Posted:
There's an underlying big assumption on this show that Khushi is pure/a virgin. It leads to better treatment of her from the Raizada family (as opposed to La). Arnav seems to have a begrudging respect for her too, way before he fell head over heels in love with her. Though it can be argued that he fell in love on first sight (that's another discussion). He gives her dupattas and there are scenes that are all very telling. I can see where it comes from because she is reserved and that makes men around her different. His behavior is right in a way.
How do you feel about it? Why do you think it is so huge? I mean, I know about religiosity, values, and Indian cultures, etc. I am not going to put forth my own views but I have seen that attitudes toward purity has changed over the years in the desi countries too. Whereas there is a lot of ridiculing for men who prefer to abstain, women are revered for it - almost across cultures.
Frankly, I have seen a lot of hypocrisy coming from various types of men who think they are great Indian/Middle Eastern/Asian/some other conservative culture deserving of a "pure" woman because they have only played around with "loose" Western women. As if the Western/Westernized women who were with them didn't matter or didn't have emotions or were less in some way. The conservative woman should be grateful to have them because they have deemed her marriage material.
On the other hand, there are also men who are turned off by it because they figure that a Khushi won't be easy game. We tend to glorify men with experience (cough Arnav, not Akash cough). Askash it also shown as whimpy but let's be real, not all abstaining men and women are. In fact there are no telling qualities contrary to the stereotypes being thrown around.
So why this double standard from the women themselves? Why just different expectations from men and women? This is a trend I have seen even here when people talk about the characters. Khushi and Payal are beautiful, innocent and pure. Yes they are okay. Arnav is verile, can please a woman, knows what he's doing, etc. And Akash is a loser, can't go beyond his shyness and jump into doing the deed on the very first night of being with a girl. Let's face it Payal is still a stranger to him in many ways why should he jump her?
Of course I get that women with experience are seen to compromise part of their cultural expectations but, why are they not beloved like Arnav? After all, a La knows how to please a man. I am not encouraging virgin shaming, far from it. But I am asking for fairness.
Think the opposite, why can't/doesn't a pure woman expect a pure man? Why does she have to lower her standards/not hold a man to the same standards? Has she been socialized to believe that no man would wait for her? It doesn't necessarily make an Akash better than an Arnav, at the end of the day it's just the one you love. But it's food for thought.
So what is your opinion on this purity "thing?"
Now that enough discussion as taken place, I would like to put my own views as I posted it in another post regarding glorifying virginity.
I am guessing some of it refers to my post about the hypocrisy of SOME men when it comes to women. I argued against that expectation of a woman being a virgin and romanticizing an experienced man. The gender bias I was referring to is the double standard where men are allowed "to be men" and woman are supposed to be pure and virginal. I was arguing to see an experienced woman with the same respect being a waiter myself. But situations differ about where a man and woman is geo-politically. That is the reality. Being someone in the West, we might not realize that Eastern cultures are more conservative. But that does not mean that someone cannot be progressive and traditional at the same time here and there. I think all these posts (including mine and its replies) are giving the traditional people a hard time just for holding a certain view.
At the end of day it is about each person's individual choice. I happen to be a waiter because of cultural, traditional, romantic, what-have-you ideas. At the end of the day, it is my personality and I romanticize it without any naive expectations about the "first time." But that does not mean I will insist on or expect somebody like the character Arnav to be one too. At the end of the day, in a relationship, we have to accept the person as he is (in my case as a straight woman). In the show I think Arnav is more romanticized than Khushi as HOT STUFF (ok he is hot, but that's cause Barun is such a talented cutie). But she is shown as more innocent because of her conservative values. All of that is okay as long as they don't treat La wrong which she did not. To be Khushi is sound and fair while traditional. It is a different culture at the end of the day. I am okay with different cultural values as long as it is fair for both genders and no one is looked down upon for their life choices.
I am just worried that all these criticisms will push some young people here to try an experience (which many regret) just because their value is made fun of by some anonymous posts on the internet. Again, not talking about anyone specific, I read a lot over these months. I just encourage everyone, at the risk of being preachy, not to make fun on virgins/women with experience.
We just have to understand that many see it as a moral issue for BOTH genders and to them virginity is important and even if we do not agree with it...I don't think it is as black and white as labeling them regressive. I am speaking generally, not to any specific poster here. I simply have never met anyone I wanted to be with. I do believe in commitment before sex. Does that make me backward? I am a gay-marriage rallying liberal, social progressive, not religious, and a feminist. But I await love. Does that make me backward/regressive? No. Am I holding on to something that is a relic of the past? No, I do it knowing all my other options and the Victorian history behind sexual repression and eventual 70's sexual revolution. Perhaps I do not sex as an act, perhaps I assign some emotions/meaning to it. But we all do at one point or another depending on who we are with.
Would love to hear views on this as I have been reevaluating my philosophies recently and find myself more sure of my choices. I am reposting this in my original post to avoid any misunderstanding.
How do you feel about it? Why do you think it is so huge? I mean, I know about religiosity, values, and Indian cultures, etc. I am not going to put forth my own views but I have seen that attitudes toward purity has changed over the years in the desi countries too. Whereas there is a lot of ridiculing for men who prefer to abstain, women are revered for it - almost across cultures.
Frankly, I have seen a lot of hypocrisy coming from various types of men who think they are great Indian/Middle Eastern/Asian/some other conservative culture deserving of a "pure" woman because they have only played around with "loose" Western women. As if the Western/Westernized women who were with them didn't matter or didn't have emotions or were less in some way. The conservative woman should be grateful to have them because they have deemed her marriage material.
On the other hand, there are also men who are turned off by it because they figure that a Khushi won't be easy game. We tend to glorify men with experience (cough Arnav, not Akash cough). Askash it also shown as whimpy but let's be real, not all abstaining men and women are. In fact there are no telling qualities contrary to the stereotypes being thrown around.
So why this double standard from the women themselves? Why just different expectations from men and women? This is a trend I have seen even here when people talk about the characters. Khushi and Payal are beautiful, innocent and pure. Yes they are okay. Arnav is verile, can please a woman, knows what he's doing, etc. And Akash is a loser, can't go beyond his shyness and jump into doing the deed on the very first night of being with a girl. Let's face it Payal is still a stranger to him in many ways why should he jump her?
Of course I get that women with experience are seen to compromise part of their cultural expectations but, why are they not beloved like Arnav? After all, a La knows how to please a man. I am not encouraging virgin shaming, far from it. But I am asking for fairness.
Think the opposite, why can't/doesn't a pure woman expect a pure man? Why does she have to lower her standards/not hold a man to the same standards? Has she been socialized to believe that no man would wait for her? It doesn't necessarily make an Akash better than an Arnav, at the end of the day it's just the one you love. But it's food for thought.
So what is your opinion on this purity "thing?"
Now that enough discussion as taken place, I would like to put my own views as I posted it in another post regarding glorifying virginity.
I am guessing some of it refers to my post about the hypocrisy of SOME men when it comes to women. I argued against that expectation of a woman being a virgin and romanticizing an experienced man. The gender bias I was referring to is the double standard where men are allowed "to be men" and woman are supposed to be pure and virginal. I was arguing to see an experienced woman with the same respect being a waiter myself. But situations differ about where a man and woman is geo-politically. That is the reality. Being someone in the West, we might not realize that Eastern cultures are more conservative. But that does not mean that someone cannot be progressive and traditional at the same time here and there. I think all these posts (including mine and its replies) are giving the traditional people a hard time just for holding a certain view.
At the end of day it is about each person's individual choice. I happen to be a waiter because of cultural, traditional, romantic, what-have-you ideas. At the end of the day, it is my personality and I romanticize it without any naive expectations about the "first time." But that does not mean I will insist on or expect somebody like the character Arnav to be one too. At the end of the day, in a relationship, we have to accept the person as he is (in my case as a straight woman). In the show I think Arnav is more romanticized than Khushi as HOT STUFF (ok he is hot, but that's cause Barun is such a talented cutie). But she is shown as more innocent because of her conservative values. All of that is okay as long as they don't treat La wrong which she did not. To be Khushi is sound and fair while traditional. It is a different culture at the end of the day. I am okay with different cultural values as long as it is fair for both genders and no one is looked down upon for their life choices.
I am just worried that all these criticisms will push some young people here to try an experience (which many regret) just because their value is made fun of by some anonymous posts on the internet. Again, not talking about anyone specific, I read a lot over these months. I just encourage everyone, at the risk of being preachy, not to make fun on virgins/women with experience.
We just have to understand that many see it as a moral issue for BOTH genders and to them virginity is important and even if we do not agree with it...I don't think it is as black and white as labeling them regressive. I am speaking generally, not to any specific poster here. I simply have never met anyone I wanted to be with. I do believe in commitment before sex. Does that make me backward? I am a gay-marriage rallying liberal, social progressive, not religious, and a feminist. But I await love. Does that make me backward/regressive? No. Am I holding on to something that is a relic of the past? No, I do it knowing all my other options and the Victorian history behind sexual repression and eventual 70's sexual revolution. Perhaps I do not sex as an act, perhaps I assign some emotions/meaning to it. But we all do at one point or another depending on who we are with.
Would love to hear views on this as I have been reevaluating my philosophies recently and find myself more sure of my choices. I am reposting this in my original post to avoid any misunderstanding.
Pushpa Impossible
