Showing posts with label Gay Sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Sex. Show all posts

September 6, 2018

A Landmark Court Decision in India "By Decriminalizing Gay Sex"




New Delhi (CNN)
India's Supreme Court has struck down a colonial-era law criminalizing consensual gay sex, overturning more than 150 years of anti-LGBT legislation.
The court announced the landmark verdict in Delhi on Thursday, as jubilant crowds cheered and rights activists hugged one another, overcome with emotion. 
Section 377, an archaic law imposed during British rule that penalized intercourse "against the order of nature," had carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 
The decision to repeal the law is a major victory for India's LGBT activists and supporters after years of determined struggle.
    Crowds in Mumbai cheer the Supreme Court announcement.
    "I can't even explain how I am feeling right now. The long battle has been won. Finally we have been recognized by this country," said Bismaya Kumar Raula, wiping away tears outside the court. 
    Others gathered said that, while they had anticipated a positive outcome, the result still came as a shock.  
    "It's an emotional day for me. It's a mix of feelings, it's been a long fight," said rights campaigner Rituparna Borah. "There was not enough media or society support earlier but we have it now. People will not be seen as criminals anymore." 
    Though the law was rarely enforced in full, lawyers argued that it helped perpetuate a culture of fear and repression within the LGBT community. 
    A change in legislation will "create a space of freedom where you can start expecting justice," Danish Sheikh, a law professor at Jindal Global Law School and LGBT advocate, told CNN. 

    Long battle

    Thursday's historic ruling is the culmination of a lengthy and often fraught legal battle for equality in a country where homosexuality remains taboo.
    In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled that the ban on consensual gay sex violated fundamental rights. The decision, which only applied to the Delhi region, was quickly overruled by the Supreme Court in 2013, following a petition launched by a loose coalition of Christian, Hindu and Muslim groups.
    In its 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court said that only a "minuscule fraction of the country's population constitute lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgenders" and it was therefore "legally unsustainable" to repeal the act. 
    During the latest hearings, lawyers representing more than a dozen gay and lesbian Indians questioned the constitutional basis of that earlier ruling. 
    LGBT Indians gear up for possible U-turn on anti-gay laws
    LGBT Indians gear up for possible U-turn on anti-gay laws
    "It was a wrong judgment. It was not legal and it was based wrongly on the tenets of the constitution," said Colin Gonsalves, one of the lawyers representing the current group of petitioners.
    That case was strengthened last year, when the Supreme Court moved to uphold the constitutional right to privacy
    The ruling, which declared sexual orientation to be an "essential attribute of privacy," helped galvanize campaigners. 
    "Last year's ruling eviscerated the 2013 judgment," said Gonsalves. "There is no issue now. There is not much left to argue," he added. Opposition to moves to overturn Section 377 had rested predominately on religious and moral objections. In an interview earlier this year, lawmaker Subramanian Swamy, a prominent member of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), described the legalization of gay sex as a "danger to national security" and "against Hindutva."
    Hinduism has traditionally maintained a flexible, non-prescriptive view of sexuality. However, in recent years hardline Hindu groups have taken a more conservative approach.
    In the run up to the judgment, the BJP refrained from taking a public stand, deferring instead to the court.

    Dehumanizing colonial law

    Out of the estimated 48 former British colonies that criminalize homosexuality, 30 still have laws based on the original colonial anti-LGBT legislation, according to Lucas Mendos, co-author of the 2017 International LGBTI Association "State-Sponsored Homophobia" report.
    In the case of India, the original British law had remained in place more or less unchanged since it was introduced by British colonizers in the 1860s. 
    According to India's National Record Bureau, more than 2,100 cases were registered under the law in 2016. India did not maintain a separate database of prosecution under section 377 until 2014.
    Arif Jafar, one of the current group of petitioners whose case the Supreme Court ruled on, was arrested in 2001 under Section 377 and spent 49 days in jail. 
    Supporters in Mumbai react to the Supreme Court ruling that gay sex is no longer a criminal offense.
    Jafar now runs an informal support group in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. The group, named "Trust," provides counseling, support and sexual health services to gay and transgender persons.
    In his petition, Jafar described the experience as dehumanizing and a violation of his fundamental rights. He also alleged that he was beaten and humiliated every day because of his sexuality. 
    Campaigners in India pointed out that the law didn't only trap members of the LGBT community in the closet, it also invited other forms of discrimination, providing a cover for blackmail and harassment. 
    Members of India's LGBT community dance in celebration after the ruling was announced in Bangalore on Thursday.
    "The constant fear of 377 we have felt will not be there for the coming generation," said Yashwinder Singh, of Mumbai-based LGBT rights group The Humsafar Trust. 
    "Laws getting passed is one thing but changing the society is a big challenge," said Singh of the court's decision, Thursday. 
    "Our work has started multifold now. We have to go and talk to people and change their mindset so that they accept every human as one." 
    Following the announcement Thursday, the Congress Party, the country's main opposition, posted a message of congratulations on social media, welcoming the "progressive and decisive verdict" from the Supreme Court.
    As supporters celebrate the decision, activists will now be shifting focus to the broader issue of equality. 
    People celebrate the decision in Bangalore on September 6.
    "The next step is to start looking at issues of rights. Right now, it is just decriminalizing," Anjali Gopalan, founder of the Naz Foundation, which has spearheaded the fight against Section 377, told CNN.
    "The right that every citizen of the country should have access to and should not be taken for granted. Like the right to marry, the right to adopt, the right to inherit. Things that no one questions and that are clearly denied to a certain section of citizens."

    August 6, 2018

    Instead of keeping it Like A Secret Let's Celebrate Gay Men Can Have Sex Without Fear

    Have you heard of the anti-AIDS drug PrEP? Most straight people are unaware of it. In 2015, the World Health Organization said “the efficacy of oral PrEP has been shown in four randomized control trials and is high when the drug is used as directed.” 
    PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis) is a drug that allows you to have as much sex as you want, without a condom, and remain HIV-negative. If you use it, you probably won’t catch HIV. POZ magazine says that it has “100 per cent efficacy for those who stick to the treatment.”
    Doctors recommend everyone use condoms, because although PrEP is very effective as a protection against HIV, it does not guard against the transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases.
    Recently, Patrick William Kelly — a gay academic from Northwestern University who is writing a “global history of AIDS” — sounded the alarm about PrEP. For many straight people, Kelly’s discussion of PrEP may be the first they have heard of this revolutionary drug. 
    Kelly’s concern is that the popularity of PrEP will cause gay men to stop using condoms. He worries:
    “An entire generation of gay men has no memory or interest in the devastation [AIDS] wrought. AIDS catalyzed a culture of sexual health that has begun to disintegrate before our eyes. What is there to be done to bring it back?…The nonchalant dismissal of the condom today flies in the face of the very culture of sexual health that gay men and lesbians constructed in the 1980s.”

    Doctors still recommend that everyone use condoms because although PrEP is effective as protection against HIV, it does not guard against the transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases. (Shutterstock)

    There is one sentiment that is missing from Kelly’s article. Why doesn’t he celebrate the fact that gay men — and everyone else — can now have sex without fear of death? PrEP makes sex safer for everyone. It is just one new tool in the “safe sex arsenal.” Why not be happy about the fact that PrEP will undoubtedly save many lives?

    Not a lethal illness anymore

    Some might ask — isn’t AIDS still a lethal illness? Not so much. 
    The gold standard in HIV treatment” (highly active antiretroviral therapy or HAART) was first introduced at the 1996 Vancouver International AIDS Society (IAS) Conference. According to Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, “this was a pivotal moment, when HIV infection became a chronic manageable condition.” 
    In 2014, The Globe and Mail reported that worldwide deaths from AIDS were massively decreasing
    “In 2013, 1.5 million people died from AIDS-related causes worldwide, compared with 2.4 million in 2005, a 35 per cent decrease.” 
    This state of affairs seems particularly significant when one considers hysterical early predictions concerning the effects of the disease. In 1987, Oprah Winfrey stated confidently that “research studies now project that one in five — listen to me, hard to believe — one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years.” 
    This never happened.

    In this 1989 photo, protesters lie on the street in front of the New York Stock Exchange in a demonstration against the high cost of the AIDS treatment drug AZT. The protest was organized by ACT UP, a gay rights activist group. (AP Photo/Tim Clary)

    It’s absolutely true that AIDS affects different demographics, ethnicities and geographies differently, and that gay men are not the only population to be affected by it worldwide. But the improvement in the lives of HIV-positive people everywhere is only in part due to the tireless efforts of doctors, researchers and health-care workers. 
    It is also due to the tireless efforts of gay men everywhere — many of whom became safe-sex activists during the last 35 years, distributing pamphlets, marching and just generally spreading the news. 
    So why would a gay professor characterize PrEP as a bad thing? Why is he worried that gay men — en masse — will suddenly start practising unsafe sex?
    Kelly is the victim of another kind of infection — the notion that gay men are criminals whose desires must be controlled. 
    This criminalization of homosexuals goes back as far as the notion of sodomy. 

    Viewing homosexuality as criminal

    In the England of Henry VIII, the punishment for sodomy was deathIndia today is still struggling to legalize same-sex encounters. 
    In 1972, gay liberation theorist Guy Hocquenghem flatly stated in his book Homosexual Desire: “Homosexuality is first of all a criminal category.” 
    Hocquenghem went on to suggest that even though the late 19th century brought a tendency to view homosexuality through the more “tolerant” lens of illness, the human need to view homosexuality as criminal is persistent.
    “Certainly as we shall see later, psychiatry tends to replace legal repression with the internalization of guilt. But the passage of sexual repression from the penal to the psychiatric stage has never actually brought about the disappearance of the penal aspect.” 
    Both the sexuality of gay men and the sexuality of women are a threat to the primacy of patriarchal male heterosexual desire. Heterosexist culture believes this threat must be controlled. The LaBouchere Amendment in England (1885) was used to incarcerate Oscar Wilde for his homosexuality as a crime of “gross indecency.”
    But Labouchere was an amendment to legislation designed to control female prostitution  — a law that angered many 19th-century trailblazing feminists. 
    When AIDS appeared in the early 1980s, some heterosexuals saw it as primarily a gay disease (AIDS was first called GRID — gay-related immune deficiency). They worried that gay men might infect straight people, especially children. 
    In his influential book of essays, Is The Rectum A Grave?, Leo Bersani suggests that when small-town Americans wanted to ban HIV-positive hemophiliac children in schools, what they actually feared was the spectre of “killer gay men” acting too much like women:
    Women and gay men spread their legs with an unquenchable appetite for destruction. This is an image with extraordinary power; and if the good citizens of Arcadia, Florida could chase from their midst a very law-abiding family it is, I would suggest, because in looking at three hemophiliac children they may have seen — that is unconsciously represented — the infinitely more seductive and intolerable image of a grown man, legs high in the air, unable to refuse the suicidal ecstasy of being a woman. 

    A doctor holds Truvada pills, shown to help prevent HIV infection. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

    AIDS was not the first thing to make straight people think gay men had to be controlled. It simply fit like a glove on a fear of homosexuality that was already culturally endemic. 
    Our society seems addicted to the notion that homosexuality is something uncontrollable and potentially lethal. So when AIDS came along, as the long-time AIDS worker Simon Watney wrote, it was “effectively being used as a pretext throughout the West to justify calls for increased legislation and regulation of those who are considered to be socially unacceptable.”
    The concern over gay male imagined libidinal insanity is a throwback to an old trope. Gay men don’t need to be controlled; at least not any more than anyone else. And if you think otherwise? Well, it’s based on prejudice. Not fact.
    This page was published on Aug 1, 2018 on The Conversation by,


    July 11, 2018

    Gay Sex Could Be Decriminalized For 1.3 Billion People




     India Supreme Court



    NEW DELHI — India could be on the brink of repealing a 157-year-old law that criminalizes gay sex in what is one of the world’s largest and longest-running LGBT legal battles.
    On a sweltering Tuesday afternoon in a courtroom so full people barely had space to turn round, a bench of five judges from India’s highest court began hearing arguments against a law known as Section 377, which was introduced under British rule in 1861 and states that all sexual activity apart from heterosexual intercourse is “against the order of nature.”
    If the Supreme Court judges strike down the law it would transform gay rights in a country of more than one billion people.
    But the ruling could have huge repercussions in other countries — particularly the Commonwealth, an association of countries made up mostly of former territories of the British Empire — where LGBT activists are fighting similar legal battles against colonial-era penal codes
    Akhilesh Godi, a 25-year-old petitioner from Hyderabad who travelled to New Delhi for the hearing, told BuzzFeed News that making legal history was exciting, but that was not his primary goal. “I came out in my early twenties, and it took me a long time to understand what that even meant,” he said. “I battled severe mental health issues and depression, even went on medication. But I feel stronger now.”
    Godi, an ex-student of the Indian Institute of Technology, (a prestigious university that is India’s version of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) said that as a result of filing the petition as part of a group of 20 students, he has been able to discuss his sexual orientation freely with his colleagues — and is now in the process of helping them set up an employee resource group that is inclusive of LGBT people.
    “What I want more than anything else is for other educational institutes to set up support groups and safe spaces for young queer people like me, that are confused and perhaps battling similar mental health troubles.” 
    The list of petitioners includes well known figures such as dancer Navtej Johar, trans activist Akkai Padmashali, chef Ritu Dalmia, and a hotelier named Keshav Suri.
    But there are also petitioners representing the broad spectrum of society and queer experience, such as HIV activist Gautam Yadav and Arif Jaffar, a 47-year old man who was sent to police custody and tortured for over a month for his sexual orientation under Section 377. (Jaffar has been fighting a separate case against the officers that arrested him for the last 18 years).

    A significant proportion of the petitioners against Section 377 are men – in part, this is due to the social stigma all expressions of female desire carry in India, but also because according to senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, the law penalizes men far more often: "Section 377 in our country will affect mostly men even though the section appears sex-neutral," he said during arguments in court.
    Activists say the most hopeful part of this latest fight against Section 377 is that it is no longer limited to allies or members of the community standing in as proxies for others who are too afraid to come out.   
    The petitioners from IIT, nearly all of whom are below 30 years of age, are scientists, entrepreneurs, teachers, researchers, and business owners who describe themselves as the children of farmers, teachers, homemakers and government servants. The 17 men, 2 women and one trans woman described the impact of Section 377 on their lives to the court on Tuesday.
    “People think coming out as gay is some kind of happy ending, but it’s not,” Anwesh Pokkuluri said, as the court broke for lunch. “Even after you muster up the courage to speak with your parents or maybe your siblings, there’s still people at work, people you meet socially, or landlords...and as a result of 377, you never know how they will react to the news of you being gay.” 
    Despite this, Pokkuluri said he was eager to join the petition because he is relatively more privileged than others in his home town in Kakinada, in Southern India. “If not me, then who? When I explained my decision to my parents in this way, they understood.”

    Other petitioners — despite the fact that they were now part of Indian legal history at the country’s highest court – were still to discuss the matter of sexual orientation with their families. One of them, Krishna Reddy Medikonda said that if his parent learnt about his orientation “through this fight,” that was probably the best way for them to find out. “In a way, you could say I’m hoping for that,” he said, breaking into laughter.

    Being treated as “unconvicted felons” (the term senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi used to describe the plight of LGBT people in India) has meant that billions of people have been unable to access sex education and seek medical and legal assistance when required. Despite having received scholarships to some of the most elite institutions in the country, the petitioners from IIT said that they frequently considered leaving India for a country where same-sex love was not treated as criminal. Their petition cites Section 377 as one of the major reasons for a “brain drain” from India.
    But there were also some pleasant surprises — as the day's proceedings drew to a close, Romel Baral, a 25-year-old from Bengaluru who studied at IIT Guwahati and is presently employed at Goldman Sachs, said that his employers were actually the main reason he felt empowered to join the petition. “I knew I would have to admit it some day, I always imagined what it would be like — but seeing how inclusive and warm my colleagues were made it really easy for me to talk about my sexual orientation. When I told them why this law needs to change and why I need to be part of the petition – they told me to make them proud!”
    Hearings into the Section 377 petitions will take place over the coming weeks.
    Nishita Jha
    Nishita Jha

    June 29, 2018

    There are Many Ways for Gay Men to Have Sex(2 guys in sex are just that, not a husband and wife)



     
    DINACHI/GETTY IMAGES
    GQ might not be the book to go and tell us the myths and truths about gay sex but there is enough truth here to publish it. I will add one more thing to what GQ had to say. As a gay men who is never had sex or is very shy about certain things in sex, everyone deserves to safely try as much as one can. Then and only then will you know what you like, what you enjoy and what you don't for sure. A good sexual partner will always tell you,verbally or otherwise what he/she likes and if you are interested in a mutual sexual experience you willtry to make him/her happy as much as you can. The  partner that only cares about you but for enjoying themselves like if you were there as a sex doll...that person needs to have sex by him/her self in their bed in their own empty closed bedroom or shower.
     It takes two and if you have two satisfied partners then there will be repeats.If you are in any kind of relationship, a give and take is normal. I might say "yes" this time but I expect the next time for you say "yes". What does that mean? Only that sometimes things just happen naturally and we fit sexually with our partners like we can read each others mind. But other times there might be a question, then there is nothing wrong to speak up.           🦊Adam

    This article came fro GQ and it was writen.... 

                                                     Penetration isn't everything!      

    We are all pretty obsessed with penetration. And if you were to believe pornography—something that, at this stage, we should all know is not an accurate sexual how-to guide—anal sex is the ultimate goal when two guys get together. It’s what Western culture would have you believe, too; ass-play has long been associated with gayness, and with good reason. Dating back to the ancient Greece, anal sex played a role in the expression of same-sex sexuality (albeit, with fewer varieties of lube).
    The art of anal sex is the thing that, both positively and negatively, has come to represent gay men. It’s a thing that’s helped persecute us and it’s a thing that’s helped us fight back against that persecution, one fuck at a time. But anal sex isn’t about sexual orientation, as any straight guy who’s into pegging will tell you. In other words: There’s more than one way for gays to fuck.

    It’s not all about bases

    Meghan Trainor was wrong; it’s not all about that base. That’s because the concept of first, second, and third base don’t really apply to gay men because our endgame is different. It means that leveling up the bases like you’re playing Super Mario progressing to battling Bowser and rescuing Princess Peach—i.e. penetration—isn’t how our game ends. Rather, gay sex is more like firing up your PlayStation and playing Fallout 4. For the non-gaymers in the house, I’m trying to say that gay sex is an open world. It’s not linear, and your goal should be about exploring as many side quests—whether that’s oral, mutual masturbation, spanking, or rimming—as possible before you reach the game’s conclusion.

    Not everyone likes anal

    Sex isn’t one-size fits all, and that applies to anal. Some people aren’t comfortable with the idea of anal penetration, or have tried it and found that it really isn’t for them. This should be common sense, but it’s worth repeating. Additionally, this shouldn’t be a deal breaker for a partner. To limit oneself to just a single flavor is to shut out a smorgasbord of new experiences.

    Preparing for anal sex can be royal pain in the ass

    Sure, we’re all guilty of getting caught up in the moment and forgoing preparation. But really, there’s a lot more to anal sex than just penetration. Douching and warming things up a bit are recommended for optimal pleasure, and y’all, ain’t nobody got time for that. It’s probably why, according to a 2011 study of 25,000 men who have sex with men published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, less then 40 percent of respondents reported in engaging in anal sex with their last sexual partner. In reality, we’re just not having anal sex as much as everyone thinks.

    Don’t feel the pressure (unless you want to)

    If we’re to believe the above figure (which, for the sake of argument, I am), anal sex really shouldn't hold the importance that it does. Of course, culturally and historically, gay men have been narrowed down where the act of sex itself defines us. But really, if we minimize anal sex and place it on the same shelf as oral or masturbation, how much pressure would that alleviate? Personally, I found the guiding cultural nudge towards anal sex immensely stressful that it diminished the joyous faucets of sexual expression. For young men who are experimenting with same-sex activity, removing the pressure of reaching the summit of anal sex could be the difference of someone acting upon their desires comfortably and consensually and someone slipping into a hole they’re not that all that happy with.

    Gay sex should be whatever you want it to be

    Don’t get me wrong here: I’m not advocating for the end of anal. Instead, I’m attempting to myth-bust presumptions about gay sex. Being gay can be hard enough by itself without then also worrying about the pressures from within our own community to conform to some sort of standard. Use your sexuality as an opportunity to free yourself from the shackles of sexual expectations. Because if there’s one thing in this gay old life that shouldn’t be formulaic it’s sex. Now, go forth and fuck.

    April 14, 2018

    Sex Between Gays Will be Decriminalized In Trinidad and Tobago following Court Judgement






    Gay sex between consenting men in Trinidad and Tobago could soon be decriminalized following a court judgment that campaigners said might spark similar decisions elsewhere in the Caribbean. 
    In his ruling on Thursday, judge Devindra Rampersad said sections of the Sexual Offences Act, which prohibit “buggery” and “serious indecency” between two men, criminalized consensual same-sex activity between adults, and were unconstitutional. 
    “The judge came down on the right side of history in this case by striking down the buggery law and ruling it as unconstitutional,” said Kenita Placide, Caribbean advisor for rights group OutRight Action International, in a statement. 
    The decision followed a similar ruling in Belize in 2016. 
    “With positive rulings in Belize and Trinidad and Tobago, the movement will carry the momentum to other parts of the region,” she said.
    A final judgment on how to deal with the sections of the act is expected in July, rights groups and local media said. 
    The case was brought in 2017 by Jason Jones, an activist for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues who lives in Britain but was born in Trinidad and Tobago. 
    In an online campaign, he said he wanted to challenge laws inherited while the country was under British rule.  Trinidad and Tobago became a republic in 1976. Last year, it was one of five countries which amended its laws to ban child marriage. 
    But it has no laws protecting LGBT people, and rights groups say many LGBT people fear being open about their views or orientation. Being convicted of buggery carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison, according to the law. 
    Thursday’s ruling was welcomed outside the courthouse by large crowds wearing rainbow outfits and singing the national anthem. Earlier this week, hundreds of people gathered outside parliament to show support for the case. 
    Colin Robinson, director of the Coalition Advocating for Inclusion of Sexual Orientation, warned there was a long way to go. 
    “I don’t want to be alarmist, but I expect that this will take time for people to accept, and we hope the violence is minimal,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by phone from Trinidad and Tobago. 
    The group, which works for justice on sex and gender issues, said it expected the government would appeal the ruling. 
    In February, the nearby island of Bermuda became the world’s first nation to reverse a law allowing same-sex marriage. LGBT activists feared that would set a dangerous precedent for gay rights and reverberate far beyond the region. 
    (Thomson Reuters Foundation) 
    Additional reporting by Emma Farge in Bermuda; Editing by Robert Carmichael. Please credit Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, property rights, climate change and resilience. Visit news.trust.org

    It is adamfoxie's 10th🦊Anniversay. 10 years witnessing the world and bringing you a pieace whcih is ussually not getting its due coverage. 4.9 Million Reads

    Featured Posts

    Behind The Back of The Vice-Cheney Family

    The Cheneys at former Vice President Dick Cheney's swearing-in in 2005   EMILY DAVIES People ...