It's not about sex

"If we are accepting pre-marital sex, we are making youths cannibals"
 
"It should stopped, no debate required"
 
"Yeh vaishyavratti hai... videsh se layi gayi gandagi hai. "


These are just a few of the comments SMS'd by viewers which scrolled on the NDTV India ticker during a heated debate on Pre Marital Sex. 

A topic that suddenly became all the more topical with Khushboo's views being attacked and poor Sania Mirza getting dragged into the controversy.

Approximately 40% of NDTV India's viewers appeared violently opposed to the very idea of pre-marital sex, while 60% opined it was an individual choice. Pooja Bhatt, summing up "pro" view, said: "Main apne vichaar aap par nahin thop rahi hoon - toh aap apne vyavhaar mujh par kyun thopna chahte hain."

Let me be free to hold my views - you are free to hold yours. And herein lies the crux of the issue.

It's not about sex, really. And it's not a cut and dried Indian Sanskriti vs Western culture kind of debate either. We are a society in transition. People - and young people in particular - are redefining their personal value systems and the Old Order is feeling threatened.

A decade ago, the 'hip' young Indian was like a Michael Jackson, desperately trying to be White. But we've evolved since then and realised aping the West is uncool.

Someone once coined the term 'coconut' to describe young people of 'Asian' descent in the UK. Meaning they were Brown from the Outside but White from the Inside.

A similar generation of 'coconuts' now exists in India. These are young people who will embrace Indian food, Indian clothes, Indian music. The external and interesting paraphernalia of our culture are gladly accepted.

However the "white on the inside" bit is about being increasingly individualistic. About deciding what is wrong or right for oneself. So in the case of pre-marital sex what most 'coconuts' believe is not that it is inherently right or wrong, but that it is for each person to decide.

On the other hand you have the White from the Outside but Brown from the Inside brigade. Let's call them 'cappucinos'. On the surface they have adopted certain 'Western' things - they will happily wear jeans, not dhotis and wolf down pizzas and burgers.

But beneath the layer of white foamy froth, they are deeply "brown".

In such a value system, the writ of Society or 'samaaj' prevails over an individual choices and desires. And it's not just about pre-marital sex. It's also about who you should marry (ideally someone from your own caste), when you should marry (preferably around 25, definitely by 30!), having children ("arre, shaadi ko do saal ho gaye - koi issue nahin hai?) and so on and so forth.

Whose life is it anyways
The whole debate about pre-marital sex, for example, does not take into account the idea that some people may not want to marry. Or maybe they do but only if they meet the 'right' person and not because they are past their 'sell by' date.

Must such a person promise to remain celibate all their life? "Underage" sex and pre-marital sex are thus not one and the same thing.

And clearly, many of the young people who - in theory - support pre-marital sex aren't necessarily doing it 'without thinking'. At least, they're waiting for the right time, place and person.

According to the Durex Sex Survey 2009 Indians lost their virginity at an average age of 19.8 years as compared to 17.3 years (the average age when people had sex for the first time worldwide).

Another pertinent question in the Indian context may be how many people choose to remain virgins until they marry. These could include both the 'coconuts' and the 'cappucinos'. But the two may make their choices for different reasons.

Coconuts may not have sex before marriage but reserve the right to do, should they meet someone special. The other brigade will, on principle, not have anything to do with 'sex before marriage'.

Sex Surveys
All three major news weeklies (India Today, Outlook and The Week) have annual sex surveys. So do the likes of Durex.

A few points to note - the Durex survey was apparently done through the durex.com website which means it was not a random sample representative of the general population

Then there's the the touching belief that people will answer questions about their sex life correctly. I have my doubts, although the stats regarding India are conservative enough to sound 'real', unlike the surveys by Indian magazines!

Globally, people have had an average number of nine sexual partners. The Turks have had more partners than any other country (14.5), Indians have had the fewest sexual partners (3)

But I also wonder what 'losing one's virginity' means to Indians. Would it necessarily mean going all the way?

I ask this because the term 'proposal' has its own strange connotation. A college student saying "He proposed me" is not about getting married. It's agreeing to be someone's steady gf/bf and go to the movies!

Similarly, there would be plenty of young people who will kiss and cuddle but don't 'go all the way'. In fact the Brown on the Inside brigade will often do everything "but that" and justify to themselves that "I didn't actually do it".

Oh man, there is something seriously wrong with people who think they can abuse a lady because she decided to speak her mind. We need more women like Khushboo (never really enjoyed her movies, but there you go, people surprise you). What friggin law did she break, by the way, that landed her in jail? Shame on the people (the women, especially) who threw garbage at her. To think that a country with some world-class eroticism is in it's heritage would end up in such a sad state of sexual repression. Indians are human too, you know, we have the same needs as anyone else!

I am not sure if it as simple as having a choice and exercising it although, that is not the intent, its more like realist, I would say there really is no choice unless you really really dont care two hoots. Its just a fact. Which you cant overlook. It is a testimonial which at the very least stamps you as being of reasonably good character. Even if we consider an open-minded person so to say, it will still rankle him, especially if he himself has been chaste. Besides, how do you think this works? If you know that you are going to wait forever for the right guy, and your definition of a right guy includes someone who would be objective about this, then good for you. But if unfortunately (or maybe not), you have to go through the rigours of an arranged marriage, when exactly is the right time to tell? During the first meeting, certainly not I would say. During courtship, when you could risk ruining it when all the other logistics seemed to be in place? On the first night- so that you could boast of a 24 hour marriage too? Or some time later on- which could leave you both feeling bitter forever? Or probably never- and risk him finding out through other means, so that you have a la Astitva? Isn't just not 'doing it' so much the easier? In short- my point is I dont know of too many men who would be objective about this, while women might find it just a wee bit easier to forgive because first, they are less likely to find out(!), second they are more likely to consider a host of other factors before calling it off (for their own sake!). And I am not just talking about the average reasonably educated housewife, I am also including the well-educated, can-stand-on-our-own-feet kind of women.

As for the brouhaha over premarital sex, I want to people to ask themselves, one question: Who invented marriage? My answer is simply, mankind. If you agree with me, you must also agree that like all other creations of man, marriage, too is for mankind's convenience and must remain so.

Isn't it ironic that while our society not just sanctions but encourages marriage without/before love, it will get easily disgusted by an expression of love where love actually exists, simply because it is without/before marriage, a man-made convenience.If one disagrees with the premise that marriage was invented by mankind, the only other possible creator could be God. 

We, as humans express our feelings by various means. Sex should be ideally an expression of love, when there is no love, there cannot be a perfect sexual relationship, leave alone the question of Premarital or Postmarital. When one indulges in sexual activity without a pure heartly love for his/her mate, it is inferior to human nature, or rather it would be animalistic. Remember that love finds way beyond sex, it is not love which contains itself in boundaries of this body-mind complex. So in the context of many ancient Indian systems, sex comes in way of ideal love, and lovers pass that phase to find permanent union, which does not require physical union. I hope, it was simple. but simple is the word love. Just start loving somebody, try to be true and you will find you expand yourself beyond limitations, and in that ectasy touches the infinite.

The fact of the matter is this: you are free to exercise your will as long as it does not interfere with someone else’s will. No one likes their free will insulted. Nether can anyone promote anything nor can anyone stop anything. Things are happening. People believe and do what they want to believe and do.

If people debate that thing A is bad, note that people will stop doing it. If people propose thing B is good note that all people will start doing it. Everyone knows what’s good for them. Everything is cyclic. Waves come and go. Things happen to pass. People believe something then they forget. Civilizations rise to fall. Liberals want to become conservative, conservatives want to become liberal.

Parallel you might want to check out the book A Return to Modesty by Wendy Shalit. There are some good insights here towards American values possibly returning to a more conservative focus one day.
Sex is a confusing issue for kids today. A lot of young teens do it to be accepted in their peer group, to be popular or for a variety of other reasons, almost none of which involve 'sex' at all. It's sad and must be confusing for parents trying to deal with it. The point is, you can't ban it away. You can't parade outside an actresses house and hope it helps.

We should recognize that curiosity is normal and provide education on what sex is, and what are good reasons for having sex and what are bad reasons for it. I read a handout given out in school once that said "Don't do it if the two of you cannot laugh about elbows knocking and funny noises".

Should Indian culture be Pro or Anti premarital sex. If pre-marital sex is a personal choice then once married should the girl tell her husband about her having slept with 3 men before sleeping with him now. If the man has never experimented before what would be his reaction? Do you think that this marriage will last?" It might last, depends on the chemistry between the two. I am sure she would want to reveal that (if she will anyway) much before they go to bed together). I guess if the man can't accept that - they will not marry. Otherwise atleast the fact that she slept with four others should not be the reason for broken marriage. Or do you think she should keep it a secret all through her life-what happens if the man comes to know of it mid-way. Same is with the male counterpart.

Who said marriage is not about sex-it may not be ONLY about sex but sex is definitely an important part of marriage. Sex is imortant for a healthy married life. And if there is no sex one can well be sure that there is an extra marital relationship cooking somewhere. Marriage without a healthy sex life is sure of meeting the dead end and if it was not about why would he have the first night right on the first night-cant it wait?

I feel that we have people of all kinds-there are people who lie and people who are honest-it is their choice. But what is right-being honest isn't it? similarly some people may feel that pre-marital sex is okay, some may say it is not okay-they can have individualistic views. But then still -pre-marital sex is not the right thing. "We are increasingly becoming intolerant to the idea of tolerance..."

Not really, it is just that more debate is being generated and the number of people voicing their opinion has increased due to the increase in avenues. Pre-marital sex always existed in India and it exists as of today. It is just that we have begun talking about it now. Thanks to the socialist style of Nehruvian governance, we have been fed a load of BS in a single direction. Now that the communication is getting bi-directional, certain sections are feeling the pressure.

As we go through this debate, it is important to realize that it is a privilege to be able to "protest" and not merely a right. For example, our Kaumi bretheren order a Bharat Bandh as and when they feel an itch in their loins. Try protesting in one of the many Sharia/Communist adminsitered countries and see how it goes.
The discussion of Pre-Marital sex being good/bad/right/wrong is based on the assumption that Marriage is about sex. Is It?

How ironic, that in the country that wrote the book on sex, we cannot have a mature & intelligent discussion without classifying it into mindset categories of Coconuts & Capuccinos. Expected a much much more mature outlook from the people.

It is infact about sex as sex and religion are two of the most politically sensitive issues in our country or any country for that matter... All of us seem to have our own version of rights and wrongs about sex and god and we just cant accept any other point of view...


Someone wise had said, "Humans are the only set of people who can justify whatever they do or do not do." Look around and see how Americans are justifying wars, how Indians are justifying torture in Kashmir and the Naxalite affected areas, how Sania justified what she said, how the Hindus justify going 'saat samundar paar' so frequently and not doing 'shudhikaran' even once. So, when Khushboo said what she had to , she could justify it and so did the other set of people. The point which matters is whether there is going to be any difference in the society or the government . No!Except that at the TV Studios and the press conferences, no one is seriously making an effort to educate the Indians about the sex (I meant sex education:)), HIV prevention ,etc etc.

The moderates and the liberals can be either the coconuts or the capuccinos. I have seen the 're-avtar-isation' of a liberal into a radical and vice versa, when they face situattions. A very dear uncle of mine became a hindu zealot overnight, while his son (M.Tech and Phd from IIT) wanted to marry a Christian dalit ( IIM Bangalore passout), who earlier advocated such intermingling of races and intercaste marriages.
So, it is good that we discuss, but it is very hard to comprehend the realty when the individual faces it in the face.

True, dunno what's the hullaboo all about. As if Khusboo or Sania's stamp would make the youth go ahead with it!! Besides being a very very personal choice, it also highlights the 'pseudo libealisation' of the Indian mindset. True liberalization would have arrived when each one was free to say what he/she wants to. And no, I dont think it'll 'erode our values'.

Getting back to the original issues raised by Khushboo. It's not about advocating what's right or wrong but just acknowledging that people do have sex before marriage - even in India. So if you have made that decision, be safe about it. Better safe, than sorry!

P.S. Please, no Khushboo style protests to this post! On my part, I won't be making any Sania style retractions.