Hillary’s cleavage, Sania’s skirt - and an appropriate response
A lot many people are obsessed about how much leg is seen when Sania Mirza plays. No matter a decade or more back, the famous Debonair magazine used to carry double page spreads of female tennis stars bottoms with their skirts flying high, and challenged India’s readers to identify with posterior to which sexy star.The amount of leg visible when today’s tennis stars play - especially as they seem to like wearing those grandma underwear (or are they shorts?) - is a lot lesser than what was visible then. More is the pity.
Today we see a lot less leg, a lot less flirty skirts, and no butt. If anything, I would say Tennis is getting Talibanised. If you were a teenager during the days of Gabriela Sabatini, Martina Hingis and earlier, you would find today’s tennis stars’ lack of posterior display downright annoying - especially as the young reporters in the TV channels and newspapers keep going on and on about how sexy these new girls are.
So I would suggest that the appropriate response to those who seem to issue fatwas against short skirts is a yawn. After all, if a short skirt is un-islamic, I suppose so would a skirt of any length be. And probably so is Tennis - there are no records of it being practised during Islam’s early days.
And what should the appropriate response to cleavage be? I have been confused by this, but recently Hillary Clinton displayed a hint of cleavage while speaking in the Senate. And Washington Post kindly offered some insights.
Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn’t necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.
Hmm.
If that is the case, how come so many Indian women instantaneously wear a look of contempt and disapproval the moment someone’s eyes land on their cleavage?
Cleavage attracts attention. Whether mammaries are originally intended by Nature for feeding of the offspring or for erotic stimulation, it is a core element of sexual arousal for men - and I am sure even teenaged girls nowadays know that. A man should like the view of cleavage (and preferably more) and if he does not, something is wrong with him. He needs treatment.
If he keeps staring, though, that is a problem. He has every right to admire beauty - but admire and go away. Do not intrude. But women’s responses to the observer whose eyes chance on their cleavage by accident, and their response to those who molest them with their eyes, are often not different. And that is irritating to say the least.
A women has a choice to wear clothes that show or not show her cleavage. If she chooses the former, a few wayward glances are natural - and if anything, it should tell her that things are as should be. The men are still men, and thank God. It requires confidence for a woman to wear her cleavage proudly - perhaps a lot of those who do, do not possess that confidence.
When I was in school, I read an excerpt from one of Prince Charles’ several ex-girl friends, “We danced close, and the Prince looked deep into my cleavage.” It was like, big deal. Women show a bit. Men look a bit. Everyone’s happy. No one is a criminal here.
If you are a women who is psyched up that everyone who happens to stare is a closet rapist, you are too scared. Wear something that does not attract attention. Simple.
