"A scene flashes through my head. The Delhi High Court. A (Section) 377 hearing in the summer of 2009. As we sat at the back, on the left hand side of the court room were the lawyers of the Home Ministry. I marvelled at their words. They spoke of holes – which hole was designed for what, and how wrong it was for this hole to be used for this and not that. And I listened to our words – dignity, rights, love… How unable we were to speak of holes. And, beyond a point, what does 377 have to do with love? It was bad enough that our lawyers told us to use ‘LGBT’ instead of ‘Queer’ because the judges would not understand Queer. And then to have to evoke the trope of love. Uff.
Not that love does not have radical potential. Ironically, it can have radical potential when love translates into marriage (or at least reproduction). Ambedkar was probably right when he said, “The real remedy for breaking Caste is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as the solvent of Caste.” But we know that love is also the glue that holds heteronormativity together. Love, in the context of modernity, helps hold together that same caste, same religion, manly man and womanly woman couple which produces heirs to inherit private property. And let those of us radical types who are against marriage, including same-sex marriage, not forget, that it is not just about marriage. Love is also the glue that holds together coupledom.
Love humbles, sometimes even humiliates, those of us who sincerely believe and loudly proclaim the criticality of friends in our lives and decry the hierarchy between ‘love’ and ‘friendship’. Oh, hang on. Here in lie many points to ponder." Click HERE to read more.
The three monkeys of the mind must of course do exactly the
opposite of what they are asked not to do.
Take the example of Ms Polly Outrageous. Having lived a
fairly open life, swing in the 60s and stretching it to the 90s, she has
finally found her peace in a life of discipline and one-centeredness. She is
presently involved with reviewing her colourful life in the past and drawing,
painting and writing stories of that past. But lately, she has ventured on
facebook, and the first thing that hits her is the picture of couples kissing
each other, which has gone viral. Needless to say, Ms Polly Outrageous has
unwittingly looked at that video with much interest. Yes, of course it is
possible to kiss and even love strangers, just like it was possible and still
is, to love many, like they did in the 60s. Ms Polly Outrageous is now engaged
with her imagination and like a tourist in London, having left all their
identity in India, may engage in indeed the very outrageous, because in London,
nobody knows her, Ms Polly Outrageous is really living out her name on facebook,
but with dire consequences.
Only the other night, in her dream, she has been kissing
someone, trying very hard to avoid kissing the lips. Even in the dream, she is
prompting herself to not venture into the absolutely real, which will then
cause her to accept that the near flirtatious pastime is becoming a serious
preoccupation. As long as her kisses land on cheeks, forehead and other so
called safe places, at least she is ‘safe’. This, after all is not one of those
nights she is alone, she knows in her dream.
All that we want, we deny first. All that shows up in the
dreams is a reflection of a shade of reality, which could be exactly as the
dream or something that has a hidden meaning. In the above case, at face value,
Ms Polly Outrageous, is certainly flirting with an idea of including ‘someone’
else; of breaking the cast and expanding the parameters. On a deeper level, she
is merely trying to ‘kiss’ something new. It might even be a new life, a new
job, a new love, a new life she is seeing in the offing, with which she is
toying in her mind, flirting with the idea, but not wanting to get too close to
it. A deeper mouth to mouth kiss would shift the position in her mind totally.
On a philosophical level, there is too much ado about
nothing! The picture of the kissing couples has excited the impressions left
behind in her mind, by kisses in the past.
The real, is the experience of impressions, which in
themselves are not identical in every case, even with the same thing. A kiss
may cause my mind to retain some impressions which may not be identical to what
is left in your mind of the same experience of kissing. Hence, the real,
philosophically can only be called unreal, for impressions are not scientific
residual matter that appear in the same way, every time. Yet, one cannot deny
their existence, because, if they did not exist, they would not revisit.
Where psychology ends, philosophy begins. Where the desire
dynamics is a source of perennial discourse, philosophy gives step-motherly
treatment. Where desire is a life giving force, philosophy is quick to douse
water saying, memory of impressions is not truth. Indeed, impressions are not
real at all.
But the take home for Ms Polly Outrageous is only one, that
being See not; hear not; do not!
I am quite
sure you are aware of the story that is going around on the internet these
days?
No?
Oh!
Well, it is
an age old discussion: how do you tell men that women count. That women have
desires that need to be addressed, and men can’t just turn their face the other
way pretending that because they, gendered male, made sex with a woman, she is
over the hill with joy!
The First
Online Tamil Lifestyle Magazine called Tamil
Culture ( See link below) has
done it going way out to bring sense to the male (It’s just about the penis)
mind, to consider women’s desires too, before they go the whole hog to say,
that only men count.
The nicely
done article by Niveda Anandan hits hard on men. “But
we Tamil women get horny too. Contrary to popular belief, we have sexual urges
as well. Just as you experience complete sexual liberation, we wish to have the
same without being judged and ridiculed as “not marriage material”. We are not
objects to be judged as “easy” or “used” and are disgusted that you would even
use these terms to describe us.” Atta girl!
Now, what is marriageable, material you may ask?
Please note: virgins, women who
have never touched a man or not been touched by one either, who have kept their
bodies covered and not exposed it to public, who have not hungered for sex, in
mind and body, these are your, yours truly virgins; woman who have not had sex,
before marriage, in other words. The impossible, is hardly possible in these
times!
In a culture that is schizophrenic, caught between the extreme conservative
and traditional while at the same time modern, Indian society stands as a
classic clash between the past and the present. Really there are no women out
there who fear being ‘deflowered’ before marriage. They simply follow what they
have been taught from childhood – virginity is paramount and must be a treasure
to be offered only on the night of marital conjugation, that too with a man, of
course. Many are bolder and don’t waste their youth on such rules. Behind the
curtain, sab chalta hai, everything
goes! They simply hoodwink the
parents/guardians and go ahead to take a “full body dip, in the well of passion”.
Refreshing change!
I ask why is it important
for a woman to be a virgin to be marriageable. And the answer is: it boils down
to that absurd practice remember, patriarchy thy name is foul. Primitive,
regressive and downright demeaning, patriarchy is about possession – the body
of a woman, land, house, wealth, jewels, all and everything that must go to the
child who is the ‘real’ inheritor of
the wealth, which is the legitimate child of an unpolluted (read virgin) woman, who belongs to one man.
There are other questions that come to mind. Why has the article not
addressed the growing numbers of women who love woman? In a state where the
Chief Minister herself has been living with a woman for decades, why has the
author not addressed these desires as well and told the men off!
If desire for love and sex is not to be dominated by the penis, then, it
certainly breaks the patriarchal norms, and finds its own shore in some other
bed. And that discussion has been left out, sadly. So, really, while fighting
the battle against capital ‘P’ –
prick and/or patriarchy, has the author, sidelined same sex partnership as a
valid and bold route to overthrow the ‘P’-factor
that ails our society?
The hurried exchange of addresses and
stolen glances hid my destiny for the next sixteen years of my life - our lives.
In the first ever national three days conference held in Mumbai, 1996, in
between, talking politics of love between same sex women, watching films,
discussing, making new friends, I fell in love with a woman from Delhi. She was
the sole reason why I left everything behind me in Mumbai, to start from
scratch in Delhi.
Yet, it was not a fairy tale story right from the start.
Our letter crossed and in each, in indelible ink was written the same story in
five words – I am attracted to you. Then onwards, our love was a journey fraught
with difficulties, doubts and deliberations, in spite of over powering love for
each other. At the end, having held the torch for over three years, in
November, 1999, we met finally in Delhi. The physical sparks went off
immediately and we were on the carpet, making love before the welcome lunch had
time to settle in my stomach! After fifteen days of bliss, I went back to
Mumbai, knowing I had to return, to the first major love with a woman in my life.
It’s now thirteen years that we have been together. There is no contract between
us, no written or spoken document that says that we are in a committed
relationship. I prefer, therefore, to acknowledge our same sex relationship as companionship;
we are sakhis. We do have many things
in common and lots where we are differ from each other.
A same sex relationship is different from a
heterosexual one.
First things first, the sex is fantastic as long as the 18-months major
invasion of hormones in your body is there and then you have to work at it.
This is common to both. And sexual intimacy is not about penetration, but being
there for each other, sharing, touching, loving, kissing, fondling and of
course, the big ‘O’ which in the case of heterosexual sexual contact may just
be one sided, or result in women faking it and men asking that dreadful question:
how was it? However, I am told by some that many ‘hets’ do make it, to the orgasmic oneness, not one after another,
but together. I must confess, I haven’t been able to match the ‘het’ claim to cosmic contractions, together in my same
sex relationship. Nor have sexual encounters given rise to pregnancy, thank
god!
In our relationship, the political power lies with Tamil Nadu, but if you ask
her, she will say, that all Bengali Didis are dominating and hold the feudal
sceptre as if they were born holding one. But I ascertain power politics in a
relationship by the cuisine that dominates the kitchen. Ours is kapi in the
morning, followed by sambhar, rasam,
paparam.
Naturally we fight a lot! We suffer spouse deafness, malicious gossip sessions
with our friends and family. It’s in fact just as ‘het’ as it can get!
However, the big difference is, there
are no laws in the land that can save a drowning same sex
partnership/relationship, and very little family intervention to save it too,
in most cases. Thankfully, gender driven roles, don’t plague our partnership – cross
dressing, emotionally and otherwise is highly appreciated.
Our relationship is governed by never sleeping on an augmentative pillow,
talking things through, if possible, and if we don’t sound like all the
utensils in the kitchen falling on the floor with a loud clatter, which is
increasingly becoming a trend, by the way! No wonder then, we have taken
recourse to yet another strategy, that being, maintaining silence on the
subject of argument and making as many spiritual trips together.
For me, all relationships are part of a self actualisation process. We are
constantly changing. In thirteen years, our needs have changed, our priorities
keep changing. We have some commonalities which are timeless, but change is
permanent and finally, even if we are like our bel tree rooted in one place and branching out in different
directions, or do take our togetherness to another level, we will still say, we
are sakhis, emotionally, physically
and spiritually.
Julia Dutta is author of this piece and author of Until death do us part and other books available on Kindle version from Amazon.com
The article was first published in December 2012 issue of Atelier Diva
To buy write to: Creative Nest Media Pvt. Ltd, M-66, Punj House, Outer Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110 001 Email: info@creativenestmedia.com
Whether or not same-sex behaviour is an important factor in evolution remains to be seen. "Given its persistence in species in many different animal groups, including humans, viewing it as an evolutionary force in its own right promises to provide a much richer understanding of the evolution of reproductive behaviour," Bailey says.
“Not long ago, the news was full of reports of two male Humboldt penguins at a zoo in Germany that adopted an egg, hatched it and reared it together.”- NewScientist, 5 December, 2009 p 49
For News makers this is one more evidence that there is same-sex liaisons in animal kingdom, but that is not all the point that one is trying to make. Evolutionary Biologists Marlene Zuk and Nathan baily from the University of California, Riverside, published a paper on the subject that include examples from dozens of species ranging from dung flies and woodpeckers to bison and macaques.
For argument sake, it would be interesting to question why same-sex behavior would evolve at all when it runs counter to evolutionary principles. Zuk and Bailey suggest that where it is common, same-sex sexual behavior is in fact an important driving force in evolution. Although both researchers believe that terms such as homosexual, gay, lesbian and transgender which are common terms used by mass media, and even some ethologists, should not be extended to animal kingdom – “ It’s not simply that they are burdened with the weight of social, moral and political implications, which can obscure objective scientific study,” says Bailey. “The problem is that while we can observe the sexual behavior in animals, we often have little inkling about what motivates it. Besides, as far as we know animals do not form sexual self-identities in the way humans do”. Hence they have preferred to use a more objective term – “same-sex sexual behavior” which they define as behaviors found in two animals of the same sex that you would find in opposite – sex pairs during courtship, copulation or parenting.
It might be made clear that, same – sex behavior is not synonymous with same-sex preferences, which have been observed in only a handful of animals. Hans van Gossum from University of Antwerp in Belgium and colleagues found that damselflies kept in all-male groups subsequently preferred to court other males rather than females, though the preference could be reversed simply by housing them with females (Biological Letters, vol 1, p 268)
Nor is it possible to infer any same-sex orientation from same-sex behavior, because orientation is established after observing partner preference over a long period of time. Among the male bighorn sheep, it has been observed that the males throughout their lives mount other males and female Laysan albatrosses…..
In 2008, Sara Lewis at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts and colleagues found out by peeping in the private lives of red flour beetles which scrounge in the pantry that they are able to locate males by homing in on airborne pheromones released by the male red flour beetles. What’s interesting is that even other males home in on males using the same route (Journal of evolutionary Biology, vol 22, p 60) The mounting male clambers on top of his quarry and extrudes his genitals, sometimes transferring sperm to the hind end of his partner. It seems that the results of the survey found that having been mounted by other males, the male red flour beetle then mated with a female. Few of the off springs of this union had come from males who had not copulated with the female, thus, adding to the survival of the fittest theory and not the sexual orientation theory.
Yet there is enough evidence in nature to prove that there is same-sex behavior in nature and Zuk and Bailey were intrigued that there might be common factors in these various theories. In Trends in Evolution and Ecology, vol 24, p 439, they explain that “first there are adaptive hypotheses, which provide an explanation for same – sex behavior that would boost the biological fitness of one or more of the individuals involved. For example, several species, including bottlenose dolphins seem to use same-sex behavior to promote social bonding. Others may have evolved them as a form of intra-sexual conflict. Indirect insemination, as in the flour beetle, provides a third possible adaptive advantage. Then there is the practice hypothesis, that individuals are honing their skills for mating which seems to hold true for male fruit flies at least.”
“Several other adaptive explanations have been invoked to explain same-sex behaviour in humans, including kin selection - helping to further the genes you share with close family members - and "over-dominance" - the idea that certain genes somehow increase fitness in individuals who possess a single copy of them but are associated with same-sex behaviour in people with two copies. Then there is "sexually antagonistic selection" - the idea that alleles promoting same-sex behaviour in men are favoured by selection because they increase the reproductive chances of their daughters.
There are also various non-adaptive explanations. Mistaken identity could indeed be one cause. Van Gossum's damselflies exemplify another idea, known as the prisoner effect, in which depriving individuals of interaction with the opposite sex prompts them to mate with members of their own sex. Then there is the evolutionary by-product hypothesis - selection for some other independent trait, such as high sexual responsiveness, might make individuals more likely to participate in same-sex sexual behaviour. It has also been suggested that same-sex behaviours appear when organisms are imperfectly adapted to their environment.”
However, these are only theories and already have strong opposition to some of these theories.
Even without further investigation of these hypotheses there is enough evidence to conclude that same-sex sexual behaviour has a wide variety of origins. Zuk and Bailey were also struck by the idea that evolutionary biologists have been missing an important piece of the puzzle. Regardless of why same-sex behaviour exists, if it is common enough, it is likely to affect social interactions within a population, change the behaviour of other individuals, and even nudge the evolution of other traits in a different direction. "Researchers have not studied the evolutionary consequences of same-sex behaviour, but we found some tantalising examples that suggest it might be worthwhile to do so," says Bailey.
Example 1: The desert locus. In the midst of this orgiastic chaos, males are sometimes mounted by other males, and so miss the opportunity to copulate with females or simply to feed. However, they can minimise the chances of this happening by releasing large amounts of a pheromone called phenylacetonitrile.
Example 2: The common toad. A male toad has to be persuasive to get a female to mate with him - in fact, he has to squeeze the eggs right out of her before he can fertilise them. Males accomplish this feat by embracing the object of their affection in a tight mating "hug" called amplexus. Sometimes, the male toad unable to distinguish the female from the male can go mount a male as well, prompting the male toad to pipe up with a special chirp which prompts the other male to 'get off me' .
Example 3: The Laysan albatross. “These large, graceful seabirds establish breeding colonies on islands in the Hawaiian archipelago, and recently it emerged that in the Oahu colony over 30 per cent of the nesting pairs consist of two females. Female-female pairings have been observed in other birds, such as California gulls and roseate terns, but never at quite such a high rate. What's more, Lindsay Young from the University of Hawaii found that many of the albatross female-female pairs remain faithful over several years. They engage in mutual preening and even occasionally copulation, and, like female-male pairs, each year they raise a single chick. Both females will have laid a fertilised egg and randomly shunted one aside (Biology Letters, vol 4, p 323).
Changing evolution
The fact that female same-sex bonds accounted for nearly a third of the breeding pairs in the Oahu colony makes for interesting population dynamics, according to Bailey and Zuk, and it prompts the question of what evolutionary consequences the colony might experience as a result. For instance, in colonies where females without a mate remain single, the male gains little by straying from his female partner. Even if he did fertilise the egg of a non-paired female it would not survive as it takes two adults to raise a single chick. In the Oahu colony, though, males that mate with females outside their long-term pair bond might gain an edge over those that do not. "So one evolutionary consequence to keep an eye out for in Laysan albatross populations that have high rates of female-female pairs is the evolution of males that spend more time copulating with females to whom they are not permanently bonded," says Bailey.
From the female perspective there are possible evolutionary consequences too. Consider the procedure for deciding which of the two eggs in a female-female partnership is incubated. It appears to be random: in a population with only opposite-sex pairs, females never need to distinguish their own eggs, so the ability to do so is unlikely to have evolved. But imagine if a genetic mutation arose in one member of a female-female pair that enabled her to distinguish her egg from that laid by her partner, says Bailey. "The mutation would probably spread through the population and tip the dynamics of female-female relationships more towards conflict rather than cooperation."
All this is hypothetical since same-sex behaviour has not been studied from this angle before. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the prevalence of female-female pairs in the Oahu colony changes the costs and benefits of traits such as extra-pair copulations for males and egg recognition for females. What's more, Bailey points out that the evolutionary consequences might reverberate way beyond this colony. That is because the excess of females in Oahu is a consequence of females having migrated in from elsewhere. By adopting same-sex parenting behaviour, female Laysan albatrosses could escape colonies with dwindling resources and reproduce even when the sex ratio in their adoptive colony is biased against them.
Whether or not same-sex behaviour is an important factor in evolution remains to be seen. "Given its persistence in species in many different animal groups, including humans, viewing it as an evolutionary force in its own right promises to provide a much richer understanding of the evolution of reproductive behaviour," Bailey says.
Courtsey: Homosexual Selection by Kate Douglas, NewScientist December 5, 2009
