Saturday, December 24, 2005

Are we threatened?

Our world has been seeing some changes recently. Ad libitum, I could recollect a few...
Girls can't wear jeans or skirts to college anymore.
Students can't carry mobile phones to college anymore.
Its forbidden to support pre-marital sex.
No un-U rated movies on television anymore.
Couples spending some time together in public parks would be roughed up by the law-keepers.
saviors of the society have finally woken up from their decades long hibernation and now they'll teach the dissolute the rules of conduct in a civilized society. And the above actions have been taken because...
Boys get distracted by girls in jeans or skirts.
Students using mobile phones indulge in pornography.
You can't have sex until the society allows you to.
A/UA movies influence the vulnerable viewers adversely.
I have no clue why!
I do not have to really ridicule the reasons that have been put forth in support of the changes that have occurred. I think my readers are wise enough.
But I am really angry. What the hell do they think they are doing? Is it even possible in any universe to impose a moral conduct? Is morality under legal authority?
I could dedicate blogs after blogs talking about morality but lets cut the crap and get to the point here.
Girls and women wearing salwars and saris get raped.
People indulging in pornography may use mobile phones as a means.
One can have sex whenever he/she wants, in reality.
A/UA movies can be seen in the theatre, on home CD's, on the internet and so on...
Our homes are too crowded for couples to get cozy in front of their parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, in-laws, etc...
Is civilization measured on a scale of hypocrisy? I know hypocrisy arises from fear. Why do we have to pay a price for the inability of those who can't face and challenge their fears? Their own carnal desires they pretend to be running away from?
I think our society is too scared to talk about sex. They are afraid that its something dark, devilicious because it attracts them. And when they finally give in to their instincts, they firmly believe its a sin. Guilt sets in. Denial sets in. The conflict asks for violence as a way out. More sin follows. We succumb to evil. We forget rationality. We set rules that have the purpose we could never achieve. Rules that can never work in reality, although people are made to follow them. We now have useless rules that everybody follows. We become civilized.
Love needs expression. Be it physical or otherwise. Love is beautiful when it is expressed. There is nothing wrong about satisfying our physiological needs. Couples holding hands or sharing a moment together cut-off from the rest of the world is not offensive. The underlying feelings are beautiful. A middle-aged man walking with his teen-age daughter staring at a woman with lewd thoughts is down-right offensive. Can the moral police stop that? But perhaps the man himself is a victim of this hypocritical thought sown into him during his moral development that never let him go to the extent where he could explore the beauty of sex. Perhaps his wife is so too.
When to do it, with whom to do it, where to do it, how to do it is entirely the concerned couple's decision. By letting people talk about sex we only spread awareness and incorporate responsibility into them. We cannot stop our children from turning into criminals by never letting them know what the crime is. They'll never know when they actually commit it.
We should just stop getting too excited about sex on a personal level everytime someone says 'sex' and look at it from an intellectual perspective when we form 'rules' about it. We shouldn't take it personally everytime.
Its not an issue. It should be discussed freely, just the way politics, economy or sports are discussed.
I call it sound mental health promotion.

8 Comments:

At Saturday, December 24, 2005, Blogger Shiva said...

Oh... yeah!! Sex does need to be something that people can discuss freely over a cup of coffee...

Pseudo-moral policing always boils my blood. Sure we do need rules in place to prevent miscreants from going haywire, but atleast lets not make the rules ridiculous.

 
At Saturday, December 24, 2005, Blogger spriha said...

Thats a rather unusual tone that you've commented in. Don't tell me you are transforming into a higher species, closer to mine...

 
At Tuesday, December 27, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

while we draw out elaborate codes of conduct, prohibit movies on TV, beat up couples, chastise tennis players and actresses, let us not forget that we're a nation of a billion people. and not all were begotten through immaculate conception.

 
At Tuesday, December 27, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do agree wid u on a certain level when u imply that restriction imposed by ANYBODY in ANY FORM is a stimulus for rebellion...but the point is any rebellion must have a sound foundation wihout which it will most obviously fall flat...and unforunately while everyone seems to be rather fashinably gettin into the "i don't agree" mode,very few actually have a valid reason for takin that stand...its all about the herd mentality of sorts...Now,all this could have been averted if only we have sound foundation in sexual healh without deeming it as a hush-hushed taboooed issue...

 
At Wednesday, December 28, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

all these issues of personal freedom and its boundaries are highly intriguing.

how about the issue of sexual preference? you need have only a basic education to realise that most things in the world come with a spectrum. the fasts to the slow, the smart to the dumb, the bigs to the smalls, the fats to the slims, the homos to the heteros. are low IQ people arrested for being stupid? isn't that grossly abnormal? avg IQ 100, X person's IQ 20...

of course, there's usually a bell-shaped distribution (no, not going through biostats again) and the majority conform to a very close set of traits. the minority factions bear the burden of being the 'weirdos'.

ok, so how many people in the world like the colour auburn?? i barely know what it means!!

but are the few people who do looked at as outcasts? a friend of mine relishes eating raw garlic, loves bitter gourd (karela) and even empties B-complex capsules to just chew on the gelatin shell!

i bet there are very few such 'specimens' in the world. but there's no law that would have him arrested for his 'unnatural preferences'!! (unnatural is again a relative term defined by the majority. most relative things are absolutely flawed)

so, well, what's so special about preferences of the sexual nature?

why must it be illegal to have a certain orientation - isn't it a matter of choice? a matter of inherent like or dislike? it kinda goes against india's fundamental right to personal expression and holding an opinion.

on the other hand, it is truly weird to imagine men getting married to men. somehow, that one sounds much better when considered as a hetero bastion. gay marriages will be very difficult to explain to kids, don't you think?

anyway, why should it be made an issue? if a girl likes a girl and that's the only human attraction she knows, would the law rather deny her the basic human right to affection? the fault lies with the widespread taboo on the issue of sex. hence, it's like most other taboos and blind faiths. if you don't take 11 steps back when a black cat crosses you, you're doomed. no explanations, no rational thinking, just a blind faith in a pseudo-truth (which is truth only because the majority happen to think so) and indignation for those who don't toe the majority-line.

why don't we accept people for the way they are? if someone is born with a deformed limb (deformed, again, with respect to the majority who define normals), we understand. if someone is born with alternative inclinations, he's a damned faggot!

so, yes, this issue is also in the need for open discussion, and the acceptance of its existence. once it is accepted, the ostracism will surely diminish, as it will be seen as a variant of normal, not something punishable by indian law, which is its status at present.

 
At Wednesday, December 28, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

a very interesting programme was aired on discovery a few years back.

it showed an experiment where they tried to find the cause of homosexuality.

they kept mice free from all dangers for a prolonged period, provided them adequate food - all in all, ensured an easy and comfortable survival.

to their amazement, they found that the mice preferred same-sex partners than opposite-sex partners.

i wonder what that really means, and how far it is applicable to humans. but, if you think on it for a while, humans are the only species around whose survival is comfortable; all the other species are held in balance. they have their place in the food chain, forever being supervised by their superiors.

and, from what we know as of today, homosexuality is seen only in humans, isn't it?

 
At Thursday, December 29, 2005, Blogger spriha said...

Sumedh I think you must start a blog page of your own. Its kinda more interactive.
And yes, sex is taboo and thats why anything related to it becomes such a big issue. As I tried to point out in my article, sex is made something so sinfully fantastic in our culture that despite the superficial denial we are all the more drawn to it. Hence we tend to take it personally each time someone talks about something related to sex. If someone talks about homosexuality, for example, most people's first reaction is fear inside their minds. It shows as denial on the outside which if put strongly becomes rejection. The root of the fear is that they themselves feel the urges in various degrees and at various times in their lives. But they've been scared to 'social-death' if they choose something that the majority doesn't choose. There are various tools that the society uses to settle this fear in their minds- religion, morality, responsibility towards children, family-ties bullshit, etc. Inspite of having some degree of homosexual inclination they might prefer being with the opposite sex. But they are too afraid to come to this conclusion by travelling the path of logic. And then the guilt and conflict cycle just continues for the rest of their times.
Although, a more responsible attitude would demand further analysis of a social issue than just plain rejection or acceptance.
By the way, homosexuality is wide-spread in the animal kingdom, so you may not call it 'unnatural' after all. there was this show on NGC about it. Its especially more prevalent in dolphins- most evolved aquatic mammals!

 
At Saturday, December 31, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree wid almost everything that u all hv said. now-a-days culture seems to be like a set of rules that shud be followed. i think culture is a way of living life adopted by a group of ppl called society.. but not every1 is happy wid that way.. some ppl prefer to differ. which i think is perfectly allright.
2 spriha, i don't think everyone opposes homosexuality bcoz they r afraid or they don't want to be outcast. i agree wid wht sumedh says.. ppl haven't seen anything like that bfore and u normally opppose wht seems unusual or unfamiliar to u.
2 sumedh: homosexuality has not been seen only in humans but animals too. & as a frnd of mine has discovered homosexuality is not new to India. it existed in harappa & mohenjadaro times & was acceptable then but wen Britishers came to india they critisized it & so it was tabooed thereafter. sorry for that long comment ..i guess i shud chek ur blog frequently ..i missed a lot of e-actions & reactions :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home