Bollywood stars on homosexuality

According to NewKerala.com, via Topix news, an increasing numbers of Indian movie stars are asserting their own position on changing the laws on homosexuality in India. Statements on the issue by some of the most renowned Bollywood stars are:

Lillete Dubey: Of course, the laws pertaining to homosexuality should be revised. They are archaic and inhuman. An individual's sexual preference is a completely private matter. It falls under the realm of the law when there's a public display of obscene behaviour. Any such conduct must be equally punishable for straight and gay persons. If gay behaviour offends publicly, the law has every right to react. Otherwise, we're the largest democracy and sexual freedom is our democratic right.
Celina Jaitley: My closest friends are gay and I wouldn't let anyone hurt them. The laws need drastic change. Homosexuality has existed since the invention of civilisation. Some of our greatest artistes today are gay. At this time of HIV and AIDS, gay rights should be our primary concern. In Britain, they've gay marriages. So why are we stuck with their obsolete laws? They left the country long back! Also science proves homosexuality is genetic.
Randeep Hooda: I've lots of gay friends, both male and female. As long as they respect my heterosexual space, I've no problems with their sexuality. As far as the gay party on Saturday night is concerned, if the partygoers were disrupting the neighbourhood's peace then they deserve to be pulled up. Alternative sexuality must not be an excuse for extra rights and privileges. If you want to be equal then fight it out in life just like any of us.
Manoj Bajpai: Yes, the law should be revised. All citizens have the right to decide how they live their lives.
Rohit Roy: I'm not very clear about gay rights and laws in India. But I must say this sort of raid gets us thinking about the priorities of the police. Shouldn't they crack down on elements dangerous to society rather than gays who just want to live in peace?
Nandana Sen: Yes, absolutely! The laws need a change. No one has the right to invade a peaceful private gathering. It's against our democratic principles to treat homosexuality as crime.
Tanushree Dutta: Oh my god! This is ridiculous. The laws need desperate change. Or maybe homosexuality is legal and the cops don't know about it?
Imtiaz Ali: Of course, the laws need to be revised. An act that is natural to some cannot be illegal in a free democracy.
Riya Sen: Everyone in a democracy should enjoy the freedom to do what he or she likes. I think it is uncivilised to question anyone's sexuality. Invasion of privacy is a bigger crime than any. Not just homosexuality, we need to open up our minds against all kinds of prejudice if we want to really go global.
Amrita Arora: Gays have just the same rights as straight people. I party with them and I find them sensitive and dependable. Why single them out to ridicule? High time people stop being judgemental about how others live their lives.
Vipul Shah: Yes, laws need revision. Nobody has the right to decide for others. It's every individual's birthright to decide his or her sexual preference. And nobody has the right to interfere. Unless they were behaving obscenely, the gay partygoers shouldn't have been raided.
Shefali Shah: I don't see why there should be laws against individuals based on their sexual preferences. It's a free world. People are entitled to make their own choices as long as their choices don't hurt anyone.
Samir Soni: I don't think the laws should vary according to sexual orientation. What is unlawful should remain so regardless of whether you are gay or straight.
Mahesh Bhatt: The state has no business to step into people's bedrooms and question their sexual preferences. It's a matter between two consenting adults.
Neil Nitin Mukesh: It's a sensitive subject that needs careful consideration.

Which reminds me to the fact that, in Spain, we lived our sexuality half in the closet and half openly, but it was only when Boris Izaguirre came out on full display of his queerness in Cronicas Marcianas, a late show which was followed by quite a number of Spaniards, when homosexuality happened to start to be viewed as something between curious and appealing... and that was the beginning of the so many changes we have witnessed in these last ten years.

Mother wins lawsuit over gay porn

Edge Boston publishes this piece of news about a Tennessee woman whose two daughters were "exposed" to gay porn video sequences while staying at a California motel, the Value Lodge, which doesn't seem to use a pay-per-view system for pornography channels on its TV sets. Edge writes that "some might find the idea that someone could win thousands of dollars after two children are exposed to a few minutes of pornography ridiculous." Well, not that ridiculous, but one should think carefully what kind of parents are those who don't oversee the type of TV channels their kids could be watching. I don't know how to express this right in plain English, but the fact that one parent claims "emotional distress" over what seems to me it's her own fault for allowing the kids to play with remotes without proper supervision — that proper fact would made me reverse the judgement and rule that Mrs. McCombs would be liable to pay the motel those thousands. Based on stupidity, laissez faire and inability to be a good parent. Heterosexuals and the religious right may say that we gays are not good parents and all that stuff, but I bet I can raise any child much better, more balanced, and psychologically and physically fitter than any of those stereotyped Americans who tend to rely on lawsuits every time they commit a mistake. Period.

Technorati tags: Stupid lawsuits in the USA, Parenthood and how to spoil children

E J Graff on ENDA

Stolen from TPM Cafe, E J Graff presents us with an intelligent reflexion about ENDA, USA, gender identity and sexual orientation:

Are LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) groups being unreasonable when they insist that ENDA—the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act—must cover not just sexual orientation but also gender identity? Is Barney Frank simply being a political pragmatist when he insists that he can only pass a bill to cover lesbians and gay men, the group that America has grown to know and love, and not also transgendered folks, which lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin insists is necessary as well? (I’ll explain the terms later in this post.)

No. ENDA “lite” isn’t more “pragmatic”; it’s scarcely better than no ENDA at all.

Many Americans already believe it’s illegal to fire lesbians and gay men just because we’re lesbian or gay. But there is no such federal law, and only 13 states have their own such laws. Fifty-eight percent of Americans think it should be illegal to fire based on either sexual orientation or gender identity. ENDA is the long-awaited federal bill that would make that so.

The latest news on this front: ENDA, which had been scheduled for a House floor vote this week, has been taken off the table.

The official reason that ENDA won’t come up for vote: it’s been pushed aside by other business. The generally accepted reason is the split between the Barney Frank faction and the Tammy Baldwin faction. Shailagh Murray, in The Washington Post, expounds the Barney Frank argument. From this perspective, it’s simply practical to admit that, although there are enough Congressional lawmakers willing to stand up for gay folks, not enough Congressmembers are educated enough on trans issues to vote for the larger bill—and it’s better to work forward incrementally. But Baldwin and all the LGBT groups refuse the partial-ENDA compromise, and would rather see no bill at all.

Is this simply childishness, a refusal to have any cake if you can’t have it all? No. This is a topic that’s been debated ferociously within the community for fifteen years. The conclusion: lesbians and gay men won’t be protected unless the bill also includes gender identity. That’s the reason LGBT groups can’t knuckle under and accept the mini-bill.

Here's the idea. When there is discrimination against, or recoil from, lesbians and gay men, it’s not just because we fall in love with others of the same sex. It’s because we don’t neatly fit our gender identities; we’re often “genderqueer” as well. Our girls tend to be boyish; our boys tend to be girly. Not always, and not all of us. But gay men and lesbians who “pass”— who are “straight-acting,” in the terminology, who more closely fit sex stereotypes (like me, despite my short hair)—run into the least trouble on the job. It’s the fey men (and, depending on the situation, the butch women) who run into trouble. And that’s the ground on which they need the most protection: gender identity.

After all, when grade school and middle school kids taunt or beat up some boy for acting “gay,” it’s not because he’s been kissing other boys; it’s because he hasn’t been masculine enough for their taste. The same is true in adulthood. Even in tolerant Massachusetts, where folks are proud to be the first state where same-sex couples can marry, some gay men are still taunted—not for having boyfriends, but for having high voices or feminine mannerisms, even though those Truman Capote voices or hand gestures come just as naturally as falling in love with other boys, and are just as resistant to change.

That’s even more true on the job. Consider what happened to Darlene Jespersen, who lost her bartending job at Harrah’s Casino after 21 years—when her employer instituted a policy that said all women had to wear makeup. She couldn’t do it; her whole being revolted against that mask. (And yes, the 9th circuit decided that this was legal) Now, I don’t know if Jespersen was a lesbian. But if an employer demands that women dress and behave according to a feminine stereotype, that rule is especially likely to hurt many of the lesbians I know and love. They too would vomit if they had to dress girly and paint their faces. Put these butch women in dresses and they look like cross-dressing men. A women-must-wear-makeup policy would drive them out—based not on sexual orientation but on gender presentation.

ENDA “lite” would do them no good.

I don’t know what you think about girly boys or boyish girls. Personally, I love them: these are my dearest friends, the people I rely on in times of crisis. But surely they shouldn’t lose their jobs just because they do or don’t wear dresses or speak in soft voices.

The bottom line: When lesbians and gay men get trashed, it’s often because of our gender identities, not our sexual orientation. Protect one without protecting the other, and the most vulnerable gay folks are still screwed. A trans-free ENDA is just a little better than useless.

And on top of that, it leaves out our sistren and brethren, the transgendered (whose gender presentation differs still more profoundly from their biological sex) and the transsexuals (who’ve made some bodily alteration so that their internal sense of identity and their body are more in synch).

Worse, gutting ENDA wins nothing. According to polling, the majority of Americans who support ENDA would do so with or without the inclusion of gender identity. Sure, lawmakers are fearful. But aren’t they always? They just need more education. (Matt Foreman, head of the Task Force, believes that the only way to go is to insist that Congress must pass the right bill.)

Technorati tags: E J Graff, ENDA, Discrimination, USA Politics

Maybe a positive output from Larry Craig affaire

According to Gay City News, Craig told KTVB-TV that he "would take a very serious look" at legislation to protect people from police entrapment in restrooms and other public places. We have read a lot of words and articles about Craig's hypocrisy for not coming out, for supporting homophobic laws and actions, and all the hype, but I personally think that if the output of the whole case leads to some point closer to give people an enhanced chance to eye for sex in public places, that'll be good; whether they be homosexual or not, whether they be in the closet or completely out, an adult should not be put into traps for seeking sex. If you don't want sex with other adult, homosexual or heterosexual, simply say "no". That's all. Maybe the USA need some better sexual education. Just my two cents.

Technorati tags: Larry Craig, Sex liberation, sexual freedom, ban entrapment

A slide show history of The Vibrator

Slate magazine online displays a brief and comprehensive history of vibrators, with facts as curious as the following:

• Invented in 1880 by an unnamed British doctor
• First vibrator for men was patented in 1899 by John Muir
• First take-home vibrator was patented in 1902, becoming the fifth electric appliance in USA homes, after the sewing machine and way before the electric iron.
• By 1917 there were more vibrators than toasters in American homes.

Definitely, it's worth taking a look at the slide show.

Technorati tags: Sexuality, USA, Vibrators