A recent opinion piece in Daily O caught my attention. The article tries to “bust feminist myths” about female sexuality and attitudes toward sex. In this post, I will be addressing only one of the three myths that she supposedly “busts ” in her article. This post is to use the article as reference in order to generally comment on the trend of such opinions and what implication lay therein.
Rape, according the article, is indeed sex but of the non-consensual kind, Why? Because “a hell of a lot of marriages in India manage to produce a phenomenal number of offspring without having sex.” and for “average Indian man who has never had the benefit of a sex education, part A going into part B means sex.”
Basically, the author seems to be saying that rape is sex because there is penetration of some bodily orifice and that is sufficient to constitute sex. Now, such a statement is problematic for two reasons: One, you are assuming that people “generally” only consider penetrative intercourse as sex. However, you cannot be farther from the truth for there are those who do not enjoy penetrative sex of any kind but still consider themselves to be sexually active. The point, here, is that no one but those involved in the said act get to decide whether the act is sexual in nature or not.
In addition. by saying that rape is sex just because they “produce offspring” one is clearly suggesting that the fertile heterosexual couple is considered as the sole reference point for all things sexual. Also given primacy is the opinion of the “average” (heterosexual) male for whom, apparently, only penetrative sex counts (dare we conclude, based on the previous statement made, that the author is indeed only referring to the penis and the vagina when talking of penetration?).
The second point I want to make is with respect to the similarity between the author’s own comments and the statement in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which states that “penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section” as part of the explanation of the section. Section 377 is used to primarily target non-heterosexual couples who are associated with the “abnormal” practices of non-penile vaginal sex.
“Unnatural offence”, according to the IPC constitutes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” for which both parties involved can be penalised by the court of law. The law continues to remain ambiguous in its understanding of what constitutes carnal intercourse either in the section itself or in the various judgements that have been passed in relation to it, the most recent one being Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation (2013). The Koushal court transcripts reveal that the judges spent entire days debating as to the different ways in which sex can be had only to decide that the number of acts will remain indecisive.
This article too, seems to understand only penetration as constitutive of sex (note that it does not use the word “carnal” and why should it when it is talking of “natural and healthy” instincts of heterosexual sex? “Carnal intercourse only constitutes “unnatural” offences). What about masturbation then? Or foreplay? Kisses and caresses often do not involve penetration of any kind. These acts too form a very crucial part of sex and hence consent matters even for the slightest touch as it involves invading someone else’s private space, claiming entrance into their comfort zones. The understanding of what sex does or does not constitute has evolved considerably over time so much so that the word “rape” has given way to other, far more sensitively phrased, expressions. “Sexual harassment” is a term used today in order to acknowledge that the law recognises that there are more than one ways to communicate unwanted sexual advances. Therefore, saying that “rape is sex, and inventing a different meaning for sex confuses the message and leads to a perception of endorsement of rape, even when we speak of sex being a healthy and natural thing” is as far from the mark with respect to one’s understanding of consent and sex as one can get..
Also interesting is the fact that just like Section 377, the article refrains from naming any specific body parts or acts involved (the “part A” and “part B” corresponding to no mention at all of any body part in Section 377). Perhaps this is due to the fact that while most are aware that certain unmentionable body parts are involved in heterosexual intercourse, it is unthinkable that the human body is even capable of performing the “unnatural” acts that the “unnatural beings” are imagined to). One might perhaps say that it has been done in order to spare embarrassment–because, of course, we are such a “traditional” and “proper” society which finds it abhorrent to speak of acts expressing love or the parts of the body involved therein, whereas violence rages on uncensored. However, jokes apart, it really points at the privilege that heterosexual sex enjoys of reigning supreme while not being named while there are others who clamour for just that recognition afforded by a name. The difference between the two lies in that while one is so loud that it does not require speech, the other is brutally silenced.
It is this insidious heterosexist bias that can creep into our daily conversations about sex and sexuality which needs to be beaten. One of the key challenges of taking the feminist approach is to be constantly reflexive and sensitive as to not perpetuate discrimination of one kind even as we advocate the end of another. It is important, while indulging in egalitarian politics such as feminism, to be mindful and reflexive of the the way in which your politics represents or stereotypes other disadvantaged groups. Feminism becomes meaningless if it does not recognise the intersections that exist even within issues it address. while speaking of women’s sexuality for instance, their gender preferences cannot be considered “separate”, their caste, class, ableness, race and religion also matter simultaneously. Similarly, even when trying to understand nuances with respect to sexual harassment and the complexities involved in it, it becomes important to also acknowledge that each person while experiencing distress at being non-consensually harassed, reacts to the situation at hand based on the social, cultural, religious and economic background they come from. While some might have the privilege to lodge a police complaint and get the media’s attention to their case, there are others whose voice is preconceived to be unimportant or untrustworthy; their plea for affirmation of rights meaningless. Discrimination and inequality does not work in isolation but in tandem with other dominant institutions such as patriarchy, casteism and sexism among others. It is due to this interrelationship between various institutions that discrimination has remained on its hegemonic throne for as long as it has. It will continue to do so further as long as one simply accepts this hegemonic rule without questioning or confronting it.
The Papyrus Quill 