POSTED BY Shefalee Vasudev ON Mar 24, 2010 AT 11:12 IST ,  Edited At: Mar 24, 2010 11:12 IST

Consensual sex between two unmarried adults, the core of many a controversy and now a common urban reality finally got the Supreme Court’s nod yesterday in a hearing on film actor Khushboo's case. Five years back, when a bunch of self-styled moralists took her to court for being vocal about her thoughts on pre-marital sex and virginity, it snowballed from an unnecessary controversy to an issue opening up many important debates. In an interview to me for Marie Claire India in 2006 on an anti-moral policing theme, Khushboo had pointed out how a section of those who accused her for openness were themselves culpable of sexually exploiting hapless women. It was something she had witnessed happening often to extras and smaller artistes in the film industry. She spoke about hypocrisy vs honesty.

Today the SC agrees in principle that sex with consent among adults is legal but this much needed view comes a little late in the day. While the Khushboo case dragged, India’s moral dilemmas have shifted elsewhere. We are now in the age of Love, Sex and Dhoka, and Emotional Atyaachar, UTV Bindaas’s programme that ostensibly sets out to protect the betrayed—in love and sex. The bigger argument is no longer about whether young adults should have sex or not. They are having it as such an obvious part of open and often live-in relationships that they now need TV crews and not-so-private detectives to nail down adulterous partners frenziedly having sex in various other combinations. Betrayal is the big story now with monogamous relationships the casualty. It has over taken pre-marital or live-in sex.

With SC catching up on India’s behavioural realities, I wonder what its opinion would be on the contentious morality of spying partners accusing adulterous ones, in pre-marital relationships? Aren’t both sides transgressing the same line of trust in different ways? Or, does the regular sexual partner in a pre-marital relationship have more rights over those of one-night stands or a casual bed buddy?

POSTED BY Shefalee Vasudev ON Mar 24, 2010 AT 11:12 IST ,  Edited At: Mar 24, 2010 11:12 IST
Follow us on Twitter for all updates, like us on Facebook for important and fun stuff
TRANSLATE INTO:


Post a Comment
Share your thoughts
You are not logged in, please log in or register
Must See
Daily Mail
Digression
5/D-153
Mar 25, 2010
11:29 PM
It is time we enact a law against filing of frivolous cases. Most of the time politicians incite their followers to file these cases to seek cheap publicity and to harass the person concerned. Exemplary punishment will go a long way in preventing these cases. Besides, the sC should direct the lower courts not to entertain these frivolous cases
T S Krishnamoorthy
Navi Mumbai, India
4/D-47
Mar 25, 2010
08:44 AM
The SC must be lauded for consistently standing by and upholding constitutional morality as opposed to perceived public morality. These morons who file cases for publicity must go back to textbooks and learn the difference between Indian culture and Victorian ideals. In the name of Indian culture, they are trying to impose imported morals. As the TN CM also pointed out (in response to a questions of his opinion on the SC observation), such relationships (and pre-marital sex) existed even in the Sangam (ancient Tamil) period. Its high time these self proclaimed guardians of morality are made to shut up.
Ashwin
Jersey City, United States
3/D-185
Mar 24, 2010
11:17 PM
It does not matter now how Lord Krishna and Radha lived together. If a man and a woman decide to live together without marrying, it is their business. There is no sin in it. The observation of the judge of the Supreme court is not anything extraordinary.
Samirajan
Portland, United States
2/D-118
Mar 24, 2010
04:20 PM
Has'nt the apex court work to do ? I think only the other day one judge said it would take the court 360 years to clear the back-log of pending cases.

Why the court needs to waste it's time & adjudiacte legality of consensual sex? It's only telluing the obvious, is'nt it?

There seems to be tendency on part of our judges to hog the limelight & the media obliging. These litigants should'nt ahve been entertained in the first place.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
1/D-102
Mar 24, 2010
02:25 PM
In the Khushboo case, the Court is reported to have observed, "Lord Krishna and Radha lived together". What is the source on which the Court's statement, is based? As far as I know, Radha and Krishna Bhagawan did not live together, although they were said to be lovers (please see below). Also, the purported Radha-Krishna affair was extra-marital (Radha was married to a local cowherd) and not pre-marital. Even this alleged "extra-marital" relationship appears to have been not sexual but a spiritual friendship, because Krishna was a child at that time, and he left Brindavan at the age of 10 and went to Mathura. On the face of it, therefore, the Court's allusion to Radha and Krishna looks not relevant to the matter in hand.
I hasten to add that the comment above is not an endorsement of the accusations against Khushboo.
Korangapuli
New Delhi, India
Order by
Order by
Short Takes
click for more
recent tags
Desis
Dinanath Batra
Diplomacy & Foreign Policy
Education
English
Gujarat
Indian-Americans
Indies
Indo-US
Levity
Maps
Music
Narendra Modi
School Text Books
Schools
 
bloggers
A. Sanzgiri
Boria Majumdar
Buzz
Dr Mohammad Taqi
Freya Dasgupta
G. Rajaraman
K.V. Bapa Rao
Maheshwer Peri
Namrata Joshi
News Ed
Omar Ali
Our Readers Write Back
Poster
Prarthna Gahilote
Shefalee Vasudev
Sundeep Dougal
Sunil Menon
ARCHIVES
Go
SMTWTFS
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031
recent comments


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: