Oddly, though, certain other forms of erotically explicit caresses and gestures are considered perfectly acceptable in Bollywood. It’s not rare at all to see a “fantasy-type” musical sequence in an Indian movie that shows the hero and heroine lying in each other’s arms (with clothing artfully disarranged although not actually exposing any R-rated or X-rated parts), sensuously stroking each other’s necks and faces and hair, nuzzling each other’s necks and chests with closed lips, etc. Guys go shirtless, women wear bikinis and low-cut tops and miniskirts, etc. etc.
So explicit physical sensuality and erotically charged images are by no means avoided in Indian cinema. In fact, the combination of deliberate sexiness and passionate restraint can come across as a lot more sensual than mere routine smooching. But for some reason, actual lip-to-lip contact is considered much more indecent than the rest of what we would consider PG-rated romantic activities, and therefore is not acceptable onscreen.
Lip-to-cheek contact is generally considered rather daring but tolerable if performed with a light touch, which I gather Mr. Gere wasn’t exactly trying to do.
:rolleyes: You might as well argue that because the US has a notoriously high murder rate, we shouldn’t object to people elsewhere issuing death threats.
The thing is that onscreen kissing is something that’s easily regulated by the iron hand of the Indian film certification board, which has to approve all movies before release. To get a “U” or “Unrestricted” rating rather than an “A” (“Adult”) one, moviemakers generally have to conform to the board’s no-smooching rule.
Child prostitution, on the other hand, is a socio-sexual crime involving real people in real life rather than representations of them in movies, and therefore is much more difficult to control legally. That doesn’t mean that Indian people in general actually approve of child prostitution, nor does it make them hypocrites if they disapprove of kissing in public.
It’s his mother’s maiden name. The practice of using the mother’s maiden name as a son’s middle name is fairly widespread, especially among American East Coast WASP families, even if the name in question sounds kind of weird in a middle-name context.
Gere’s son Homer James Jigme Gere was named “Homer” and “James” after his two grandfathers, and “Jigme” meaning “fearless” in Tibetan (Gere is a follower of Tibetan Buddhism).
I’m not sure I buy the premise of this “despite.” What’s “chaste” in one culture might be “sexually suggestive” in another. It is considered acceptable for an Indian woman of any age or status to bare her arms and belly, but not her legs. This is not the standard for public modesty that applies to, say, Margaret Thatcher.
Are you sure about what would offend Fred Phelps?
Yes, I get the irony, but it seems to me that this kind of apparent cultural paradox is not uncommon. In most human societies there seems to be differing standards for private and public behaviour. Hypocrisy is the rule rather than the exception, isn’t it?
The beautiful erotic public art of Khajuraho, Konarak, and Ajanta was created centuries ago. If you look at contemporary images, there are much less fun. Modern-style depictions of the gods and goddess feature apple-cheeked, fully clothed deities.
The fact that the ancient art is still extant requires a bit of cultural two-stepping – “Yeah, things were different back then, because they were more pure and it wasn’t because they really got off on sex and boobies.”
It’s actually quite pathetic. One acquaintance averred that the relationship between Radha and Krishna was entirely non-sexual. But again, this kind of disconnect isn’t unique to Indian culture. Look at the schizophrenic treatment of sexuality over here.
Yeah, whew. Lucky you averted that cultural flaw.
Yeah, the culprits include Islam, the R.C.s, and the C. of E. Bloody Victorians.