Originally posted by: fria319
EDIT: Anytime I say "you" I do NOT mean anyone specifically. Please be aware I'm not calling anyone out specifically here. It's just the 'general you'. 
I just wanted to make that clear. OMG this forum people and their disclaimers.. why cant people accept a contrary opinion without viewing it as offensive. UFF
Some quick points bc I' m having my coffee right now and have a few minutes, but may not be able to reply back. You wrote so much in your coffee break girl
Excuse the disorganized thoughts - I'm still drinking my coffee this morning 
before I tackle work, I will try and respond to each of your thoughts. It doesn't matter if they are organized or not. This is not a college assignment or a work deliverable.
Disclaimer: I am someone who doesn't advocate for more nudity in any show. I actually switched off American cable bc of the high level of nudity and preferred genres of shows with less. But let me just play devil's advocate on a few points:
1. I do agree about the extra showing of Raghav shirtless. It doesn't need to be in as much frequency as we've seen so far. We can have a perfectly amazing show without nudity, or touching, or anything. (see: Pakistani dramas) Thanks, totally agree. I love Pakistani shows as well and have been very vocal in pointing out I would have loved MHRW as much even if they didn't show any explicit romantic scenes. What makes them different is their journey to love and the chemistry is an added bonus which I can accept without any complains.
2. I am on the fence about objectification vs characterization. The increase in frequency in him being shirtless lends to the fact that it is objectifying his body for shock value, for audience appeal, etc.
However, the counter is that we're getting more scenes with him at home, in his own space. A lot of men like to be shirtless in their house. Raghav is a character that embraces his s**uality and his appeal to women. He's never shied away from that. So is it odd that when he's at home he's shirtless? Who can say really? We're not the makers of this show. While you made relevant points (which made me REALLY think) and we may have to eventually agree to disagree - If you see our post we are not talking about the shirtless scenes when he is at home. What put us off was that he was shirtless in the D house (again it can be argued that he was inside the room) but what point I am trying to make here is whether this adds to the scene or is just a gimmick used by makers to appease the fandom. Again, pointing out that I watch Pakistani shows and you will rarely see such scenes but that doesn't dilute the impact of the scenes. His gym scene, his sleeping on bed shirtless is never an issue. I have never raised this point before because it made sense to me but the towel scene could have been a bathrobe coz he can come out of the bathroom in a robe and then gets the idea comes running down. Again one can argue the other side but you do get what I am trying to say. Out of context and repeated scenes bring down the beauty of it - I don't want to see a shirtless Raghav everyday.
3. His unbuttoned shirts.. I mean is it any different than Pallavi having an open back blouse? Is it just ok bc she has long hair? A see-through saree (everything nowadays but her silk sarees are see through)? Why is all that "ok" but him having his shirt with the first 3 buttons open now objectifying him? Is it just ok that Pallavi's clothes are see through bc that's part of culture and traditional clothing? Why is that fashionable and not objectifying her? I don't think either of us have said anything about his unbuttoned shirts. That is his style and his comfort and so it is totally ok if he is comfortable showing that much skin. Similarly, I have no issues with Pallavi's deep neck blouse or see through sarees as long as she is comfortable.
[no bashing of Pallavi or Amruta please - I will not tolerate it 
]
Why can Amruta wear crop tops, a super mini dress, etc., and that's fashion, & not objectifying her, but Raghav having a few shirt buttons loose or an open shirt, or no shirt is now objectifying? Again., as long as Amruta is comfortable in her clothes I don't think her clothes are something we should be pointing at.
Besides what Amruta wears is her comfort zone, the idea is not to flaunt. But with Raghav, it doesn't come across that way. This exhibitionism is when things goes OTT. Like while he was swimming, it fit the bill. Even then, the first thing he did was wear a robe the minute he stepped out. That seemed natural. We are not even pointing it when he is in bed and sleeping shirtless is his comfort zone. But beyond that, every single time and anywhere where the flaunt doesn't fit the script but is just a flashy glamour picture is where the problem start to arise.
Why can he wear a dhoti/lungi and tie it up to show his legs but, shirt buttons are objectifying him? For me, it's just part of his characterization. Like Amruta is comfortable in her own skin, she is comfortable showing more of her body, than say Pallavi, Raghav also is comfortable in his own skin and body, and has no issues showing it off. Men, like women, do like to play up their assets. We have never talked about his shirt buttons and don't think they can be classified as being objectified. And even when he tied up his lungi, it was very casual. When has the focus even been on his legs? (thank God for that, though!)
4. Sulo & RaghavSNS - What's the ship name now? RaBin? RaSu? LOL. I found it hilarious because she's a middle aged woman, bored of her husband, not in love with her husband, ogling the new young guy in her house. This is textbook middle aged woman portrayal. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. If the roles were reversed, if it was done in comedic tone as Sulo's was, I would've laughed too. Probably, this is where we dont agree in principle. Any on blatantly ogling at a half-naked body of another person (man or woman) is not right. It is more crass when there is a age gap as huge as mother-son. See, I can understand her frustrations due to her mid-life crises but this can't be bucketed under the tag of comedy. It doesn't sit well with me.
In Main Hoon Naa, SRK lusts after Sushmita in the scene just as Sulo did. Sush was walking with her hips swaying, emphatically, with a figure-hugging (maybe see-thru?) saree, and no one had any issues with SRK appreciating her beauty. Where's the line between appreciating beauty, handsomeness, someone's physique & then objectifying them? See, in MHN, they both were more age appropriate. He was more kind of smitten by her. He liked her and she did approve of her advances so it didn't strike me as inappropriate - if she didn't approve of his advances, it would have been called stalking which would be called out by me. Did Sulo ask him to walk around shirtless? No she didn't but if he was walking around shirtless, doesn't give her the right to ogle him like she did. Did Sulo touch his abs? (omg I cannot believe I'm speaking on behalf of Sulo right now LOL 
) Why do you think only if she touches him it is inappropriate? Keeping a bad eye on a person that makes the other person uncomfortable is also not right. If you remember the look, Mandar gave to Pallavi during Satyanarayan pooja during his confrontation with Raghav, when he said Pallavi ko main hi rakh leta hoon was so cheap while eating the sheera. So looks can make a person's skin crawl. Doesn't matter for a male or a female.
When we the audience watch the show, whoever is an SKR fan, or not, do you not immediately go, oh he looks so handsome, oh he looks so hot? What were your first thoughts when you saw SKR? Is it wrong to think someone is hot? Did those thoughts honestly not race through anyone's head? Has anyone on here dated before?? Did you not think those thoughts before you were pursued/or did the pursuing? Honestly, both Saishi didn't appeal to me or Soni when we first saw them and I have also mentioned this on the AT and not just saying this to justify my thoughts. I think what makes them attractive to us is their overall personality and not just how good looking they are (maybe this is just us?? We are wired differently). They make you fall in love with them for who they are. I don't think I view actors from the perspective of their body and hence this doesn't sit with me (same goes for Sonia).
Why is it only objectifying when it's done when he's shirtless vs when he's fully clothed? Either way, if we go by that standard it, you would be objectifying him, even when he's fully clothed. (I personally don't think it is but just trying to show/ask where the line is) Again, I don't think the clothes matter but being shirtless surely increases the possibility. Objectifying any person is wrong irrespective of how much clothing one has on but when he is shirtless, it will happen more than when is fully clothed (trying not to victim blame here - it is basically the mindset of the one ogling).
She's a mother, so? Does that mean she's lost her s**ual drive/desires? She can't appreciate another good looking man? All she said was he's hot, and she stared at him. You're telling me if SKR walked past you, you wouldn't stare or take a second look? Or maybe not do any of those things, but still in your head, be like "damn, he's foine". Here, they're just voicing Sulo's thoughts out loud. See, there is a difference between appreciating someone's beauty like - hey, this person is good looking vs ogling at someone who is shirtless - eyeing them top to bottom and saying this man is a HOT- TEA. Again, there are 2 aspects to objectifying - one how the person (R in this case) feels and the intent of the one ogling
I'm not going to discuss the moral implications of all of this i.e. she shouldn't do this because she's married, etc. Yes, we can let the moral implications go. Even if she was unmarried with no daughters, it would be uncalled for.
5. As for problematic things - ITV will always be problematic to me. This show although surpasses a lot of ITV shows, I don't think it's some oscar worthy show that needs to always be held to being politically correct. I agree it is one of the better shows out there and hence we do tend to hawa main filter a lot of things but at times it is important to discuss some topics which merit a discussion. The fact that SKR has now done brownface, multiple times, when he has to go undercover as a worker, is HIGHLY problematic to me, and this is the lead of the show. Brownfacing is an issue for sure but here in this context I think it was to keep his disguise, I don't think it was possible to make him fair and hence I let this slide - any other instance I would have clearly pointed it out. In this instance, they still did that to him, despite covering up everything except his eye. This is more problematic to me than the LGBTQ concerns Amma had (which I didn't 100% like either). They did rectify it eventually so I am fine with it (you cant change what is telecasted and viewed) But to each their own. That speaks to people's own comfortableness and culture and upbringing more than anything else. I'm glad in general makers course corrected - but there's no use watching ITV with a magnifying glass - everything will be problematic to you at that point.
I say don't take things too seriously. It's just a 22 minute show and it's not something with the high budget, long shoot time, etc. They're racing against the TRP machine so they don't get axed. We cannot expect perfection or a highly PC show when we are (who I have gaged to be millennials and gen z) not their target audience. I completely disagree with this point as we don't go around making criticizing posts for every episode. We let slide a lot of things because this show overall is good and worthy of all the praise. But at the same time, it is important to raise issues because they bring about a change. Isn't it surprising that brownfacing and LGBTQ offensive content was not acceptable to you, similarly, the points we made were not acceptable to us. We are all different and have different perspectives. I do not agree that it is a TV show, move on, forget it or use the remote. Of course we have the discretion to do all that but if we can bring a change, then why not.
You know I didn't want to bring this point as it may not go well with people who read but after seeing this post and the comments we received here, I realized one thing that people here are so afraid to point out things because it may "offend" someone - just see the disclaimers we got on this thread. Why will I judge someone who gives their opinions. We are here to debate, discuss and learn from each other's point of view. Another thing, I have been stalking the main forum for 3 odd months and rarely found a post where I feel like commenting. It is like people are no longer interested in having any serious conversations. All the posts I see are either BTS or ATs or overly critiquing posts (read P bashing but that is just my opinion)- no posts on symbolism, very few posts on appreciation and analysis of the episodes.
That being said, I have really loved the 50th AT so much because I crave to read analysis of the episodes because it gives you so much insight.
Again excuse if it's disorganized & typos. I prob should have reread/proofread this and then choose to post, but everyone knows I live on the edge when it comes to forum life.
Also if I offended anyone, sorry, didn't mean to :D It's a forum on the internet, please don't take anything I say super seriously :D LOL. SEE this is what I was talking about. Why post a disclaimer if you are giving your opinions. The ones who are offended will be offended despite the disclaimer and ones who aren't don't care about it.
Anupamaa
Debate Mansion
