C'est La Vie

Pretty women wonder where my secret lies
I'm not cute or built to suit a model's fashion size
But when I start to tell them

They think I'm telling lies.
I say It's in the reach of my arms
The span of my hips
The stride of my steps
The curl of my lips.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.
I walk into a room
Just as cool as you please
And to a man
The fellows stand or
Fall down on their knees
Then they swarm around me
A hive of honey bees.
I say
It's the fire in my eyes
And the flash of my teeth
The swing of my waist
And the joy in my feet.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.
Men themselves have wondered
What they see in me
They try so much
But they can't touch
My inner mystery.
When I try to show them
They say they still can't see.
I say It's in the arch of my back
The sun of my smile
The ride of my breasts
The grace of my style.
I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.
Now you understand
Just why my head's not bowed
I don't shout or jump about
Or have to talk real loud
When you see me passing
It ought to make you proud.
I say
It's in the click of my heels
The bend of my hair
The palm of my hand
The need for my care.
'Cause I'm a woman
Phenomenally
Phenomenal woman
That's me.
- Maya Angelou

In my opinion, being comfortable with your sexuality is a great thing. I love being a woman, and I absolutely love Maya Angelou's poem, "Phenomenal Woman", because I feel like it embodies who I am as a person. On some occasions I do feel like showing off my body, like when I wear a sari that's maybe more revealing than the conventional sari, or if I'm going out for a night on the town but always in a manner where there is still some mystery. I think now is the time to show off and appreciate (in a classy manner) what I have because it's all downhill from here, right?!

On the other hand though, I think that, like the woman that Maya Angelou describes, I don't need to shout or jump about, and I like having that "inner mystery". I think girls who reveal too much of themselves are "shouting" for attention, and although they might think that they're being modern women, and that they're very feminist in their thinking of being free and open sexually, I feel that it actually is oppressive. There is a difference between loving and respecting your body, and vying for attention from men (which is what I feel is oppressive). At the end of the day, when women wear ultra revealing clothing, yes it looks hot, yes we feel sexy, confident, brazen, self assured and powerful...but truthfully the only reason we feel that way is because we know that men find us hard to resist in those clothes. By "those clothes" I mean clothes like a school girl's uniform, a dress that looks like "that" dress by Versace (the one that J-Lo wore when she was J-Lo)...something totally revealing and something that leaves very little for the imagination.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I love being a woman, I love being able to wear clothes that make me feel sexy, but at the same time, I think some girls show off too much of their body, or are too brazen in their attitude towards things like sex. Some things are meant to be private, and I feel that when celebrities such as Angelina and Megan Fox talk about their sex lives, it is meant to titillate the reader and make us (or more specifically, make men) view them as objects of sexual desire, as that is the image they want to present. I just feel like that brings us backwards as women, and that I would rather be known for other things, but I guess that's just me.

I would never call or badmouth another girl and call them a slut, because I believe that girls who generally act like men, are called sluts, skanks, whores, etc. I don't understand what the double standards are about nor do I wish to endorse them. Why are women called such things? I don't feel that women who are simply happy or comfortable with their bodies and sexuality are called derogatory words, I think it's a lot more complicated than that. One can't say that only women that are confident and comfortable with their sexuality are called such things because there are plenty of women out there, who are young and old, that are totally comfortable with themselves, yet they still conduct themselves in a classy manner, and are never thought of by society as being a "slut", or "skank". I suppose the majority of women who are called those words, are women who are very vocal about sexual matters, or wish to portray themselves in that manner by constantly wearing clothes that are meant to titillate the audience, and in that regard there is no double standard for me because I would feel that a male was equally tacky if he was to be extremely vocal about his sexual prowess. I feel that you can be confident and happy with your body, but that doesn't mean that you need to constantly let other people know or put your body up for display every time you go out.

When I see or hear of a girl participating in a lingerie show at a club, competing in a wet t-shirt contest, or kissing other girls when the Katy Perry song comes on, I don't sit and think "Wow that's great, this girl is really comfortable with her sexuality and that's such a great thing for women all over the world". I do however think that she needs to grow up and realize that you can be a confident and sexy person, without subjugating yourself to becoming a hormone-ridden teenage boy's fantasy for the night.

While viewing pictures of the FHM Style Icon Awards I came across the thumbnail picture of Aarti Chabbria and thought, wow, she's looking pretty good! Then I clicked on the picture and KABLAMO...the phrase good from far, far from good came to mind.

I just do not understand this. She's an above average looking girl with nice skin, hair and a nice body... WHY do you HAVE to pack on the makeup and wear contacts? We know you weren't born with baby blue eyes, and we're not going to think you look any better because you have them on, we're just going to look and think "contacts!".

Ok, I guess the contact thing I can overlook because she doesn't usually wear them (just Google Aarti Chabbria if you don't know her), and I'm ok with her wearing them just to change things up and have some fun. If she does start wearing them all the time (like a certain ex Miss India Universe *cough Celina Jaitley cough* ) I'm going to have to go to Mumbai and hold an intervention for all the starlets and wannabe actresses out there. I'm so sick of the whole coloured contacts thing...it seems like every model and actress in India is sporting them and it's like that whole culture is obsessed with looking Caucasian. If you flip through an Indian magazine and look at all the models, 90% are Indian and have coloured contacts on, and the other 10% are Caucasian. Not to mention most of the ads are Indian girls advertising skin lightening creams with contacts on.. as if all Indian girls are suddenly going to have light skin and green eyes by putting on some Fair & Lovely. *Rolls eyes*.

I wish Asians would get over the obsession of looking like a Caucasian person... we don't need to do eyelid surgery, nor do we need to use skin lightening creams. Tans are hot! (And this girl really needs to find a foundation shade that matches her true skin tone.)

Even though some of these were released months ago, I thought I'd post a few Judith Leiber clutches since I alluded to them in my previous post. These Judith Leiber clutches available online at http://www.neimanmarcus.com/ are deliciously luxe and fantastically detailed!

While I do find the Panther, L.E Strawberry and the Safari clutch positively droolworthy, I don't think that Buddha or Ganesh should be subjected to being some rich woman's statement piece for an evening out.

In Hinduism, idol worship is predominant, and many homes have statues or images of Gods that they worship, pray and perform rituals with. The Ganesh Leiber clutch would be treated with Godly respect by Hindus, yet in America it's something that women might throw in the back of their walk in closets.

In Buddhism, there is no idol worship, and Buddhists may or may not find the Leiber piece to be of any controversy. Although I'm not a Buddhist, I believe that there shouldn't be any images or depictions of Buddha, although I do appreciate and respect effigies of Buddha around the world (for ex. the Daibutsu in Kamakura - Daibutsu means "Big Buddha"). This is because immediately after the death of Buddha, there was basically a taboo against any image of him. This is because a Buddhist's goal is to achieve final Nirvana, and since Buddha had achieved total nirvana there should be nothing of him left behind. This is why for centuries he was represented by his abscence - in depictions of an empty throne, a tree with no one underneath, or even a dusty footprint.

Now, anthropomorphic images of Buddha prevail and one can find statues and depictions of him in places such as Winners, where he is sold as a decorative, household item.