(The article takes into cognizance the sentiments of the traditionalists and the modernists. This is neither to appease nor to criticize any class. In case, any person feels offended, (s)he may register a complaint with local authorities because the author would be unwilling to put this article down under all possible threats.)
Sex – perhaps, one of those words that makes Adrenaline flow through the Blood vessels, the moment you hear the word. The conservatives see it with an offensive attitude while the modernists would take things casually. This word, at times, has created ridges between generations in families. It has even led to different reactions from different classes across all genders. Some would want it better be kept within the walls of the bedroom while others prefer to talk about it in the open. This article would try to examine how the Modern-day Society deals with this “most un-talked necessity” called Sex.
Sex has long been perceived as a means of Carnal pleasure only wherein two members of a given species would indulge into sexual acts irrespective of gender. The Social norms that have been shaped for centuries have confined sex to a post-marriage affair with a condition of fidelity. While Sociology, as a subject only regards Sex as a process of ‘mating’ and Marriage as ‘mate-selection’ to produce progenies, Philosophy would deal with more of Human aspects involved including Society. The long-established post-marriage affair of sex was practiced as ‘Moore’ in Traditional societies and in fact, the Rural Indian Society regards the same as the basis of Marriage. This basic norm was later to become so rigid that it tended to disallow Widow Re-marriage which could only be made possible in mid-19th Century through legislative means – Thanks to Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar.
The Orthodox, however, would cling to the old norms wherein the purity of a girl is decided by whether her chastity remains intact. A girl having had pre-marital Sex would be seen by the same orthodox society as ‘Slut’, ‘Whore’ and even ‘Prostitute’.
The Urban Society, on the other hand, is experiencing a change. Youth are seen indulging into pre-marital sexual acts which often are taken lightly among the urban class, pretty much a deviation from the long established norm. The Urban youth would take Sex as only a means of Pleasure wherein, sex would mean either a means of workout (as in Gymming), a means of mitigating Office or College pressure, a means of entertainment and enjoyment. At times, the same sexual acts may even lead to the very process of Mate-selection wherein a formal tie-up of a couple into marriage would take place. After all, the law provides for a Consenting Adult to please him(her)self the way (s)he wants.
The ‘modern-day traditionalists’ would see such acts as a deviation from the long-drawn-norm. They would bring in traditions, values, culture and even religion seeking justification. Mass protests and Parliamentary ruckus would prevail as if two consenting adults indulging into sexual activities would lead to the whole country getting raped. They would put forth the Ancient and Medieval Religious scriptures criticizing such acts.
The Modernists, on the other hand, would see it as a victory of individual rights and a victory of Law. They, in fact would congratulate the society for ‘moving’ towards ‘development’ as if pre-marital sex is one important necessity of modernization. They would demand a greater autonomy for Individuals in the social sphere and would demand a change in the ‘archaic’ laws and Norms that ‘hinders’ Human ‘growth’.
One of my Philosophy lecturers once talked about the ‘zone of acceptance’. He would say that men tend to accept something if it falls within “their” zone of acceptance. An ability to communicate therefore matters here. He went on to explain the crucial case of Sex Education in Schools in India. He would explain that parents would refrain from sending children especially girl child for Sex Education classes. The reason, he cited, was the inability of the school administration to communicate to the parents about the benefits of sex education. Then he would link the ‘zone of acceptance’ concept with the ability of Human perception and Human Communication. Any justification on sex Education might be perceived wrongly and the conservatives might see it as an attempt to rob a Girl Child of her chastity.
Thus, Sex as a topic may be dealt with once we talk about it in open space within the zone of acceptance. E.g. Even in Urban India, Women would refrain to buy Contraceptives like Condoms from a Drug store knowing the possibility of Pregnancy and STDs. The reason here is 2-fold. First, the women would not accept the use of Contraceptives like Condoms under the Bulk of Religion and Customs. Second, the society, on the whole, would not accept women buying contraceptives like Condoms from a Drug store.
Sex is an act that should better be judged by the persons so involved in the act. It is up to the people involved to decide if they wish to express themselves in Open. However, the ‘zone of acceptance’ of the society must be enlarged enough to allow for such a ‘radical’ change.
Chirag Goel's Blog 