This is truly absurd. And the media is even promoting this absurdity as the “need of the hour” – instead of making people aware of their folly.
The immediate provocation for this post is of course a front-page report in the Bombay Times of 25 September 2005 that says more and more couples want to get each other tested for HIV before marriage just the way it’s a practice to match horoscopes. Whether it’s a trend is questionable – the last time I was closely involved in match-making was more than 5 years ago when my cousin was eager for a bride. And I do not yet expect someone about to be engaged to talk about how their HIV tests are negative/positive and the marriage proposal is at the next state of negotiation/finalized. Especially at a time when HIV is still the ‘disease’ that dare not speak its name. (This week’s report in The Indian Express Mumbai Newsline on the inhuman treatment – pardon the pun – of HIV positive patients is enough proof if any were needed. If medical personnel can be so bigoted, why fault the lay person?).
Coming back to the issue of pre-marital testing, it’s no wonder that this ‘trend’ started in rural India – this is not an ideal world so perhaps in the real world information gets infected by the time it is transmitted from scientific journals to the Indian villager. I remember reading media reports on at least two villages – one in Punjab and the other in Maharashtra (scroll down each page to read the respective story ) – that proposed making HIV testing compulsory. (Even Goa, had this idea before better sense prevailed – and kudos to the Times journo for this report.) A crazy idea doesn’t take time to take root in a climate of fear and ignorance, a climate where even talking about safer sex is shameful. (Of course, there’s the other extreme of Pune’s Osho Ashram – or whatever the official name for this ghetto now – where this business of HIV testing really started, but then we know why they have such a strong fear.) So don’t ask me what these guys were smoking when they came up with the idea.
Ask what some of today’s journos and lawyers smoke though. Instead of pointing out the ludicrousness, the media publicizes the ‘trend’ and helps society give it sanction. The Bombay Times feature even espouses the idea (“the situation in the urban areas has improved with many couples willing to go through the test”). Then there’s this gem of a quote attributed to an advocate (as in lawyer) from a organization that calls itself the Maharashtra Law Graduate Association. (The MLGA has even filed a public interest litigation asking for pre-marital HIV testing to be made compulsory!) The report reads: “a considerable number of women have contracted the virus post marriage. “It may happen the other way round too where a man contracts the virus after marriage. However, most cases that we’ve come across are where women become victims of this.” Need one spell out why the idea is daft and self-defeating?
Has anyone heard of the window period? That’s the three-week to three-month period when the virus does not show up in a HIV test even though you are carrying it. What if A who is infected marries B in the window period, and even makes B pregnant during this time? And what if A gets infected after marriage whether through sex outside marriage or any of the other modes of transmission? Ok, forget HIV, what if A has Hepatitis B which transmits even more easily than HIV and can be fatal as well? While we are testing, we might as well test for STIs. And tuberculosis as well, which most of us carry anyway. The Sindhis, Kutchis, etc. test for thalasasemia. Heck, let’s test the genes of all brides and grooms as well and evaluate whether our babies will be super-babies with the right genetic mix. At the end of all the tests, we can double-check against the horsoscopes to see that a disease-free future’s guaranteed for the couple.
As Osho would have said – he should have if he didn’t – life holds no guarantee. Not even the guarantee that your spouse will remain faithful and honest to you – of course, that brings in a lot of awkwardness and unpleasant questions about marital relationships. So let’s just say that the only certainty in life is death.
But there are still some prospective couples (and this applies to positive gay men as well) who want to ensure conjugal bliss even if HIV is their soul mate. (I am not saying the virus is a death certificate but at least a reality check is in order.) So witness the matrimonials in some pockets of this country (which The Indian Express gushed about on its pages a few months ago), of HIV positive spouses seeking mates similarly qualified. IE should have also warned them about possible superinfection and its yet unknown outcome. In our example, this happens when A who is already infected with HIV, gets infected with one of the many other strains of HIV. This kind of superinfection is old news, by the way. If you are US-based and you do have a superinfection, you can now consider enrolling in a study being planned to understand its effects. So far, it seems there is even a “window of susceptibility” to a superinfection.
So you see, if you are starting out on the road to a ‘happy married life’, an HIV test is not the answer. If you are insist on an answer, all I can simply say is: trust in your spouse and leave the rest to God/Higher Power/Destiny.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
I have no words for this kind of torture
PageoneQ reports on the ugliness that's happening in Iran. Question: What can we in India do to help the queer communities in Iran? Write to the Iranian embassy/consulate and India's ministry of external affairs at the very least?
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Outlook wags a finger at women?
The cover of Outlook India's latest issue screams "Women buy men for sex" as if no one knows that or it's a new trend. The story and its tone are predictable.
But as a sort of disclaimer/apologia for it's story and findings, there's an accompanying, rambling, fence-sitter article by Jaslok Hospital's (Mumbai), neuropsychiatrist Dr. Rajesh Parikh, and here's an extract:
"One unintended consequence of such research and of its interpretation and dissemination on a wider platform such as a newsmagazine is that individuals tend to use it to validate their own behaviour. We are, after all, amongst the most social and imitative of animal species. The awareness of a trend sometimes causes it to feed itself and swell into tsunami proportions.
Kinsey's data triggered research that helped reduce the stigmatisation of homosexual behaviour. In a span of half a century, homosexuality went from being criminal to a mental disorder to deviational behaviour to a form of sexual variation and finally being accepted as normal. Such are the enormous consequences of researching human behaviour."
Words that can be interpreted for and against homosexuality, wouldn't you say?
Anyway, there are somewhat positive aspects to the cover story. Although the survey does not talk about homosexuality, there is a piece by the author of The Last Song of Dusk, Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi, where he argues that Section 377, which criminalizes homosexuality (and "unnatural sex", i.e., anal and oral sex by anyone) is all about power play:
"Section 377 needs to go for several reasons. Because we don't want the government in our pants. Because it interferes with the tasks of aids outreach workers. And because it is anti-democratic. In a nation where democracy is reduced to an item number, a law forbidding a particular sexual liberty is patently inhuman and shockingly regressive."
The other thing: I did a quick 'analysis' of the survey results and found that 57% of all respondents claimed to always have safe sex although half of all respondents also say that they do sometimes the "break the rules" of sex. And 2% of all resp. say they know more than 10 bisexuals with 35% of total resp. saying that they know one or more bisexuals. And guess what, 31% women would have sex with someone other than their spouse or a sex worker if their spouse were to refuse to give them oral sex!
Another fact to note is that the cover story has photos by Anita Khemka. According to the magazine her "oeuvre has largely been defined by social documentary work; people living with HIV, the mentally challenged, child labour etc. Her current work dealing with alternative sexuality has been made into a German film, Between the Lines: India's Third Gender, which opened at the recent Locarno Film Festival."
Talking about surveys, blogger Andrew Sullivan posted recently (15 Sept.) about the results of a survey by the American CDC:
WE ARE ALL SODOMITES NOW: The latest data on American sexual behavior and identity from the CDC has some interesting nuggets. Money quote: "90 percent [of adult males aged 15 - 44] have had oral sex with a female, and 40 percent, anal sex with a female." If sodomy is defined as non-procreative sexual intercourse (and that is the basic definition), then it is now practiced by 90 percent of heterosexuals. So on what rational moral basis do we discriminate against gays - who, according to the CDC, make up around 3 percent of the population?
Meanwhile, mixed news on the safer sex front: Among men 15-44 years of age who had at least one sexual partner in the last 12 months, 39 percent used a condom at their most recent sex. Among never married males, this figure was 65 percent, compared with 24 percent of married males. Among males who had ever had sexual contact with another male, 91 percent used a condom at their last sex, compared with 36 percent of men who never had sex with another male.Of course, this requires honesty on the party of survey respondents. But it's encouraging nonetheless, with gay men understandably far safer than straight men in their sex lives.
(End of Sullivan's post)
An aside: As an ex-Marwar staffer, I couldn't help noticing that both Shanghvi and Khemka are usually Maru last names. (Dr.Parikh are you Marwari, as well?)
But as a sort of disclaimer/apologia for it's story and findings, there's an accompanying, rambling, fence-sitter article by Jaslok Hospital's (Mumbai), neuropsychiatrist Dr. Rajesh Parikh, and here's an extract:
"One unintended consequence of such research and of its interpretation and dissemination on a wider platform such as a newsmagazine is that individuals tend to use it to validate their own behaviour. We are, after all, amongst the most social and imitative of animal species. The awareness of a trend sometimes causes it to feed itself and swell into tsunami proportions.
Kinsey's data triggered research that helped reduce the stigmatisation of homosexual behaviour. In a span of half a century, homosexuality went from being criminal to a mental disorder to deviational behaviour to a form of sexual variation and finally being accepted as normal. Such are the enormous consequences of researching human behaviour."
Words that can be interpreted for and against homosexuality, wouldn't you say?
Anyway, there are somewhat positive aspects to the cover story. Although the survey does not talk about homosexuality, there is a piece by the author of The Last Song of Dusk, Siddharth Dhanvant Shanghvi, where he argues that Section 377, which criminalizes homosexuality (and "unnatural sex", i.e., anal and oral sex by anyone) is all about power play:
"Section 377 needs to go for several reasons. Because we don't want the government in our pants. Because it interferes with the tasks of aids outreach workers. And because it is anti-democratic. In a nation where democracy is reduced to an item number, a law forbidding a particular sexual liberty is patently inhuman and shockingly regressive."
The other thing: I did a quick 'analysis' of the survey results and found that 57% of all respondents claimed to always have safe sex although half of all respondents also say that they do sometimes the "break the rules" of sex. And 2% of all resp. say they know more than 10 bisexuals with 35% of total resp. saying that they know one or more bisexuals. And guess what, 31% women would have sex with someone other than their spouse or a sex worker if their spouse were to refuse to give them oral sex!
Another fact to note is that the cover story has photos by Anita Khemka. According to the magazine her "oeuvre has largely been defined by social documentary work; people living with HIV, the mentally challenged, child labour etc. Her current work dealing with alternative sexuality has been made into a German film, Between the Lines: India's Third Gender, which opened at the recent Locarno Film Festival."
Talking about surveys, blogger Andrew Sullivan posted recently (15 Sept.) about the results of a survey by the American CDC:
WE ARE ALL SODOMITES NOW: The latest data on American sexual behavior and identity from the CDC has some interesting nuggets. Money quote: "90 percent [of adult males aged 15 - 44] have had oral sex with a female, and 40 percent, anal sex with a female." If sodomy is defined as non-procreative sexual intercourse (and that is the basic definition), then it is now practiced by 90 percent of heterosexuals. So on what rational moral basis do we discriminate against gays - who, according to the CDC, make up around 3 percent of the population?
Meanwhile, mixed news on the safer sex front: Among men 15-44 years of age who had at least one sexual partner in the last 12 months, 39 percent used a condom at their most recent sex. Among never married males, this figure was 65 percent, compared with 24 percent of married males. Among males who had ever had sexual contact with another male, 91 percent used a condom at their last sex, compared with 36 percent of men who never had sex with another male.Of course, this requires honesty on the party of survey respondents. But it's encouraging nonetheless, with gay men understandably far safer than straight men in their sex lives.
(End of Sullivan's post)
An aside: As an ex-Marwar staffer, I couldn't help noticing that both Shanghvi and Khemka are usually Maru last names. (Dr.Parikh are you Marwari, as well?)
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Why not Gay India
Some people have asked me about the use of the word "queer". Recently, I also read two messages (extracted below) on a Ryze Network (my Ryze page is here) I am on, Bindaas Bol that raised similar questions. So this posting is in response to the use of the word "queer" and other terms often used, sometimes pejoratively, for gay people and homosexuality.
Message 1 was:
Just an observation.
Why does the GLBT community use terms such as Queer?
Is the word Queer derogatory towards Gays? I have heard it used as a defamatory or derogoatory remark towards gays, so why do they use it?
I see it in the url queerindia.com why not gayindia.com?
Message 2 was:
A lot of the gay people I know use words like queer and queen and faggot and dyke as descriptors when referring to other gay people. When someone who is straight uses the same words, they risk being branded homophobic.
Any thoughts or explanations?
My reply:
You might find these extracted list of terms from a manual on diversity at the workplace useful (my comments in brief at the end):
Queer: There seems to be a split between generations on the acceptability of this term. Many younger gays, lesbians and bisexuals feel the term is refreshingly broad.
Gay: The umbrella term for homosexual persons, although it most specifically refers to men who are attracted to and love men. It is equally acceptable and more accurate to refer to gay women as lesbians. Appropriate, recommended.
Homosexual: People who are attracted to members of the same sex. This is a term invented by psychiatrists around 1890 to describe what they saw as an illness. Most people today are choosing to use gay and lesbian instead. Appropriate, but not preferred.
Lesbian: A woman who is attracted to and loves women. Appropriate, recommended.
Dyke: Derogatory toward lesbians, and at the same time, in-group language for many lesbians. Of uncertain origin, although thought to come from Boadiccia, a woman warrior who allegedly had many woman lovers. Not appropriate for use by straight people.
Fag: Derogatory toward gay men. Leigh Rutledge, author of The Gay Book of Lists, suggests that fag comes from faggot, a bundle of wood used to light fires for burning people. Faggot came to mean the bodies of gay men when they were burned to death in the 14th Century. Used as in-group language among some gays and lesbians. Not appropriate for use by anyone.
Sexual Orientation: –Describes everything that goes into why people are attracted to each other. Sexual orientation takes into account past experiences, current situations, and self-identification. This term is usually preferred to sexual preference because it conveys the fact that most people feel they are gay by nature, not simply by choice. Appropriate, recommended.
Affectional Orientation: Some companies and groups use this lighter-sounding term to mean sexual orientation. Appropriate.
Straight: Common term used to mean a heterosexual person. Although some people of all sexual orientations take issue with the term, there is no better term in common use. “Straight But Not Narrow” reads a popular T-shirt slogan that many heterosexual allies wear. Appropriate. Be sensitive to those who might object.
[end of extract]
I don't consider myself as a "younger gay" and I personally prefer calling myself gay than queer because "queer" is more vague--"queer" could be anything but heterosexual--homo, bi, trans....
"Queer" was (probably still is) used pejoratively to refer to us but LGBT communities in many places have by appropriating the term taken the sting out of it. :-)
For me, "Queer" serves as a broader term, especially in writing, when referring not just to individuals but also discussing subjects like politics, culture, health, films and the queer "community" in general. That's why I write on Queer India and not Gay India.
PS. I don't like the term "straight". I don't know if there's a term to describe words that are derogatory by implication (doesn't straight imply that non-straight people are well, crooked?)
Message 1 was:
Just an observation.
Why does the GLBT community use terms such as Queer?
Is the word Queer derogatory towards Gays? I have heard it used as a defamatory or derogoatory remark towards gays, so why do they use it?
I see it in the url queerindia.com why not gayindia.com?
Message 2 was:
A lot of the gay people I know use words like queer and queen and faggot and dyke as descriptors when referring to other gay people. When someone who is straight uses the same words, they risk being branded homophobic.
Any thoughts or explanations?
My reply:
You might find these extracted list of terms from a manual on diversity at the workplace useful (my comments in brief at the end):
Queer: There seems to be a split between generations on the acceptability of this term. Many younger gays, lesbians and bisexuals feel the term is refreshingly broad.
Gay: The umbrella term for homosexual persons, although it most specifically refers to men who are attracted to and love men. It is equally acceptable and more accurate to refer to gay women as lesbians. Appropriate, recommended.
Homosexual: People who are attracted to members of the same sex. This is a term invented by psychiatrists around 1890 to describe what they saw as an illness. Most people today are choosing to use gay and lesbian instead. Appropriate, but not preferred.
Lesbian: A woman who is attracted to and loves women. Appropriate, recommended.
Dyke: Derogatory toward lesbians, and at the same time, in-group language for many lesbians. Of uncertain origin, although thought to come from Boadiccia, a woman warrior who allegedly had many woman lovers. Not appropriate for use by straight people.
Fag: Derogatory toward gay men. Leigh Rutledge, author of The Gay Book of Lists, suggests that fag comes from faggot, a bundle of wood used to light fires for burning people. Faggot came to mean the bodies of gay men when they were burned to death in the 14th Century. Used as in-group language among some gays and lesbians. Not appropriate for use by anyone.
Sexual Orientation: –Describes everything that goes into why people are attracted to each other. Sexual orientation takes into account past experiences, current situations, and self-identification. This term is usually preferred to sexual preference because it conveys the fact that most people feel they are gay by nature, not simply by choice. Appropriate, recommended.
Affectional Orientation: Some companies and groups use this lighter-sounding term to mean sexual orientation. Appropriate.
Straight: Common term used to mean a heterosexual person. Although some people of all sexual orientations take issue with the term, there is no better term in common use. “Straight But Not Narrow” reads a popular T-shirt slogan that many heterosexual allies wear. Appropriate. Be sensitive to those who might object.
[end of extract]
I don't consider myself as a "younger gay" and I personally prefer calling myself gay than queer because "queer" is more vague--"queer" could be anything but heterosexual--homo, bi, trans....
"Queer" was (probably still is) used pejoratively to refer to us but LGBT communities in many places have by appropriating the term taken the sting out of it. :-)
For me, "Queer" serves as a broader term, especially in writing, when referring not just to individuals but also discussing subjects like politics, culture, health, films and the queer "community" in general. That's why I write on Queer India and not Gay India.
PS. I don't like the term "straight". I don't know if there's a term to describe words that are derogatory by implication (doesn't straight imply that non-straight people are well, crooked?)
Friday, July 22, 2005
Queers Gossip
I don't care for achievers and celebrities who are ashamed of their sexual orientation and hence in the closet. Many gay men speculate about the famous, especially about actors, even getting a vicarious pleasure out of such gossip. One has heard so many names of people from Bollywood supposedly queer that sometimes one wonders if there are any heterosexual men in the film industry at all (comparatively far fewer names have been taken in the case of women; I guess, because lesbians are even more closeted than gay men).
There has been speculation about Shah Rukh Khan's sexuality for years now, and as I mentioned in my post of 19 September 2003 at my earlier blog site , India Today even quizzed Shah Rukh whether he's queer. Shah Rukh never gives a 'straight' answer to such questions and his choice of friends, roles and words and more words only fuels more speculation.
But, at least here in Mumbai, there's practically no gossip about the sexual affairs of politicians.
Yes, one has heard the occasional generalized remark about the Sangh's bachelors (so were the protests over the movie, "Girlfriend", internalized homophobia?)
The only time I heard some queer juice about powerful politicians was on a foreign junket with some journos a year ago. It came from the mouth of the editor of a language newspaper, apparently leaked to her by an intelligence source: she alleged that a young man from the services was specially flown down from Delhi to be with the Mantriji when the latter was recuperating from surgery in Mumbai. Further, Mantriji was supposed to be having an affair with a junior protege.
It was a surprise though to read two recent posts (here and here) on the same blog about some famous Delhi politicians. But then the blogger is a full-time journalist from Delhi (apparently he has moved to Mumbai recently) so he would have more access to gossip on politicians. The blogger's remarks indicate his own discomfort with homosexuality (why does he keep proclaiming his own heterosexuality?) or else he is being plain cussed.
We may gossip endlessly about famous people, but what good does it do to us, as individuals, or to the queer cause? In fact, as long as these folk themselves don't state their orientation in the media, no matter how out they are in their own society/industry/politics, they remain bad role models. Most of them are not only closeted but also married. When I first came out to my parents, outing celebs to them only seemed to work against me. Very selfishly, mom and dad would argue that if so-and-so can be gay and married, then you should get married as well.
There may come a time though when some closeted queer people, especially politicians, may actually hurt the queer cause actively, by their statements or actions. In fact the time may already be now. I would be more than happy to out the RSS chief if there was the evidence to prove that he's gay. And even happy to an extent if the following were outed: Karan Johar (it takes more to redeem oneself for a 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' than promoting 'My Brother Nikhil'), Niranjan Iyengar (who is credited with the dialogues for KHNH) and Apurva Asrani (for co-directing 'Out of Control'). Someone should plan a sting, what do you say?
There has been speculation about Shah Rukh Khan's sexuality for years now, and as I mentioned in my post of 19 September 2003 at my earlier blog site , India Today even quizzed Shah Rukh whether he's queer. Shah Rukh never gives a 'straight' answer to such questions and his choice of friends, roles and words and more words only fuels more speculation.
But, at least here in Mumbai, there's practically no gossip about the sexual affairs of politicians.
Yes, one has heard the occasional generalized remark about the Sangh's bachelors (so were the protests over the movie, "Girlfriend", internalized homophobia?)
The only time I heard some queer juice about powerful politicians was on a foreign junket with some journos a year ago. It came from the mouth of the editor of a language newspaper, apparently leaked to her by an intelligence source: she alleged that a young man from the services was specially flown down from Delhi to be with the Mantriji when the latter was recuperating from surgery in Mumbai. Further, Mantriji was supposed to be having an affair with a junior protege.
It was a surprise though to read two recent posts (here and here) on the same blog about some famous Delhi politicians. But then the blogger is a full-time journalist from Delhi (apparently he has moved to Mumbai recently) so he would have more access to gossip on politicians. The blogger's remarks indicate his own discomfort with homosexuality (why does he keep proclaiming his own heterosexuality?) or else he is being plain cussed.
We may gossip endlessly about famous people, but what good does it do to us, as individuals, or to the queer cause? In fact, as long as these folk themselves don't state their orientation in the media, no matter how out they are in their own society/industry/politics, they remain bad role models. Most of them are not only closeted but also married. When I first came out to my parents, outing celebs to them only seemed to work against me. Very selfishly, mom and dad would argue that if so-and-so can be gay and married, then you should get married as well.
There may come a time though when some closeted queer people, especially politicians, may actually hurt the queer cause actively, by their statements or actions. In fact the time may already be now. I would be more than happy to out the RSS chief if there was the evidence to prove that he's gay. And even happy to an extent if the following were outed: Karan Johar (it takes more to redeem oneself for a 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' than promoting 'My Brother Nikhil'), Niranjan Iyengar (who is credited with the dialogues for KHNH) and Apurva Asrani (for co-directing 'Out of Control'). Someone should plan a sting, what do you say?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)