Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby

The latest verdict from the Madras High Court which recognized a couple’s live-in relationship as marriage has led to a predictable barrage of opinions in India. In a country where it is forbidden to talk freely about sex lest someone overhears or, worse, notices the population explosion, we sure love to jump at the first public mention of the word.

One would imagine that a verdict that says couples who have been living together and have what the court calls “established sexual relationships” are entitled to the same legal rights as married couples would be a sign of progress in a society still grappling with ancient mores and Victorian values.

Given that the verdict was for a case where an unmarried couple with two children were in court after separation because the woman claimed that her children were entitled to maintenance expenses, it is heartening to see that we are finally acknowledging civil unions.

But the nature of the verdict is such that several problems present themselves. For instance, it is not clear what it would take for couples living together, but without children, to prove that they in fact have established sexual relationships.

Of course, of vital significance is that fact that Indians are morally superior to the rest of the word and therefore the upholders of the law in our blessed country must exceed their call of duty. And so the judge has helpfully ruled that if any unmarried couple of the right legal age indulge in sexual gratification, this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed husband and wife.

And just like that we crawl back into the hole. This constant need for everyone – right from the government, to the courts, to our parents and even our teachers – to play holier-than-thou is a large part of the problem and is grossly overlooked.

In a way, the verdict signifies remarkable cunning. At once, the courts are addressing a social issue while also imposing what they think ought to be the ethos of our nation. After all, sex for pleasure is so base an action that one should grab the opportunity to “elevate” it to a more meaningful status under the right circumstances.

But I digress. Annoying as these details are, they were not what struck me first. What I want to know in all earnestness is this: Why is the legal age for marriage 21 years for men and 18 years for women in India, while clearly the age for consensual sex is 18 for both? What does this mean in view of the verdict in question?

Let’s assume a couple starts living together at 18 and decides to separate at 20. They do not have children but may have shared responsibilities and related disagreements that take them to court. Although I shudder at the debauchery of people living together out of wedlock at 18, I’m desperate to know if the courts will recognize their union a valid marriage when resolving the case.

As a side note, in country where men significantly outnumber women – 1,000 men for 919 women – why the need to have different ages for marriage? My biggest gripe is the tacit assumption that men need more time to find employment and earn a living, whereas 18 years is plenty for women to learn how to keep a house.

Another equally troublesome issue is that most people who have voiced their support for the verdict say that it is particularly helpful in avoiding situations where a man and woman live with each other, have kids and then the man “dumps” her and shuns all responsibility towards the children, as was the case presented before the High Court. All noble thoughts, but I’m amazed that more people are not taking offense at the underlying premise, which basically is man = bad/dog and woman = aw, poor thing/victim. 

How can we have a real debate about progress in our society if we so comfortably accept these stale stereotypes? Is it so outrageous to believe that a woman too can also choose to walk away from a family or even just her partner and that she is not Sita or Devi who needs to have a higher moral authority than a man?

I’m painfully aware of the fact that Indian women are light years away from emancipation and that the majority do not have the luxury of harbouring my urban “equal gender rights” views. This makes it all the more necessary to ensure that the language used in a legal ruling is not biased, whatever the facts of the case in point may be.

Judges are duty-bound to do the most basic of things: Promise justice to all the citizens of a country even if it means stuffing their own moral penchant in their closets. If they simply must embody moral authority in doing their jobs, then I sincerely hope that it is led by the spirit of equality.