Posted:
[quote=joie de vivre]Yes there are exceptions, and we're slowly but surely inching forward, and I'm not suggesting that we ape the West which is overexposed to sex, but we're still very reticent and uncommunicative about sex and there's still a very wide chasm between what we are and what is ideal (or rather, what's more conducive) that seems well nigh impossible to be bridged. Ironic, given India's population.
Do we need a sexual revolution of our own?
[/quote]
What you find ironic, I find a tad hypocritical.
I think it is disingenuous to state that pre-marital sex is a sin because it "undermines" the so-called "sanctity" of marriage while adding in the same breath that people whose marriages are arranged have the right to unlimited sexual access to their partner (esp at the "wedding night"). In the second scenario, not only is the "sanctity" violated, one also undermines the human nature of their partner because a) they don't know each other well enough for the sexual act to be anything more than a physiological function which, paradoxically, is the very criticism people who are against premarital sex often use and b) it seems to suggest that as long as two people are legally bound, their desires and wishes are secondary to the requirements of the social contract (marriage) they are bound to which undermines the intrinsic value of at least one of the partners. What further irks me is that marriage in India (or down South where I come from) is usually associated with financial stability of the male partner. That suggests to me that in some cases marriage = culturally-accepted exchange of sexual favours for money. There is absolutely no suggesstion of emotional intimacy or bonding. For me, that basically reduces marriage to a form of prostitution that is culturally accepted and promoted which makes it way worse than premarital sex. Wollstonecraft wasn't absolutely wrong all those years ago, was she?
Anyhow, to answer your question, I do think there needs to be some sort of sexual revolution - not to the same degree as say the Trobrianders which I think is a bit extreme given that children of ages seven and eight begin emulating adult seduction approach and start copulating by the age of twelve and thirteen but something that makes sex a more comfortable topic to discuss. It never ceases to surprise me how ignorant some 18+ year olds are about the carnal influence. Sex is sex. It's great whether you are doing it with the love of your life or someone you just met who happens to be attractive and flirtatious. The end result is practically the same: dopamine, endorphins and other feel-good chemicals rush throughout the system. Naturally, having an emotional bond helps but I do not think it is necessary as long as the two copulating are clear about what they expect to get out of having sex. While I understand the need to control sexual relations so that competition over sexual access doesn't create a disruptive atmosphere in society, it is ridiculous to repress a human being's most primitive desires so far as to turn them into something that is unacceptable unless certain conditions (such as marriage) are met. The message that seems to propogate is that it is okay to have sex only when it suits the society's beliefs.
The repression of sexuality is so ironic given the historical background of India that it isn't even funny any more. It was expected of well-bred men to know the Kama Sutra enough to please their wives or mistresses. As far as I know, the Ramayana and Mahabharata illustrate that respect and dignity were associated with the equivalent of a sex worker in those times. And then, there is explicitly sexual imagery on the walls of several Hindu temples e.g. the Lakshmana temple in Madhya Pradesh. Another interesting tidbit: In Sanskrit, India is called "Bharat". The Sanskrit name is derived from the legendary Bharata who was born from a premarital relationship between Shakuntala, a beautiful maiden, daughter of sage Kanva, and Dushyanta, a King. That they later married does not nullify their premarital relationship. So, at least prehistorically, puritanical modesty has never been a part of the Hindu culture (if not the entire Indian culture). During the colonial era, it was the British who brought with them the Victorian puritanism and ingrained it in so far that we began to unknowingly or knowingly integrate Victorian morality as part of our beliefs. That creates an ironically complex situation if you consider how reluctant people are to talk about sex today because they deem it against their culture/religion etc.
16