I'm reminded of a store sign I saw in Mumbai some years back - "Hare Krishna Meat Market", complete with an image of the blue deity playing a flute

Also, I recall The Donald trying to sue some Indian restauranteur in Atlantic City some years back because his place was called "Taj Mahal".

These words are entering the cultural lexicon of the West - "guru", "yoga", etc. have been in it for some time now.

Once I was fairly reduly lectured by a young caucasian "hippie-esque" fellow at Peet's Coffee in Menlo Park, CA about what goes into chai (that they sell as a premix, of course). Did he see my skin color and put 2+2 together?? I had to politely tell him the tale of how i grew up smelling the substance every morning and ow my mother gets major headaches when she does not have hers, HER way, daily.

At least "chai tea latte" (double oxymoron if you will) has been reduced to "chai" at the major coffee chains.

;-)

There are (were ?) some porn stars performing under the stage name "India". I doubt anyone can be prevented from adopting any name no matter how sleazy their line of business. Unless of course they rip off an already trade marked name...

Vikram - the term "India" is a bit of a western adaption, so i'll let that one slide. Now, if porn stars and pop stars (India Arie, anyone?), etc. start calling themselves "Bharat", i may raise an eyebrow. :)

Tamasha Theatre (London)
Tamasha Hotel and Restaurant (Bromley, UK) "There's only one name that adds colour and spices to fine Indian dining"
Tamasha TV (Your Persian TV)
Hotel Tamasha (Kish Island, Persian Gulf) Really poor choice of name, I think. Maybe it means something else?

Om Records (SF, CA) "The United Nations of Future Music"

My "faves" in NYC:
Kama & Sutra.

polluting cable television for nearly ten years. Those who, like me, believe that this sort of barely-legal exploitation is a lot more dangerous than is hard-core porn will find here a cornucopia of material to bolster their view. The way that Francis and his crew prey on drunken 18-year-olds and induce them to debase themselves

Sure, but doesn't part of the blame lie with these women who are willing to let themselves be used in this manner? Does that necessarily qualify as 'exploitation'? I mean, these girls do choose to get drunk and all that goes with it in this kind of environment, right? And no, this is not 'blaming the victim' thing, I am questioning the fact that these women should be considered 'victims' at all.

And of course, there's always the question of the demand for these videos. Lots of people are paying good money for this shit, aren't they partly sharing the blame?

It is degrading but in American society this is par for the course. The guy who has the loudest horn will win. If Mantra is marketed with porn for long enought time the meaning will degrade and will be associated with that. But saving grace is that not many people know that GGW is a product of Mantra E.

A word that is more abused than Mantra is 'Swastik'. Now I can't use that word without all sorts of negative connotations that get conjured up with that word.

Dude, that LA Times article was intense. You realize what a sicko Joe is, and all I can think is as a writer how Claire risked it to put everything out on the line like that.

Vat! slow news day, eh Siddharth?

but I bite.

there's all manner of indics naming their little start-ups obscure names from the hindu epics... but it take this is a vent on the non-indic usurpation of OUR culture -gah-.

there's prana clothing and climbing gear. i'm pretty sure no indic has the right BMI to go climbing and the oil doesnt really let one get a grip on the rock. so this must be a non-indic squeeze.

also, there's lululemon's logo. that is a really low blow... holler if it doesnt register at first glance.

As Apu was saying, this is one of those words, probably going back to the 1960s fascination with many things Indian and the subsequent '70s popularity of TM that saw the word "mantra" become commonplace in US everyday vocab.

What amazes me about these videos is how cheap naked female flesh has become in this country and how 50% of the blame for that rests with the girls who strip so willingly for the GGW cameras. It's sad really that after all the struggles that women before them went through to be taken seriously for more activities than just breeding and cleaning the house, and how many women still do, the girls who flash the camera (and more) are just underlining and bolding the message to all the drooling guys out there "Yessir, my greatest value is in my 20-something perfect body, no más. After that, as I get older and the body's not so flawless, my worth in American society will have declined precipitously, and that's just fine. By then you can move on to the next pack of lithe lovelies and toss me and my sisters aside."

Beyond that, don't any of these girls ever face negative repurcussions afterward? I remember thinking that last week after I saw the ads running on FX or Comedy Central: I'd love to see a reporter like Vanessa Grigoriadis do a story on what life is like for these girls after they take their few bucks (or do they get a residual on every copy sold?) home and try to lead a normal life, and every guy on campus (and probably a few professors) starts hitting on them non-stop, and when word gets back to their parents. Nobody gives a damn?

BTW, have any desi girls shown up on any of these GGWs yet?

yes. I remember distinctly , those desi mangoes in a wet tshirt.

I agree with everything the post said about the nonsense that is Girls Gone Wild. I also am a bit put off by the use of the word "mantra" in this particular instance. But, my objection ends at my being offended and voicing that offense. First, I don't think anyone should EVER be put in the position where there he/she must worry about language police coming out to get them (I get the feeling that you would agree with me on that point). Second, in what way is this more offensive than, say, calling a football team the Washington Redskins? If we get all riled up over this, shouldn't we get all riled up over that as well? Also, at what point do you draw the line? I notice that you mentioned a Nirvana Corporation and Park, but we all know that post 1991, when you say the word Nirvana the first image that comes to mind is a trio of flannel clad rockers. What differentiates the band from the corporation and park? I guess what I don't understand is why you put the word "mantra" on "a whole 'nother level." The word itself is not a "holy" word like "Om." He is not desecrating sacred verses of the Ramayana, the Gita or some other actual mantra. It is just a word that has been misused. He is ignorant for choosing such a word but I will only object to the use of language when I am SURE that its intended use is to offend or humiliate. Until you offer evidence that he chose the word specifically spread ill-will, I can't help but feel as though you are over-reacting.

Not the name of a business, but the use of words by the business is what's dismaying HERE in a picture I found from a visitor to the House of Blues in LA, and a plate full of their "chicken friend chicken".

I also think that the word 'mantra' has already been out of the realm of 'Indic' connotations for a while in terms of usage: corporate 'mantra' for instance. Kind-of like the word 'Guru'. It's an inevitable process with language, I guess.

Don't really see why we need to get our chuddies in a bunch over this too much. Indians take English words/phrases and use it in ways which may range from amusing to offensive. (I'm sure SM has posts on that which I'm too lazy to dig up :) )

Now Joe may be a jerk, but this entry is BS. Are women not responsible for their actions? Last time I checked, being drunk has not excused poor judgement and behavior. They got drunk, signed a waiver, and flashed a camera. If they were sexually abused, then that is one thing, but flashing a camera is another. Women love to push for equality, but the minute they find themselves doing stupid things, they revert to being innocent victims. Camille Paglia nails this phenomenon in her writings. Modern feminism wants it boths ways.

Isn't the most popular brand of bidis in India called Ganesh? I don't think these things matter as long as people don't deliberately attempt to denigrate a culture. Mostly it's the opposite - people tend to value the name they choose for their business. Of course if someone particularly sleazy decides to use the word mantra it can be annoying but I guess we just have to shrug it off.

I also don't see anything wrong with naming a meat buisness after Krishna. The meat-man was probably a devotee of Krishna. In India most things have more to do with tradition than any sort of belief system. Unlike the US, which is why the plate of chicken (in #12) with the word ahimsa around it, is rather funny.

I do find images of gods on sandals and underwear offensive, but that's quite different.

I am really interested in the evolution of Claire's article. Did she set out to do a regular story which went awry (the shoving, pushing, etc)?
Or did she expect the boorish behavior from her interview subject?
All said and done, GGW sales will soar after this article.....

Do you think a G(ay)B(oys)GW enterprise would have been shut down by now?

I guess there have been many Indian/Hindustani/Saskrit and vernacular languages that have found their places in Oxford Eng Dictionary. Like juggernaut for example. If someone uses juggernaut while descrbiing a rock show or mardi gras he is using English - not offending the sentiments of hindus. So if the company that owns the 'girls gone wild'is named Mantra...he is just doing the same.

I guys should just chill than over reacting to it. There have been many equally bad and worse depiction or usage of these words in Indian media itslef...

I guess there have been many Indian/Hindustani/Saskrit and vernacular languages that have found their places in Oxford Eng Dictionary. Like juggernaut for example. If someone uses juggernaut while descrbiing a rock show or mardi gras he is using English - not offending the sentiments of hindus. So if the company that owns the 'girls gone wild'is named Mantra...he is just doing the same.

I guys should just chill than over reacting to it. There have been many equally bad and worse depiction or usage of these words in Indian media itslef...

Nirvana Memorial in Malaysia... If it's the same one I pass by frequently enough to remember, I think that they provide services for the families of deceased Buddhist women, preparing their bodies for cremations/funerals. "Nirvana" is a Buddhist term too, and appropriate in this case.

That aside, I'm peeved to to hear about Mantra Entertainment too. But I don't feel a greater annoyance than when, say, someone incorporates a religious element into pop music.... The co-opting of the sacred in such a way that makes it both popular and profane is the most prevalent form of post-colonial cultural imperialism. It may look like it's just a bit of bindi here or a bit of mantra-chanting there, but it makes me deeply uncomfortable. Wht makes me even more uncomfortable is to see how some people can only accept their own heritages when it's offered to them, often distorted and dumbed-down, that way. I think it's important to wonder -- what makes the validation of the Other so important to so many people when it comes to personal cultural affirmation?

Do you think a G(ay)B(oys)GW enterprise would have been shut down by now?

Not judging by the commercials I see for Guys Gone Wild I see on Logo ;)

To be honest, I don't even know where to start with this post. I wish it had just been on the topic of the LA Times article rather than the word use, which is obviously a minor offense compare to, say, twisting someone's arm behind them and then later softly asking the same person for a kiss. The juxtaposition is a bit disturbing and it feels weird just talking about how the use of "mantra" is offensive.

Unless, of course, it's siddartha teaching us all a lesson about priorities, which I wouldn't put past the incredibly intelligent fellow.

The exoticization of Indian hallmarks isn't something brand new though. It's a shame that a pornography company is using Mantra as their brand-name, but at the same time, in an America which has transformed Yoga into a multimillion dollar industry. In some sick perverted mind-twist, "mantra" was used to equate cheap trashy American porno to a sublime experience.

But this just always happens -- bitching about it now is so...pointless because facets of Indian culture have long been mis-branded for the sake of "exoticization" in Western cultures. Even those cultures are defined by the way they "degrade women."

We've just gotta take it with a grain of salt.

Anyone else feel something like pride at Claire Hoffman's article? I don't think I've ever read anything quite so brilliantly written from/about the entertainment industry. **applause**

My personal favorite is when she uses all the times Joe makes fun of her intelligence (qwerty typewriter) and is generally boorish and condescending (we love our little reporter), to fabulously mirror back his own loser-dom. Smart is sooo sexy:)

And to all those who have been ranting about women wanting it both ways or whatever: That was hardly the point of the article. In fact, Hoffman bends over backwards to show that no, these women don't view themselves as victims--that they are having fun. What she does do, is very nicely, lay out ways in which GGW (in particular Joe Francis) could/does abuse the contracted agreed upon pacts made in each of the videos. You are in a public place, you get drunk, you sign a waiver, take off your shirt, we will film you. That is what the girls agree to--wisely or unwisely--whatever. What they do not agree to, is sex in the bus w/ Francis or the cameramen. Or having your arm twisted off because you pissed off some clown.

Sorry guys, but I really wish you had written on the original article than this...stuff about 'misuse' of Indian words. Languages borrow words from each other all the time. So what if the Vesterners use it in a different context. Nothing to get your knickers in a twist about.

Personally, I'm more concerned with the few commenters who claim that the girls themselves hold responsibility for their actions. Sure, but they were drunk. They can't consent. Rape law states that a drunk are unable to consent to sex.(Unless both parties were drunk, of course. The way I see it, the corporation is taking advantage of women in a vulnerable state. So no, it is not their fault.

Just to add, of course women who were sober when they signed the waiver bear responsibility. However I wouldn't be suprised if the crew fed the girls drunk or drugged them.

Excellent points by Filmiholic in post #9.

Regarding the word (mis)use, something which received some publicity here in the UK a few years ago is the fact that one of the most famous bingo gambling organisations is, somewhat ironically, called Mecca.

Beyond that, don't any of these girls ever face negative repurcussions afterward?

One of his earliest lawsuits I think was from a woman who appeared in the video, was put on the cover, then joined the PTA of her childs school eventually. I doubt they get any residuals, they most certainly have to sign release forms.

Claire Hoffman's article is one of the best I've read of all year. I've heard a lot about how debased and predatory GGW and its king pin are - charges I don't disagree with - but I've heard little about the mindsets of the women (and girls, by some definitions) agreeing to participate in seemingly humiliating activites. Are they playfully goaded into a inebriated state of mental plasticity or are they at least somewhat aware of their actions and willingly acting out sexual messages that they have subconsciously internalized?

Francis has aimed his cameras at a generation whose notions of privacy and sexuality are different from any other. Nursed on MySpace profiles and reality television, many young people today are comfortable with being perpetually photographed and having those images posted on the Internet for anyone to see. The boundaries that once contained sexuality have also fallen away. Whether it's 13-year-olds watching a Britney Spears video, 16-year-olds getting their pubic hair waxed to emulate porn stars or 17-year-olds viewing videos of celebrities performing the most intimate acts, youth culture is soaked in sexuality.

And for those who believe that Joe Francis is in dire need of a comeuppance, Darnell Riley is way, way ahead of you.

yo meena, saurav & co,

um, the way we select material for this blog is by looking for desi angles. since GGW doesn't have an obvious desi angle (unless someone wants to watch all the videos and look for desi participants), i seized on Francis' choice of a desi cultural term for his company name, as an opportunity to blog this story in the first place. get it? without the desi angle, i wouldn't have been able to blog this extremely compelling and important story. so i guess i should thank Francis for the name choice after all.

riffing on other desi cultural name uses/abuses is just an extra. call it stirring the pot.

as for the LA Times article, i totally second what Sonia says in comment #22. and, it's interesting to see how many people still don't get that even if people sign consent forms etc., it still can be (and is) degradation and exploitation.

peace

This seems like a really hard topic to discuss. Its partly a discussion on what i assume is third-wave feminism (although i might be wrong about the naming as i'm not really too up on the way the eras of femininism are termed). I wouldn't even know where to begin on that discussion, not being female, although i think all people have a stake in the outcome of the feminist movement. it also gets to consumer-culture, media culture, the new wave of technology. how much of the new commercialization of sex is driven by consumers versus the producers. The whole question is wrapped up in multiple processes; poor versus rich; consumer versus producer; man versus woman; young versus old, among others. it calls also into question, must this be one versus the other? is it really that way, or are these cooperative ventures, if unevenly distributed. this also goes to the heart of human relations in a way

And what other egregious (or amusing) uses of desi cultural terminology have you run across in the business world?

I believe there's a well-known waste management company here in the UK called Sita.

Thanks Siddhartha for posting this story.

Judging by the content of the article, I think we can diagnose Joe Francis as a psychopath.

As far as exploitation: if a poor man offers to sell you his kidney for a chance to be on camera, a t-shirt and a thong, and you buy it, is that exploitation? (Assuming it were legal.)

Also IMO, the fact that alcohol is nearly always involved, shows that the activity is exploitive. If they can't get sober people to do it--or in my example, wealthy people--you have to ask why...

there's prana clothing and climbing gear. i'm pretty sure no indic has the right BMI to go climbing and the oil doesnt really let one get a grip on the rock. so this must be a non-indic squeeze.

the above was too negative a remark to induce you to check out prana's link - but you might be interested that two of their featured climbers are guys called omprakash and sagar, definitely an indic thing there. i dont like rock climbing, but bouldering gets my juices flowing - the screaming pain in the shoulders, the stretch in the groin, the knees shaking uncontrollably and the moment wen one drops off from the side of the rock in to the lake (hopefully) -- and so i was quite tickled to see them profiled. amazing athletes these folks. go out and climb a rock taller than thee, it'll add you a whole new perspective, literally and figuratively.

Read in last week's issue of New York magazine that Coty Brands Frangrances were very nervous when Hip Hop Highness and Jivamukti practioner extrodinare, Russell Simmons, named his new frangrance Atman. That's right GOD. Apparently, the Coty e-team were nervous that, well *people* (of color, I assume), wouldn't resonate with such a name. Oh, and I think it's safe to bet that neither JESUS, Yaweh, G_d were naming options.

The Sweet Smell of Simmons
Russell goes to the mat for God’s being sexy, mainstream.By Beth Landman

Russell Simmons thinks the suits at Coty need to get their chakras checked. After the success of fragrances from his ex-wife, Kimora Lee, and P. Diddy, Simmons was asked to come up with his own scent. Simmons, a yoga freak, mixed up a batch of spiritual oils and called the fragrance Atman, a Sanskrit word that means “divine self” or “God” in some traditions. But the marketing minds at the world’s biggest fragrance company (brands include Calvin Klein, Nautica, and J.Lo) didn’t see the fit with his hip-hop following. “I’m not a perfume dude, but they were after me to do this,” says an irritated Simmons, who says he plans to donate his proceeds to charity. “We had quite a standoff. They told me God doesn’t sell, God isn’t sexy. I think God is sexy.” Still, the cologne tested well and will be on shelves in September. A Coty spokesperson says, “Coty was scared by these uncharted waters. God wasn’t something that we thought was mainstream, but Russell was so passionate about it. If you are going to work with Russell, you do it his way, and now it makes perfect sense.”

Do you think a G(ay)B(oys)GW enterprise would have been shut down by now?

it's interesting to see how many people still don't get that even if people sign consent forms etc., it still can be (and is) degradation and exploitation.

The not so subtle subtext of this post is that Joe Francis' degradation and exploitation of women stems from his sexism, as evidenced by his violent treatment of Claire Hoffman. But if we were to take sexism out of the equation by allowing ourselves to be informed by gay pornogrophy, we'd find that degradation and exploitaion remains. Why?

Siddhartha implies that a woman's role in society is determined by human relations of domination, like those underlying sexism. But I suspect the reforming of our most intimate private lives by our egalitarian principles will prove to be problematic indeed.

Aside from the misuse of mantra issues, what I was most disturbed by in this article is that Joe Francis seems to repeatedly escape taking responsibility for raping and exploiting women, but the single person who attempted to blackmail him (with his own exploitive footage of Joe) is now in prison while Joe is free to continue. What a twisted situation.

Siddhartha implies that a woman's role in society is determined by human relations of domination

manju, with all respect, i imply no such thing. as soon as the verb "is determined by" gets deployed, chances are i don't agree. i think life is subtle and ambiguous and that the unintended consequences of actions almost always end up, in the long term, more decisive than the intended ones.

now with respect to GGW, i think your comparison with gay porn (and why just gay, by the way?) is specious. there is a huge difference between GGW, in which the women are basically preyed on, encouraged to get drunk, and pushed well past the line from play into sexual coercion (at least the article makes it seem that way) -- oh and by the way, not remunerated for their services except with baseball caps and other trinkets --- and on the other hand porn, in which actors are paid to do scenes that are scripted in advance and to which they agree, as professionals. porn is fiction as well as paid performance; GGW is unpaid, and all too real. so there is an immense difference here, and while some people may argue that all pornography is inherently exploitative (i am not getting involved in that discussion), i think most of us can agree that something like GGW is multiply exploitative, not only sexually but also economically and even generationally, since francis is almost old enough to be these girls' dad.

peace

as soon as the verb "is determined by" gets deployed, chances are i don't agree

OK, fair enough. Forget "determined." I think, correct me if I'm wrong, you were tying in Francis' treatment of Hoffman with GGW's exploitation and degradation of women; and perhaps a more general correlation between sexism and this form of pornogrophy. Which brings me to...

i think your comparison with gay porn (and why just gay, by the way?) is specious.

I was trying to take sexism out of the equation and see what happens.

Intersting argument on why GGW is exploitative but porn not. I'll leave it to others to deconstruct. I do agree that the voluntary tranaction of money for services makes it less exploitative (though i'm sure many critics of the free market will disagree) thought the factors of age differnce and drugs & alcohal are probably still at play.

Anyway, one persons exploitation is always another's free will. My point is only that the ancients in virtually every culture realized that sex was dangerous and often interwined with violence and degradation and therfore needs to be controlled. They bascicly informed us that left to its own, all hell will break out.

So we see all hell breaking out and we look to the underlying superstructure of sexism rather than the obvious culprit, nature.

Dont forget the Buddha Lounge in Las Vegas. Though there does seem to be a Buddha lounge in every major city.

The biggest thing that blew my mind was a article in the Chicago Sun times called "Karma justice" about a guy getting caught stealing real expensive Buddha statue in front of a steak house and how it was karma that caught him. You would think that the bad karma would be to have a Buddha statue in front of a STEAK HOUSE, but then I remembered that most people in charge of information are idiots.

a Buddha statue in front of a STEAK HOUSE,

So we see all hell breaking out and we look to the underlying superstructure of sexism rather than the obvious culprit, nature.

Manju -- are you saying rape is part of human nature, too?

Manju -- are you saying rape is part of human nature, too?

Yes. Apes practice it. Sexual domination is so common among various cultures, including gay culture (which I think is important b/c we then cannot reduce this desire to the social construct of sexism) that I think there must be a significant natural component. Feminists are beginning to realize it as many of them are looking quite honestly at the dichotomy between their own desire for sexual humiliation and their egalitarian politics. "the politics of the blowjob" make for quite interesting reading (seriously).

I don't deny that nurture plays a role, but even then, sexual conditioning from early childhood may be just as intractable as nature.

We may use a different language these days, but it is really just old world wisdom. Liberate sexual desire from social constraints and you will open up a violent can of worms.

Hee, hee.. sour grapes. Oh those badmaash girls taking their undies off... they must be being exloited, right? It wouldnt happen that they're just sexually liberated, or slutty or naughty or whatever you might call it?

Francis reminds me of the guy who's the head of American Apparel, Dov Charney. Sounds like these two have the same ideas about management and leadership styles.

As counterpoint to Manju, constrain human nature by social constructs and all hell will break loose.

Would this topic be a discussion on societies less constrained in matters dealing with sexuality or nudity or pornography? My experience in say, the Scandinavian countries leads me to think not. Societies that place a premium on "morals, values, etc." tend to show the worst patterns in these matters.

Speaking of which, doesn't it sound odd we here provide the training, driving school, etc. for kids to drive at sixteen but don't spend the equivalent (or more) on matters related/leading to what shows up in these videos. Easier to get worked up, show a moralistic strain, and wag a finger ...

Francis appears to be a textbook psychopath, many of whom are extremely successful in life - non-empathetic, no remorse, self-centred, smooth-talker, manipulative, amoral, easily bored, promiscuous, no consistency between what he says and what he does ("I love women!".) I thought the most brilliant part of the article was the ending, in which Hoffman gives a snapshot of Francis as the classic abuser - "I love you baby, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it, you know I love you" - without ever once in the article calling him such.

I continue to be surpised by America - if I remember right the once mayor of Spokane was thrown out of office because he offered some 18yo guy a job in a gay chat room. And police in Texas broke into a gay couple's bedroom and accused them of sodomy ...But this GGW guy who is such a sleaze preys on young women in public and is rich and famous. Jeez...What stops the authorities from investigating him more aggressively?

Francis appears to be a textbook psychopath, many of whom are extremely successful in life - non-empathetic, no remorse, self-centred, smooth-talker, manipulative, amoral, easily bored, promiscuous, no consistency between what he says and what he does ("I love women!".)

You're thinking of a sociopath, m'dear. =P

i think most of us can agree that something like GGW is multiply exploitative, not only sexually but also economically and even generationally, since francis is almost old enough to be these girls' dad.

I think it's behaving like a parasite. Just because someone gives one an opportunity to exploit/mistreat them, it does not mean one should exercise that option and then somehow attempt to justify it by "blaming the victim". The alcohol & coercion factor makes it even more abhorrent -- it totally overrides any considerations of "consenting adults".

My point is only that the ancients in virtually every culture realized that sex was dangerous and often interwined with violence and degradation and therfore needs to be controlled. They bascicly informed us that left to its own, all hell will break out.

Hmm. I think the Romans and ancient Greeks would have disagreed, to some extent.....

So we see all hell breaking out and we look to the underlying superstructure of sexism rather than the obvious culprit, nature.

That depends on whether you view fundamental human nature as being benevolent or malevolent. That's a whole other moral, biological, philosophical and theological argument.

Liberate sexual desire from social constraints and you will open up a violent can of worms.

It depends on whether the emphasis on disciplining/controlling sexual desire and the consequent behaviour is predominantly "self-regulatory" or, conversely, imposed externally via social constraints etc. In modern Western society it's mostly the former although of course this is still within certain societal moral and legal limits. Certain other societies around the world, in the present day and historically, take a more hardline stance with regards to imposing this from the outside and thereby monitoring/regulating sexual behaviour and interaction between individuals where there is a "risk" of sexuality being a factor in the equation and possibly triggering "immoral" behaviour, even if the people concerned are mutually consenting adults.

My experience in say, the Scandinavian countries leads me to think not. Societies that place a premium on "morals, values, etc." tend to show the worst patterns in these matters.

Broadly-speaking, I agree with both of these assertions. Excessive liberalism -- to the point of "absolutely anything goes" -- is a very bad idea, but so is the opposite extreme. In fact, excessive control-freakery results in certain basic aspects of human nature & behaviour becoming exaggerated in the minds of those who are being controlled (along with those who are doing the controlling), and causes an unhealthy preoccupation with the subject -- both a puerile attitude to sexuality and, to some degree, paranoia with regards to the impact on oneself as a result of exposure to potential "temptation" and the perceived "illicit" behaviour of others.

Hell, we know all this from the presence of these traits/attitudes within many quarters of conservative South Asian society, but it also applies to certain other parts of the world too.

I was tickled to read that the Nirvana Memorial Park in Malaysia was mentioned, originally from Malaysia i can say that the term Nirvana and some other sanskrit terms are also used by our buddhist community. We have a large buddhist community and 'wesak' a buddhist celebration is a national holiday in Malysia. The Nirvana Park is owed and operated by the buddhist community for burials and so on..

What i am disgusted about is the use of some of the actuall mantras by the serials that we see on star plus or zee, many a times i have heard these mantras being chanted as part of the 'serial jingle'. Even bollywood does not regard anything as sacred..

I watched GGW again last night, for academic purposes. This one had Big Dogg Snoop hosting the festivities, no less. Of the hundreds of girls baring their privates in return for beads/tees, very few appreared "crunk". Most of them seemed to be very happy to do it. Why can't we bleeding-hearts just think that they are doing it out of their own free will? Is it becuse our sexually repressed desi brains find it easier to think that they're being somehow tricked into baring themselves, rather than doing it because they dont mind doing it?

Is it becuse our sexually repressed desi brains...

speak for yourself.

...find it easier to think that they're being somehow tricked into baring themselves, rather than doing it because they dont mind doing it?

dude, nowhere does anyone say they are being tricked into baring themselves. read the article. it's abundantly clear that everyone knows what GGW is and obviously the women know that they are going to expose their chests.

but they don't know that they are going to get harrassed to reveal more, and to perform more pornographic acts.

they don't know that they are liable to get molested and even raped.

they are egged on to drink heavily (in violation of the law i might add, since so many of them, including the one in the article whom francis plies with shots before taking her to the bus and raping her) so that their judgement is clouded when they sign the waiver form and do the things GGW asks them to do

etc etc etc

do you have kids? or nephews/nieces? what if your 18-year-old niece came to you and told you the story that the poor girl in illinois had to endure. would you say "tough shit, you did it of your free will?"

I fear the moralists and sermonizers far more than the producers of GGW. And to me Siddharta from his first posting to his latest seems to be getting very close to, if not already deep in, the camp of the Pat Robertsons and Khomeinis and Operation Rescues of the world.

Expecting society and laws to step into every aspect of human life (wherein the participants are there from choice, good or bad) because it offends someone is a race toward a society I don't care much for.

Feel free to ask me personal questions about relatives etc. only after you have clearly, unambigously demonstrated you have spent several years teaching children, teens and college-age kids how to live responsibly in a world where there are many wrong turns to take, wrong choices to make, and invitations every day to do so. Come back after that, talk about your experience and challenges, and then moralize, sermonize, and probe others about their nieces and kids and such.

IF it is true that Francis is guilty of rape, evidence needs to be brought forth and he needs to be tried in a court of law and duly punished.

On the other hand, could Jannell have made it up?

As regards Kaitlyn, just check out her myspace homepage. And I hope her parents do too before they proceed with some type of legal action against Francis. It would help her case more if she took the giant condom wallpaper from the background and replaced it with someone more sexually nuetral.

If she feels victimized by Francis then her myspace venture could perhaps be used to garner sympathy for her case rather than garner what she appearantly seems to be seeking.

No, I'm not a repressed desi. I'm a liberated videsi. Even then, I think it's high time that naive parents break out of their denial and stop seeing their little Katie or Suzy as these innocent lil angels who are bereft of any responsibility or guilt in matters sexual.

Kids grow up fast these days and that needs to be taken into account in cases like these.

Even if Francis offers them a stream of alcoholic drinks, do they not know how to say "no thanks, I already had enough".

That does not mean I'm saying he is within his rights to take advantage of them in any way once they are drunk. HELL NO! However, we are responsible for knowing our own limits in regards to drinking and other substances that make us vulnerable. That's called using common sense.

I don't like Francis. Even before I knew who he was and what he did, I thought his face was annoying and trite. I think he deserves what he got from that guy who blackmailed him. But teenagers these days are more clever and tuned in then they were in say, the 1950s. That also should be taken into account.

The fact that most of the customer service people behind the phones in his call center are black but most of the women in his videos (including the one with Snoop Dogg) are white says alot.

Black girls would NOT be down with this white boy's game.

I dont if this counts, but Deepak Chopra's book about his take on the Kama Sutra is just plain wrong and when you think about him doing "research" on his wife it makes me want to take a oath of celibacy. Cant this guy go one damn month without writing a book exploiting himself being Indian. I am so tempted to get the audio version of this book just so I can here deepak say "penis" and "vagina".

No, I'm not a repressed desi. I'm a liberated videsi.

Excuse me please but what's a videsi?

Videsi is what desis in the Desh (India) call foreigners.

Shallowthinker, Deepak Chopra wrote a commentary on Kama Sutra? What didn't you like about it?

I'm always interested in getting my hands on any new (or old) commentary on the Kama Shastras (of various cultures) that I can.

And to me Siddharta from his first posting to his latest seems to be getting very close to, if not already deep in, the camp of the Pat Robertsons and Khomeinis and Operation Rescues of the world.

i am honored that you would place me in such exalted company. i do love a good sermon.

I'm curious as to what, if any, substantial legal action against Francis this article has resulted in. I mean, she even printed his statement telling her not to print it. Some shit must've hit the fan.

Siddartha, could you aid in getting me un-banned on SM. It's been over one year!

I've googled but could not find any updated information regarding the cases mentioned in the woman's article.

Videsi Gori --

Not sure if this is what you're looking for but Maurice Reeves -- who has linked above has a conversation with Joe Francis in response to the LA Times article. It's pretty disgusting.

Not sure if this is what you're looking for but Maurice Reeves -- who has linked above has a conversation with Joe Francis in response to the LA Times article. It's pretty disgusting.

I'm pretty sure that was a satirical fake conversation, not a real one.

Videsi is what desis in the Desh (India) call foreigners.

oh. i assumed it meant a desi who appears in "videos," ergo the sexual liberation.

I'm pretty sure that was a satirical fake conversation, not a real one.

It was? Oops, sorry. I guess me and my oversensitive, feminazi radar overlooked the 'humor' tag on that one. My apologies to Maurice Reeves.

"The People Vs Larry Flynt" is a remarkable film about the Supreme Court unanimously finding in favor of Larry Flynt of The Hustler and a telling putdown on the administration, politicians, and moralists who demanded he be shut up. How is the GGW situation any different for this to even be a discussion now? Are people familiar with and disagreeing with the Court's decision on the Flynt case?

>>i do love a good sermon.

If it's the giving, don't worry for you do a good job.
If it's the getting, I suggest you listen to yourself. If you want more tamasha just toss a few shots in before you begin. Have a camera record the action. Just don't blame someone else later :-)

A more original name,

No, m'dear, I meant 'psychopath'. Based on the reading I've done, sociopath is more of a popular term than an academic one. There are plenty of psychopaths who fit the definition (ie Hare's checklist) and who do not commit violent crimes (which, btw, Francis does apparently commit). Hence book titles like 'the psychopath in the corner office' and documentaries like the Corporation, which used Hare's checklist to measure the psychopathy of corporations. There are also subclinical psychopaths among us who will never commit a crime, but wreak havoc through the lives of those around them due to their manipulativeness and lack of empathy.

That said, I'm not a psych major - any of you out there who can elaborate?

And to me Siddharta from his first posting to his latest seems to be getting very close to, if not already deep in, the camp of the Pat Robertsons and Khomeinis and Operation Rescues of the world.

What!? No Hitler analogy. Thanks for the moderation.

Putting aside any issues of criminal conduct which were raised, my college professor in women's studies would find some of this discussion interesting. First, a male is commenting how women should be more protected from voluntarily exposing themselves. She would see this an example of male paternalism. Siddartha is not making parallel criticisms of the Guys Gone Wild videos, for example.

Second, radical feminism would view this as being potentially positive to women because women are collecting the money and it could be argued this demonstrates their power. New feminist groups like CAKE fit under this umbrella.

BTW - Someone asked if a desi girl was ever on one of the videos. My hunch is that if one was, everybody and their mom would have heard about it by now.

>>What!? No Hitler analogy. Thanks for the moderation.

Thanks for catching what I missed. While you are at it, perhaps you want to play his Himmler in building up dossiers on those that disagree? His message suggests an operating framework for interrogations that start with: do you have kids? or nephews/nieces? what if your 18-year old niece came to you....? Makes it easy for you, Manju.

Sure, compared to all that I'll happily wallow in the moderation you thank me for :-)

my college professor in women's studies would find some of this discussion interesting. First, a male is commenting how women should be more protected from voluntarily exposing themselves. She would see this an example of male paternalism.

except that i am not commenting that at all. nowhere am i advocating any particular measure that would "protect" the GGW subjects/models from exposing themselves. go ahead, re-read the post and all my subsequent comments. i never advocated any such thing. you will find that i made observations about actions on the part of joe francis that appear to be illegal, based on the los angeles times article. that is all.

indeed, the responsibility of the young women is not my point. my point is the responsibility of joe francis. not just his legal responsibility, but his ethical responsibility. i cannot stop him from doing what he does, and frankly, i would not like to use the law to do so. there are consent and free speech issues here and i have no interest in censoring him if what he portrays is legal and legally collected.

ok? am i being clear enough?

so, you ask, what is my point then? well, my point is that i have long been vaguely nauseated by these GGW commercials and by prior articles about it, and now this article helps me fully understand why. i am nauseated because it is the story of an adult male using every trick in the book, whether legal or not, to get young women in a vulnerable situation where they will do things that there is a substantial chance they will regret having done, either in the morning or sometime in the future. and he knows it, and he uses his male (and white) privilege, and his financial resources, to achieve his end and to make big money out of it while the women get nothing.

whether it's legal or not is not my point. whether women should be "protected" or not is not my point either. as a matter of fact, i agree with the commenter above who suggested that there is often a failure of parenting here, not a failure of the law.

my point is that it's disgusting, and it's sexist, and it's classist, and -- forget all those fancy words -- it's just plain ugly. and, god don't like ugly.

peace

natural, i direct you to my comment above. whether upon reading it you still think i'm like khomeini, hitler, or operation rescue, is entirely on you.

Siddharta's posting (#70) makes no sense at all. It only evokes in me memories of 1989 and 1990. Back then many postulated--on grounds of ethical responsibilities, offended moralities and religious feelings, etc.--that the fatwa against Rushdie was entirely legit for The Satanic Verses. Publishers died or were wounded seriously, books burnt, a lot of damage, and a creative mind never was the same again.

GGW goes beyond a failure of parenting. It highlights society and its priorities and most importantly, human nature. There will always be a demand for porn and the more you suppress it, the more it will leak elsewhere (perhaps causing more damage). Homo economicus, incentives, the need to be a starlet (for their 15 seconds of fame), supply/demand, the dynamics of human sexuality,...all mean you can't bottle this up. Your nausea and disgust is understandable. I worry however about your reaction as I fear it is a path toward a bleaker tomorrow.

I'm afraid #70 only confirms the moralizing vein I pointed out earlier. If you can't see it already, Siddharta, I don't know if someone else can help you see it.

I'd like this to be my last posting on this subject.

GGW goes beyond a failure of parenting. It highlights society and its priorities and most importantly, human nature. There will always be a demand for porn

Interstingly, I agree with you on this, though I find your stand against sexual moralizing too, er, moralistic.

If you can't see it already, Siddharta, I don't know if someone else can help you see it.

you're making absolutely no sense, "natural." for you to assimilate my position as explicated in #70 with the fatwa against satanic verses, when i specifically say i oppose censorship or invasive legal action against GGW, is absurd. oh, and insulting too. but you've already insulted me in this thread, so i'm getting used to it. perhaps as you suggest someone else can make your point in a way that makes sense. i won't be holding my breath though.

natural accuses me of sexual moralizing, while manju accuses me of being moralistic in my stance against sexual moralizing. i conclude that i am in the right place. i also note that manju is cordial and courteous, while natural is not. that's all. ta-ta!

I'd like this to be my last posting on this subject.

You're not the only one, Natural. All you've done is make me hungry for NZ Naturals ice cream! Nice one when a girl's trying to count her points. That's more aligned with the evil powers of the Khomeinis of this world to moi.

Just give it a rest and stop being self-righteous. If someone wants to comment on the exploitation of women and happens to be male that does not mean his points are paternalistic and invalid. In fact the most paternalistic tone on this thread came from you

Siddhartha:

perhaps as you suggest someone else can make your point in a way that makes sense. i won't be holding my breath though.

I think it's this. natural sees the relativity of morals to be a condition of a free society. It's not an uncommon framework in western philosophy.

the relativity of morality is not just a philosophical insight, but (ironically) a moral postulate upon which a free society depends; and the distinction you make--that you have morals but do not wish to impose them on others--is just not good enough b/c by accepting the concept of objective morality itself (which has no basis in truth) you are accepting the foudations of tyranny that has led to fatwa's or for that matter, colonialism.

if we could only accept that morals are relative we would not have to worry about people imposing their hegemony on others.

Siddhartha

manju accuses me of being moralistic in my stance against sexual moralizing

no, #73 was meant for natural. i forgot to put her(?) words in quotes.

Manju,

if we could only accept that morals are relative

I am going to have to partially but strongly disagree with you here. I certainly agree that there are many aspects of human behaviour which do not fall into moral absolutes (they depend on the location & environment, intentions/motivations, the specific circumstances of the people involved etc), but in my view there are some "core" ethics which are universal.

Any situation where there is a significant imbalance of power -- in this case, where one party is drunk and/or significantly younger than the other and, in both cases, not necessarily in a position to make an informed decision about her actions -- and results in the stronger party exploiting and manipulating the weaker party for their own agenda and overriding the wishes of the latter is immoral, regardless of which part of the world one is from. Not everything in life is "relative".

Jai:

I am going to have to partially but strongly disagree with you here.

My post #77 did not reflect my own opinion. it was an attempt to explain, at Siddhartha's request, how (the commenter) Natural could equate Siddhartha with Nazis, Islamists, etc; when he clearly states he does not wish to legislate his morality. This is the best I could come up with since natural doesn’t really make the connection other than to point out how judgmental Siddhartha is--so I figured it must be the judgmentalism itself that makes him a Fascist ;-)...and presented a theoretical argument.

Anyway, as far as your argument goes, I think the emphasis on power dynamics is misplaced. In this case, w/ the exception of rape, I can barely see any "coercion" that could not be easily overcome by free will. I agree however that there is an objective morality. Take racism for example, it can be proved objectively wrong b/c its foundation--that certain individual are superior by virtue of their race—has no scientific basis.

But this thesis is a universal and does not rely on power differences. In fact even the "powerless" must be held to it since even the weakest among us has the power to kill, and therefore one's alleged powerlessness is not an excuse to have judgment withheld. so as you see, i reject the "blacks can't be racist argument" or the "terrorism is caused by poverty" or any argument that the "powerless" can be excused from objective morality.

Having said that, I think Siddhartha rightly puts the emphasis on Francis' behavior; the powerful can’t be excused either.

I actually like the videos, I am a gay man and I own several of the Guys Gone Wild, the people in these videos are not doey eyed innocents. These are people who are capable of making decisions for themselves. ALCOHOL is NOT an excuse Alcohol may dis-inhibit a person but it doesn't make people do things they wouldn't, these people are not vicitms. I work as a drug and alcohol abuse counselor and I get so sick of people using the excuse "I was drunk" a person who gets drunk and drives drunk and kills someone MADE A CHOICE, people are capable of getting drunk and choosing not to drink. I work as a drug and alcohol abuse counselor and we can't help our clients until they ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for their choices and not blame the substance