Posts tagged ‘Sexual intercourse’

Indian Apex court debating on “Order of nature” in homosexuality

The 2nd day of hearing came to an end with the judges GS Sanghvi and SJ Mukhopadhay, (who are hearing 16 petitions brought against the Delhi High Court ruling which struck down the colonial law that criminalized homosexuality) discussing the “order of nature” in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

While discussing they brought up the sculptures in Khajuraho temple which depicts all sorts of sexual acts from same sex to, heterosex to beastiality. They judges wanted to bring to notice, before the British made the IPC in 1860, homosexuality was not fowned upon in Indian society. Both judges indicated, that homosexuality should be viewed in ralation to the changing scociety.

“Many things, which were earlier unacceptable, have become acceptable with passage of time,” the bench told senior counsel Amarendra Sharan, who is representing the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

To the above statement, Mr. Sharan replied that social issues cannot be decided on the basis on sculptures.

The judges bench answered to the objection in a very rational way. “It is a reflection of society of that time and homosexuality should not be seen only in terms of sexual intercourse,” was their counter argument.

The question that was raised by the bench on wednesday ,” Who is the expert to define the term order of nature?” was answered by them the next day with the following staement ,” These things should be seen in the light of changing times where phenomena of live-in relationship, single parents and artificial fertilisation have become normal.”

They further elaborated with “Take the recent phenomena of live-in relationship, single parents and surrogacy. There is a case where a man is unmarried but wants to be a father and engage a surrogate mother. Thirty-forty years ago it was against the order of nature but now artificial fertilisation is a thriving business.”

A very sound argument… and rational. A scotiety which essentially had no qualms about homosexuality before the British Rule cannot argue about its societal damage it might have by decriminalizing homosexuality. When the same British governmant in their own country has legalized homosexuality and accepts civil unions.

Advertisements

Not Just a Preference: A 1 dimensional article in FAB Magazine about sexual racism

At the very onset I think I should give the link to the said article so that you can have a very clear idea what I am talking about.

http://www.fabmagazine.com/story/not-just-a-preference

To my friends (not online friends), who I should mention are all straights and white, I have tons of time  said that I am sexually racist, for the lack of a better term. When I was new Canada, and they didn’t know I was gay, I have been hit on by these same people a lot, and mostly because I am brown. I have seen them going head over heals and making an absolute fool of themselves in front of black guys. They just LOVE coloured guys. Its their preference. Same way, I like whites. Being brown myself, I personally don’t have any fascination for brown men.

I don’t see anything wrong in having a preference or liking. It goes both ways. I have met guys who strictly specify they are into guys over 250lbs. In their words “bigger the better”. In the same way there are guys who want toned to muscular guys and some like lean, thin, slim guys. So no there is nothing wrong in it.

But the problem comes how you put it across. It again comes down to positive and negative choice of words.

I can write: I am into white men

OR

I can write: I am not into black men.

The latter is rude, negative and unnecessary. I personally put neither. People have been dating online long enough to recognize signals. If someone messages me, “You are hot.” and I am not really interested in him, a “Thanks bud” is enough. The person should know that its going to go nowhere and they do.

The part I had real problem with in the FAB Magazine article, I will quote here.

 It just isn’t intelligible to look at someone and say, ‘I want to reach orgasm by being fucked, but only fucked by a person of this ethnicity or race.’ The connection just doesn’t make sense. What is it about certain ethnicities or races that make it so you just can’t get off or find them sexually attractive? And how fucked up is that?” ML Sugie

I can elaborate on this. Me not being attracted sexually to black men is for 2 very simple reasons. I prefer thin lips to kiss and not very curly hair. And mostly every black man has them.

We generally tend to tabulate our preferences and likes when it comes to NSA hook-ups. For if we are choosing someone for a nights fun, I would try to find someone I like, someone who would ignite the desire and passion.

When I fell in love, he was everything I never wanted in my boy-friend. But when it is love, it doesn’t matter. Nothing matters. I had told him quite a few times that if someone had told me that I would be falling in love with a guy like him, I would not have believed. After we broke up, I went back into the hook- up world with the same preferences I had before.

GRINDR, SQUIRT, MANHUNT are not dating sites, they are hook-up sites. When I am meeting someone on any one of these sites for the sole purpose of having fun, I don’t care if he is a Nobel Laureate or a grade 5 drop out, lives in a bunglow or a shelter, as long as they ignite my desire to have fun with them.

“Changing negative descriptions into positive descriptions doesn’t change the fact that they are still requirements based on things like race, looks or gender expression,” counters Sugie. “It merely flips the statement from ‘What I don’t want’ to ‘What I require.’ It doesn’t change the content of the message, only the wording. Why is it so important that someone find a slim, masculine, hairy, buff man? Do you have some sort of vintage sling with a really low weight limit? A grand piano you’d like him to help you move after you fuck? What exactly are you going to do that requires such a specific, acrobatic person — and can I watch?”

It looks like, Mr Sugie is either very bitter for some reason about the entire hook-up thing or he just doesn’t get it. It is important that I find a slim, masculine guy because otherwise when we are in bed, I will have to resort to VIAGRA or else I will not be able to fuck. How hard is this simple fact to understand? Its about hooking up and having fun, not some charity function where you render service to whoever wants it. If he can sleep and have same amount of fun with every Tom who has a Dick in a Hurry, good for him.

Faris says, if someone asks him if he is masculine, his response is, “What do you mean by that?” Are you kidding me? Although if I get that response, I have already got my answer. Because someone who is not, would get that defensive.

Miller has an interesting proposal for driving home the point that putdowns in the form of come-ons are not welcome in our culture.

I agree.

“I want to organize a sexual boycott. Maybe if people stop getting laid they’ll realize what they’re doing is prejudiced. I don’t know why some guys only want to fuck Hitler’s Youth. I think it’s ugly, and I don’t want to reward that. Tell them that because of what they say, they’re not getting laid tonight.”

Wow…and with that one statement he just proved he is no different. Consciously or unconsciously we all choose. He thinks someone who dresses up as Hitlers youth as ugly. And I find those guys really really hot. So everyone has preferences, choices and while he wrote that, someone who dresses up that way, reading it, just got hurt.

Don’t blame only gays, straights have the same kind of preferences. They don’t go around sleeping with anyone who wants to sleep with them. They pick and choose too and so do we.

I am pretty ugly myself, not Gods best creation. So I get my own share of rejections. I am ok with it. Everyone should have their likes, dislikes and preferences, and so do I.

Don’t criticize someone for having a type, criticize them for what they type.

Tag Cloud