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?

Main aisa kyon hoon? Ami jani na!

While the New York Times reported on genes and sexual orientation (log on to the Bombay Dost Yahoo group if you don't have a NYT subscription and read the story pasted in this message), I found a Mumbai-based blogger's entry (thanks to a comment by BomGay) quoting a Hindi dictionary which defines a 'gandu' as someone addicted to getting fucked in the arse (or to quote "being sodomized"). I was surfing the blog and came across another entry that asks whether the Bengali phrase "alur dosh" ("fault of the testicles"?) has a homosexual connotation/gay community slang, among others. Perhaps our Kolkata friends will enlighten us. :-)

Ten Tips for Parents of a Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Child

For interesting tips, especially if your parents (or parent-figure/siblings for that matter) are English-speaking and net savvy click here. The website is home to "Advocates for Youth" which is focused on youth sexuality issues and should be a useful resource for everyone interested in the subject. Note: I am yet to explore the site further.

Savage Pope bashing

Dan Savage at his ferocious best:
"...What's maddening about this pope's signature gay bashing is this: When the pope—the dead one, the next one, the one after that—says something stupid about homosexuality, straight folks take it to heart.... But when a pope says something stupid about heterosexuality, straight Americans go deaf. And this pope had plenty to say about heterosexual sex—no contraceptives, no premarital sex, no blowjobs, no jerkin' off, no divorce, no remarriage, no artificial insemination, no blowjobs, no three-ways, no swinging, no blowjobs, no anal. Did I mention no blowjobs? John Paul II had more "no's" for straight people than he did for gays. But when he tried to meddle in the private lives of straights, the same people who deferred to his delicate sensibilities where my rights were concerned suddenly blew the old asshole off. Gay blowjobs are expendable, it seems; straight ones are sacred.
So I can't get behind this orgy of cheap and easy piety. Watching the talking twats on CNN pay their respects to this "universally beloved man of God" (how many of them have had premarital sex, I wonder?), to say nothing of the suddenly reverent assholes on Fox News (Bill O'Reilly didn't have many nice things to say about J.P. II when he opposed the invasion of Iraq), makes me want to throw a bottle of lube through a stained-glass window.
I'm sorry the old bastard's dead, I'm sorry he suffered. But I'm not so sorry that I won't stoop to working John Paul II into a column about zombie fetishism...."

God, the smoke's all black! Defrock the Vatican at the UN

What do you make of Ratzinger as the new pope? The Catholic Church's view on homosexuality is well known as also it's condemnation of its own sheep to death because of its stand against condoms as protection against HIV (a stand that puts the Church's own survival in peril--a good thought, but at what cost!).
Ratzinger and every Catholic (for that matter, anyone at all) in the world is entitled to their views on homosexulity. As long as they are themselves not gay (especially closeted) or they don't put other people's lives in peril. I can imagine the torment gone through by young gay Catholics who are yet to come to terms to their sexuality and find the balance between their personal convictions and the Church's beliefs (here's a 1986 publication drafted by Ratzinger and approved by John Paul II). Undoubtedly, many contemplate suicide. Some commit it. We can only pray that the tortured souls find the right help, in time. (As an aside, here's an encounter of one of my favorite writers with Ratzinger.)
Here's a well-written article by Richard Cohen, a columnist with The Washington Post, which covers the Church and homosexuality, condoms, AIDS, etc. and Ratzinger's so-called Nazi past.
What I don't see discussed anywhere how the Catholic Church is the only religious organization that has a United Nations membership (not like the countless others which are merely heard on the UN's many sponsored organizations). I believe the Vatican has statehood and as such equal status as any other country. This gives it even more power and this has been abused (in cohorts with some Islamic nations!) to block the "Brazil resolution" at the UN (the latest is that the resolution has lapsed, in spite of intesne lobbying by activists). Shouldn't we debate why Catholicism has this special right at the UN? Shouldn't stripping the Vatican of its membership also be part of the imminent reforms at the UN?