Khushwant Singh on Women, Sex, Love and Lust Page 6

  Come my friends.

  ’Tis not too late to seek a newer world

  Push oft; and sitting well in order smite

  The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds

  To sail beyond the sunset and the baths

  Of all the western stars, until I die.

  It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;

  It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,

  And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.

  And yet the pull of woman is equally important.’

  We know another Uncle Anand, who expounds his views on sex: ‘Given a suitable opportunity, men are potential rapists. Culture and civilization are restraining forces. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying this potential is a bad thing. Far from it. It’s the sex drive that keeps the human race going. This energy sublimated makes man the conqueror he is. Animals don’t sublimate their sex drive, so their libido is all expended in sex. They make no attempt to improve their conditions of existence, to change their environment, unlike man who’s constantly reaching beyond himself, an over-reacher. Not content with throwing a stone, he’ll invent the sling, the bow and arrow, the gun. It’s not just men whose libido is controlled by civilization. Likewise, deep down women want to be raped, though no sensible woman will ever admit this! Woman has the upper hand in marriage. The child she bears she knows is hers; but no husband can be sure that the child she bears is his or that of his best friend. Hence all the precautions taken by male dominated society: purdah, chastity belts, eunuchs to guard harems.’

  Uncle Rakesh goes into detail about men and women’s sexuality: ‘The sexual anatomy of the male is a constant variable, the phallus ranging in size and form from diminutive flaccidity to enlarged turgidity, a comical state of affairs were it not at the same time so pathetic, for, in my view, its variableness reflects exactly masculine inconstancy in love. “Men were deceivers ever,” Shakespeare tells us, “One foot on sea and one on land/To one thing constant never.” The woman’s anatomy, on the other hand, is unchanging, invariable, and this reflects her constancy, her loyalty, devotion. Also, it’s important to note that the male anatomy is such that whatever state of emotion it is in, is displayed; it cannot be concealed. Erotic desire in the male immediately manifests itself in the erection which is a public spectacle, so to speak. The signifier and the signified are one. Not so with the female: her anatomy protects, conceals her feeling which can always remain private. There is no public exhibition of her libido as with the male. She remains inviolate, her “self” inscrutable, indecipherable. There is a certain beauty about mystery, and it’s the female who preserves this within herself, mysterious, a riddle that cannot be solved by the crude, bungling male. Thus it’s only another woman who can “read” the mind of a woman; not the blundering male.’

  Aunt Saroj writes to Rupika quoting Germaine Greer: ‘She points out that the penis is, by itself, a relatively harmless and extremely vulnerable member.’ The fact is, she goes on to say: “the vagina is constructed to deal with the worst that the penis can do. Men are dangerous but the penis is the least dangerous part of them.’ Further, she ingeniously argues: ‘Men do more harm with their hands, with their feet, with their elbows, with their knees. If this were not the case, then women would hardly submit when threatened with bashing. By all commonsense indications, it is worse to be battered than to submit to the sexual act, yet battery is a less serious offence than rape.’ Germaine Greer has, with her expected sharpness of perception, identified the real trauma of rape – it’s not so much physical as mental, emotional, even spiritual. So she reassures rape victims that their sense of guilt is self-created.’

  She destroys the Freudian theory of penis-envy: ‘Your suggestion that women accept the role of the weaker vessel because of penis-envy is very interesting. As you say, this is a theory that has been advanced and several feminists have seen signs of this in literature, including Shakespeare. I’m inclined to agree with you, but I’ll also say that if the woman suffers from penis-envy, the man suffers from penis-anxiety — he’s constantly worried about its size, its capacity to function, to perform. “Did you see his little thing?” is a question scornfully asked by one maid-servant of another in My Secret Life by Henry Spencer Ashbee. In another episode a character, Joe, has an affair with the maid-servant. “Oh, let me see it,” said Joe, pulling up her [the maid’s] clothes. She pushed them down. “No, you saw it the other day, It’s just the same; where is your thing?” Here is a good example of penis envy. The girl tacitly admits that what she has is “just the same”; seeing it once is the same as seeing it a dozen times: “No, you saw it the other day,” she says. On the other hand, Joe’s “thing” is an interesting object, a toy to play with, its “changeableness making it a source of entertainment.’

  Aunt Saroj has a poor opinion of men. They are destroying the world: ‘Men love power, and the machine gives it to them in full measure. The car, the motorbike, the airplane, and going back in time, the horse – all these are extensions of his personality. Also let’s not forget that they are all admirable substitutes for the intransigent female. The rider “mounts” the horse or the motorbike. Listen to the chief stylist at General Motors, William Mitchell, talking about the latest model Cadillac the company had released: “When you sat behind the wheel, you looked down that long hood, and then there were two headlight shapes, and then two fender curves; why, you felt excited just sitting there.” He is not saying very much, but whatever he is saying is clearly coming from the bottom of his soul. And look at the names that car manufacturers give the models they produce: Falcon, Mustang, Barracuda, Corvette, Sabre, Cougar, Bronco creatures of the wild, predatory, rapacious.’

  While men are physically stronger than women, women are sexually their superiors. ‘The brothel is the most decisive demonstration of woman’s supremacy over man,’ writes Aunt Saroj. How? A prostitute’s patron spends in two ways. He pays money and depletes himself while in no way impairing her capacity for more.

  So the argument went back and forth bringing much food for thought. The conservative and the radical points of view were fairly presented and the readers’ interest kept alive throughout.

  15

  Nature and Sex in the Classics

  Our ancestor’s concept of beauty was somewhat bizarre: bosom too heavy for the slender waist, round buttocks as large as the behind of a maddened elephant in rut …

  I have often lamented my countrymen’s indifference to the phenomenon of nature and double standards on matters of sex; outward prudishness combined with inner prurience. This was certainly not so 2,000 years ago. Years back I read Dr Manmohan Ghosh’s translation of Chaturbhani written sometime between 200-350 B.C. – Glimpses of Sexual Life in Nanda Maurya India – and was pleasantly surprised to see the author’s familiarity with the flora and fauna of the region, the explicit and often indelicate reference to sex. Although a long list of dramatis personae appear they are in part long monologues by one man, on courtesans and their patrons as they pass by him on their way to, or returning from, the houses of pleasure. This Vilasakaundini (vessel of coquetry) whose beauty ‘sprinkles the eyes with ambrosia’ becomes like all other women characters even lovelier following ‘fatigue of intercourse’ with swollen lips and scars of violent lust of ‘a festival of amour decorated with scratches of nails.’

  ‘The blooming lotus is her face, the buds of white flowers are her teeth, fresh blue lilies are her eyes, the red asoka flowers are her throbbing lips, humming of bees is her speech. Best bouquets (of flowers) are her breasts, flowers on the head are her ornament, loose flowers are her garments, and garlands are her shining girdle. The bower range, which is the bride of spring, has assumed indeed a female form by its (various) flowers.’ The hermaphrodite is praised because her breasts do not come in the way of a closer embrace, is not inhibited from sex for certain days in the month as other women are and there is ‘no risk of conception which is an enemy of physical charm and progress of youth’ – what
ever that means.

  Our ancestor’s concept of beauty was somewhat bizarre: bosom too heavy for the slender waist, round buttocks as large as the behind of a maddened elephant in rut.

  And so on. The wife comes off very poorly when compared to the courtesan. ‘Once on the chariot of a courtesan’s hips, who will consciously opt for a married wife?’ demands the author of one of the plays and replies: ‘No one consciously leaves off a chariot to ride in a bullock-cart.’

  16

  Celibacy and Chastity

  In patriarchal societies like ours a woman who takes a vow of celibacy is regarded as an oddity who, with luck, may see the error of her ways in good time

  I have always regarded abstinence from sex to be against the laws of nature, leading to mental tensions and aberrant behaviour. On the other hand, it is also possible that if sexual energy is channelised into other creative pursuits, it can act like a self-manufactured tonic. Examples I have in mind are Bapu Gandhi, Morarji Desai, Mother Teresa and religious orders which enjoin celibacy as well as chastity.

  Gandhi and Desai took vows of celibacy after they had enjoyed sex for many years. Mother Teresa took her vows at the age of puberty and never regretted it. And see the demonic (I beg her pardon) energy which she had, which enabled her to achieve what she did. To the best of my knowledge, Judaism, Islam and Sikhism do not approve of celibacy. The three religions which have institutionalized it are Buddhism, Jainism and Christianity. Certain Hindu sects like the Brahma Kumaris – if you can describe it as a Hindu sect – also require their members, male and female, to abstain from sex. I have never questioned them on the subject.

  Then there is the organized fraternity and sorority of celibates to be found in the Catholic Church. How do Catholic priests, monks and nuns explain their commitment to remain single and abjure sex? Quite a lot has been written on the subject.

  The word ‘celibate’ is derived from the Latin caelebs, meaning ‘alone’. However, living alone is one thing Catholic brothers or nuns, Buddhist bhikhus, Jain sadhus and Brahma Kumaris do not do. They live in monasteries, nunneries, or ashrams. While sublimating the sex urge they evolve a body language of love which may or may not have erotic overtones.

  Susan Griffin, American poet, author and meditator, had this to say about expression of desire: ‘Erotic feeling brings one back to this state of innocence before culture teaches us to forget the knowledge of the body. To make love is to become like an infant again. We grope with our mouths towards the body of another being, whom we trust, who takes us in her arms. We rock together with this loved one. We move beyond speech. Our bodies move past all the controls we have learned. We cry out in ecstasy, in feeling. We are back in a natural world before culture tried to erase our experience of nature. In this world, to touch another is to express love; there is no idea apart from feeling and no feeling which does not ring through our bodies and our souls at once.’

  In patriarchal societies like ours a woman who takes a vow of celibacy is regarded as an oddity who, with luck, may see the error of her ways in good time:

  A strong woman is a woman in whose head

  A voice is repeating. I told you so,

  ugly, bad girl, bitch, hag, shrill, witch

  ball-buster, nobody will ever love you back,

  why aren’t you feminine, why aren’t

  you soft, why aren’t you quiet, why aren’t you dead?

  – Marge Piercy

  The most plausible case for choosing to remain celibate is by Hannah Ward. She says quite blatantly: ‘I am a nun because I enjoy being a nun.’ It is said that when a woman finds her body she finds her sexuality and her own way of expressing it. Hannah Ward affirms: ‘It’s been as a nun that I’ve found my body and thereby my sexuality.’ What that is, she does not spell out, but I presume it is in social service and love for humanity.

  But why do celibates have to flaunt their celibacy by wearing outlandish garments? Catholic brothers wear long cassocks, nuns black or white dresses prescribed by the orders they belong to, Buddhist bhikhus and nuns wear saffron, Jain sadhvis wear loose white clothes, Brahma Kumaris wear white sarees and Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity wear white sarees with a blue border. Can’t they pursue their vocations looking like everyone else?

  I don’t know the answer, but quote Hannah Ward in support of my argument: ‘One of my Franciscan sisters, fully habited, was travelling by coach. In front of her was a mother with her young daughter, the latter fascinated by this rather odd-looking figure sitting behind her. After much peering between the seats, puzzled looks and loud whisperings, the embarrassed mother explained that “it was a nun”. The little girl, with curiosity still unsatisfied, peered once again between the seats and politely asked my sister, “Excuse me, do you have breasts?”’

  17

  The Art of Love-Making

  To this day taking a woman to bed is commonly described by ‘Hindiwallas’ as bhog lagaana – the same as an offering made to the gods.

  It could well be entitled ‘Love-making as an Art’ or ‘Copulation as the Ultimate Aim of Love’. Or by as many other juxtapositions of love and lust as there are asanas in Hatha yoga. You have to give the fertile Indian mind the infinite capacity of extracting the last drop of semen through phallic manipulation that every healthy male in every part of the world indulges in every other day, without thinking much about it or investing it with supramystical qualities. One Professor Agrawala takes the process many steps further; he delves into its folkloric origins, unfolds scriptural papyri, examines erotic sculptures and paintings on Hindu temples and on paper to explain this unique Indian obsession with the mundane but lightly pleasurable pastime of mating. Thus a simple four-letter activity is elongated into a learned and esoteric thesis of several thousand sentences.

  To start with, one must understand the subtle distinction between Mithuna and Maithuna. The insertion of the latter ‘A’ between the m and i makes a world of difference. Without the ‘A’ we have a static male, seated alongside an equally frigid female. ‘Mithuna is a pair; a couple of male and female’, explains the learned professor, ‘whereas Maithuna is male-female copulation.’ Hence no sooner the ‘A’ is inserted into the slot, the two are energised into activity which attains sublime heights when body and mind become one. It is the sort of mystic experience Shelley described:

  A mist was spread, the sickness of a deep

  And speechless swoon of joy as might befall

  Two disunited spirits when they leap

  In union from this earth’s obscure and fading sleep.

  Literature on sex has been produced in abundance in our country from pre-historic times. Origins of tantra are yet untraced but tantric practices were known and commented upon in Buddhist and Jain texts as well as in the Vedas and the Puranas. Long before Vatsayana’s Kamasutra and the Koksastra we had sexologists pronouncing on all matters of sexual aberration. Why some came to be known as Vama (left-handed) is not recorded, but modern-day psychiatrists have noted that Indian males only use the fingers of their left hand to excite female genitalia because they regard it as unclean and not to be touched by the hand they eat with.

  In India, sexual activity was understood in the first place as a religious act for a religious purpose, writes the professor. He quotes a passage from the Chandogya Upanishad which is typical of the obfuscation practiced by our ancestors: ‘This is the Vamadevya chant as woven upon copulation. He who knows this “Vamadevya chant” comes to copulation, procreates himself from copulation, reaches a full length of life, lives long, becomes great in offspring and in cattle, great in fame. One should never abstain from any woman. That is the rule.’

  To this day taking a woman to bed is commonly described by ‘Hindiwallas’ as bhog lagaana – the same as an offering made to the gods. (Not many people realize that it was not English that gave the word ‘fuck’ to the world but our ancients: it is an anglicized distortion of bhoga). With the coating slapped on the all-too-brief act of sex it was not
too long a step to plastering scenes of erotica on temples depicting gods and goddesses as well as mortals engaged in coitus and having women servitors (devadasis) made available to worshippers. Professor Agrawala has cited many opinions explaining erotica in places of worship. Dr Coomaraswamy is right in holding that they are there ‘simply because voluptuous ecstasy has also its due place in life, and those who interpreted life were artists.’

  18

  Of Men, Women and Sexuality

  If a woman lost her temper with me even once, I wrote her off for ever. I have no forgiveness in me. Full stop. Nor am I tolerant towards women whose mouths smell like cesspools.

  Won’t you come into the garden? I would like my roses to see you.’ Can you think of anything nicer to say to a woman by way of compliment? I promptly put them in my personal anthology of quotations. The words were penned by R. B. Sheridan. I stumbled across them reading the silliest book I have ever read: What Makes a Woman Sexy? by Julia Grice. But once I started reading it, I could not put it down till I had finished it.