The Towel and metrosexuality!

This post is in a way, a response to two articles on similar lines here (by vinod) and here.

The question is weather the extensive show of skin is appropriate or not. This can be answered in two ways; in terms of it’s acceptability by the audience and in terms of the requirement of this nudity to depict the character of Raj.

Screen nudity, by actresses is not new to Bollywood. On the contrary, male skin show makes a lot of females uncomfortable (or atleast they claim to be). Moreover, the so called male nudity, till now has been to represent the male aggressiveness and to emphasize on the macho character; this display as a part of making the character’s image sensual is quite new. Now as far as the social acceptability is concerned; we’re a society where gender equations are hard set, thus a liberating metrosexual man, who has no issues accepting his sensual side will not go down well with most of the people. I do not think that there are many people who’d agree that something called ‘male sensuality’ even exists.
In our society the male is still the stoic, self-denying, modest straight guy who doesn’t shop enough for himself. His role is to earn money for his wife to spend. Though that image is being rapidly redefined, it’ll still take time for the ‘metrosexual’ in the true sense of its definition, to become acceptable to the majority audience.

So how is metrosexuality defined? Wikipedia says:

The typical metrosexual is a young man with money to spend, living in or within easy reach of a metropolis – because that's where all the best shops, clubs, gyms and hairdressers are. He might be officially gay, straight or bisexual, but this is utterly immaterial because he has clearly taken himself as his own love object and pleasure as his sexual preference. Particular professions, such as modeling, waiting tables, media, pop music and, nowadays, sport, seem to attract them but, truth be told, like male vanity products and herpes, they're pretty much everywhere.

This brings me to the answer of the second part of the question. Weather the nudity was a required facet of Raj’s character. Now since this guy has been depicted as someone who lives in his dream world, his actions driven by impulse and carrying a certain childish demeanor. Thus it might be concluded that he’s not the one who’d pay much attention to his looks. Moreover he’s not that rich guy who has got a lot of money to spend on himself. Thus this depiction is unnecessary. Had he been the rag clad Tom Sawyer, who pined for a good dress for the occasion of meeting his loved one, it would have gone down with the audience better.

In an essay by Mr. Mark Simpson, I came across a very disturbing aspect of metrosexuality. He says “ The metrosexual is a new kind of man, one less certain of his identity and much more interested in his image – that's to say, one who was much more interested in being looked at (because that's the only way you can be certain you actually exist).”
Since metrosexuality is on the rise in India, and is gradually being accepted as the next step to modernization. Being a man, I am forced to question that are we losing our identities? Is the desire to be looked at the only way we can assert our own existence?