Meri Beti Sunny Leone Banna Chahti Hein, is a short film,
posted on YouTube, by director Ram Gopal Varma.
The
title of the film is intriguing, and makes you instantly click on it, at the
same time making you wonder what the message behind the video is, because our intuition
and socialisation tells us that nobody would literally want to be a pornstar,
by choice.
Except
that’s exactly what the film portrays. A girl in conversation with her parents,
trying to convince them that she wants to be a pornstar.
The intention of the film seems to be two-fold:
First,
to argue that an individual’s career is a matter of choice, irrespective of
what people’s opinion about that profession is.
Second,
to argue that a woman’s sexuality needs to be celebrated and expressed, not
hidden and supressed.
However,
the arguments put forward in the film, are arguing less in favour of choice and
the right to express one’s sexuality, and more in favour of the right to have
sex in exchange for money, not because of need, but choice.
The
girl argues that “Pornographic videos
make crores of people happy.”, and “just like everyone in the world sells
something in exchange for money, Sunny Leone sells her sex appeal.”
However,
giving arguments in favour of the porn industry, is not capable of
overshadowing the adverse impact of pornography.
The temporary pleasure to crores of people is also
accompanied with a steady diet of pictures, videos, fantasies, that degrade
women, and often portray them as objects to be fucked or played around with.
Pornography
reinforces stereotypes of what constitutes “real sex”, and that sex is only the
thrusting of the man’s penis into the woman’s vagina. This heterosexual act
asserts the primacy of the penis, and renders the experience of the woman
irrelevant.
It
also reinforces images of what is expected from a man and woman during sexual
intercourse.
Women
have reported experiences of being made to do humiliating and painful things,
just to satisfy fantasies that are planted into men’s heads through
pornographic videos.
There
is also the pressure on women, wives, girlfriends, to accept that their partner
watches porn, otherwise they would be labelled as “jealous”, or “not cool
enough”.
The question we need to ask is whether Article 19(1)(g) of
the Indian Constitution i.e. freedom of trade and profession, also includes
occupations that cause real tangible harm, to individuals other than those who
are in that profession.
By
the logic of the film, that is promoting the choice to be a pornstar, a killer
should not be punished, he was simply exercising his freedom of profession when
he chose to become a murderer.
Ofcourse,
the reaction of the parents in the film isn’t a logical refutation of the
arguments made by the girl. They tell her that “She is mad”, ask her, “What
will people say?”, and inform her that “Nobody will marry you.”. Although, this
reaction is an accurate representation of what parents would say if such a
demand was expressed, the film failed to do what it intended to do.
A
majority of the comments under the video are asking Ram Gopal Varma how he
would feel if his daughter wanted to become a pornstar. The emphasis on one-sided arguments in favour of the right to sell one’s
body for sex, takes away from the intended message.
The
discourse it has generated is primarily about pornography, and not about the
right of a woman to choose her own path, even if it may deviate from the
normal.
Reference: Hamblin, Angela (1983) `Is a Feminist Heterosexuality Possible?', in Sue Cartledge and Joanna Ryan (eds) Sex and Love: New Thoughts on Old Contradictions. London: The Women's Press. |
