Incomplete reading of incomplete texts

The controversy that seems to have affected the ‘Tamil intelligentsia’ the last few days caught my attention and I wanted to talk about some things that bothered me. I’m still too lazy and disinterested to write anything coherently, though. I’ll just make some broad observations around various reactions that it’s garnered and some that are specific to the article itself.

Ethnography/ethnographic research was among the most seriously contested fields in the mid-later part of the 20th century. This article gives a very good breakdown of the challenges that it faces to this day. Unlike quantitative studies that sociologists engage in, ethnography tries to present narratives that aren’t necessarily meant to be extrapolated (the qualitative vs quantitative camps within sociology have a history of their own). It presents an account of a people in a place at a time (or within a time frame). It’s a form of record keeping that is supposed to be done by people who are trained scholars capable of providing contexts and ideological clarity along with the observations they’re recording. Such endeavours are invariably susceptible to all kinds of bias -- wilful, unintentional, editorial etc., layered by racial, ethno-linguistic, ideological etc. The onus has long been shifted to the reader to extract knowledge from these studies. It’s for them to apply qualifiers and retain misgivings on top of those applied by the researchers/authors themselves. It is definitely not meant for popular consumption by untrained readers.

The reader may not like the ‘findings’ presented by the authors. It may not be politically correct. It may be highly problematic when situated within a larger socio-political/temporal context. But none of this should automatically lead to the assumption that the authors did not approach the study in good faith or that they employed unscrupulous/unethical methods to obtain their data. It’s highly possible that it indeed is the case but the reader must resist the urge to embrace that conclusion immediately.

About the EPW article

It’s poorly written (this includes, verbiage, translation, phrasing etc) and it could be accused of taking a patronizing or even a casteist tone -- it doesn’t help that all 3 authors were either OBC or upper caste. Even so, in a purely academic sense, it’s completely irrelevant.

It makes quite a few leaps in terms of what participants seem to say and the immediate conclusions that the authors draw from it. It is unknown how many participated and whose stories/accounts were taken as median to string the narrative. I’m also aware that this is EPW -- which is not the most prestigious journal around -- and it’s an ethnographic study. So I know that the ‘takeaways’ are to be situated specifically to that village and read as a kind of oral history that cannot be extrapolated.

For now I’m going to play the contrarian and choose not to impute any bad faith and assume that in spite of the shortfalls -- in terms of declaring the reason for conducting the study, the basic methodology behind it, the number of participants, the exact reason this village was chosen (other than it being close to Chennai) etc. -- it should be read from a value neutral standpoint.

Reading the broad thematic progression of the article (at least, the way I would summarize it[1]), one might find similar patterns of behaviour in many communities that are in flux; trying to negotiate racial inequality, transition/thrust into modernity, postcoloniality etc.

Some key points that seem to have bothered many

Dalit youths from Thirunur can’t seem to hold a steady job; they engage in acts of provocation and violence; they spend beyond their means to dress and appear attractive/fashionable; they woo upper caste women to assert their masculinity.

I would like to lay out a hypothetical scenario and see how it plays out for the reader.

A dalit ethnographer who has an ‘unblemished’ track record among dalits and progressives wants to record the “changing meanings of masculinity” in a village in Tamil Nadu. She employs an algorithm that picks a village at random filtering for population > 2000 and dalits to be > 50% (because she wants to study dalit majority villages). She arrives in the village and starts interviewing willing participants after explaining in great detail what the interview is meant for and where their words might end up (the methodology including the consent form is approved by an ethics committee composed of dalits, and non-dalit academics).

At end of the study she makes the following observations among others:

Dalit youths from randomly selected village can’t seem to hold a steady job; they engage in acts of provocation and violence; they spend beyond their means to dress and appear attractive/fashionable; they woo upper caste women to assert their masculinity.

Should she publish them given the potential for it to be misappropriated by those with vested interests?

Should she have abandoned the project in the middle once she realized it’s not going in a ‘desirable’ direction?

Should she ignore the median responses and pick the ones that make for more politically correct conclusions that are also less prone to problematic reading when stripped off context in social media?

Let’s say the researcher goes ahead and publishes the article after much deliberation.

Is the reader going to claim that it is impossible for such readings/observations to occur in such circumstances? If so, is it because the reader knows or did a study he/herself (in the exact same village at the exact same time) that contests the other study’s findings?

Exactly on what basis is the reader saying that it’s completely falsified or biased? Wouldn’t it be puzzling if the reader dismissed ethnographic studies because they don’t follow the scientific method and yet their own dismissal has no scientific basis?

Given this researcher is a self identifying dalit woman from rural Tamil Nadu, what is the disgruntled reader going to accuse her of? Being a turncoat?

But the reader need not worry for it is only a hypothetical situation. In reality the reader is free to furrow into the authors' identities at the expense of the points made in the study itself.

My personal opinion on the ‘problematic findings’

1. Dalit youths from Thirunur can’t seem to hold a steady job; they engage in acts of violence

Historically, people from marginalized groups have often found it difficult to fit into modernist/capitalist sites such as factories and other regulated workplaces (one can include schools in this too). Many first nations people of Canada are caught in a cycle of unemployment, substance abuse, crime and incarceration. Almost all studies implicate the residential school system and the government policy that has consistently failed them for decades. No one accuses the researchers for painting the indigenous people in a poor light. That they cannot hold a steady job or that they engage in violent/delinquent behaviour is a direct result of their historical positioning and its readily acknowledged (at least among those who aren’t halfwits) [2]. It’s frustrating to read dalit intellectuals/'observers' not give their own youth this minimal 'concession' after enduring hegemonic violence and disenfranchisement for centuries. If they’re able rise above it -- as overwhelming majority of them have -- great, but it’s understandable if they cannot. It’s no small moral burden to overcome and they don’t owe it anyone. (Please refer to Fanon on this topic and also bell hooks' critique of Fanon.)

The first instinctively driven priority for most members of disenfranchised groups often is to achieve parity (yes, I'm qualifying this statement on multiple levels); not just in aspects that are socio-political or economical but also in simple acts of peformativity, gendered or otherwise. The moral/ethical/rational considerations are secondary [3].

2. They spend beyond their means to dress and appear attractive/fashionable; they woo upper caste women to assert their masculinity.

This was recorded in the most value neutral sense for the most part, except when they discuss the economics of it where there’s a hint of paternalistic critique for their ‘irresponsible’ behaviour.

The second part of it needs to be addressed with the reader’s views on sex and sexuality.

Mine align with what is legally recognized in most ‘developed’ countries. I do not place sex within a moral framework. A man can lie about his age, job, intent to marry or any number of other details. As long as the sexual act itself is consensual the many falsities that it was predicated on is still immaterial. (I’ll say vice versa just for the record.) For instance, I find it hard to sympathize with those who are sad because they had sex with the 'wrong person' or for the 'wrong reasons'. It's unfortunate that that's what they have internalized from their lived realities and have not been able to transcend it but I just do not subscribe to that value system. (I am saying this fully aware that sex, class and dignity are intertwined  discursively in various degrees all over the world.)

So I don’t have a problem with men ‘targeting’ women from certain groups. Even if it’s with a ‘sinister agenda’: to ‘entrap’ them into a ‘false marriage' just to extort a ransom from the bride. It is unethical at worst and even that because of the social context in which it happens. Outside of it it’s just a laughable notion. (Please don’t muddy this with actual criminal acts involving children, revenge porn or related threats, and coercion.)

Nevertheless, I do need to remind that nowhere in the article is there a suggestion that the dalit youth want to ‘entrap’ upper caste women with such ulterior motives. It is stated as a matter of fact based on the participants' own words. They should have qualified certain acts as commonplace among youth in general -- especially for readers who are not well versed with the larger milieu -- but this kind of 'incompleteness' is not unusual in such studies. They follow their own dialectic with contestations and correctives coming from within academia. The EPW article begins with faulty methodology and arrives at faulty conclusions. This is perhaps where a dalit reader may not be as generous and ascribe malicious intent (while I would stop at egregious error in judgment).

Final thoughts

The reason I wanted to write about it is not because I am interested in the topic or I personally care about the authors of the article. It was more in response to the outrage and their premises. It is to point to the possibility that in spite of a robust methodology, a larger sample size, a rigorous theoretical framework accompanied by exhaustive literature review and a clear conscience from the researchers, 'problematic' findings do occur. I think it's very important then that we stop and question the bases for the outrage itself.

For instance, there's a claim that Thirumavalavan instructed dalit youth to lure/entice upper caste women, popularized by Ramadoss and many believe it. All I have seen is a rush to 'clear' Thirumavalavan from this accusation; I have yet to find someone who says "so what if he did?" in response.

An individual/groups (supposed) disposition for violence, engagement in 'unscrupulous' sexual activity (or just its markers and 'rituals') etc., have been engineered to dismiss the disenfranchised's historicity and situatedness by hegemonic forces. It is critical that we disengage from that polemic and ethos even as we debate the merits of a study that makes those observations.

Of course, I would be sternly reminded of the social reality within which these ideas are put forth and how one cannot be dismissive of those concerns. I would concede that much too, but our ideological positions cannot always be dictated by complicated, regressive social realities.

--------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. The village ‘belonged’ to the land owning mudaliars and the dalits were daily wagers working in the former’s land. The economic dependency ensured that the caste structure remained unchallenged (with its concomitant effects from emasculation to lack of agency of the dalits). At one point the landowners migrate out of the village due to various reasons and the dalits simultaneously get to own more agricultural land and find other modes of employment. The dalits now outnumber the mudaliars as well. The relative economic independence and new found strength in numbers embolden them to act out their hitherto suppressed masculinities. This nascent masculinity, not as materially substantiated as that of the mudaliars of the yore, is dynamic and manifests in various forms -- drinking and smoking as acts of performative transgression, teasing/harrassing uppercaste girls etc -- that are often a result of being the actors in a certain dialectic. If one were to overlook the poor structure and bad writing, the article progressively illustrates the potency of historical materialism that undergirds the roles taken on by the ‘oppressors’ and the ‘oppressed’. The point about the victimization of women on both sides of the caste hierarchy is cursory at best, though.

2. This includes the hostility and prejudices they encounter in the form of institutionalized racism, sexism, casteism etc.

3. The 'aspirational brahminness' exhibited by non-brahmins in large cities like Madras is an example of this.

Addendum:

In light of other revelations around this study -- the second version of it which was included as part of a larger research -- that I learnt about after writing the post above  it is hard not to attribute bad faith to the authors. C Lakshmanan's response in EPW -- whose existence I was not aware of either -- in fact follows the exact rhetorical tract I had claimed as imperative for one to question studies such as these. It also adds to my other claim that "'[t]hey follow their own dialectic with contestations and correctives coming from within academia."

Many of the reactions that prompted me to write the original post were also made before the information gained traction (about the second version and C Lakshmanan's response in EPW).

'Talented' Ms. Haasan

If you're not someone who follows all the 'special columns' in mainstream (Indian) newspapers and tabloid sites religiously, it's not that hard to be oblivious of Shruti Haasan's existence. But some of my friends aren't as fortunate. It’s aggravated further if they happen to be in the same 'batch' and went to a similar school as she -- one of those upscale vidhyalaya types located in that part of the city where it's easy to find a coffee shop than parking space.

While talking to one of them, she expressed disbelief and frustration over the kind of attention she's been getting from "all directions." She said how bad she was (at singing) at school and how nobody cared -- suggesting that she's not any better now but somehow the reception has reversed. I wasn't sure if that is the case. I checked couple of her 'performances' in YouTube and my friend was right: Shruti Haasan cannot sing. The good news, however, is that at least half of the people who commented didn't sound all that impressed.

If she sucks so bad why do the mainstream observers, especially men, seem to be entranced by her 'talent'? Well, because "she's hot." Let's suspend our subjectivities on both counts -- her musical prowess and her sex appeal -- and see exactly what that means and how those two things come together.

Sexual objectification and its consumption usually leans on some kind of perversion after a point. Here, perversion is not a debatable entity. No matter where one's moral compass stands, sexual fantasies are often predicated on some kind of perversion from that point. Where some kind of transgression takes place.

Even though there is plenty of free porn available in the internet -- with a lot of 'beautiful', 'hot' women -- why do people seem to be obsessed with "nipple slips" and cleavages of some celebrity? Because, they have already been mentally undressed by a part of their consumers. They're just curious whether their fantasy matches the reality. It's particularly misogynistic when the consumer is a man and the consumed is a woman. Because, a talented woman is superior to the man in question by virtue of their emplacement in the equation. So he brings her stature down by objectifying her sexually -- a common, uncomplicated tactic. The society has already sanctioned a prejudiced morality and status for sex for the genders. It's the reason why almost all curse words, transcending language barriers, invariably invoke a woman's sexual discipline. So when they say "she's hot" they ascribe other not so desirable characteristics too (that of a slut etc.).

Ms. Haasan's case is also a tad bit different. Someone who may very well be just another light-skinned, lanky lass has been credited with talent and aptitude barely discernible by most of us.Again, why?

Consumption is invariably hinged on the symbolic sign associated with what's consumed. Any object that is beyond the most basic human needs (such as hunger) is bound to become a sign in order to be consumed. Without these signs it's impossible to establish the difference between objects; to get/form a sense of uniqueness about anything (Baudrillard).

So Ms. Haasan may be light skinned and lean -- a conforming sign that fits a common sexual ideal -- but how is she unique? Besides, does she have to be unique? That's dependent on how particular you are about your sexual fantasies. For those who do, she has to be unique and 'different' from the rest of the pack. For this, her eyes, nose, hair, and, of course, cleavage may not suffice. Our dear male may have difficulty in putting them together as a unique sign. That's where 'talent' comes to the rescue. It's a safe refuge to preserve their sense of taste and nuance. They're not the shallow men whose penile reservoirs swell at the mere sight of cleavage, it takes serious talent to turn them on. It's only a coincidence that she's 'hot'.

For Indian television that is preoccupied by movies and movie personalities, Ms.Haasan makes for a nutritious fodder. Her relationship with the tabloids and their existence is almost as basic as food and hunger. And given how much our own lives are tabloidized, this bland soup will be 'hot' for a while.

People, products, whatever man.

This is a conversation that a very good friend and I had. It was based on another conversation and the exchange below is quite self-explanatory.*

I didn't ask my friend before I published the conversation and I think that was a terrible mistake on my part. To an extent makes me an untrustworthy person and an asshole. For that and just that, I sincerely apologize to my friend and to my 'better side' that I didn't care to respect when I published it. Thanks.

The topics, argumental points rather, in the exchange above have been discussed extensively in feminist literature. In fact, it's been the topic for several daytime talk shows in the US. Nevertheless, it is not a bad idea to ponder over it once in a while with new and "absurd" perspectives. Run through the follwing pages to have a rough idea - ref 1; ref 2; ref 3; ref 4.

* - The exchange has been edited spatially to fit the margins better

Sexed up discourse

The transition of the prudish Indian youth to the post-prudish pseudo-sexual western wannabe has become flagrant. It’s obvious, but I’ll state it anyway: people no longer seem to feel “proud” about being virgins. I don’t know about women, but men don’t seem to. What appeared to be ironic when we watched English movies – virgins being despised and ridiculed – is gratuitously embraced as the norm among many urban English-speaking youth. It’s gratuitous because it’s a little too soon even for such a vile practice¹. Losing your virginity before marriage isn’t all that feasible for most Indians, not yet. There could be several reasons for it: failed attempts, lack of opportunities, confused morality, anxiety, disinterest and/or plain physical inability are some.

What’s shocking, though, is the way all of this is oversimplified and quantified as symptoms of depression, anger, frustration and even idiocy. It’s done by the “urbanized” youth without much introspection and sexist middle aged men seem to have caught up with this reductionist fad too². It’s something that permeates intellectual and political leanings. It’s evident from the ‘blogosphere’. From the condescending “dude you need to get laid” to the patronizing “all this is irrelevant.”

This happened on New Year’s night. I was at a friend’s place and the “God” topic got into our conversation. I was putting down all claims about the necessity of an external purpose to live and so forth. I was practically vomiting what I’ve been saying here and elsewhere lately. In that ‘group’ was an Indian from Delhi – rich, second year electrical engineering. He was by then slightly drunk (at least that’s what I learnt from what he said).
He said “do you have a girl friend?” – “No” – “what are you doing man? you’re so smart, you should be having, like, five girlfriends, banging them every week night.” I felt so outraged that I didn’t know what to start with³.
It was extremely judgmental and riddled with sexist notions – commodification of women; permissibility for men to have multiple partners; subversion of “smartness” as a sexual panacea and devaluation of one’s life on sexual basis to list a few.

I’ve been hearing this for so long from so many people that I’m not able to “let it slide” anymore. My retorts are even antithetical at times because I’m driven to be offensive⁴. Maybe that’s what they are asking for. Most recent being this comment I got for my previous post. I’ll quote the most relevant parts and my reply.

He said,
You are like that Sri Priya in Aval Appidithaan…Sri Priya will spend the rest of her life doing podcasts about the evil male species, while Saritha will happily sleep with Kamal & have great sex. You tell me what matters more - Sex or Podcast ?

I replied⁵,
“Sex or podcast”? He is asexual; he was born without sexual organs or sexual feelings. He doesn’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. For him sex does not mean anything: for a blind man does not care if his walls are painted red or blue. So there, he just gave a big “fuck you” to you.

Being an ass as you are, you are now welcome to make fun of the blind man for not having eyes - I mean, Suresh, for not having testicles.

-----------------------------------
¹I think it’s inappropriate to associate moral or social value to consensual sex (pre-marital or whatever). Besides, there’s a lot of hypocrisy involved in this ‘norm’. Most of who try to ridicule virgins probably are virgins themselves.

²Once again, I’m not sure about how women perceive and reflect on these things. But I would assume it’s more or less the same, at least in the industrialized world.

³His being an Indian is not particularly relevant to the point - it's just to reason why he felt comfortable enough to say something like that. I admit, there have been times when I would be flattered by such a comment. But in retrospect, I’m ashamed at my silence filled smirk in those times.

⁴This is no excuse for my rude and offensive reply. I therefore apologize to Babu for being, in a strange way, what I was attacking. Having said that, I also want to say “fuck you” to those who’re going to say “dude you need to get laid” in ‘comments’.

⁵ The question was addressed to my imaginary self hence the reply from him.

Love, Sex and Marriage

I did a podcast on this topic. It started as a response to this podcast (download), then I digressed and started talking about other things. Out of all my podcasts I enjoyed this one the most.

Download it from here. Other podcasts

What follows is an email exchange that I and one my listeners had. It was long exchange. I'll just quote parts of it. I've modified the sentences in few places to provide anonymity and frame the discussion within a context that is generally comprehensible.

In response to my podcast:

You mentioned that sex is the basic reason why people marry. And luckily you later clarified your reasoning, otherwise others and including me would have jumped at that. But what I don't understand is this: Why is sex always associated with marriage? Let's forget about love & marriage for now. The two have nothing to do with each other at all in my opinion. But why sex? I agree that there should be a certain kind of sexual intimacy between the married couple. This intimacy will enhance their already established understanding of each other and their friendship. But I think that divorcing just because your sex life isn't active is stupidity. Because it is obvious that as the marriage proceeds, sexual activity would decrease. And finally the husband and wife would end up having no sex at all. This occurs because both of them are more focused on their career or they have to take care of another responsibility; that comes with the arrival of a child. Pls correct me if I’m wrong. So don't tell me that before marrying these people, who divorce their partner for the reason of a lack of sexual life, didn't contemplate on such a possibility.

You quoted the figures of those who get a divorce because their sex life sucks. Yes true. But how many more couples do you think there are, who lead the same mundane lives, in which sex is absent? There should be many. They are either the type who, as you said, adjusts and give in. Or they are the type who are 'mature' couples who have come to know that sex is not the only thing that gives them the joy of intimacy and who have come to value their long-lasting friendship above all.

I have seen more and more of my friends getting their boyfriends and going out with them. And for most of the time, I have thought that they were happy. But after a few years, they are filled with bitterness and anger because their relationship obviously didn't last for long. And soon, one of my friends had found another boyfriend. So are/were they in love? Or was it just infatuation?

But I’m clear in my stand that I don't believe in this bf/gf stuff. I find more benefits in forming meaningful friendships with the opposite sex, rather than a 'meaningless' relationship. As far as it concerns me, such bf/gf relationships are meaningless

My Reply:

{{You mentioned that sex is the basic reason why people marry. And luckily you later clarified your reasoning, otherwise others and including me would have jumped at that.}} – Actually I need not have clarified it; I could have easily defended what I said. That defense is also the answer to your question “Why is sex always associated with marriage?”. It’s not always true, however, associating sex with a relationship is. Since in India, relationship is pretty much synonymous with marriage, sex is associated with marriage. Anyway, I’ll answer the question from the "Indian perspective".

If sex does not define marriage, what does? Let me take some pointers from what you’ve said and dissect it.

{{they are the type who are 'mature' couples who have come to know that sex is not the only thing that gives them the joy of intimacy and who have come to value their long-lasting friendship above all.}} – If this is what defines marriage, I think it makes me a homosexual already. Yeah, I have a relationship with my best friends which can only be characterized by what you’re saying. We are intimate as in we share our inner most feelings, problems and tribulations. We care about each other a lot, and needless to say we know we are best friends. And I think it’s going to be ever lasting.In fact going by the definition, each friend of mine is married to 3, 4 guys and some, to a few women.

I’ll quote a part of what I had said in my post on identity, arranged marriages and all that (the one you had read).“The only difference between your friends/room-mates and your spouse is that you have an emotional attachment with your spouse that is partly sexual (and of "committed" economic dependence or interdependence).”

If mutual care and friendship is all you need in a relationship, why even marry? Can’t you be “just friends” and do that? Oh, married people live together, right? Then make it people who are “just friends and room-mates”. Interestingly though, a lot of married couples lead the lives of two room-mates who don’t see each other often. They sleep in separate rooms, they cook their own food, make their own money, spend it the way they want and they are not interested having kids. If it’s not for the occasional sex they have, they are nothing more than “good friends who are room-mates”.

I can also explain it from a different angle. What makes a marriage is pretty much the same thing that breaks a marriage – fidelity/infidelity (or adultery). What do we mean when we say “he was unfaithful to her?” I know a lot of guys who, don’t even touch, but have “intimate and a long-lasting friendship” with other women even after they’re married. Is he married to them as well? Is he being unfaithful to the one he’s living with? The one he tied a yellow thread around the neck?

We say “he cheated on her” (or vice versa) when he has sex with another woman, don’t we? It means, "you’re married to this woman, so you no longer have an ethical right to have sex with other women but to her and just her”. The whole “faithfulness”, “trust” and other expressions are all facades for the crude sexual blockade they lay on people to monopolize gene transmission (which is not a bad idea I guess). So, sex does define marriage (or a “relationship”). Sex is the basis for all the social relationships. Father, mother, sister, uncle, aunty, friend, friend who’s a guy, friend who’s a girl, girlfriend, wife – all these relationships boil down to your sexual “freedom” with them (from completely blocked to complete freedom). That’s the basis for human cultural evolution. So it’s not inappropriate that sex is associated with marriage.

If I get married for whatever reason, I’ll accept that I got married so that I can have sex with a person that I love without the society bitching about it. Yes, if I ever get married that would be just to avoid all the non-sense that comes from the society if I did not (say, I was “living together” with her). Of course, there are also legal reasons (like, if I die, my wife shall have the insurance money and inherit whatever I have and vice versa).

{{ But I think that divorcing just because your sex life isn't active is stupidity. Because it is obvious that as the marriage proceeds, sexual activity would decrease.}} – You’re being judgmental here, I had just said in the podcast – we are in no place to judge what others’ priorities should be (in their personal lives that is). Who are we to pass judgments on what one should expect out of a marriage? And it’s not “obvious” that sexual activity decreases as marriage proceeds. It’s not a scientific fact. Contrarily, women’s sexual energy peaks in their early 40s and for men they peak in the late 20s and it continues at a relatively same rate till they reach mid 40s. While it may be true that what you’re saying applies to lot of couples, it need not be true that it’s “the best way to live”.

I’ll state a perspective that is not my own, by very convincing nonetheless: We don’t know why we are here. We don’t know if our lives have any purpose. What we do know for real (as real as reality can be perceived by humans) is our momentary existence. As long as we are alive in this earth, we might as well indulge in earthly pleasures (if we are ready to face the consequences too). As opposed to “both of them being more focused on their career or taking care of another responsibility; that comes with the arrival of a child.” What are they chasing by running behind a career and bringing up a child? Happiness? So they are depriving themselves from a happiness to achieve a happiness of a different kind? At least sexual pleasure is reflected by the fact that you have orgasms. There’s no delusion (like the "pleasure" you get from watching your progeny grow up, get in to deepshit and put your ass on the line every other day).

Don’t agree with me? Why? You think the happiness of the ‘other’ kind is better than the satisfaction you get out of sex? Well, may be it is for you and me, why should it be for others? If a person is born with an immense libido, would you call him (or her) stupid if he leaves his marriage because he cannot satisfy his urges? Is it his fault that he’s born that way? Is it even a fault?

Of course, there’s an age old argument about the permanency of ‘that’ happiness -- as if the happiness you get from family life (career, children and all that nonsense) is going to last forever. In my opinion, they are both as fickle and shallow.

So I repeat - sex is the basic reason why people get married. This time however, I’m giving no clarifications, deliberately. Let me see if anyone can “jump on it” and prove me wrong. The people who get married may not realize this, but the institution itself is structured like that. They are 'weekend customers' who order shark-fin soup. They are not killing sharks, but they are part of the business that does.

{{So don't tell me that before marrying these people, who divorce their partner for the reason of a lack of sexual life, didn't contemplate on such a possibility.}} – There’s a basic difference between knowing it’s going be painful and experiencing it. It’s like those who climb the Mt. Everest. They know it’s going to be cold, really cold. But when they get there, they go “man it’s cold! I didn’t realize it’s going to be this cold. To hell with this expedition, I’m leaving”. So people who knew that their sexual life is going to diminish might still not know how bad it can get. How bad can it get? I don’t know. But if people leave their marriage because of that, it should be pretty bad.

It’s all in how we look at things. People often praise Indian couples for staying together in spite of all the problems (lack of sex life being the least of them). These people put their society’s whims before their own, but it doesn’t mean they are any better. If they contributed to betterment of the society by not caring about their personal lives, as many would argue, I fail to see their contribution. It’s a society soaked in inequality, injustice, poverty, sexism, bias, racism, political imbalance and what have you. I’m not saying that things would have been better had we followed a different family model. I’m just pointing to the fact the existing one is not the best. All societies function within their limits of sustainability. So, the western societies need not be mocked or looked down up on because they have shrinks and strip clubs.

Getting back to my podcast, my only point of argument was that marriage is a mixture of several things (sex, attraction, love, compassion, friendship, trust, reliance etc.). Regardless of how it begins (arranged or love) all marriages go through this mixture, probably in varying proportions. And if you take love as the source of it, that source’s inception can again be triggered by sexual attraction or whatever. As I had said, I know a few guys who “fell in love” looking at the girls' breasts and neckline. They’re now “happily married” with a kid. I think they embody the “happily married every after” couple. Sure, their start, as I know personally, wasn’t all that “divine”, but now it’s just as good as others’ who started with “complete maturity and understanding”. In my opinion it’s all bullshit. No body needs to justify which way of bullshitting is the best. My discussions however, are only about establishing that; it’s all bullshit.

In all of this, the question of morality is moot. I don’t think anyone has the moral high ground to claim that a particular way living is moral and others are immoral. I think that line of thinking is nothing short of intellectual bigotry and prejudice. There are things in this society that I hate, despise, scoff at, pity and disrespect, but I would never (at least when I’m “completely in control” of what I’m saying) have the temerity to say something is immoral.

About your friends having boyfriends; I don’t know exactly why they do it but I can understand. You would have seen me use the word memes quite often. What your friends are doing could be that. I think we all do it. Fashion, movie, music - none of these is independent. We like what we like because there’s a status associated with that likeability itself. Just tell me if you’ve done anything on your own, just for yourself. I shall deconstruct and demonstrate that it wasn’t. In the same light, what your friends are doing need not be measured or judged. But you may throw your ideas on what they are doing. It will probably help you shape your worldview.

We all venture in to things that don’t always go as we planned, but it doesn’t mean we were stupid. But failing to see the possibility of it going wrong is stupid indeed. So in a sense if your friends cannot handle breakups I don’t think they should be dating. Then again, as I had explained with the Mt. Everest example, they might know it’s going to be painful if and when they breakup; but cannot quietly take the pain. So they get “filled with bitterness and anger”. But it passes and after it does they would have gained a valuable experience.

We are all big blocks of stone, we carve ourselves an image by blowing with a hammer called experiences (sometimes other blow it, sometimes it’s feeble blow, sometimes it’s a strong blow – each blow has its corresponding effect). Creation and destruction happen simultaneously. As the stone block loses itself, an image, a sculpture gets created.

{{So are/were they in love? Or was it just infatuation?}} -- I had mentioned about this specifically in the podcast. Is it love only if it lasts? Or if they get married? I don’t agree with the idea that love should be ever lasting. I don’t think it’s possible (if we are to follow a strict definition of love). All relationships share an intensity that does not remain constant, because we as people, change constantly. If you remember my earlier discussion about the ‘self’, you should be able to correlate. You fall in love with someone when you are 25. By 30 he is a different person and you’re a different person. Now, how is it possible to maintain the same love with the same intensity? It may increae but it's still not the same. It’s almost like finger prints. They look the same but they are the not same, are they?

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the term 'risk society'. It’s also a book's title. That book, in general, is about risk and reward behaviour of people in late modernity. It’s mostly sociological than psychological. There’s a section in the book that talks about how people in the 60s, 70s and 80s spent their whole lives working for the same company. That is, their career started and ended in a building. They were from the non-risk-taking generation. They were scared to leave their jobs for the fear of ending up in a worse job. But today it’s not the case, you see people jumping companies every month. Each person has 4, 5 jobs in his career. Some people have 4, 5 careers in their life. Now, whose life was better? Nobody can tell.

Apply the same logic for love and partners. All these people who are supposedly in love may just stick to their partners because they don’t know where they might land if they leave the one they have. In all of this, I don’t see where the distinction between love and infatuation creeps in. I don’t even know if there needs to be a distinction.

{{As far as it concerns me, such bf/gf relationships are meaningless.}} – As a nihilist, I think everything is meaningless (just give it a wider perspective). It’s like looking at something in ‘Google Earth’. When you are 80,000 ft above the ground, everything looks green or blue or yellow – somewhat meaningless. Then you go down further and further, you see a country, then a city, then a street and then a green circle. The whole blurry green thing seen from 80,000ft on a closer look is beautiful cricket ground. So be flexible in looking at things, not only from different angles, but also from different altitudes.

***end of exchange***

If you are going to leave any comment, please don't say anything about the post's length. I probably could have summarized the whole thing to less than 800 words, but why should I? People summarize books too. But I would rather read the book than the summary. This post is a narrative, it's not meant to be "appealing" or interesting. But I think it still is. Nevertheless, just know that if it's not, it never tried to be. It's not prose that follows a certain structure. It's a conversation.