on the part of the public not to privilage the kind of sex it sells, I'll both be amazed and extremely happy.

You and me both. Incidentally i dont expect it to actually happen, any more than you do. But I'm saying we should perhaps deal with that problem not by banning objectification, but by arguing for/calling attention to the monopoly's effects.

A theatrical enactment of frat-boy fantasies perpetuated and reinforced by the media perhaps? Uh huh. I only mentioned they were desi girls to draw the parallel between what happens in "western-style" media and within "brown" circles - and sure, if the girls want to suck face - whatevs.

Seems to me here you're trying to have it both ways? On the one hand you say 'if they want to suck face, whatever'. Thereby granting individuals freedom to objectify and act out whatever they like. On the other hand you say "frat boy fantasies" perpetuated and reinforced by the media, ie, objectifying, misogynistic, etc, etc. Clearly you dont mean to say 'whatever' here.

believe me, i'm on your side. I'm just asking: how will you tell the difference between indoctrinated women and women having personal fun? And: on what grounds will YOU intervene? And I'm suggesting: you wont be able to answer these questions if you approach the problem thru the lens of trying to identify 'objectification' as the culprit. I agree that capitalist media promotes certain styles of reading that become monopolies at the expense of other points of view (read: sex sells), and like any monopoly, that eventually has measurably detrimental effects on society. But this seems to me a capitalism problem rather than directly being a sexual ethics problem. You might say sexual ethics is *affected* by the process, but then it is the consequence, not the cause, of the problem.

I still think we're not too far apart on this, prolly just emphasizing diff sides of the same coin. As a lefty, I'm just tired of us pursuing a politics of reactionism, thats all. Whether in gender studies or race or class or post-colonialism. I think leftists havent benefited much in the last 20 years by doing that, and I actually sometimes think we left behind much more productive analyses by embracing that approach. Seems more productive to me to contextualize and see the bigger picture rather than go after particular and individual behaviours (and just be resented as being the PC police). I guess thats a criticism that I increasingly have come to agree with. ;)

(p.s., I also think the subalternists and spivak have really mucked things up for progressives. ;) thats prolly the MOST un-pc thing a south asian studies grad student could say! ;) Mucked things up by being unrelentingly reactionary, that is.

Brownfrown,
you might like this new yorker article from yesterday. It is related in an analogical way to the conversation we are having (ie, "how do you tell..." when X is personal and local or national and dangerous). THis one is about racial profiling - and pit bulls. Its a neat piece.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060206fa_fact

Ah RKS,

No wonder we spend so much time writing pages ranting about a notoriously vapid men's magazine - are you procrastinating on handing something in/grading too?
Yes... I see your point. And oooh believe you me - I squarely point my finger at capitalism. And when I say "sexual ethics" you should know that I don't really buy into that term - especially the "ethics" part of it... wha?? huh?

Just to clarify - it wasn't a (sex) ethical problem I was having with Maxim (are you as tired of typing that word as I am? I never want to have to see it again) it was in fact perhaps, to steal the term you've been employing, the monopoloy, the dominance of that comodified form of sex. I'm not going to get into the feminist issues tied up with that... you know what I'm talkin' about. As for the girls making out... here's a short opinion on it. Women: Do it if it gets you hot. But if you're doing it for the benefit of your boyfriend (check out a site like Hot Or Not for an example of what I'm talking about - almost every girl who identifies as "bi" wants to pick up another woman to bring home to her and her man) then acknowlege that. Girl-on-girl action has a certain kind of currency in this type of media. And it's not some kind of sexual rev. because you don't have the same thing happening with the boys. When was the last time you saw two men making out in the MAINSTREAM media in a hot boy-on-boy scene while his appreciative GF watches, digicam in hand? That's where I was going with that.

OH! and *gasp* you don't like Spivak and the Sub-Altern Studies gang? Oh hellfire awaits, you my friend :)
I don't buy into everything they go off about either. However, I'm at a very conservative faculty studying "Hinduism", and sometimes, you have to bring up thier spectre just to scare the Kashmir shawls off the creaky tenured profs who still like to secretly refer to themselves as "Indologists". And then they whisper things about you behind your back... like "Watch out... she's going to become one of those post-colonial feminist types". Uhh...

Thanks for the link - I'll check it out. Get back to that grading!

are you procrastinating on handing something in/grading too?

That's where I was going with that.

When was the last time you saw two men making out in the MAINSTREAM media in a hot boy-on-boy scene while his appreciative GF watches, digicam in hand?

OH! and *gasp* you don't like Spivak and the Sub-Altern Studies gang? Oh hellfire awaits, you my friend :)

I'm at a very conservative faculty studying "Hinduism", and sometimes, you have to bring up thier spectre just to scare the Kashmir shawls off the creaky tenured profs who still like to secretly refer to themselves as "Indologists".

I have the opposite problem, I'm sorrounded by quite militant pomo/poco folks. Over the top and in your face. They've long since scared off the 'indologists' and 'orientalists', but now they have set themselves up on a similar throne and they rule with about as much tact and tolerance as their predecessors (which is to say, not much). ;)

My question is: Why does our field - south asian studies - need to be squeezed between these two intolerant binaries - hindutvavadis and subalternists? I'd like to reject both - and on similar grounds most of the time. I realize that means catching hellfire from both sides; but if that happens, actually I'll start to think that i'm on to something!
;)

Hey, email me if you like (link above). What year are you? In writing phase? whats your thesis? what are you reading? how did you fall into grad school? etc, etc.