Gay Men and Mischievous Boys

Re: # 138
jang, In all my life in India I have known just one homosexual;and he too was just suspected to be.He was not out of the closet. You might have known some.Then there are those page 3 homosexuals. Even those arent many,I think. Then there is overwhelming evidence from studies in the west that homosexuality is not an aberration. Refer to SR #141.Point is, where did all the gays go in India? One explanation is, since we dont discuss such matters and have outlawed anal sex etc., so these ``aberrations`` dont develop in our society. Another one, more plausible to me, is that there are gays all over, but mostly they are forced to live heterosexual lives, and do their thing behind closed doors. And I do understand this not being a big deal for gays. Try to put yourself in their shoes.What would you do if you were gay? Come out and say you want the rights to marriage? Or would just keep mum ,maybe even marry and raise kids to project a socially respectable persona and look for your kind of action wherever you can get it. Wouldnt life suck for you? You might be courageous and come out and campaign for your rights. I wouldnt do that if I were gay, I dont think I have that much courage. Life would suck even more.
One way is to just accept the status quo. Another way is to start a debate on it so that such absurd laws can be repealed. The opinions of people should change.When they are enough voices then gays would also realize that there can be some payback and then you may see more gay activitism. Currently the odds are too high for a gay to publicly demand respect for them.
But there are two other and broader underlying issues.One is that of civil liberty. What is the rationale for passing a law like banning anal sex? Should not there be some kind of constitutional checkpoint that would automatically preclude such intrusions into civil liberty?
Second is the influence of the status quo forces of religion and tradition on jurispudence. This is key for the progress and the spirit of free thought(I know these words are cliched) that their influence should be discouraged at all levels by the state and any opportunity to snub them should not be let go.

sattar: I decided to check for myself exactly what you had written, given your refusal to cut and paste the offending items. So, I checked all posts addressed to you by me (about 5-6, all of them in response to something you add written to me, and most of them telling you politely that I had no interest in exchanging posts with you) over the past 7 months. I could not find anything that you had quoted me on.

So, clearly, your ``anger`` has been a fake, and your newly-learnt preppy english abuses are also a fake. You are indeed a pathetic individual.

118 by Amrita
Sunlight - assuming homophobia exists?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was going to let this go, but thanks to jang for pointing out that Jayalalitha is actually CM of Tamil Nadu. Were you aware about this?

Understanding the root cause is a very noble exercise. And it is entirely irrelevant in changing the laws.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you want to change the laws or solve the problem? Laws are not much use in solving social problems. If you simply make laws, a couple of years later you will be making angry speeches about how the laws are not enforced.

Remember that when Gandhi returned from South Africa, he was advised by Gokhale to spend a couple of years travelling around the country and understanding the problems before getting into politics. Are our intellectuals prepared to work this hard? Or do they simply try to apply the latest intellectual fashions from the West to India (a much easier task).

In fact, he and Gayatri Spivak are about the two people no postcolonial discourse can be without.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What impact has postcolonial discourse had on the world (other than among a small self-selected clique of intellectuals)? Absolutely none, as far as I can see, nor is it likely to have any impact.

As for people knowing Indian traditions - and your point is?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have not been discussing Indians who have had an impact on the world. I have had only one point:
(1) To have an impact anywhere, it is necessary for an Indian to know Indian traditions. We cannot blindly try to apply the latest fads and fashions from the West to India

Re: # 132 - selective memory:
This is from your post: ``Most of our intellectuals do nothing but parrot the latest fashionable theories from the West (which is why none of them is respected or even known in the West, unlike our software engineers, who are admired, feared and hated).`` You then pointed out 4 fields where you thought Indians did well and said you thought that was it. Changing your mind to a more defensible position at the tail end of the debate doesnt change anything.

As for Jayalalithaa - do you wanna talk Amma??? Is Amma the homosexual on the street? When you walk out of your house and talk to those 10 people, do they react to Amma as a homosexual [btw, I`d talk plenty low and plenty mild on that issue if i were you - unlike the ordinary homosexual in India, Amma has some plenty big powers and she wont take kindly (hmm, I wonder why she wont take kindly??) to speculations on her sexuality] or to Amma as Amma? Dont be ridiculous and do let it go if you dont have anything to say.

Postcolonial discourse is one part of Bhabha`s repertoire. As for who cares - intelligent people who like to know whats up. Bhabha`s ideas dont stop at lit. A lot of people who talk about the West and ``Our Culture`` and Identity and Pride, etc would benefit a great deal from reading someone like Bhabha. It might interest you to know that almost anyone and everyone who`s ever taken a lit course in English, in the States esp, is familiar with Bhabha.
And what is more, with ref to your quote above, Bhabha is the kind of person the West loves to take notice of.

Changing the laws is an immediate step. The process doesnt stop there. If the process ended there then no one would ever have to teach their kids that murder is wrong. You would just have a law against it and have ambivalent feelings about it morally. Social change without the judiciary to back it up is no solution whatsoever.

In India it is a crime for a person to have sex with a person of his choice unless he does it in the approved manner and with the approved gender. Oral and anal sex is illegal as are penetrative sex toys. However, oral or anal rape or rape using something other than genitalia is not rape. These laws need to be changed and need to be changed now. social approval is something you work at and campaign for. Its a long term goal. its not something you present a thesis upon and hey, presto - its done.

Re: # 134 by Amrita

selective memory:
This is from your post: ``Most of our intellectuals do nothing but parrot the latest fashionable theories from the West (which is why none of them is respected or even known in the West, unlike our software engineers, who are admired, feared and hated).``
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Clearly the post is condemning `intellectuals do nothing but parrot the latest fashionable theories from the West`. What is the alternative (which is implicitly being advocated)? Knowing our own traditions so that we can make an informed criticism. I admit I was unclear. In any case, it is not possible to quote the entire context of an argument in every point on a discussion board, since we typically do not exercise as much care as when writing an essay.

do they react to Amma as a homosexual ... or to Amma as Amma?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think they have both reactions, and the reaction to Amma as a homosexual does not prevent them from voting for Amma as Amma (there was an interview with an AIDMK supporter where the supporter said something like `Who cares who is lying next to her as long as...` I tried to find the interview but could not). This is why jang doubted the existance of homophobia in India. Why is the West unable to show such broad mindedness?

Bhabha is the kind of person the West loves to take notice of.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We travel in different circles; I personally think that Bhabha is about as relevant to today`s society as medieval scholastics. In any case I doubt his influence, and to test my theory, I typed in `Rushdie Bhabha` into Google. A quick scan of the results show that there appears to be no comment by Rushdie on Bhabha, while there are plenty of comments by Bhabha on Rushdie. So apparently Rushdie hasn`t taken much notice of Bhabha. You get the same results if you type in `Martel Bhabha`.

Changing the laws is an immediate step.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I forgot to point out last time that India is a democracy and in a democracy, nobody has much of a chance of ramming through a law that is not acceptable to most of society.

sattar: Please re-read my post #129 in response, since you still remain unwilling to back your claims by cutting and pasting what it is you wrote.

As for your abusive language, I will not lower myself to your level. As I said, any coward can start abusing and using vulgar language. However, say these words to me face to face sometime, and I will provide you with the proper response.

tahmed,

It is you who needs to show … not me … you stupid prick. But you’ll need to get your head out of your rear to understand this. You made the claim, not me …

If I wrote what you suggested … I’d show it to you. I have nothing … zip … nadda … and neither do you. So take your cyber jihad some place else … and fuck off.

[And I would not hesitate to call you these names on your face either … you miserable behanch*d ... are you now satisfied?]

sattar2 #128 ``As I said, nothing I wrote supports your claim.``

Then why are you unwilling to show what you wrote?

You can keep using vulgar words, and keep calling me names (easy to do on the internet) and you can keep trying to be cleverer than you are (lots of fool do that on the internet too). But nothing can change the fact that you have, despite a number of exchanges below, steadfastly refused to do the simple thing of cutting and pasting the exchange in question based on which you are making this show of anger.

tahmed,

As I said, nothing I wrote supports your claim. So there’s nothing for me to point out. But if you had valid reasons, you would`ve pointed them out. And you haven’t. It is fair to conclude that you have a sick imagination, and are a self-righteous prick.

How did the idea of ``picking up women … in cyberspace … by spreading rumors about them`` … occur to you … I’d much rather not guess. I recall people tried to talk sense to you … but to no avail …

But don’t despair … as there may still be hope for you. Continue to see your proctologist. Use of his long electrical probes may be your only chance. Report back when you feel better.

(Murmuring to self … pata naheeN, yeh lafangay-madarch*d kahaN sey uth key a’jaatay haiN …nah sharam ... nah haiyya ...)

further to #125: and it is you (not me) who keep popping up on different threads venting your anger at me for something I said. So it is for you to substantiate your anger by posting what you have taken offense to. Not me.

sattar: I have given you a fair chance in #124. You have not done the simple thing I suggested there, and instead continue to make a show of your anger. So, I can only conclude that my original premise was right: you are demonstrating the meaning of the phrase ``oolta chor kotwaal ko dantay``.

And kindly refrain from use of vulgar language.

tahmed,

Think about it: “picking up women … on chowk … by spreading rumors about them”. It has three parts. Each part reveals something sick about you. Fabricating such claims requires a very sick mind.

Nothing in my posts suggested what you claimed. It is you who needs to explain his sick conclusion … not the other way around. Your failure to do so suggests you are a pretentious moralist and a self righteous fuck. Either substantiate your claim … or accept your mistake.

further to #123 If you wish really believe that I was incorrect in pointing out that you were trying to pick up women on chowk, instead of getting angry you should cut and paste what you wrote that led me to this conclusion.

I will be back later to review what you wrote and see if I had made a mistake. If you chose not to do so, then what I wrote in #123 would indeed seem to be the case.

sattar #122 Chori aur seena zori!! First you try to pick up women on chowk. I point out this out to you, you get angry at me!! la hol a wala. Oolta chor kotwaal ko daantay.

tahmed,

Earlier you became silent as you failed to explain your filthy “picking-up-woman on chowk by spreading rumors about them” comments.

What filth must reside in your head that makes you see such things … I wonder. You are a pretentious, quran thumping morality pimp. This reality made you silent … although you still seem to be fuming over it …

`` Jagdish Saraswati in Economics`` is that prof. bhagwati?

amrita, is it fair to say that if we were to indian society problems, homophobia ranks kind of low? even ``urban cool`` gays of mumbai probably rate low quality and quantiry of public toilets to be more important than experienced homphobia. its obvious that if gays ``demand`` equal rights, they will face a more serious backlash. overall, my personal experiece is that indian society is fairly tolerant of gays as compared to american..i mean jayalalitha even rules a state. gays are least likely to get their heads bashed in.. they will be laughed at as qeers. now police may harass gays, but then they harass everyone including married couples trying to escape crowded chawls to seek ``privacy`` on the beach..nothing particularly homophobic.