"Yaargh!" said Cleopatra as she walked off stage. "She kissed me!"
As the despairing director of our terrible high-school production of Antony and Cleopatra, I'd perked up the instant Cleopatra's faithful handmaiden had leaned over the prone body of her mistress after her famous meeting with an asp to sip the poison from her lips. That one (inadvertent) 'smooch' had single-handedly converted what could only be described as a stinker into a popular, if not critical, success.
That day I learned two things: 1) homoeroticism sells and 2) teachers don't like it. During the next few weeks, over much banter, I also learnt that as long as women are the principal characters, it generates much hilarity and lewdness, but the moment it switches genders, it becomes unforgivable.
A couple of years later, when I met Govind -– a young man with a lisp and a bald head, much addicted to psychedelic sarongs and tie-and-dye kurtis paired with neon flip-flops, all of which taken together were enough to fuel rumors of his homosexuality -– it didn't surprise me to hear what people had to say about him - and he knew about it.
The whispers might have raged behind his back, but those snickers were industrial strength. A social animal and loath to give up his sartorial or social affectations, he chose to deal with it by escorting a series of anorexic supermodels (it's a long story, but suffice it to say he was very well-connected to the fashion world even if he didn't work in it) to all the parties in town.
This didn't improve matters any. Instead, the sniggers got progressively more unkind, and soon men were making faces and gagging motions behind his back while their girlfriends muffled their giggles.
"Why?" I asked.
"Ewww!" was the not very articulate answer.
In some circles, it seemed, it was infinitely better to be accused of incest or be unflatteringly compared to various denizens of the animal kingdom, than to be accused of preferring men who prefer other men and thus must be effeminate deviants whose perversion just stops short of contagion.
You must understand; I grew up in very conventional urban India. We knew about things like homosexuality, but 10-15 years ago, nobody really talked about it, at least not so I knew. My own reaction to the issue -– complete ambivalence tinged with ignorance –- mirrored that of many of my peers. We simply didn't know and didn't care to know. Growing up, I can't remember a single discussion on the issue of sexuality. Period. You were either straight or else you were "yuck". End of discussion.
I don't know if others around me actually went through a process wherein they thought about it and came up with a rational answer that supported their revulsion or whether it was instinctual. I do know that I, personally, was used to casually derogatory remarks being made about gay people in my presence and didn't really pause long enough to think about it.
This made it all the more interesting when I came across the term "masti".
'Masti' denotes the homoerotic behavior of men who do not describe themselves as homosexuals. It is not necessarily penetrative and neither does it fall within the Western definition of homosexuality wherein two males are ultimately seeking a committed partner much like heterosexual couples. Its closest Western alternative would be the 'down low'.
Article comments
1 - ken
"Interestingly, however, ever since I made such a thorough pest of myself on the subject, I heard fewer derogatory remarks from him. Has he changed his mind? I don't think so. Is he more comfortable around gay people? Not so much. I might have succeeded in getting him to shut up around me, but that's about the best I have accomplished. Is that enough?"
Enough? I would say no, but it is a start and a good one. I think your efforts are admirable. The ideal would be to have him be more tolerant of others, granted that may not be likely. However, getting him to not make derogatory comments (around anyone) would be good though. I suggest that whenever you hear him make a derogatory comment you engage him in a discussion about it. When he asks "why are we talking about this?" you can simply say that he brought it up, so you assumed he wanted to talk about it.
2 - Natural Manhood
You must understand that in South Asia (well, actually also in the West, but to a lesser extent), the sniggers and humiliation is reserved for the effeminate, third sex guy... it is wrong to say it is because of men's sexual attraction for men.
Because, such men or chakka are not even considered men.
I remember a TV laughter programme, where under India's ongoing heterosexualization, they were making fun of the song, "Aadmi hoon aadmi se pyaar karta hoon". The person doing the mimicry seemed queeny, and was swaying his hands and limp wristing for special effects, and I thought to myself, if you're indeed a 'Man' as per Indian culture (as per western culture he is indeed a man, but a queer man), then why can't you walk properly, why are you walking like a Hijra.
The fact of the matter is that you have to differentiate between masculine men who like men (who are considered straight in India) and feminine men who like men (who are the actual queers and the target of all the ridicule), and not lump them together under the western concept of 'sexual orientation' which doesn't recognize gender differences between men, for its 'homosexual' category. That, when it doesn't want queer heterosexuals as part of the 'straight' category, even when straight is defined as 'heterosexual'.
Double standards.