Why?

This had to be done... There aren't enough cynics around

I now pronounce you....

It was one lazy midnight when I came across that news. For starters, I was in a kind of trepidation- Comedy Central- possibly the only channel that doesn’t dedicate long hours to conniving scheming women (I know, those sexist, chauvinist pigs), was treading dangerously close to the “Indians are culturally aesthetic and we don’t talk about the books we have written” line. Another ban seemed on cards as their word play included phrases like cunning linguist. Given their previous ban was using actual words for a certain part of the male anatomy instead of time honored euphemisms like gherwufwjkf, this was by all means worthy of a decade long ban.

The news on the other hand was about a high court verdict. I still have no idea what the actual words are, but the men and women arguing gave me an idea. As half baked knowledge is an Indian (patent pending) trait, I decided to post my views without educating myself about it completely. Apparently physical consummation of a relationship was as good as marriage. While all pseudo-intellectual-pseudo- feminists were gaga about it, there were counter arguments as well.

One of the foremost arguments was that if the guy complaining was you know a guy, would the court uphold the ‘relationship’? Of course not, and then these PIPFs would say it was a woman’s choice to do blah blah blah and they would rain all feminist crap of ‘moral police’. Also one of the learned females on the pro-side said that ‘physical intimacy made the marriage and was what was expected in it’. With these points and no prejudices in mind, I set my thought off the reins and boy it came up with crap.

Should the verdict have been what I thought it was (Intimacy is the sine qua non of marriage), there would have been several repercussions. Now that school kids have confessed to getting laid and stuff, their parents would have to be arrested for child marriage. Also, thousands of divorce cases would be filed on two major grounds.

1.       Those that ‘did’ before their now successful marriage wanting to annul their first ‘marriage’ and
2.       Those with bad marriages seeking annulment on the grounds that they/their spouse/both of them were previously ‘married’.

However, we will have PILs that would seek to extend the marriage umbrella over other practices that predominantly came under the purview of marriage. Say for instance, providing food and security… That would mean anyone that bought a girl lunch or any guy that walked a girl safely to her home would be considered married to her. This would predominantly hit ‘the nice guy’ earlier mentioned. But ironically, given his luck, he would probably be arrested for multiple marriages and held under some bylaw ensuring he rots in prison.

Also since the judge used to forbidden ‘S’ word in his verdict, and the print media shamelessly published that word without asterixes or censorship, what would be the next line of action by the Information and Broadcasting ministry? I mean, it is because of these guys we have characters muted when they mean gender or donkey and many of them inexplicably have witches as their mom…

Despite of all these potential thought provoking problems my biggest issue was this:


                The next time one of my friends gets married-the traditional way- using rings/mangalsutra/ whatever their culture prescribes, and I post a harmless status like ‘At ****’s wedding’, what would this sad, perverted society make out of me and my innocent update?

No comments: