This idea of visible sexuality is directly derived, I think, from equating gay men with the popular subcontinental perception of eunuchs: the one obvious homosexual construct that does exist for South Asian society in general. Eunuchs and hermaphrodites in Indian society occupy a space that fluctuates rapidly between the sacred and the profane.
There are tales of the evil eunuch who steals babies and abducts young men to castrate them to reinforce a possibly dwindling community. On the other hand, it is considered opportune if they show up on auspicious occasions such as weddings and births. On Bombay trains and Delhi traffic intersections, among other places, they "extort" money from "normal" men by the free use of sexual innuendos and "a threat to lift up their skirts".
This same group is also one of the most abused – the police are at liberty to intimidate and lock them up while their clients (if they are involved in prostitution as many are) all too often treat them with more contempt and brutality than their female counterparts. Popular cinema too has a less than kind view to take of them. They are usually the villains, the perverts, and the pimps in Bollywood, if not the clowns, and play to the worst stereotypes available.
This hostility towards effeminate, castrated men (although an increasing number of the modern day "hijras", as they are called, have their genitals intact) when combined with the Western construct of homosexuality in which homo-erotic or even homo-affectionate behavior sets a man apart from the default marital tradition, has only magnified latent and ill-informed hostilities regarding homosexuality around the region and especially in the urban, westernized parts of it.
Javed Akhtar, renowned Indian screenplay writer, poet, and movie lyricist, once took the idea that most men are highly sexed one step further when he remarked that every man is a dormant rapist. When this "rapist" is faced with a man who has sex with other men -– a thorough-going villain who is out to destroy the very fabric of society by refusing to knuckle down to the all-important business of marriage and procreation -– does he instinctively believe that all homosexual men are rapists waiting for a chance to assault the "decent" and "normal" men of their acquaintance? Or could it be something else?
"How do you explain this hostility?" I asked M, a professor on whom most of us girls had a tremendous crush that wasn't dampened in the least by the fact that he was openly gay.
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.