Sex Lives and Stereotypes

re krashid #71 from the The Day When God Died board...

You say...

``Let me quote you directly from Koran, so that you know it is not Gammorh etc.``

First, Mr Rashid, I am not questioning WHAT the Quran says on the matter. I have never debated whether or not the Quran prohibits homosexuality.

In my post #63 I simply stated that BIBLICAL -- not Quranic -- scholarship has established that homosexuality was quite incorrectly inferred as the sin referred to in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (which incidently, *is * where Lot/Lut lived and was rescued from -- perhaps the Quran does not mention this, but the Torah/Bible clearly does).

As for Lut being a messenger, well... it seems like Messenger status was accorded everyone from Adam to Alexander, so I wouldn`t take the authenticity of the story from that source too seriously anyway -- but that`s another matter.

Still, I agree with you that the Quran is unambiguous on the question of what today we would call homosexuality. However, if you`ve read any Arab history at all(or world history for that matter), you would know that this thing about boys coexisted alongside normal `heterosexual` relations and was not regarded as what we today call the homosexual orientation. Or perhaps even homosexual behaviour. You must understand that sexual `orientation` as self-identidy is a twentieth century invention (maybe nineteenth). Do you think the Pathans in the Northern areas of Pakistan consider themselves anything but `heterosexual` even as they `keep` boys for extra pleasure in addition ot their wives?

Anyway, getting along...In your quote...

(7:80) ``And We sent Lut as a Messanger: Remember that he said to his people, ``Have you become so shameless that you commit such indecent acts as no one has committed before you? You gratify your lust with men instead of women: indeed you are a people who are transgressors of all limit!``

First, it is laughable to suggest that these acts were not committed `before you`. Anthropolology reveals that men have enjoyed men in bed much before the time of Lut (aboout 800 BCE). But that is beides the point.

I think the opreative word in the verse is ``INSTEAD`` (of women). In any primitive society, `exclusive` homosexuality would naturally be condemned as a threat to stability of the structure of that society. Remember, we are talking about times when their was no concept whatsoever of the INDIVIDUAL and his/her `rights`. People were all simply constituents of all-important society and the rightness or wrongness of a behaviour was determined mainly by its effects on societal interests.

Well... so much for my spin on the meaning of the verses.. I could be wrong. I agree it`s bit far-out, but I have not yet come across a better theory to account for the apparent contradiction between this anti-`homosexuality` stance and 76:18 (or was it 78:16?)

Ah yes... it is that verse, coming right after the mention of pretty white houris that you accuwe me of mistranslating and ``giving a menaing of your choice ``

You say..

``But historically Ghulam or slaves were prized for their built and beauty. For example Joseph was sold for the same reason.``

Yes indeed he was. Now, tell me, do you think these primitive nomads wanted beautiful boys (slaves or otherwise) to have their painters paint portraits of them to frame and hang over their fireplaces? Or perhaps to commission Michaelangelo to sculpt?

Krashid, please don`t be so naive... The Arabs love/d their boys every bit as UNABASHEDLY as their women... which is why they were allowed four plus `that on their right hand`. There was no shame or vice as such accorded to sex per se, as found in Christianity and more recently transferred to Islam. It was only sex that destabilised the social structure (or ANY such behaviour for that matter) that was denounced.

So relax. I`m not bashing Islam. In this case, not even finding any fault with it.(Though I hasten to add that I do not endorse the idea of having either houris or boys solely for men`s pleasure here on earth!). My intention in bringing this whole affair up in the first place was to show that `vices` we think are new products of the decadent West have been around a long, long time.

regards,

PM

Regarding M. Faisal and

``that was clearly below the belt..``

Accepted. Sorry. It`s just that it seemed you were into overkill. Maybe it`s just my own insecurities...

At any rate, please accept my apologies. No hard feelings (anymore)

Patrick

Regarding Mona and

``Just b/c it is consensual does not mean it is not sexual abuse?? why should children be sexualized or looked at as sexual beings?``

Dear Mona,

I was wondering how/why no one had brought up the issue so long. It`s something I`d like to enter debate over. Alas, time just does not permit at the moment, but keep checking these postngs weekly.

Regards,

PM

Mr. PM (pun intended)

Unfortunately, the debate following your excellent piece got completely hijacked along a tertiary tangent. Though I have neither the time nor the inclination to butt heads with those who take you to task and split hairs while failing to appreciate your fundamental points, I must say that your writing style is wonderful and your point about there being no `hundred percenters` is on the dot. The strong reaction seen against this rather casual comment (that most people have the `potential` to go either way -- or both ways, for that matter), as another responder suggested earlier, is perhaps an index of the, if I may be allowed to coin the phrase, autohomophobia amongst our cyber cohabitants.

Happily, this debate is about to be pushed back into the deep innards of the Chowk, away from the Main Page, which, it seems, is the only place that holds people`s attention. Thus, if these remarks stir up any hornets` nests, the tempest will be short lived.

Once again, enjoyed your style and found your point of view most amusing.

...SR

RE Patrick:

``If I didn`t know better (do I?) I`d say you were making some pretty irrational, even mildly bigoted, leaps off my pseudonym.``

Dear P, that was clearly under the proverbial belt.

Maybe my excess-in-citations has overshadowed the notion I was haplessly trying to bring forth. The propensity of modern western thought is to include in its axiomatic reference the traditions of Middle Eastern / Western religions or civilizations mostly (Even then it has undermined post Ghizalian Islamic thought, but maybe that is a socio-political debate). Most of their subjects and paradigms become independent areas of study in this regard- we clearly celebrate Heidegger`s `Dasien,` his action and inaction paradox, or Focault`s foundation of Madness in modern science, or his understanding of the order of elements in the known universe, as the self-referential in the new man/woman. However, western scholastic has disregarded the traditions of the Orient (India especially included) in its thought. And looking at these other philosophies, my contention is that Sex DID exist as an independent area of study before the 18th century. Now, I think, you can use my references.

``in quoting the Bible and Quran I was merely driving home this point...`` I was only trying to debate the validity of the range of your frame of reference by asking you to step outside of them.

I love them all- Focault, Derrida and Blanchot. But...

Hum sukhan fehm haiN, Ghalib kay tarafdar nahiN.

Regards,

Faisal

the question of sexual preference, sex object choice or sexual identity always gets somewhere in the age old and -frankly- unresolvable debate of nature vs. nurture... but what strikes me as more interesting is the direct and insidious role of the state in disciplining all different forms of behaviour that is deemed deviant. how the state tries to enforce a `natural` order by arresting people for acting on their natural impulses. this is true in most countries...whether they claim to be ``sexually liberated`` or not...

ironically the separation of sexes in some countries like Pakistan, leads to another form of sexuality which can`t realy be categorized as `bisexuality` as understood in the west. i have a few friends from Karachi who tell me that it was easier for them to pick up other men in Karachi for casual sex than here in New York or Toronto -where they are based now-. In Karachi, it was still possible to gently flirt or be physical with other men straight or not (as if you can always tell) one could simply take a mini-bus & use the cramped space to one`s advantage or meet at a certain spot on the beach. many of the men they met were either single or the ones who had moved to the city they had almost no immediate access to women. In effect these men who identified themselves as being straight (for the lack of a better word) had no qualms about engaging in homo-sex acts as long as they weren`t being penetrated.

---i.e the plurality of sexual expression in different cultures, and the evolution of sexual expression throughout history shows that there are many contingent factors that inform the psychic and social realities of people, hence sexuality is indeed a continuum of differing desires and differing tastes.

*b4 someone else tells me i think i did the very thing that i set out to criticize.

re: Slink and

``I`m waiting for patrick and zehra to add more chlorine before i jump``

Shucks, Shandana, I was hoping it wouldn`t come to this! I didn`t intend a treatise on bisexuality (or any form of sexuality-- my article`s focus being on the affective results of a political correctness), and the last thing I would want to appear as would be a `sexpert`. But having at least partly opened this can of worms, perhaps I`m compelled to clarify:

Obviously, as Mohammad Faisal said, it means something different to different people. I`d even say i use it to mean different things at different times becasue the (English) language is so limited here.

Where to begin? Let me answer some of your (hee hee, rhetorical) queries:

`...living in this country {pakistan},if you touch someone of the same sex purposely are you frustrated, lesbian or bisexual?`

Zehra`s already done a fine job with that one. Answering, that is.

`...if you desire someone of the same sex are you bisexual or curious?`

Who knows? ``desire`` is as ambiguous a word as ``sexual``. We could run in circles here. U COULD ask yourself, ``did I feel the same `curiosity` w.r.t the other sex at some point, or is this different?`` Who knows, you might discover, like myself, that you`re not really bi, just gay.

`are all the men in parks and on the streets holding hands bisexual or expressing emotion in any way they know how?`

Obviously, not all.

Let me tell u where I`m coming from idealogically (who coined that neat word, anyway?): I think - and certainly if we were to take a historical perspective on this I`d be in the good company of the Ancient Greek, Medeival European, and Eternal Arab (not to mention any number of `primitive` peoples) - hell, almost all of humankind up to the 18th century! - that we`re ALL bisexual i.e, attracted or potentially attracted (-able?) to both sexes. In fact the Greeks and Arabs probably have a more homoerotic tradition than otherwise. I should mention that, for the most part, we`re talking only about the `real` people in these civilizations-- men, that is. Lets ask Mohammad Faisal

to enlighten us on how women`s sexuality was viewed generally (no kidding).

AS for ``expressing emotion in any way they know``, I don`t know that there`s a clear line between `sexual` and `non-sexual` emotions, especially when physicality is brought in. There are many who`d argue (respected `experts` included) that all forms of affectionate physicality, even that between parent and child, have a sexual element. (I`ll provide references if you ask me to). of coure, this isn`t at all shocking if sex isn`t a four-letter word.

Sorry if I haven`t provided a straight-forward answer. I haven`t one.

Go ahead, belly flop, dear. But I`d rather like to dry off now. (Can`t stand this wetness for too long)

Patrick

re M. Faisal and

``Staying away from theology and middle-eastern religions, please refer to the history/philosophies of the subcontinent before you make such intellectually impotent (Freudian paradox?) comments.``

and

``I would recommend that you step outside the bible. But if we were to remain in Christian history, what about sects like the Basilian gnostics? As I said earlier, do more research.``

With reference to the first quote, as I`ve already said, I was in no way implying that sex and eroticism didn`t exist before the 18th century--the point at which, in my still-Focultian viewpoint, it became an INDEPENDENT SUBJECT FOR THE MORALISTS. In quoting the Bible and Quran I was merely driving home this point (stating that the ``sex`` laws had more to do with issues of property rights and `cleanliness` than with what we post-moderns would consider sexual morality)

Your first implication that I suffered from a biblical myopia was excused, as was the consequent terming of my (misunderstood) comments as ``intellectually impotent``. However, in again recommending that I ``step outside the bible`` (as if I had ever stepped into it -- again, the result of the misinterpretation of my statement that `I could quote some pretty steamy stuff even from the bible`-- Freudian Projection? Or maybe old fashioned stereotypification?) you exhibit an uncanny propensity for misunderstanding - for someone of your obviously considerable intellect, anyway. Or do you exercise that intellect exclusively for the literary equivalents of name-dropping and nit-picking?

If I didn`t know better (do I?) I`d say you were making some pretty irrational, even mildly bigoted, leaps off my pseudonym.

Regards,



Patrick

Re: Shandana

I knew Shariq had a sister, but did not know the name, so I asked. I went to School with him at UT Austin. He was still there when I graduated, since then, I have lost touch with him and the rest of the boyz - Rizwan and Bilal. Would you have a contact number or an e-mail address of him? I would appreciate it if you could e-mail that to me (morpheous@earthlink.net).

And I think I remember you; you used to wear glasses I think, back in 90. But that is too far back. May the earth open up and swallow that damned peela school.

Regards,

Faisal

fair enough slink...actually this will be good to facilitate the discussion. so let me define the terms as i am using them :)

`please give a definition of bisexuality?`

the definition i am using is not one that i have found any sort of a consensus on by mainstream lesbians or those of color. everyone argues as to what defines a bisexual person. basically it is somone who finds both sexes attractive. to some extent i could be bisexual becuase i find women attractive. but since i am not able to function with them sexually i am not bisexual. sex is the key component, in my opinion for the defintion of bisexual. Many gays and lesbians look down upon bisexuals because of the fact that they are on both sides of the fence.

living in this country {pakistan},if you touch someone of the same sex purposely are you frustrated, lesbian or bisexual?`

interesting question. it could go anyway. plus you dont really clarify with the question. do you also touch people of the opposite sex with purpose? the subcontinent is so very interesting cuz most of the men and women that will touch their own sex purposely will never define the feeling or label it. im all for not labelling. perhaps instead of using western inspired labels like gay, lesbian or bisexual, we should have `labels` that we choose ourselves. In a piece titled ``toward a global network of asian lesbians``, sharmeen islam writes, ``The formation of the South Asian lesbian organization, Shamakami, which i founded in 1990, illustrates this process of networking. The word shamakami is from my native bengali language and it means, ``love for your equal or same``. As i stated in the first editorial for this organizations newsletter, I personally feel very good about the word lesbian. It is a powerful word, yet I think its important to convey the same meaning and power in our own language. We women who love other women are not untouchable, nor are we invisible; we are nameless only for as long as we choose not to name ourselves. We are unique, we are courageous and beautiful, we are pioneering women. We are shamakami and we need to show that we are proud of our existence.`` in short, you could be any of those things...as m faisal said...frustration is a cateogry all in itself. i will however, say that if you are going to touch somone of the same sex with purpose and still feel attraction (sexual) for the opposite sex, you would be able to label yourself bisexual.

`if you desire someone of the same sex are you bisexual or curious?`

bi-curious if you havent acted upon the impulse and bisexual if you have acted upon it.

`are all the men in parks and on the streets holding hands bisexual or expressing emotion in any way they know how?`

expressing emotion as they know how. some may be bisexual. they may still seek the company of men for sex after they are married. it is not unheard of at all. anyone who thinks otherwise is being very naive.

hope this helps. you`re next patrick.

rizvi

dear M.Faisal,

I`m waiting for patrick and zehra to add more chlorine before i jump.as for shariq minhas,er...well...he`s my big brother. though if you ask him i`m sure he`ll deny it :)

shandana

Anyone interested in this topic should get a copy of Josh saab`s `YadoN ki barat.` To this day it stands as a taboo in the literary and the academic in Pakistan. To me it is an extremely discerning probe into the nature of the `beast-` what Manto would call `Uper, neechay aur darmiyan.`

RE Shandana:

For your questions I have made the assumption that by ``living in this country...`` you mean the Land of the Pure.

1. ``if you desire someone of the same sex are you bisexual or curious?`` Curious, I should say.

2. ``are all the men in parks and on the streets holding hands bisexual or expressing emotion in any way they know how?`` I believe in the later. Obviously, social norms differ everywhere. I remember an English TA of mine who would firmly shake my hand and say: ``Male bonding! Yanks don`t understand, frankly.`` Whereas the US is paranoid about contact of the same sexes (metaphysical guilt of categorization?), other cultures greet with a mannerly kiss.

3. ``living in this country,if you touch someone of the same sex purposely are you frustrated, lesbian or bisexual?`` None of the above. Frustration is an entirely different subject though.

4. ``a definition of bisexuality?`` Honestly, I don`t know- the definition of a clinical psychologist is not the same as that of a pure psychologist is not the same as that of a classicist is not the same as that of a Joe Smith is not the same as that of Maulana LahaulWala etc. My guess would be active participation in sex with both genders.

Now can you do your belly flop?

Regards,

Faisal

(PS: I apologize for being personal; but, are you related to Shariq Minhas by any chance?)

let me test the waters before i do a belly flop.

i think this is an interesting discussion of sorts. may i ask each of you, zehra, m.faisal and patrick to please give a definition of bisexuality? living in this country,if you touch someone of the same sex purposely are you frustrated, lesbian or bisexual? if you desire someone of the same sex are you bisexual or curious? are all the men in parks and on the streets holding hands bisexual or expressing emotion in any way they know how?

RE Zehra:

Please don`t take anything personally, my invective was directed at your loose interpretation of a very old tradition. I don`t have any reason to be malicious towards yourself (I sincerely appreciate being welcomed); it is only your comments that appear to me, ridiculous and trite. Let me state my divulgence again.

The tradition of circumventing accounts from ear to ear - a.k.a. `tumhain pata hai?`- does not represent the society in any mould. To interpret these anecdotes in generalized statements such as yours is not right. You might start tackling the issue by asking in epistemological regards: `why do people tell stories?` The oral tradition in our lands, literary or otherwise, deals with this concern. Hence its faculty to portray a more relevant social diaspora is more affective. I have heard many stories: stories about the terrorizing Najib of PPP who poked his eyes with pins to make them look red, stories of The Mighty Khan who shot his way through a barricade of a 100 or more (depending on the account) policemen, stories of the `chalawa` group who wear steel uniforms and are unstoppable. Hence, the other question arises, what do these stories tell us? And in order to answer the later we must uncover the first. I hope my brief digression into the element of narrative has occupied you lament.

``you don`t seem to be saying that my overly general statement about bisexuality was wrong (only ethusiastic).`` Please read my previous posts again.

Again, as has been happening quite recently on Chowk, do not take replies personally. We are gathered here as an intellectual community of sorts. I wish that older wayfarers of this very nice forum keep this tradition intact.

Regards,

Faisal

mohammed faisal saab,

ap say takar khanay ka sooch kar bohot daar lagta hai. it is because you are mean. you can be crushingly sarcastic and since im mildy intelligent i can catch on to it. how about instead of scaring us with your great intelligence you make your point without maligning other people? im afraid, that just might be too much to ask. anyhow, can you please come out and state exactly what your objections with my post were? you dont seem to be saying that my overly general statement about bisexuality was wrong (only ethusiastic)..it seems your only objection was the omission on my part to spew forth any and every book i have ever read on the subject matter. aur koiee gila? (where to start?)

re; dr. zaidi.

after seeing the fiasco of your battles with bad girl and her supposed alter-ego random, i respectfully withdraw any comments especially since you are too much bound by the book ( any book)and too much enslaved in rules to see beyond what academics have to say or what the rule book says. therefore any argument i would make would not fly with you since it will not have been published in any academic journal. ask mohd. faisal for entries in academic journals. actually, ask him to list it both alphabetically and chrnologically...you can get even more creative with it.

rizvi

Re: Patrick.

```Bisexuality` exists here because, in another sense, it just doesn`t.

Besides, the issue is likely to be further muddled by the confusion between those behaviourally bi or gay and those simply with such orientations (but not acting on them).Then, as Zehra-- and my article-- points out, many of those even engaging in bisexuality wouldn`t label themselves ``bi`s``-- for differing reasons.``

this is what i was trying to get to which you put so nicely into words. i think i did a pretty fair job of it too but since im comming with a history to chowk, my words might tend to have less of an effect.

sexuality is very interesting in s. asia since it is so taboo. the holding of hands for males in a park is not seen as strange in pakistan yet in the west we assume the two men are gay. holding hands is the least ``offensive`` position to see two men on the streets of pakistan in. as i pointed out earlier, most of these actions on part of the men or women is not seen as sexual at all when in fact it is. im saying it is from a western perspective. if we want to get all technical with terms, lets say these people are bi-curious than if not bi-sexual.

just so that i am not misquoted or misthought..bisexuality in pakistan is not a direct cause of the seperation of the sexes. it makes it easier and perhaps facilitates in the real desires or wants of people to manifest themselves since hugging, kissing being affectionate will not be frowned upon, hanging out only with people of your own sex is encouraged and lauded. i am also comming from the idealogy that everyone has the potential to be bisexual. if we let go of inhibitions and preconceivced notions and ideas about sexuality and culture, we may be more tolerant and accepting of difference.

rizvi