Sex Lives and Stereotypes

The sexual revolution never came to Pakistan. And yet, as someone on this site pointed out, 'you see sex everywhere
around the place' here. It's true you know, all they say about pedophilia and incest and the rest of the 'sex crimes' that
the Western media and the mind seems to be obsessed with lately. Problem is, in 'backward' Pakistan, as in many of the
'uncivilized' and primitive Polynesian and African cultures until very recently, much of what earns the opprobrium of
the moral watchdogs -and by way of insidious, integrative propaganda, the general (unthinking/unknowing)
population- simply doesn't pass as 'sex'.

Now this may seem a perfectly silly contention to the late twentieth century (or any time in the past 200 years) Western
mind. How can acts even involving the genitals be considered anything but sexual? Resisting the temptation to reply
"Just ask Monica and Billy," allow me hazard a slightly more serious opinion: I think that sex just doesn't exist here. In
the sense that Human Rights don't. That is, as a somewhat independent 'area' of thought and experience. Now, insofar as
it is fatuous to consider that we don't care about the rights (whatever we deem them to be) of humans because we don't
make a big hoohaa about the Human Rights movement, it stands valid. (The parallel is admittedly limited, since
ensuring that all people can exercise their rights is a major problem here)

The point? The realm of Practice is quite independent of its 'scientific' categorization (read 'cutting, extrapolating &
distorting'). Humans always has and always will engage in 'Sexual' activity, no matter how the theorists choose to
define it. And it wasn't invented with -and doesn't change with- it's definition and re-definition.

"Sexuality", as an independent area or concept, is an 18th century invention (or categorization anyway), the origins of
which are linked more to the birth of capitalism than to morality. To anyone about to jump up shouting "You can't be
serious; the Bible and Quran address sexual matters all the time!" let me explain: Recent theological scholarship has
made it, in my estimation, abundantly clear that, for the most part, when the Bible and the Quran talk about "sexual"
matters, they are addressing property-rights issues (you know, the usual "Thou shall not do your neighbour's wife.
What has God/Allah given you concubines for?" stuff); or those of cleanliness - (y'know, the "don't do even your wife
when on the chums, (even if she might enjoy it more then)" bit). 'The original Hebrew and Greek have no word for
"sex/sexuality" (as may be quickly confirmed by noting that the King James and other older translations have not a
single reference to "sex" or "sexuality"). "Strictly speaking, it doesn't even have a word to say about 'sex'". For a
scholarly discourse on the subject, I invite the reader to visit www.othersheep.org

The 'globalization of sexuality', incomplete and diverse as it, is having an interesting effect on practice and mores both
East and West. Somewhat like the anonymous (and blissfully ignorant) pathan quoted in a piece on homosexuality in
"The Herald" some years ago, ("we consider this perfectly acceptable- Allah has forbidden only sex with other
women") we are going about one the one hand, trying to define what exactly constitutes sex, and on the other, trying to
find ground for expression of our (read 'the majority's') preferences into the framework. That about sums up the Sexual
Revolution, I think. It wasn't (it's over anyway) so much about starting to see sex in a more positive light (except maybe
for the Flower Power people, but we all know they're moral garbage, don't we?) as it was about grudgingly legitimizing
some theretofore 'deviant' sexual practices and orientations. I say grudgingly because this was, I believe, a tolerance, an
'openness', not born of freedom of choice but of a depletion of it. Political Correctness and demanded that
discrimination against gays and lesbians be stopped - or not be given legitimacy anyway.

A 'tolerance' forced upon a still largely unchanged collective mindset was, however, bound to have intolerance as
fallout. Sex, per se, was still not something viewed as wholly positive and still needed some justification beyond itself.
Only the range of what was permissible widened: homosexuality came to be tolerated, while heterosexuality (though
still only in the monogamous setting) was given a new license. But nothing is ever won without a price, and the cost of
whatever freedom the Gay Rights movement earned was paid-and is still being paid heavily-by the those on the still
farther fringes of sexual practice: Pederasty, despite its long and sometimes revered tradition in history, became the new
target of Western demonology (witness its growing obsession with the death of the old demon - Communism), made
synonymous with child molestation, and to be denounced under any and all circumstances. Polygamy, always taboo,
truly came under the sword now, while S&M, fetishes and incest won renewed scorn. Even gayness, which, while in the
closet, had expressed what it truly meant to be creative and spontaneous, came in line with the dictates of the ideological
Right: monogamy and 'equal rights' were in; drag, freedom and generally creative expression out.

While sexual minorities were fighting for their admittedly legitimate rights in America, in Pakistan, as I suspect in
most 'less developed' places, "sex" of every conceivable deviant nature happened at the 'normal' rate. Without the
erotophobic (and more specifically, homophobic) mechanism working overtime here, boys and young men rubbed more
than just shoulders, men played sexual games (and more) with boys, girls in hostels did, well, what you'd expect girls in
hostels to do, and older women exploited the Oedipal instincts of their Graduates quite well (all the 'male domination'
in this society notwithstanding.) Sex happened in the way anthropologists report it 'normally' (naturally?) happened in
societies that Western religious influence had not brought Salvation (precious few today). Only, it wasn't really sex; it
was simply doing what was pleasurable. The 'sex' was often incidental to any loving, diffused with other
emotional/physical sensation. The love/lust dichotomy wasn't as clear as it is to the late twentieth-century mind. (In
fact, I suspect they'd have looked upon love as a corruption of lust!). Pleasurable feelings were not bad in themselves,
and there was no reason why one should keep oneself from enjoying them in whatever setting.

Of course, where greater 'awareness' had reached 'sex' had be rationalized out: 'Masturbation (mutual or otherwise)
isn't really sex, is it?, 'Are non-penetrative acts sex?' 'Well, even if they are, does this apply to same-sex situations?'
(If this sounds silly to Western eyes, just consider for a minute that the US President used the same defense - on CNN!
It had to have had some credibility with some segment of the population although I'm not aware what the polls showed.)

While I don't wish to deny the existence of child sexual abuse in Pakistan, I think if we were to strip the issue of its
hysteria and of the "child-innocence" myth, we might find that it (actual abuse as opposed to consensual sex) occurred a
lot less than the Human Rights activists - and the BBC - would have us believe. (Isn't it funny how abuse, in general,
was overlooked for so long, until coupled with 'sex'?) Such a statement is likely to stir up strong feelings in many a
reader, for despite Freud, Kinsey and a half-century of well-researched data 'proving' the sexuality of children, the
suggestion that they are sexual beings -and in more than just a theoretical sense!- still amounts to setting oneself up for
crucifixion. But pedophilia (OED: "sexual love for children") merits a separate article - nay book - so I'll drop that at
that.

Actually, I suspect that since in places like less-urbanized, less (sexually) 'ideologized' reaches of Pakistan, where the
more 'deviant' sexual practices commonly find expression, one factor that encourages theses practices are the lack of
sexual identities ("gay", "straight", "bi", "pedo" etc.). It's almost, to quote Frued, a 'child-like, diffused sexuality',
uninhibited by definitions and categories. So, the young man about to be married in a week thinks nothing of resting his
head on the crotch of his male friend in the park in broad daylight. And young men are under no illusions about what
they want from their play-wrestling. It's not that it's not sexual; just that it's not taboo. It's a natural, valid expression
of camaraderie, even of (eek!) intimacy. Whatever erotic feelings are aroused are not extractable from the emotional.
There is no body/heart dualism here, no need to separate the flesh from the heart or mind.

Of course, any sophisticated enough person -the sexpert comes to mind- knows that this is nothing but evidence of
arrested development. Haven't they got all these things worked out perfectly? (Worked to fit the ideology of the day,
that is - never mind that this is one 'science' in which empirical data is most conspicuous by its absence.)

Alas, as Pakistani society careens towards the West, sexual "identities" are taking more definite shape, and with that, the
accompanying stereotyping and ostracizing. And the denial. And for many, silent misery and unfulfilled (or
unconscious) longings. Avenues once wide open are cruelly shut out, happinesses once enjoyed now sources of guilt. The
new Sex Ideology dictates what one may and may not feel and think. My fifteen-year-old pupil finds out from his peers
that he's queer for wanting to embrace me when it's not even Eid. (And I'm a 'pervert' because I find him so cute I'd
like to kiss him full on his lips.) It's okay for the girls though (God knows being the weaker types, they need each
others' support!).

But perhaps worst of all, we are borrowing all these baggaged concepts without whatever little saving grace Political
Correctness may ironically offer. We've bought the lion but don't have a cage for it. Bisexuals in Pakistan (read "almost
everyone") afraid of their own now 'deviant' side, heap scorn on those too self-respecting, or to tired, to have the
ideologically correct preferences. Hence the gays, the sex-workers, the transvestites - anyone straying from the
prescribed 'natural' order of things - enjoy a new level of ignominy - sanctioned and packaged. Of course, their
services will continue to be solicited, just so long as we remind ourselves that we are not they. 'We' will continue to
derive voyeuristic pleasure from 'their' portrayal in the media. Capitalism will continue to exploit the repressed libido
this has created, through cleverly subliminal (and recently more conscious-witness the Calvin Klein ads) advertising.
The overt message however must prevail that the beast is 'out there' in 'them'; not within 'us'.

Well, 'they' can forget about their Rights for a long time to come. The new Millenium is here, and the nineteenth
century has finally taken over the world.