Deepika Padukone’s post on the ‘cleavage’ controversy

thanks to Saurabh..

There is only ONE sign that a woman wants to have sex and that is that she says “YES”.

The reason I write the above line is because we all know that in India we are so desperately trying to make a change in the way sections of our society think in order to move towards a happier world devoid of inequality,rape,fear and pain.

I am not naive about my own profession; it is one that requires lots of demanding things of me. A character may demand that I be clothed from head to toe or be completely naked, and it will be my choice as an actor whether or not I take either. Understand that this is a ROLE and not REAL, and it is my job to portray whatever character I choose to play convincingly.

What my concern is and I am stating it clearly so it is not misconstrued or confused with Shahrukh’s 8-pack or any other woman’s or man’s anatomy. I have spoken out against an ideology that such regressive tactics are still being employed to draw a reader’s attention at a time when we are striving for women’s equality and empowerment. In a time where women should be applauded for making headway in a male-dominated society,we blur the lines between REEL and REAL life and dilute all our efforts by making a one-year old back sliding piece of news a headline. Digging out an old article and headlining it “OMG: Deepika’s Cleavage Show!” to attract readers is using the power of influence to proliferate recessive thought.

When an actresses inner wear decides to do a “peek-a-boo”,she most definitely did not step out with the intention to do so.So instead of zooming in,circling it and pointing arrows at it,why don’t we give her some ‘respect’ and let it go instead of making it ‘headlines’!? Are we not human?Yes we marvel,envy and drool over a male actors 8pack abs in a film,but do we zoom in on the mans ‘crotch’ when he makes a public appearance and make that ‘cheap headlines’??!!

for more follow the link..

138 Responses to “Deepika Padukone’s post on the ‘cleavage’ controversy”

  1. Aamirsfan:

    this is nicely written and also very honest. but fact remains she continues to ‘sell out’ her body in most of her films. and it is not just her, it is katrina and priyanka also of course. yes i know the ‘script demands it’, but you can always say no. it is also on the production companies who promote sex and sexy item numbers to get the maximum numbers. so it is not just on the puppets, the fault lies on the masters too. obviously its on us as the audience to reject this type of objectification also. i have no sympathy for actors who bitch and moan about being objectified when all they do is sell out.


    • Saurabh:

      But as she has clearly stated, there is a HUGE difference between ‘selling yourself on-screen’ and ‘off-screen'(there is simply no correlation between the two. And if one insists that it’s one and the same, not saying that you are doing so, one is not behaving like an idiot but is also morally bankrupt. A pornstar and a prostitute isn’t one and the same. Not that being a prostitute is the worst crime on moral grounds). I mean this point should be self-evident, it doesn’t even need to be made. I am not defending the on-screen issue (though except in some cases, I don’t even have an issue! Because quite often it’s a case of ‘poor taste’, not really someone crossing a ‘line of decency’ or whatever), but is should be the DUTY of the public to understand this bloody basic difference. I don’t mean to say this to you AF, just making a general point. When most folks are using the ‘on-screen exposure/kissing’ as a stick to beat her (or any other female’s similar sort of arguement), they are just doing it in bad faith IMO. And I feel sorry for them behaving like plain imbeciles. Yet again, all of this isn’t directed against you by any means.


      • Saurabh:

        BTW I am not sure why this ‘on-screen’ bit is exclusively against female actresses- I hardly see anyone saying this to Dhanush (actually not only him, almost every other Indian actor does it at some level or the other. But Tamil and Telugu cinema is most guilty of it) that “hey dude, why do you keep stalking women in your films…don’t you respect women”. If at all people have objected to this, they have reserved their objection for the film in question (only the director gets blamed, not the actor)


  2. This lady reminds me of Parveen Babi.


  3. She has a choice and she makes it. I don’t find morality as the issue here. Morally she can do it and nothing wrong with it.
    I’d question the wisdom that she feels or others feel this is what people want to see onscreen though.
    She is not forced and neither does the system “demand” it. I think that is false as there are actresses who have found roles and not done it…Kajol comes to mind or Tabu.
    Personally the top actresses probably feel pressure because the other top actresses are doing it and becoming successful. If one stopped…and still remained successful…and another did…the situation would naturally reverse itself. On Deepika, one of my favoured roles of hers recently was YJHD and she was for the most part quite geekish in the whole film!
    I hate it personally. Most films I watch in cinema I would have my mum and dad there…it is embarrassing! In a PG or U film too. That generation is not used to it and not expecting it and bang it happens.


    • Kajol has done pretty sexy numbers with ample exposure in both Yeh Dillagi (Hoton Pe Bas) and Gupt (Yeh Pyasi Mohabbat). Actually in Karan Arjun as well. And Tabu was never even close to being a commercial star (though she was displaying her assets with gay abandon in Prem. Did a film called Hawaa later in her career where a spirit rapes her, pretty vulgar BTW). It has been pretty common since the mid-late 80’s, every second film has it (Bachchan and Meenakshi had a pretty crass one in Ganga Jamuna Saraswati where Bachchan decides to have sex with her in order to generate ‘body heat’ and prevent her from cold. Heck even Mard had some crass moments like these).


      • I guess they all have done it at points. But generally Kajol / Tabu not notorious for it or even Rani Mukerjee. I think with Deepika/Katrina/Priyanka/Kareena etc. it is almost a certainty that they will at some point be scantily clad even if the scene is them walking around the apartment!
        The re-entry of the item song…which I guess from about 2010 with Dabangg and Munni has provided every big film to have a song of that “item” nature.
        For me the scene if required should be natural and organic if this skin is required. In most cases it is manufactured, inorganic and in to sensationalise.
        e.g. even in Ghajini, Aamir may be needed to build his body for the “part” but he didn’t need a song like Guzarrish to show off his new body. Salman does it all the time and I think he is part forgiven now because it is almost part of his “act”. And quite possibly for someone like Katrina it is now the norm too.


        • “For me the scene if required should be natural and organic if this skin is required.”-

          But this is absolutely subjective, as subjective as it gets. It is similar to the line that ‘a sex scene is fine till it’s filmed aesthetically’.

          Also Jay, the point here is (and the one she is trying to make) is that however scantily-clad an actress is onscreen, it’s no cameraman’s business to shoot her pics with a malicious intent in real life. BTW it’s not as if only the commercial heroines have done it and the art-cinema ones are some savitris (Smita Patil had a very famous towel drop in Haadsa, the film is famous only for this). Rakhee, when she was way past her youth, had a sex scene in Paroma where she was almost completely exposed from the top. So other actresses, including Tabu, are far more guilty on thus score than Deepika (the thing us just because it happens more now, we quite often forget that there were scenes earlier as well).

          BTW Bachchan had an absolutely crass in scene in GJS (though there was no exposure)- looks terrible and is indefensible on ANY count. I don’t see anyone raising this point ever. SRK had the raunchiest of scenes in Maya Memsaab (there wasn’t even another Bollywood film in that entire decade which came even close to this film on this score). No one asks these actors any questions!

          On the rest it’s also about the age we live in and the level of accepatibility present. The 2nd last Harry Potter (yes, I am talking about Harry Potter!) had a minute long steamy smooch scene (I remember watching this in a single-screen in Pune and the entire hall started hooting and whistling when the scene came)


          • I think in public life it is wrong. Its happened to princess in UK and to celebs in hacking scandal. It is WRONG.
            I do think though, as an intelligent, common sense minded person celebrities know how the media/print/journa’s work. There are enough examples of this. So they should be cautious.
            i.e. I know that when I eat chilli I will have a rough day the next day! Or when people get drunk they get hangovers. Even knowing this…chilli or alcohol pleasure outways the pain game!
            If you know that pictures of you naked on a beach will hurt you…be careful!!!


  4. Doing things in movie for a role is one thing but you objectify yourself when you do photo shoots which are basically promoting your looks in certain way. Even though I agree with her for most part but then you yourself are doing then it becomes difficult to defend her.


    • Yes in essence…by putting yourself in the “firing” line, you cannot expect too much sympathy. It’s like going to war and complaining if you get hurt.
      She knows what she is doing. She knows what the media is like. And she knows what the media will do if they catch a hold of her doing it. Then it is up to her. If she has the strength to cope with it then fine. If not she should not.


    • Actually there is a huge difference here. In a photoshoot one being SHOT the way one WANTS TO BE SHOT. On the other hand a cameraman from the media (or otherwise) slyly taking pics of someone (with a malicious intent and while focusing on certain body parts) is doing so without one’s knowledge and freewill. I mean it’s like saying that if one is a prostitute/gigolo, he/she should have no problems being raped.


  5. Hmm I reserve my comments on this (unsure for how long though)


  6. This is utterly stupid and ridiculous. Smells of some publicity stunt.
    Come on! I’s not as if the pictures were taken with a hidden camera. It was taken at some function.
    Do they think people are stupid (they seem to be though, seeing the so called support she’s getting)?

    The day/evening she wore that dress (and other similar dresses at other similar functions other evenings) people must have already zeroed on on her cleavage WITHOUT any help from media or anyone (but herself).

    In addition, I would say almost all heroines go around doing that.
    So the question is – Why did they zero on on Deepika? Why not other actresses?

    Publicity stunt is written all over it.


    • “Smells of some publicity stunt”-

      You can’t be serious!


      • I am!!!
        – why Deepika when there are others?
        -Why show it as an exceptional once in a lifetime case to please readers when there is so much cleavage available of not only Deepika but so many others?
        -and then there is an understanding they come to.


      • If some controversy about SRK had risen it would have been ruled as a publicity stunt.
        Not that I’m basing my belief about DP on this. For that I’ve given my reasons and logic behind it in my other comments.
        It’s just an observation.


  7. So a cover on Vogue that exposes her cleavage is fairgame. But a sly picture clicked by TOI with an instruction to see her cleavage is not fair. Is it because she got paid for the Vogue cover and not for the TOI picture? Or is it because TOI “instructs” its viewers to gawk at her cleavage, whereas Vogue lets its viewers do so in hush-hush?? So maybe, TOI shouldve just published the picture without the instruction, and DP would’ve not minded at all. The Vogue picture was certainly not a character in a movie, but it was a modeling assignment. The lines between reel and real are blurred for sure. I cannot decide, maybe even DP is confused now. It would have been shameless if TOI had done this to an actress from the 50s. But its mixed feelings when it comes to Deepika.
    In any case, my simple philosophy: One can gawk at eye-candy, but one cannot just grab eye-candy.


  8. After the latest video from HNY Deepika might find it harder to plead her case! In all seriousness I can’t say I’m very sympathetic to her complaint let alone the sanctimoniousness with which her peers have supported her. One can easily agree that the TOI piece/image was in bad taste. But this is even more true for the films Deepika and many others do or more precisely the stuff they do in them in the name of fulfilling the demands of a character (which must be one of the industry’s oldest cliches!). We are expected to believe that in nothing films or even for that matter better commercial films there are ‘parts’ that ‘require’ one to be titillating in precisely those ways and that somehow those roles are absolutely necessary to those films. If one decouples the part from any narrative logic or in other words if such titillation is indulged in purely for commercial reasons or to attract eyeballs (literally!) this is hardly very different from the game TOI played with that image.

    Going beyond the films when one engages in the very same titillation with the way one dresses for fashion shoots or even offscreen (neither for a movie or a shoot) on many occasions one is once again relying on the same commercial interests one is relying on the very same logic. Again, one keeps the audience interest alive by providing that very same skin show if you will. A woman of course has the right to dress as she likes but if she willingly submits herself to a sexualized paradigm as and when it suits her one can hardly complain that something revolutionary has happened with the TOI picture. And this is not like someone dressing this way as a non-celebrity. Because that is simply a lifestyle choice with no commercial motive to it. But here TOI has a commercial interest as does Deepika. Today even men do the same with 6 packs and what not. Again they participate in the same paradigm. Either way it the actor’s choice. This is not what I’m criticizing. But you can’t suddenly pretend that TOI is ‘not respecting women’ when you do the very same in film after film from exposure of the body to titillating lines (that latest Bhansali film with innuendo-laden lines about the girl pulling the boy’s ‘trigger’.. yes yes I know, it’s all about what the ‘character’ demands!).

    But let’s expand the conversation a bit more. Wasn’t this the same Deepika who talked about Ranbir in some very tasteless ways on Johar’s show as she and Sonam giggled about his anatomy (I am being euphemistic) or talked about other let’s say ‘preferences’ of his in bed? Wasn’t this even worse than the images?

    All of this still does not mean that what TOI did was right but allow me to raise my eyebrows at the storm Deepika has generated over this and the holier-than-thou attitude with which many of her peers have follow (‘hey who’s disrespecting women?’! Yeah right!).


    • Excellent !!!


    • TOI could have published the picture. To put red circle around her boobs, is PLAIN wrong coming from someone like TOI. That is yellow journalism. As a journo, you job is to bring news/images; beyond that they could have written editorial. To put such circles or arrows on someone’s anatomy is not expected. In the movies, they don’t freeze frame when the skirt is flying in the air e.g.. Ashwarya had some such racy scenes in Rajanikants robot. How about director freezing the frame, zooming in and putting arrows–look here. I am on Deepika’s side. She has nice body. Unlike Malaika (salman’s sister in law) she is not wearing clothes and thrushing certain body parts to camera, just to get attention. She is always dignified and carrys it off well in all her movies. Madhuri Dixit’s rain scene with Jackie Shroff, where you could see her dark nipples in the white blouse was far more outrageous, vulgar, disgusting than anything Deepika has done. (And I love M.D. over Deepika)


      • “Unlike Malaika (salman’s sister in law) she is not wearing clothes and thrushing certain body parts to camera, just to get attention.”

        You might not have seen the latest HNY trailer..

        “Madhuri Dixit’s rain scene with Jackie Shroff, where you could see her dark nipples in the white blouse was far more outrageous, vulgar, disgusting than anything Deepika has done. (And I love M.D. over Deepika)”

        never noticed this. I might not have your eye for this stuff. But not sure what this has to do with the Deepika issue.


        • “I might not have your eye for this stuff”
          No need to go below belt here.
          I just checked HNY song. I find Amitabh-Smitha’s “aaj rapat jai” far-far-far more offensive than deepika’s pole dance or any of the Helen numbers!


          • I’m sure you find Jaya Bachchan more offensive in Mili too but the point here might be that the others haven’t been screaming about it..

            Just saying..


          • That is why she is talking about “real” and “reel”. For a media outfit and that too reputed newspaper…so compare something like this happening in NYTimes or Washington Post instead of those magazines one sees at the checkout of grocery stores (any one single escapes me right now..). If they did circling, arrowing one can understand. NYT or Washington Post would have higher standard, even when discussing Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction instead of showing a picture, circling the nipple and putting arrow on it!


        • ohh..since you are bigb fan…Anil Kapur’s “khada-hai..khada-hai” is offensive. Deepika having fun at the pole in short skirt and to die for abs….I am ok with that!


          • But none of them showed hypocritical outrage that Deepika is showing.
            That’s the point. Not who did what vulgar scene. In fact that was exactly my point that amidst all this WHY did TOI pick out DP? So I see it as stunt!!


          • “So instead of zooming in,circling it and pointing arrows at ”
            Is that media’s role? And new paper like TOI stooping down to that level?? Anyone would be outraged.


        • “You might not have seen the latest HNY trailer..”
          It is like saying…why are you complaining of rape…you are prostitute anyways.


          • Very unfair, loserish comment.


          • why am I the loser? I think y’all are losers for making irresponsible comments!!! So regressive of all of you! I am sure Satyam will be watching HNY on big screen.


          • You think the comments are regressive because you’ve taken the discussion to a different angle.
            My point is that this whole thing looks put up.
            You yourself have recounted various vulgar scenes etc So why would a bit cleavage draw so much attention?
            Because TOI arrowed and circled and what not, her cleavage, and she protested!!
            No one would have even noticed those particular pictures as they are all around and even more than what is being discussed – which you have also pointed out.

            It was a trick to draw attention, create controversy, and get people on board with DP.

            That’s all I’m saying.
            People objecting to exposure of skin are on the same boat as those fighting tooth and nail, even blinding themselves to all rationality, in the name of ‘not being conservative’ or whatever the description is. My knowledge is limited in these wars.


          • “Because TOI arrowed and circled and what not, her cleavage, and she protested!!”
            Really…how stupid can you be!!!!
            You sound just like Sonum-stupid-kapur.
            Think of it…if it was your daughter, who was an actress and TOI did THAT to her!
            Here is stupid kapoor’s utterly dump interview!!
            “I don’t make dumb statements”
            With gems like this:
            How did you zero in on Fawad Khan?
            We wanted someone who looked like a prince and acted well, someone who looked like a man, a Jane Austen hero. He had to be good looking. There are only boys in the industry, no men.
            ” loved the title. A lot of people don’t like it but I find it cool. I define what’s cool and what’s not.”


          • You still don’t get the point do you?
            You still insist upon ‘loser’ lines like – if it were your daughter then?
            Why would an arrow or circle be made in the first place? What need does TOI have to do that? Is that more interesting than the item songs of DP? That’s the question.

            The need to draw attention to something as tame as a cleavage when people have her near naked thrusting, sqirming body to look at.

            I refuse to be fooled. You’re welcome to your vulgar vs modest angle which this is not.


          • Media has a role to play in society. And they need to be responsible…they create public opinion…draw attention to issue. Deepika has all the rights in the world to protest. To point fingers at HER is regressive!!! Sonum gets away with it because she is pampered child of a star.


          • Amusingly with each new comment you’re revealing (!) more of your mindset. And it ought to be pretty embarrassing..


          • LOL! It’s Paid Media after all.
            This is the least of its crimes IMO. They have done worse and really harmful things.

            I think it was worse when they paraded the poor girl caught prostituting and didn’t disclose the name of the man.
            The outrage seen now was absent then.

            Nobody carries their responsibilities as they should, especially media and politicians and also the film world.


          • The mullah’s will title you and welcome you with open arms Satyam. You have now earned yourself a very special place in their hearts.


          • Yes mullahs will welcome him and he should go to Pakistan for being anti natiomalist and desh drohi 😉


  9. Remarkably balanced and logically analyzed view Satyam.


  10. Agree with Satyam, Oldgold & sanjana !!!

    Can’t resist a few words here.. Deepika is ABSOLUTELY right in her post and concerns and she is fully within her right to wear anything and even ‘expose’ off or on screen. And she doesn’t need to be judged for it .

    Let’s scratch (or strip) the surface to get down to certain ‘detail’

    Oldgold has made some worthy concerns about deepika and sanjana has earlier mentioned how deepika “sells her legs”
    Now these are female opinions that cannot be ignored!

    Let’s add certain more questions

    1) look at the timeline

    WHY did deepikas objection and TWEEET eliciting multiple retweets have to COINCIDE with the FIRST WEEKEND of FANNY?

    2) why did the SETTELEMENT with TOI have to happen just BEFORE her HNY striptease pole dance ???

    3) TOI has been carrying these reports and (much more explicit!) for ages including about deepika and others
    I don’t go onto details but one does see headings of actress caught doing this Os that or indulging in threesomes or having a certain sexual appetite !!

    Why was deepika and others quiet till the. And suddenly get active on the first weekend of Fanny

    4) in fanny
    I’m all for the ‘make out under the moon’ outdoor excapade
    But did it have to be SHOWN in more detail than deepika was comfy with ?
    Is deepika in. A situation wherein she couldnt say no!
    Was she being forced by these small producers?
    Did she have to be so generous and get near topless and show her expertise in ‘women on top’ stuff?

    Disclaimer :these are random views floating on internet and this is random compilation to add to the debate


    • Deepika’s clothes are almost like a sports woman. In fact US tennis players (female) would put deepika to shame…their clothes are far-far more racy and they reveal LOT more! I find Sonam’s comments this morning outrageous.
      “As long as women stop objectifying themselves, people will stop objectifying them.”
      “people have to respect themselves first for people to respect them. I hope that answers your question.”
      I guess we should all be in burqa per Satyam!


    • “WHY did deepikas objection and TWEEET eliciting multiple retweets have to COINCIDE with the FIRST WEEKEND of FANNY?

      2) why did the SETTELEMENT with TOI have to happen just BEFORE her HNY striptease pole dance ???”

      So true. Oldgold nailed it right away, it’s a stunt. The transition of DP from sati-savitri to Lovely in 5 days flat is breath-taking.

      Di, nobody is denying rights to women here. The entire controversy has been raked up to ignite misplaced outrage. As for Sonam Kapoor, her cellulite thighs prevent her from even wearing a mini, so she is the last person to pontificate on objectification of women. What was she doing imposing her pudgy-ness upon the viewer in that bikini scene from her recent flop-flick. Where was her holier-than-thou pontification then?


      • Wow, so a woman need to be a size zero to be allowed an opinion on how her body is portrayed or objectified? Your regressiveness is breath-taking!

        And Sonam ‘imposed her pudginess’ on viewers? To be so cruelly critical of a perfectly attractive and reasonably thin woman simply because she does not have the proportions of a pre-pubescent child is sickening. If you honestly think that Sonam looked fat in Bewafookiyan, you have a very dangerously distorted view of the female body and that is your problem alone and nobody else’s.

        I take it that you yourself are a chiseled Greek god and this is why pass such damning statements on female bodies? Because otherwise you are just another sad hypocrite who ‘imposes’ your less-than-perfect frame on all of those in your vicinity while picking the most minute flaws in the appearance of even beautiful, young women.

        FYI everybody including Kate Moss has cellulite on their legs. Such statements might be admissible from an immature teenager who hasn’t had any meaningful interaction with adult women and expects them to look like Barbie dolls, but not otherwise.


        • Excuse me, I am not a bwood superstar! I am not the one demanding to get paid crores per movie, just because I am a son/daughter of a yesteryear hero. I AM the one who is paying here, and I get to decide what I want to see for my entertainment. If I want to see acting chops, I will pay $15 for a Vidya Balan movie. If I want to see beauty, I will go for a Katrina/Deepika flick. Why would I pay $15 to go see Sonam Kapoor’s pudginess? I adore Vidya Balan, despite her lack of figure, cause she brings some serious acting chops to the table. I would go see Rani in her prime. Or a Meena Kumari.
          But Sonam Kapoor!?! What does she bring to the table, except that ‘Kapoor’ moniker? I can bet that there are thousands more talented females, who are less than perfect in the figure/looks department. But did they get a chance to display their talents. Its talentless hacks such as Sonam Kapoor who choke up the talent pipeline with their connections, and do not let more deserving artistes shine. And then they have the gall to impose morality lessons on us!


        • You’ve deciphered my comment incorrectly. I am the last guy to insult an ordinary woman, for me brains count over beauty any day. But we are not talking about us commoners here. We are talking about bwood superstars who do “Impose” themselves on the rest of us, just because they had the connections to do so.


          • On an unrelated note: Sabya quote: “You know I’ve always felt that style is about a woman who is 5ft1in and wears flats to a fancy party.
            There’s a lot of dignity and grace in accepting who you are.
            My lifetime muse is Frida Kahlo.
            She was phenomenally dynamic because she embraced who she was.
            She walked with a limp, unapologetic about her beauty, her illness, her uni-brow, everything.
            When I see a woman too obsessed with fashion I know she is a girl in trouble.”
            He might as well be describing Sonam in that last line 🙂


          • Whether you prize brains over beauty or prefer stick-thin women or whatever is entirely your prerogative and not one that you need to justify to me. But to insist that an actress shouldn’t appear onscreen or even opine on issues that affect her simply because she doesn’t turn you on is bigotry of the highest order. It is not that Sonam is criticism-proof- she has silly, vacuous and self-obsessed moments aplenty- it is just that your reasoning (I don’t find her sexy, so she has no business commenting on sexual objectification) is absolutely bizarre.

            Sonam might not confirm to your very rigid and narrow ideals of female beauty, but she is an conventionally attractive, classically beautiful woman and one who is not overweight or pudgy, except in the eyes of someone who has a dangerously distorted view of what an adult, female body should look like. Someone else might find Katrina’s nipped, tucked and botoxed visage to be unsettling but that clearly doesn’t stop millions of men like you from lusting over her. So just because an actress does not fit your idea of beauty, it does not mean that she is some grotesque creature who shouldn’t grace the big screen.

            Also, has it ever occurred to you that her primary purpose (unlike Kat and Deepika) is not to serve as eye candy for men? She is known primarily as a fashion icon for women and this is the selling point of her home productions like Aisha and Khoobsurat and the major brand she endorses (L’Oreal). In this aspect she succeeds quite well: she has international brands from Dolce & Gabbana to Victoria Beckham fawning over her sense of style and her good looks, her red carpet looks at Cannes and international fashion weeks are hotly dissected and generate enormous blog traffic and her clothes horse abilities have sold dozens of magazines from Vogue to Elle. So yes, she does have her own appeal; after all, Bollywood is not Oxford or Harvard- it isn’t only meant to be populated by incredibly talented people, it also has room from glamorous but insubstantial fashionistas like Sonam.

            Besides, how is she imposing herself on you? You are the one who chooses to watch her song videos and pay for movies that she acts in! If you don’t like her, don’t watch her- surely this is not too difficult a concept to grasp? How on earth is she immoral if she chooses to use the opportunities available to her to pursue the career of her choice? Did she hold a gun to Salman’s head to be cast in his next film? Did she force Disney to produce her film? Did she blackmail Rakesh Mehra into casting her in his films not once, but twice?

            Finally, if you are so righteously concerned about all the struggling talented but imperfect looking females who don’t get opportunities to shine- get real and find another film industry to patronize. If Sonam hadn’t been cast in her films, a Kingfisher model or a British stripper or Priyanka Chopra’s second cousin from Ludhiana would have been cast instead, not some obscure but brilliant acting prodigy!


          • Once again, let me state clearly: My observations of Sonam Kapoor have nothing to do with my viewpoints of women. It is a stretch for you to hoist a psychological profile on me, based on what I think of bwood personalities. Thankfully, I have not yet gotten confused between ‘reel’ and ‘real’. Given that they are enmeshed in varying degrees of hypocrisy, bwood starlets are the last people anyone should be listening to, especially for their take on women rights/empowerment. Their utterings are always agenda-driven, and most often quite bitchy. My observation of Sonam was specifically in that context, ie, what right does she have to be sanctimonious, when she herself has shenanigans tucked away in her past. And given that they are all themselves to blame for the rampant objectification of female screen characters, I just applied that objectified viewpoint on her figure. That does not mean that I view ordinary non-bwood women with that lens. Ordinary women are not paid to look beautiful/sexy/glamorous. Why should they be subject to a rigorous lens of a paying audience? You seem to think that somehow I can become delusional enough to apply the same yardstick to my real-life women acquaintances. Like I already said, I pay, therefore I demand.

            With regards to her vaunted ‘iconic’ fashion sense, would she even be on a Cannes ramp were she not the daughter of Mr Anil Jackass Kapoor? I mean seriously, is she the only woman in India with a keen fashion sense? There are many women who actually apply that keen sense to run their own clothing businesses. Some very attractive ones as well, who would give Sonam Kapoor a run for her money. But they are not hustling out there, trying to get on every cover, cause quite simply they do not have the connections, they are not daughters of yesteryear heroes.

            You certainly do not seem to value meritocracy. When the avenues for publicity are choked by controlling dynasties, how do you even expect anyone else to break through? Do you seriously think that DIsney or ROM had very many choices out of the handful of publicized starkids? How many of the thousands of British strippers or calendar girls have become bwood actresses? Compare that to the daughters of 80s heroes/villians/directors, I am sure the ratio is veryyyyy lopsided. And yes, I do not attribute any degree of seriousness to contemporary bwood. At best, it is a poor cousin of broadway. So for me to start applying bwood yardsticks to my real life would be quite detrimental. I do not do so, and hopefully you will not as well.


          • Ami, you nailed it perfectly.

            NYKavi’s main grouse seems to be that she is starkid and that advantages are coming her way because of that. It is not her fault if she gets those opportunities just because some NYKavi does not like it. As if non starkids are paragons of meritocracy.

            Sonam Kapoor is not only pretty but also warmth personified unlike some cold beauties around.


          • But starkids are fading away. They get opportunities but audience also has to accept them. Imran Khan. Where is he now? Emraan Hashmi is on a decline. Sonam Kapoor still is as lost. The Kapoor kids have made it big with one or two exceptions. Abhishek is still in the reckoning. Hrithik seems to be most lucky one. Sanjay dutt made a mark. There is Shraddha Kapoor. It is easy to recognise a starkid and thus they get that initial push. Some sort of aura?


          • The Babbar kids, Prateik included could not make it. While Shahid Kapoor made it inspite of his father being no big hero.
            One can write a big eassy on starkids who could not make it. Chimpoo Kapoor, Suneil anand, Puru Raajkumar, Mithun’s son, Esha Deol, Tusshar Kapoor etc. etc.


  11. They can red circle Sonam’s mouth and wide smile.

    They can red circle Katrina’s eyes.

    They can red circle Kareena’s pout.

    They can red circle Khan’s, ears, Khan’s nose, Khan’s shirt.

    They can red circle Ash’s smile.

    They can red circle Hrithik’s face.

    Leave Deepika alone. She has to handle the pressure of success.


    • It is important who is circling. Just because D.P. has courage to bell the cat, doesn’t mean sonam/kat/kareena/khan/ash/hrithik were OK with reputed media doing what they were doing!!


      • The one circling seems to have been forgiven by Deepika 😉

        They both made a fool of a lot of people.


        • You cannot take punga with media. Bigb has devoted MANY a blog posts on it. So in the end, D.P may have made “peace” with them after she got her point across. I don’t think everyone is into cheap publicity.


  12. On a lighter note…


  13. Deepika cleavage-gate contd
    Contd from my comment

    Some good points all round by Satyam, Oldgold, sanjana and some nice parting shots by nykavi lol
    @ sanju-u r copying my style above in that comment (but it’s good, u r following a good model ie me lol)

    To add a few more points–from point 1-4 above

    5) in a similar situation, deepika had asked katrina to be more careful and restrained after katrinas getting caught in a bikini with ranbir in Ibiza
    Now what happened to your restraint deepika ?

    6) there’s this sense that deepika, katrina, Kareena, Priyanka all ‘expose’
    There’s a difference my lord
    Imo deepika is the undisputed leader in this aspect!!
    Deepikas exposure is disproportionate and wanton sometimes.
    It’s not that it’s forced by anyone as exemplified by her latest escapade in fanny.

    7) Even in public promotional events, deepika has routinely been turning up in micro -shorts and micro minis
    Even the average jo who turns up to those events can’t believe their luck

    8) it’s the sheer opportunism at display here that’s bewildering not the exposure or cleavage

    Just to amp the fanny first weekend, is this what deepika can stoop to ? And what’s the result?
    A mere shameful 20 crores odd ??
    Fanny got what is deserved
    And this was a film with three great actors, one actor coming after a 100 Crwhore film and an actress fresh from 100 and 200 Crwhore grosser having one of the best ever run for a commercial actress!

    And is this what deepika comes up!
    Disappointing indeed …

    9) after the Ibiza bikini gate, katrina behaved much more responsibly and with dignity (or as much as could be possible in that occasion)

    Hope deepika shows less insecurity and instability (& learns from katrina how to handle such stuff)

    I can understand deepikas real angst but she needs to get a grip …

    Ps: just to clarify, that I’m totally UNBIASED & confused & undecided about the deepika vs katrina debate as much as ranbir kapoor 🙂


  14. I have to agree that this does look like a publicity stunt and that an actress who is happy to dance in a song like Lovely is unlikely to have a problem with a characteristically sleazy ToI article.

    I also do think that the support she received from the film industry was hypocritical given how they portray women themselves, but it was no more hypocritical some members of this blog who rush to condemn her ‘disproportionate exposure’ whilst simultaneously posting lustful comments about her in this and previous threads. If you find her outfits and dance steps so disgraceful and vulgar, simply don’t watch!

    If we’re really going to object to hypocrisy, then the Indian audience in itself is largely guilty: I’m hard-pressed to think of another movie industry where ‘family movies’ would be allowed to feature such graphically sexual dance moves, or way a porn star would seamlessly transition into a mainstream actress. Yet we judge and condemn actresses for their dance moves and outfits even if we ourselves are part of the audience that queue up for these songs and give film makers incentive to keep portraying women in this manner!


    • “but it was no more hypocritical some members of this blog who rush to condemn her ‘disproportionate exposure’ whilst simultaneously posting lustful comments about her in this and previous threads.”

      THANK YOU AMI!!! In fact last evening I was thinking “where is Ami”. It is this attitude that I find disgusting/regressive/double-standards…what have you. It is in fact no different than Asharam Bapus of this world!!


      • I think what TOI did was sleazy and it has done it often. In general, I would be on the side of the woman here but Deepika is on a slippery pitch here given how she has made a career out of selling her physical attributes on screen. The timing is also suspect. Only reasonI like Deepika is because I used to be a huge fan of Prakash Padukone and always wanted her to do well.
        Agree with Ami about the rampant hypocrisy amongst Indian movie going public as well as media.
        I don’t agree with Di but can understand where she is coming from and for Indian women in general who have been at the Receiving end of male chauvinism and hypocrisy, this IS a charged issue.


      • I think that is a little too harsh – ie – invoking Asharam Bapu. But,Alex bapu has a thick skin. He wont be offended!😃


  15. lol the western concept of being bold and fight for supremacy between toilet and deepika long legs


    • This is the such a blatantly shameless, lewd and opportunistic response that it will only serve to create sympathy for Deepika. It’s sad that the country’s widest read newspaper could not argue their case in a less boorish manner.


    • ….”Talk of synchronicity! So let me get this right. If a female actor (who mind you, is at the top of her game) speaks up against objectification at the time of her film’s release then its publicity. And if she does so when her film is not releasing then again it’s for publicity because she is seeking a career revival and needs to be in circulation. So basically, a female actor can’t express her opinion about herself and her portrayal. Ever. Talk about diabolical. Take a bow, misogyny.

      If a top Bollywood female star has to go through the line of fire for taking a stand for herself then can you imagine what it’s like for regular girls in our country who are not as empowered? No Country for Girls, like I said.

      If this is a publicity stunt then well, it’s a great one because it once again exposes our hypocrisy in how we treat our women, especially those who speak out. By speaking up for herself, Deepika has shown that she has a cleavage and a voice too. It’s about time we started seeing our heroines beyond their cleavage. And lips. Maybe all those filmmakers who are applauding Deepika can bring about a change in the way they promote their movies? Surely a film is more than the number of liplocks. Wonder why every kiss in every film still makes for a page one story and “exclusive” pictures? Like a director famously said, “Kissing is the new hugging” so by now aren’t we over the fascination for liplocks? While we applaud a female star for speaking out against her objectification maybe her ecosystem can also show her and her female colleagues some respect by not pegging their presence in a film just on their lips and cleavage”.


    • Despite their original unpardonable faux-pass, I have to agree with some of what they say. There indeed is hypocrisy on the part of DP, but TOI are not blameless either. This entire debate is so contentious, it is very easy to get outraged. Indian society has not progressed enough to distinguish between the real and reel lives of artistes/models who display their bodies for art. That third pic of DP fully baring her cleavage (leaving nothing to the imagination) is a case in point. She perhaps thinks of herself as akin to a nude model for a painter, who is only doing her job. She is no doubt a replica of a Greek Goddess whose idols need to be installed in temples. But the fact that even in ‘real’ life she persists with the same level of exposure prevents a layman from thinking of her as anything else but that idol. TOI just should not have circled and arrowed her anatomy. Readers have eyes, they do not need your instructions to zoom in to the desired anatomy.


    • So, if TOI had done the same hackjob on Sonakshi Sinha, all hell should really have broken lose. Out of all the contemporary mainstream actresses, Sonakshi is probably the only one to have a claim on the high moral ground.


  16. Agree. The reply does make some worthy points but parts of it are pure lewd & even titillating…
    Check this out –“Deepika, just for the record, we do not zoom into a woman’s vagina or show her nipples. As a newspaper, we take every care to ensure that we pixelate them if they show up in a picture, ”
    OMFG…and to top it all, it’s apparently by another gal priya Gupta !!

    And Btw deepikas original fb post seemed to be written by somebody else as well. Deepika in her interviews (eg the kjo koffee that I watched) possesses neither the eloquence nor the ideation in that post…
    Now it’s coming back to dp (& more)
    And to add salt to the wounds , there’s another ‘montage’ of deepikas exposures over the years..

    Ps :anyh folks–as I mentioned, I’m boycotting lovely video for a few days as part of a moratorium and am not watching these images

    I suggest that u do so as well (though I note that some like utkal uncle have already checked out the lovely video and are posting analyses on the other thread) c’mon guys have some control!
    Not till I tell u to do so, ok…


  17. The video’s been on YouTube for a year, why object now?

    Why? She could have objected earlier.

    TOI seems to be miffed not so much because of Deepika’s objections but because of its rival media houses taking potshots at it.


    • An appropriate saying in telugu. Atta kottinanduku kadu, toti kodalu navvinanduku. Not because the mother in law beat but because the sisters in law laughed and mocked.


  18. And thus is exactly what I have been saying all this while-

    …..”And then the TOI decided to explain itself: “Deepika, we accept your reel vs real argument, but what about all the times, and there have been many, when you have flaunted your body off screen – while dancing on stage, posing for magazine covers, or doing photo ops at movie promotional functions? What ‘role’ do you play there? So why the hypocrisy?”

    Well, since the old lady of Bori Bundar has asked, I thought I would help them understand the most basic aspect of women’s rights. And that is actually just one word – one simple yet elegant word – consent”>consent.

    Consent, very loosely defined, is permission or assent. Has the person in question said yes? At a second level is a related question, just as equally valid in the context of women’s rights: “Do women have the rights over their own body?” When a woman says no, no matter who she is, does it a) mean yes? And, as importantly, b) is she going to be judged by what else she says when she says no?

    It is all very well to say, you are flaunting your body, albeit in a different context and therefore it is all right for us to intrude on your privacy, and use your body to our advantage. But at a very fundamental level, this is pretty much the same argument that we have been hearing from every regressive element in the Indian ecosystem. What the paper and everybody else needs to understand is that it is very clearly a matter of a woman’s right over her body and her consent for anyone else having a right over it.”….

    …”This entire argument goes beyond Deepika Padukone and into the space of women and media created perceptions. I would argue that it is not Bollywood or item numbers that demean women, rather it is these sorts of attitudes that do. When a leading newspaper tells ‘you that you flaunt you body, therefore we can peep into your cleavage’ it is far more dangerous than the head of a feudal setup saying something similar. We know we should oppose the latter as it is antediluvian and archaic insofar as its perception of women is concerned. But, what about the former? If the feudal organisations think of women as their property, this treats women as much the same. And frankly, there is not much to choose from between the two ways of seeing women. Except that one is in English and the other is in an Indian language.


    A ‘roadside romeo’ is lumpen, but a media house peeking down a woman’s cleavage is ‘respectable’.

    A khap panchayat that says a woman must be well covered to avoid rape is regressive, and a leading English daily which asks but if you flaunt it anyway, why do we need your consent?

    No means no, except when we understand it as yes.”

    I agree with one point in the TOI article, and that is it reeks of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it is not the hypocrisy of Ms Padukone, but of the media outlet. When the largest English Language daily in India justifies the invasion of the body of a woman – without consent – you should hardly be surprised that you have a system that justifies rape.


    • the analogy with rape is a distasteful one. But in any case there is no rape ‘with’ consent. Just as there is no murder ‘with’ consent of the murdered!

      Leaving this aside (and I’m just adding to my longer comment) there are two issues here. No one is saying that what the TOI did was right. However inasmuch as Deepika says a woman’s self-respect has been violated I am a bit skeptical. This is not the equivalent of paparazzi in Hollywood somehow gaining access into backyards and private pools and what not and taking pictures. Because there the star has a clear expectation of privacy. There the argument cannot be used that the same star appeared nude in various films. However Deepika’s objection is like the same star appearing nude in films and then screaming that someone used a freeze frame of one of the scenes, distorting the overall effect.

      It might be objected that there’s a difference between doing it on screen and off. True. But not if what the star does off screen (functions, fashion shoots etc) is part of the very same logic of exposure and submission to a similar sexualization paradigm. Events or functions of various sorts are public events for the stars. They’re part of the same continuum. This is not just about TOI. It’s easy to condemn them for a very sleazy picture and hopefully everyone does this. But the stars themselves submit to sleaze all the time. And not ‘privately’. If one appears on a show and starts discussing Ranbir’s anatomy and so on, if one uses the most raunchy kind of titillation in a movie used the stale excuse of ‘the character demands it’, if one furthermore also appears at public events often dressed in provocative ways no one could possibly argue that one doesn’t have a right to do this. Nor should one say that people then have a right to click sleazy images. However when these otherwise obvious points are converted into a larger moralistic and sanctimonious program where one is ‘so shocked’ that someone could do this it’s a bit hard to take it too seriously.

      Again this is not to defend TOI in any sense. But it’s not an either/or thing here. They are wrong but Deepika also is being disingenuous. Hollywood stars show up for Oscars and other such events all the time dressed in extremely provocative ways and then they are clicked in equally provocative ways and discussed to death. They don’t complain about this. They do so when their privacy is actually breached. Because it is precisely when they consent to certain kinds of exposure in public venues that they leave themselves open to a certain kind of sleaze. They have every right to do so but it’s a bit absurd to wonder why people are provoked when one has done everything to provoke people! This doesn’t excuse TOI because there are still questions of taste here. But otherwise it’s doubtful anyone could bring any sort of case against the TOI on these grounds.

      Finally the rape analogy is once again a totally unfortunate one and the easy slippage here must be rejected. A woman who dresses in a certain way, revealing her cleavage, clearly wishes for that same cleavage to be ‘seen’, to have herself ‘admired’ or what have you on this score. Much as men who constantly wear tight shirts or no shirts after building up their physiques want to attract the same sort of attention. This does not at all mean that the same people can then be sexually possessed! It simply does not follow. That’s like saying if you wear jewelry I’ll be attracted to it and try to steal it. If you don’t want it stolen don’t wear it! Even if a woman is semi-nude or nude no one has the right to touch her, let alone sexually assault here. But if the same woman walks semi-nude on the streets (as happens sometimes in say Paris) and someone takes an image that’s a different story.

      TOI are guilty of sleaze. But those who are willing to engage in all kinds of titillation for certain commercial ends (they of course have a right to do so) and are willing to be sleazy on and off screen lose the right to be sanctimonious in these circumstances. Deepika could have complained (why didn’t she the first time? She’s so incredibly worked up about it but somehow gave it a pass the first time around?) earlier but even if she did so now that is not what I have a problem with. But if you take it too far the logic gets problematic because one is basically saying ‘I have a right to be sleazy whenever I want to be and in a public space where there cannot be a reasonable expectation of privacy. However that still does not give anyone the right to take a sleazy picture of me’. This is frankly hard to accept at face value.


      • And isn’t there something old-fashioned and ‘traditional’ about this protest? Could a man in similar circumstances ever protest so much? What if Salman Khan said that he appeared without his shirt at a concert and someone took a sleazy picture? This ‘thought-experiment’ seems ridiculous. So on the one hand one celebrates the female liberation but the moment something like this happens old questions of ‘honor and shame’ come into play. Without this being in the background such sanctimoniousness either on Deepika’s part or those of her industry supporters simply wouldn’t be possible. Deepika claims TOI doesn’t know how to respect a woman. Is there a specific way of respecting a woman outside of that shame/honor paradigm? Could one ever say ‘you don’t know how to respect a man’?


      • I don’t have a problem with TOI taking her picture, but to draw a circle with arrow???

        What I don’t get is why just her, there are plenty of them out there. Maybe there’s some history between DP and TOI or who ever wanted this published.

        Imagine if India had something like TMZ.


        • no what they did was very sleazy.. plain and simple.


          • Agree Z- the analogy here is not that of somebody staring at a glamorously dressed woman on the streets, but of somebody running up to her, pointing at her chest and shouting ‘cleavage!’. And obviously that behavior is unacceptable regardless of what the woman is wearing. It’s not so much the picture, but the juvenile and distasteful highlighting of a woman’s anatomy that rankles.

            But again, it does become difficult to sympathize with Deepika when her entire career has been built on the kind of provocative and often demeaning sexualisation that encourages people to view women in precisely this manner.


          • Remember Kat did Boom and DPad had potty song early on in her career in DMD; in olden days actresses would have to expose initially in their careers (MadDixit while sari nipple scenes with Jackie) but as they became more established they would turn into Sati Savitris and refuse to expose. Times have changed now. Girls don’t mind and they are not always sari clad in their real life either. You would never catch a Madhuri or Sridevi going around town with their boyfriend in public forget kissing their boyfriends in public in front of the boys father. So the times have changed. They have boyfriends, live-in relationships and racy clothes in real/reel lives. I think the bourgeois have tough time accepting this and hence khap comments!!


  19. Looking at TOI response to Deepika’s FB post, it seems the writer at the news desk is following this blog and reasoning/ contents pretty similar to the arguments stated above.

    This controversy may have worked well for Deepika but I feel her comment was more of an instant reaction to the falling standards of the premium newspaper of India which we have all held in high esteem and grown up upon. To me it seems she was more appalled at the shallowness and lunacy of its post. …

    I am sure the print editions must still be holding better standards but the net edition with its OMG section is just plain cheap and nonsensical and reports all kinds of eye catching items on front page to get a web hit.

    On the rest no one in India whether its bollywood or a newspaper / magazine can talk about ethics/ honesty / consistent principles and we are all muddled in opportunism which at the end is connected with money. This may have been the norm in the past too and not very noticeable / obvious, but now with access to worldwide web and the age of constant information barrage we are moving towards a cynical state of mind.


    • TOI has become a rag. Unfortunately even here stars are quite happy to contribute to the cheapening and downgrading of news in all sorts of ways that lead to the compromising or corruption of not just TOI but the media in general. One is even otherwise quite happy to submit to the same media structures when one wishes to. One can’t really have it both ways. The problem ultimately is no one accepts any real responsibility for these things. The stars complain they do things because the directors want them to or because the audience likes it, the directors claim at least the latter, that they have to make garbage because the audience wants it. The audience means claims the opposite but shows up for every Houseful or whatever. No one at any end of this equation feels they have any responsibility. And they all claim they’re powerless. By the same token the media has the same excuse. They too are putting out what ‘sells’.

      and by the way we see this online as well. People might pretend in all sorts of ways but at the end of the day they too are most impressed with films that draw crores, irrespectively of how they do it. Meanwhile when sensible films fail most of the time everyone ridicules them one way or the other.


    • Which guy on this blog has looked at cleavage with the CONSENT of that person?
      Which girl on this blog has looked at a running man with his bits bouncing around with the CONSENT of that person?

      If it’s done in public than one is consenting to it, plain and simple. You cannot stop the eye to wonder.

      If it’s done in private, then absolutely it is wrong.

      How true is this article?

      “However, many assert that Deepika is practicing grade-A hypocrisy. Why? About a year ago, fellow actress Katrina Kaif threw a big hubbub after members of India’a paparazzi took photos of her in a bikini. Keep in mind that, at the time, Kaif was on a private beach holiday with boyfriend Ranbir Kapoor.
      According to Bollywood Life, Deepika Padukone had responded to that controversy by chiding Kaif on the basis that she should “have been a little careful.”
      “Deepika believes that a celeb should always be careful as they are public figure. So when the long legged beauty was asked about the Kat’s bikini pictures, here’s what she said in her interview, ‘It has never happened with me. I believe if you are a celebrity or public figure… these things are bound to happen. And I don’t think you can accuse anybody of anything. If I am a public figure and if someone has captured me then I feel I should have been a little careful.’”
      If that’s what Deepika believes than that’s what I believe. You simply have to be careful. These things happen.


      • taking a picture is one thing but drawing a circle and arrow on cleavage is another.

        Not defending DP but there has to be some credibility in journalism.

        I mean we can’t have taliban rule and say all girls needs to be in burqa, i’m not saying walk around in bikini but just because somebody is showing very little cleavage, they need to take a pic of it and draw cirlce and arrown around it?

        Is there a shortage of cleavage? Why just DP?


        • “I mean we can’t have taliban rule and say all girls needs to be in burqa”

          this doesn’t follow at all… the argument is not about ‘what’ women should or should not wear (that’s up to them) but about whether sleazy journalism of this sort finds a mirror image in the already sleazy commercial decisions many stars make, including off camera. To complicate this debate doesn’t mean the only alternative is the Taleban!

          But let’s go further. A lot of dresses are designed precisely to accentuate various aspects of the anatomy. They are already the equivalent of drawing such ‘lines’ or ‘making circles’ around things. A man who wears a very tight shirt is not accidentally doing so, nor is the shirt intended for any purpose other than to show off. A dress that shows a woman’s back or highlights her chest or whatever does the same thing. Saying that this is a personal choice and there’s nothing wrong with it ought not to be confused with claiming that there’s nothing inherently ‘sexualized’ in such a gesture. When one wears certain things one submits to the paradigm. Similarly when one does certain things in films or or magazine covers or wherever one similarly ‘exploits’ the very same paradigm. It does not follow that others then have a right to be sleazy in turn but if one is going to invoke phrases like ‘respecting a woman’ or whatever the conversation cannot begin and end only with otherwise objectionable actions like those of TOI.

          And Jay makes the right point too. What’s this sanctimoniousness all about? Everyone leers at such images all the time, including here. One does it on the street too when people walk by. In fact doesn’t the TOI episode highlight the ‘sin’ we are always already indulging in?! Check out the latest Shaukeens poster. So that bit of costume isn’t the equivalent of drawing a circle or something?!

          Again I don’t have an issue with whatever women or men wear. But this entire debate first off operates on the female side of the equation. A male objecting in this way would be considered ridiculous. Secondly the debate isn’t about this either but about cynically starting a conversation only at a certain point. You can do anything in a film and say it’s just about the character!


          • agree, but it’s a thin line.

            Where do we draw the line.


          • Again there is no line here. TOI did something sleazy and they should be criticized for it. But if one is going to expand the debate and include the topic of how women ought to be respected or not then one has the responsibility to talk about many other things as well. The TOI episode cannot be looked at in isolation. But there is no line in the sense that I don’t have an opinion on what men or women ought to wear beyond a personal preference (what looks tasteful or not, decent or not… even this is completely provisional because these terms too are redefined in every age) which doesn’t mean anything.


          • Princess Kate pic taken in private = WRONG. She needs to be more careful.
            Hacking SCAM of Hollywood stars = WRONG. To me this is the worst example because this is like stealing. Here the hackers should be punished. The relevant security provided by apple/Microsoft etc. because this is a particularly scary thought that your private files can be accessed.
            Deepika’s picture taken in public with a circle round her chest. WRONG was pointing out her chest. BUT it is done in public, she is wearing it, much like at the Oscars tv shows RIP APART what kind of dress actresses wear etc.

            The worst sin by far is the one that happens when you are in private.

            And indeed what Satyam said I was trying to get at is true. There ain’t a guy on the planet who has NEVER looked cleavage before. Figurative our eyes draw those same circles. We are all sinners than.

            I do feel some sympathy for Deepika, but she lacks common sense. And if she said that about Katrina than I have no sympathy. Because it reeks of “it happened to me so it matters; if it happens to someone else she was less vocal”. In a word..hypocrit. but that is if what she said was true.

            The “line” to me is you can look but you can’t touch. And don’t make it obvious when you do look. Because that reeks of desperation.


          • I haven’t read everything on this topic but the way i see it, if you display it in public than i have the right to take picture of it unless there’s some rule or law which prevents me from doing it. I don’t need a consent.

            However, as a respectable news outlet, do you need to drop down to this level to drawing circle and arrow around it?

            As you pointed out the shaukeens poster and as i’ve said in my earlier post, theres no shortage of cleavages being shown at every chance, why just this one?


          • “theres no shortage of cleavages being shown at every chance, why just this one?”

            that could be asked about any such image? Maybe they have a history with Deepika but that isn’t really germane to the discussion. whether they’re doing it only to get her or not doesn’t impact the overall question. One either should or should not do it for any reason.

            ” However, as a respectable news outlet, do you need to drop down to this level to drawing circle and arrow around it?”

            I think everyone has accepted this. But whether women are ‘disrespected’ only when this happens is another question.

            ” I haven’t read everything on this topic but the way i see it, if you display it in public than i have the right to take picture of it unless there’s some rule or law which prevents me from doing it. I don’t need a consent.”

            I’m not saying this either. One can argue about the ethics of doing such things even if legally admissible. But my point here is that if one is going to argue about larger principles or propriety and taste and respecting women and what not the conversation has to be expanded.


  20. If DPad had not protested, none of this would have happened. She was irresponsible in protesting. Guilty, guilty, guilty
    Have y’all watched “The accused” Jodie Foster. After all they all were saying the same thing…if you are drunk and wearing sexy clothes, then you were asking for it…..thus guilty!!!


    • And that’s the part i’m having hard time understand. I get it that most if not all of these actresses are looking for attention and all that but that doesn’t mean somebody has the right to do what TOI did. Especially when you are one of the leading news outlet in the country.

      Can gynecologist use this as a frame for argument, “she was exposing so you can’t blame me”?


      • There a ‘worse’ pictures of DPad (on magazine covers and what not) where she is showing “real” cleavage (takes a village to create cleavage on a skinny person) kind of picture where circling could take place. The picture with circling/pointing happened, is ‘normal’ picture, a shirt with low neck where hardly ‘anything’ worthwhile is seen. It is not a picture with “real” cleavage with which men can get excited. If I was a journo with half a brain, I would not publish THAT picture to point and circle…

        So I wonder…..what if….what if OldGold is correct….it is unimaginable for me though. DPad is 400 crore actress. Numero Uno. Why would someone do a publicity stunt on themselves, cheapening their own self and their reputation…

        I would rather believe some good ness is there in the world and that DPad was victim here.

        P.S.: there was a doctor in Seattle who did exactly what you described in your last line 😦


        • “there was a doctor in Seattle who did exactly what you described in your last line”

          Did he/she win the case? Remember the McD coffee lady who won the case because the cup didn’t have warning?

          “The picture with circling/pointing happened, is ‘normal’ picture”

          LOL, I was thinking samething. What’s there to draw a circle and put an arrow there. I’m a man and I have bigger cleavage than that 🙂

          “Why would someone do a publicity stunt on themselves, cheapening their own self and their reputation…”

          It’s possible, let’s not forget, SRK was able to buy Feds and ShivSena for publicity.


          • On the 4th para, “me too”…lolol. 😉
            It reminds me of Manoj Bajpai in that movie “special chabbis” where he keeps asking his wife to cover her cleavage.
            I think most bourgeosis men (Satyam) would make husbands like Manoj Bajpai 🙂
            I think Sonum Kapur got most publicity out of this, while DPad is doing shows in London in hip burqa. (is there something called negative publicity, positive publicity or all publicity is good publicity). Her observations on DPad has most user comments on various sites!
            DP makes comments on Kat. Sonum makes comments on DP…where are the good ole days when competing actresses would do this behind the scenes and not give out interviews:-)


          • You seem to be trying to get a rise out of me (as always) but I must say you’ve judged me rather poorly..!


          • So then tell me, what would you as husband say if your wife went out in public in low necks? You are judging D.P’s moral values based on her clothes and sex life….


    • She had every right to protest the sleaziness of TOI. But beyond that, to bring in female honor/respect and whatnot just reeked of plain old hypocrisy. Especially since she did not support Katrina when something similar happened to her.

      Actually, Katz had a much classier response, something to the effect of “Next time please inform me in advance of clicking my bikini pic, so that I can at least wear a matching pair”. DP took the sati-savitri route and fell face-flat. Her bwood brown-nosers will defn support her, but I hardly see full-fledged similar support from the blogosphere.


  21. DP fully covered (just kidding!) at “Slam the tour in NJ


  22. Must say Abhi towers everyone in size as well in performance..



    Well, this moral debate started from the crevices of a cleavage and has now descended to nipples and vaginas – albeit pixelated….


  24. This has gone on for far too long. I agree with Deepika that she was wronged but now she is just milking it. Also, if you really did care about this, then why make it a big deal the 1st weekend of your film (which is a flop btw)? Almost all current hindi film actresses have done this type of publicity or made WTF comments. Kareena and Sonam say stupid things in public on a daily basis. The only “classy” actress imo is Katrina who has been pretty controversy-free and always had dignified responses. This is surprising considering her “questionable” background in London. She handled the whole Bikini pic thing well and as far as I remember the pics came out after YJHD became a BB and no where near the release of D3. Anushka is good in this sense too, I like how she handled the Cricket BS.


  25. @Raj5 -‘This is surprising considering her “questionable” background in London.’

    Hmm ….btw have you done any research on this. Wikipedia has few weird quotes like one below – ‘Kaif’s background is enshrouded in mystery; several sources have questioned the authenticity of her claims of having a Kashmiri father. In a 2011 interview to Mumbai Mirror, Ayesha Shroff (producer of Kaif’s debut film Boom) accused Kaif of fabricating her history. She said: “We created an identity for her. She was this pretty young English girl, and we gave her the Kashmiri father and thought of calling her Katrina Kazi. We thought we’d give her some kind of Indian ancestry, to connect with the audience […] But then we thought that Kazi sounded too… religious? We were to introduce her to the press and at that time, Mohammad Kaifwas at the top, and so we said, Katrina Kaif sounds really great.”

    In terms of dubious past there is nothing wrong there since Sunny Leone is now widely accepted in bollywood and gyrating towards mainstream bollywood. However in this age of google search all that it leads us to a picture together with porn king Terry Stephens.

    SHOCKING — Katrina Kaif connection with Porn Film Producer

    Did I just open a Pandora’s box ?? Peace !


    • the reason I don’t like these stories (though I haven’t seen this video) is because these always feed into certain kinds of social prejudices. Whether a past is invented or not the one doing so can be excused because of the same social pressure. However this great interest (it has been cropping up from time to time) in her background plays on these very prejudices. Why is one even interested? It obviously matters at some level. Now I’m not saying that one cannot be curious or indulge in the ‘gossipy’ but it becomes a bit obsessive beyond a point. It’s obvious that if any of these rumors could be verified most people would drastically alter their ‘sense’ of the actress. Whatever her background we just watch her on screen. Why care so much? Because one only feeds the prejudice (even if one doesn’t subscribe to it). This isn’t like caring about someone’s background based on their own actions or stated views or whatever.

      By the way this isn’t about you. Just making a larger point on this Katrina Kaif background industry!


  26. Oh definitely I do get your point and this never crossed my mind until few months back there was this TV report on Zoom along these lines and it got me a bit curious and until I read what Raj5 wrote..

    She is my current fav by a far distance and this is largely due to her ravishing beauty but at the same time groundedness. To be more specific movies like ZNMD would not work for me if she wasn’t there in that role.

    She seems very dignified in public and carries herself very well and this attitude has reaped her benefits financially too as she gets premium brands to endorse with latest being the prestigious Audi ads.

    On separate note she was quietly instrumental in bringing some kind of stability to Salman who was going through tumultuous times in those days with that break up from Aish and somehow in these situations while rebounding there is always eagerness to better the previous partner to pamper one’s ego or self esteem or self importance whatever one may choose to call and slowly she was filling that gap for him….


    • So the fact that Katrina never stands up or speaks up for herself makes her ‘dignified’ and even ‘prestigious’?!
      On the other hand, a man who has a widely publicized past of alcoholism, abuse and drunk-driving man slaughter is accepted as a lovable if erratic figure and the woman is considered ‘dignified’ for pampering his ego quietly.

      Your definition of what makes a woman dignified and grounded is very telling, I must say!


      • Ami: I do agree with most of what you are saying here apart from the abuse part (I will take that you mean ‘physical abuse on his ex-girlfriends’). As far as I know quite a few of Salman’s exes (including Sangeeta Bijlani and Somi Ali) have publicly denied that Salman has ever abused them physically or whatever! Even Aish has never accused Salman of any such thing.


        • Aishwarya did say that he got physical with her and harassed her. There are plenty of other reports that Salman not only abused his exes (including a very publicized case where he showed up drunk on set for an Aish-SRK movie and made a major scene) but also drunkenly ran over innocent people! So I would say that this is not just a man-woman issue but a humanitarian one.


  27. Oh man! Please don’t get into this female chauvinism at any given opportunity…

    There is no talk on the gender bender sorts, and Salman on his part has been vilified / berated and reprimanded more than anyone on blogs / media and been at the receiving end of tongue lash forever.

    In movies and public life dignified etc simply means not resorting to constant chit chat to remain in news. There are many who have made a career out by being controversial to be in the limelight. Further in an industry which continues to measure box-office as barometer of success and where each hit calls for a media conference to gloat, she chose to remain silent and move on …… that’s about it…

    I have no idea on her personal conduct and what she stands for……and may be a calculative conniving type privately…..and if we go by masand gossip columns she is very frugal when it comes to tips….so please relax.


    • I am not getting into gender at any given opportunity- I did not support Deepika in this instance. But this constant refrain (and it’s not just you) that equates Katrina with classiness bewilders me. Sure, she doesn’t have much to say- but is simply being mute eye candy enough to make one classy?

      This industry, as you rightly said, is all about publicity and negotiating a precarious relationship with the press. Most actors get exasperated at some point- Aamir and Amitabh included. Simply choosing to remain silent and meek all the time makes one spineless, not classy IMO.


      • I would not defend her for being meek but all I would say is she may have considered herself an outsider and that is why the constant low profile. Like you a lot of my female friends do get perplexed when we refer to her beauty as classy and to be frank there are no answers there…may be in general males are mentally tuned to refer the quiet types as classy….. may be Kate Middleton is termed classic beauty due to her quiet demeanor. I may be touching few raw nerves here.

        Coming to what I wrote above –

        ” On separate note she was quietly instrumental in bringing some kind of stability to Salman who was going through tumultuous times in those days ”

        May be this bit is controversial to you but don’t you think helping each other out in times of need is to be commended and not taken as pandering to someone’s ego. Where is the question of gender meekness here…..even Salman is a human being and she may have brought some sort of sanity to him when he needed it the most and if not may have tipped over to the other side and gotten more obnoxious had it not been for her support. I mean in all fairness he too was coming to terms with being dumped for younger / happening / srk in the making and his very public retribution apparently fuelled by Aish. Though most in media carried one side of the story but here I side with Salman as I believe matters of heart / true love is always very painful and hurtful… and not easy to let go….

        She was being supportive on human level and why does it have to be a man and woman thing only.


        • “I don’t blame you for this since like you I too have held Aish guilty on all counts for the same saga since to me she characterizes the worst in womankind for the evil she represented for misusing her god gifted beauty. Its fortunate or unfortunate Bachchan name got associated with her but she is a typical case of sau chuhe khake billi haj ko chali”-

          What?! While I don’t believe Salman physically abused her, with all due respect your statement on Aish borders on the preposterous. Aish is FAR FAR than Salman can ever hope to be.


          • Well Saurabh I don’t hold it against you for saying so since you may have your reasons and this is your opinion /perception the way I have mine. I don’t wish to list Salman’s virtues here since he is a very public person and most of it is out in the open. Also running short of time so will have to step out for sometime…


      • I don’t think silence should be equated with spinelessness. You could be vocal but still spineless. People are different and react differently to same situation. We can argue what is right approach but we are judging people from far and most of our opinions are based on conjectures.


        • MSD-

          You ‘side’ with a man who was violent and abusive to his ex-girlfriend. You think a woman is ‘classy and dignified’ because she dates this man and claim that his abused ex-girlfriend instigated a ‘public retribution’ when she just complained that she could not get work because he abused her and caused scenes at her workplace.

          And then you claim it’s not a man-woman issue? How much sympathy would you have for a crazy, criminal, alcoholic woman who was dumped by her superstar boyfriend for a younger, saner woman?

          When Salman is celebrated for being ‘bindass’ despite his many crimes yet Deepika is derided for being crass just for having the audacity to tweet against ToI, it becomes obvious that there is something larger at play. And I’m talking about the general public perception – not just your opinion.

          FYI- Kate is a royal. It is part of their protocol that they maintain an aloofness and do not get too familiar with the press. On the other hand, actresses are expected to be public figures. For instance, the British public generally consider Emma Watson to be one of the classiest celebrities and a role model – and this is in part because she is smart, educated and speaks her mind intelligently and articulately (like at the recent UN summit, when international media went ga-ga over her).


          • Oh no! You seem to have an intense dislike for Salman and part of your abomination can be envisioned to the same aish saga which led him to many destructive stages of his life to which he can never recover fully and probably will take it to his grave. I don’t blame you for this since like you I too have held Aish guilty on all counts for the same saga since to me she characterizes the worst in womankind for the evil she represented for misusing her god gifted beauty. Its fortunate or unfortunate Bachchan name got associated with her but she is a typical case of sau chuhe khake billi haj ko chali?

            On the rest what I mean on human level there are times one needs healing rather than retribution esp in matters of heart where one loses sense of reasoning. Salman is in the industry for close to 25 years and to me no he is not a maniac you make him to be….


        • Munna – I agree that meekness is not necessarily spineless. But Kat does not come across (to me) as a dignified introvert- she often accepts extremely exhibitionist roles, dances, photo shoots and performances to further her career. It’s this hypocrisy that disturbs me- Kat attains fame for her flamboyant, superficially sexually liberated roles on-screen, but god forbid she adopt the same persona off-screen; she needs to appear demure, sweet and silent, even if she happens to be at a conference promoting Chikni Chameli!


          • Ami: But what if she is shy and demure in real life?! It’s pretty evident that she is like that. No one can fake it 24×7, right?!


          • I think that a shy and demure person would not travel to a completely new country, actively pursue a career that puts her under intense media scrutiny, become a Bollywood superstar and pursue a doggedly commerical route to become the reigning sex symbol.

            Katrina isn’t faking it- IMO she is merely a very shrewd woman who gives the public what they want. The irony is that her fan base who profess to admire her introverted dignity would have no interest in her if she was actually a dignified introvert who didn’t accept songs, performances and photoshoots that have a decidedly voyeuristic aesthetic that panders to the lowest common denominator. But equally, they wouldn’t approve of her is she dropped the demure facade and transferred that flamboyant, extroverted and ‘liberated’ persona into her ‘real’ off-screen interactions. And this is where the hypocrisy lies.

            It’s just a pity that it considered more classy, dignified and prestigious for a woman to bare her body in the most sleazily sexualized way possible rather than to bare her opinions and thoughts.


          • “I think that a shy and demure person would not travel to a completely new country, actively pursue a career that puts her under intense media scrutiny, become a Bollywood superstar and pursue a doggedly commerical route to become the reigning sex symbol”
            IMO, there are tons of shy/demure people who venture into strange lands. One does not have to be outgoing to explore. One only needs to have courage, and from the looks of it Katz seems to have plenty of it. She could not have kept the cover on an alternative ‘cunning/shrew’ personality for this long, its been more than a decade for her in bwood.
            IMO, Katz always comes across as a person who is very aware of the fact that she is not a great actress, and is just an eye-candy with great dancing skills. So why should she step out of her lil comfort zone for women’s lib? She is out here to be successful in her own zone, make her money and bid adieu when she pleases. She clearly knows/understands that she had no connections coming into bwood, and behaves appropriately. No silly comments like the ones constantly coming out of Kareena/Sonam’s mouths. Those gals don’t care of the consequences, cause their families pull all the strings. Newbies to bwood have to watch out at every step. In fact Deeps herself might not have been this outspoken had she not been very confident of her standing.


          • Agree with NYKavi. Kat’s dances and sizzling personality does not mean that she is like that in real life. The same way actresses who do sati savitri type of roles are not like that in real life.


  28. ToI has been getting a lot of criticism lately – this time from international media watch bodies.

    “One is among the biggest selling female pop stars of the last 25 years. Another is a UN ambassador and an Oscar-winning actress.

    But none of whom were probably expecting to be the focus of this particularly critical piece by the Times of India – a leading Asian publication – entitled ‘Hot babes with ugly legs’.”


  29. Comment of the day goes to
    Who else but munna can know about suffering and being quiet 🙂 joking …
    Some typically well articulated points by Amy cheers
    I don’t call Amy one of the best debaters here for nothin …

    Katrinas response to deepikas cleavage gate
    Remember deepikas bitchy reaction to katrinas bikini gate
    This was a time katrina could get even but she chooses to be balanced ,…

    Anyhow —


  30. and the counter


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s