Sort of, sort of not. The idealized couples were generally monogamous like Shiva and Parvati or Rama and Sita. But in other cases you do have Krishna sleeping around and it’s implied in the Mahabharata that it would be unmanly of a kshatriya to refuse to oblige a woman if she wants to go to bed with him. Basically ancient Hindu societies had a great deal of leeway for deviant behavior and lifestyles. Sex before marriage was probably not considered ideal, but also not considered a huge deal.

Presumably some measure of discretion was required though. So no Carrie Bradshaws.

Not sure if it has been discussed here or anywhere else on SM or any other source, but from what I have studied, there is nothing against homosexuality in Vedic culture/religion. (At this point, I am not aware of any rules/laws/commandments/etc against homosexuality/bisexuality/lesbianism/etc in Hinduism/Jainism/Buddhism.) Or if anyone can enlighten me, please state the source or Bhagavad Geetha chapter or whatever text that makes a case for or against homosexuals.

All I ever read about sexual energy in general, in the Vedas, is that it is to be conserved, or reserved only for marriage. But nothing about homosexuality or a case for or against it.

The Abrahamic religions like Christianity/Judaism/Islam have some verse(s) in their holy literature that can be interpreted to be anti gay or even a few clear statements against homosexuality. Again, let me know if that is wrong. Hindu/Buddhist/Jain literature don’t reveal much in that department. Or at least the way those religions are practiced today.

I wonder if you mean in the villages of India, the culture, and not religion, the culture is biased against gay people. Sometimes culture can be different from the way the religion is practiced. And has it always been that way, or has Western/ Islamic/Christian/Victorian British/etc culture had some influence in the Indian villages to have a bias?

it’s just like when Aunties ask, ‘Then why don’t you just get married? Don’t you want to, instead of having all this boyfriend-girlfriend nonsense?’ which really means ‘How come you get to spend your youth having sex and I had to marry some guy who now spends his time looking down your blouse at cultural functions?’, thinly veiled by fake concern for those vedding and baby photos they’re so anxious to see pop up in your wallet. Underneath her painfully tacky-Indian questions about ‘why he can’t just stop being ‘a’ gay’ and the influence of boarding school on his attraction to men I sense a very passive-aggressive strand of jealousy…see, Ms. Reddy, you could have spent your time crushing on Aish AND Hrithik but you’re just too busy sticking to the straight and narrow

ACTUALLY…………. sex expert statistics still show that MARRIED WOMEN are having the best sex.

So could it be that these “frustrated aunties” are getting more satisfaction than any of us – both qualitatively and quantitatively???

I didn’t know Woody Allen said it, but I’ve always said the same thing! It’s naive to try to place sexuality into a couple of boxes – gay or straight – doesn’t it lie on more of a spectrum? Yes, there are two ends, but there are so many points that lie in between. I once went on a date with a bi desi guy. We developed a comfort level fairly quickly, so I guess that’s why he was open to sharing his sexual attraction to men with me. He liked getting serviced, and returning the favor, but he’d only had emotional connections with women. In any case I was cool with it, but then he swore up and down that he was straight.

……….

Eh?

……….

I was sitting there with a certain look on my face… It just struck me as odd because, well, if he was embarassed or shy or nervous about sharing his affinity for men, he wouldn’t have mentioned it. But now that you’ve told me you like getting head from guys, you’re going to wave the Straight Flag? Yeah…. no. You might not be gay, but you sure as hell aren’t straight. Just embrace it.

I hope he finds peace in any case.

You say –

Most people in India are too worried about feeding and clothing themselves to worry about some archaic law that undermines the identity of upper middle class closeted homosexuals. I doubt the lower classes would have much sympathy for Vikram Seth and people like him; they still have it a lot better than those living in the streets.

likewise, most people in america are too worried about feeding and clothing themselves (and buying consumer goods that are being sold to us) to worry about some archaic law about torture. doesn’t mean there aren’t people of all classes incensed by it and wanting to vote out every US congressperson who voted for it this past week. your reasoning doesn’t hold.

in addition, it’s rather narrow-minded to think that the archaic law on sexuality only affects upper middle class closeted homosexuals — there are tons of queer people in india, in all classes (just like in america) and it’s important for those who can give greater voice to the cause to do so. just because people are living in the streets doesn’t mean that important laws that can affect everyone in society aren’t passed. just my two cents.