Age of Consent

What could be more hypocritical than denying the fact that the growing rate of adolescent sex among Indian teens over last two decades has been well documented in Indian media and other social agencies and then passing a Victorian bill to increase “age of consent” in order to create more confusion around decriminalization of sex among youngsters. The septuagenarian law makers of India are far from the social reality. If the bill on new “age of consent” passed by Union Cabinet last week is anything to be believed, then digest this: a boy of 17 having a consensual sex with her girlfriend of same age could be punished under “rape charges” of IPC because moving on the legal “age of consent” would be 18.

When most of progressive democracies across the world believe in the fact that 16 is the right age for consensual sex, the old, orthodox parliamentarians of India think completely otherwise. Where are we heading? Do our parliamentarians really understand the current social dynamics?

In a country like India, making antediluvian laws is another craze among law makers. When the rest of the world think progressively and live in the present, then why our leaders are so passionate about moving back to Victorian age? Either our leaders are too imbecilic to perceive the changing social attitudes towards sex or they are blatantly inhuman to criminalize teen sex.

With growing liberal attitudes towards sex across Western countries and to decriminalize LGBT sexual activities, the most advanced nations have revisited the statutory “age of consent” and most of them have reduced that magic age than increasing it. For example, in UK, Canada, Belgium, Holland, Norway, and some states of the USA, the age of consent is 16, and in Denmark, Greece, and Sweden, it's 15. And the most interesting fact that in Italy, the motherland of our UPA chairperson Ms Sonia Gandhi, the age of consent is 14.

What's more pathetic in Indian context that our law makers still refuse to acknowledge the glaring fact that teenagers not only explore or casually experiment, but also do really have sex and even sometimes do more than the adults do. Rather than imposing upon a moralistic or ethical view on sex and defining archaic, draconian laws, our law makers would try to read the current social reality and debug their purulent mindset before passing any law.

MSM Imbroglio

What's most pathetic and shocking that the health minister of our nation doesn't have an iota of knowledge about the glaring difference between a disease and a deliberate human choice, and in that reflects his century-old ignorance, which he, with all his constitutional capability, is trying to disseminate to public rather in a ludicrous manner. And before he could able to understand the scale of damage he has already created to his ministry and himself as well, the LGBT community, media, and public in general rebuffed to his intellectual bankruptcy.

Now the big question is what prompted Mr Azad to display his latent ignorance to the public at large? Why did he stated so categorically about “men having sex with men” is a practice of developed country and this is a “disease” and “unnatural” act which has finally found its place in India? What it indicates that Mr Azad is absolutely clueless about “homosexuality” and its social dynamics. He has rather lifted off the lid from his “Pandora's box” of infinite insanity.

And more interesting fact is that after this faux pas he again committed another outrageous blunder on a backtrack diplomacy, by stating that he was not supposedly talking about “MSM” as a disease, rather it was intended for “HIV”. What a crap? He doesn't even know HIV is not a disease, it's a virus. Why then with such bundle of ignorance in his mind he is still holding the post of health minister? This is the sordid state of political leadership in our country. Anybody can be a political leader and a minister as well irrespective of his or her education, knowledge, intelligence, and other necessary leadership skills, so long as he or she has mass followers because that's the only mandatory requirement in a democracy.

When the apex court of our country has already abrogated Section 377 two years back to decriminalize homosexuality, the health minister still lives in his cocoon of feudal mindset. Mr Azad certainly needs to unlearn his mental darkness and must take some lessons on sex education before going back to his job, else his portfolio is undoubtedly going to be shifted to some most desirable candidate in the next cabinet reshuffle.

Power, politics, and fiery passion

What's the common feature among Dominique Strauss-Kahn (IMF chief), Moshe Katsav (Former Israeli president), and Jacob Zuma (South African president)? They all are powerful politicians charged with sexual assault. So, why the most powerful people in the world seriously fall from grace when it comes to sexual morality? Do they think power can negotiate the indefensible? There is a larger context to the sexual escapades of high and mighty in the annals of history, but from a human psychological perspectives, the power or position of a person can't transform the hidden testosterone quotient to a more constructive force in human psyche for a person of higher moral order.

The sexual aberration in men springs from the very carnal nature of animal instinct, which can be compared with a scenario like a tiger attacking a lone deer. A tiger normally applies its bestial force to justify its position in jungle, without any fear for repercussion. Similarly, a powerful man always believes in his extended reach and weight of his position to counter the aftereffect. However, no powerful man can ever live in a state of illusion that his immoral act can be buried under his nose.

We are living in a civil society where any amount of social aberration can be frowned up and be rejected by people. A false sense of megalomania derived from one's position however exalted in a society can't override the basic legal framework. It's extremely unfortunate that the most powerful people in this world quite forget this obvious fact and always jump the line of fire. They must understand that their hidden passion is more visible when they grow up in ladder.

Perhaps, Dominique Strauss-Kahn may end up in jail for few years for his abnormal sexual misadventure and will even be barred from the next French presidential candidature, but that will not be an appropriate lesson for the herds of his category because powerful men with a high degree of immorality will always commit the same crime repeatedly and face the legal actions and forget that they ever had such misfortunes in their life. Poor immoral men, a matter of distorted testosterone complexity.

Public Figure: Private Life

Why has sexuality been the worst emotional vulnerability of the toughest mind? The history has its fair share of garrulous exposition of sexual escapades of many famous leaders of this world. Furores, disbelief, and sensational macabres strike the susceptible chord of a civil society when there is a breakthrough in the deadlocked personal calibration of public figures. Now the moot question is why the sexual habits of historic figures still matter to the collective consciousness of a progressive society? Is it the primordial instinct of a human being that triggers an erotic sensation in the mind or a Freudian tipover that raptures the grey zone of cerebral hemisphere in a response to the sexual misadventure of an influential personality in our society? No psychologist or sociologist in this world has a justified, veritable answer to that, but the facts remain, after millions of evolutions of human being, the basic desires, irrespective of class, position, power, and degree of success, have never been transformed. Perhaps, this is the secret that many famous authors and media persons have understood DNA by DNA and maneuver this technique repetitively while writing a piece on the private life of a public figure.

Let's understand the hypocrisy of these great authors who dissect the sexuality and morality of renowned public figures are equally vulnerable to these basic facets of life, and no one can deny that being famous is not a design of the womb. It's an amalgam of great conviction, indomitable courage, and enterprising nature that can metamorphose a common man to a famous personality.

Whether it's Joseph Lelyveld, a Pulitzer Prize winner, who recently wrote a book “Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and his Struggle with India; or Lothan Machtan, a famous German historian, who wrote “Hitler's Secret: The Double Life of a Ditator”; or Helen Rappaport, the author of “Conspirator: Lenin in Excite”, each one has a distinct perspective of private surreality of the lead character. But each narrative is exclusive in itself. How many readers really look into the brighter side of famous figures? In their mind still lies a spark of dormant inquisitiveness to delve into the secret satire through a predefined conduit, and this deepens the suppressed curiosity and ruptures the firewall of civility towards a voyeuristic journey.

Remember, these famous public figures are first a commoner and then by dint of their enterprising pursuits become renowned. There is no offense in being a human being and behave like that only. However, there is a bit confusion in the public perception that great personalities are less human and more godly, and this deformed view creates all confusion. Let's think beyond the private life of public figures, their vision, their endeavours, their leadership charisma, and their immense contribution towards the greater good of society at large. Then probably we can ignore such trivia and smaller details of human side.