Article 377.
Quite the rage now (literally--people are enraged). One of those wonderful quaint British Raj things --like a love for Wodehouse--that, I suppose, a powerful sense of nostalgia didn't allow us to change. How droll.
'Carnal intercourse against the order of nature'.
Since it's blatantly obvious that human sexuality is purely a product of nature (ages worth of established traditions of pornography, erotica and cults of sex as a power symbol--catamites, anybody?--as a means of seeking the spiritual and above all, as a means of celebrating pure pleasure notwithstanding), and that 'carnal intercourse' is a very identifiable term (remember when you saw it mentioned in--wait, you wouldn't have if you were reading anything written later than the 19th century), the phrase makes perfect sense in today's accursed times, what with girls running amok, wearing skirts and getting raped and all.
Let us assume that intercourse becomes unnatural when it is: a)Not aimed at procreation and b) Non-consensual.
So any intercourse involving contraception is unnatural.
The original proponents of said gyan -the Church- are on the verge of 'reconsideration'.
But why, really? It makes perfect sense!Why do we need birth control in India anyway?
See, only if we stand strongly against all this queer-weer stuff will our sanskar be upheld and all. This 377 thing is solid only. Why you want to change?
A far more articulate and sensible rant may be found at The Indian Economist.
Quite the rage now (literally--people are enraged). One of those wonderful quaint British Raj things --like a love for Wodehouse--that, I suppose, a powerful sense of nostalgia didn't allow us to change. How droll.
'Carnal intercourse against the order of nature'.
Since it's blatantly obvious that human sexuality is purely a product of nature (ages worth of established traditions of pornography, erotica and cults of sex as a power symbol--catamites, anybody?--as a means of seeking the spiritual and above all, as a means of celebrating pure pleasure notwithstanding), and that 'carnal intercourse' is a very identifiable term (remember when you saw it mentioned in--wait, you wouldn't have if you were reading anything written later than the 19th century), the phrase makes perfect sense in today's accursed times, what with girls running amok, wearing skirts and getting raped and all.
Let us assume that intercourse becomes unnatural when it is: a)Not aimed at procreation and b) Non-consensual.
So any intercourse involving contraception is unnatural.
The original proponents of said gyan -the Church- are on the verge of 'reconsideration'.
But why, really? It makes perfect sense!Why do we need birth control in India anyway?
See, only if we stand strongly against all this queer-weer stuff will our sanskar be upheld and all. This 377 thing is solid only. Why you want to change?
A far more articulate and sensible rant may be found at The Indian Economist.
No comments:
Post a Comment