Yes, we all know it’s a great way to familiarize oneself with the hundreds of different positions one can copulate, but the book the world has come to cherish and love does have a side to it that does not get as much of the limelight. There are, of course, different sides to the coin. It existed far longer than Playboy and Penthouse, and there are arguments to be made about how “advanced” the Indian psyche was to be able to put together this gem-at that time. But how forward thinking was Vātsyāyana’s mind? Have we progressed since then? Regressed?
Here are a few snippets from the book of love that show India, and understandably so for the 2nd century, being a little sexist and maybe a little racist. But, again, it was a very long time ago. Times have changed since then, but has India?
“A public woman, endowed with a good disposition, beauty and other winning qualities, and also versed in the above arts [64 practices prescribed in the Kama Sutra], obtains the name of a Ganika, or public woman of high quality, and receives a seat of honor in an assemblage of men.”
Takeaways: It seems only gorgeous women who well-versed in the art of seduction, sex and love (as prescribed in the book) are of high quality.
Note: Women reading about love, and love making, was not discouraged it would seem. They could, in a way, proudly proclaim how great they could be in bed, and not get shunned but rewarded.
The questions: Has India’s women regressed over the years? If so, who’s really to blame? Is being equal to a man still the ultimate goal for women in India? Do Indian men feel the same way? (Image source: Getty Images)
“When Kama is practiced by men of the four castes according to the rules of the Holy Writ (i.e. by lawful marriage) with virgins of their own caste, it then becomes a means of acquiring lawful progeny and good fame, and it is not also opposed to the customs of the world. On the contrary, the practice of Kama with women of the higher castes, and with those previously enjoyed by others, even though they be of the same caste, is prohibited. But the practice of Kama with women of the lower castes, with women excommunicated from their own caste, with public women, and with women twice married, is neither enjoined nor prohibited. The object of practicing Kama with such women is pleasure only.”
Takeaways: Caste differences. Duh!
Note: So the book dictates who a man can and can’t have sex with. Legally. And the reasoning is all wound up in caste differences. The book goes on to talk about these women, from those that need to be struck, violated and spoken to harshly. Basically splitting them into women “fit to enjoyed without sin” – maids, kept women, women married earlier, and women “not to be enjoyed” – sick, mentally disturbed or foul smelling.
The questions: Does the new India still let caste dictate who they sleep with? Are women still here to be enjoyed? Do Indian men still have a grid in which to segregate women who they can and cannot sleep with? Is that based on something other than caste? Is that any better than basing it on caste? Do these rules remain in effect after you actually know the person? (Image source: Getty Images)
“The Acharyas (ancient and venerable authors) are of the opinion that this Auparishtaka is the work of a dog and not of a man, because it is a low practice, and opposed to the orders of the Holy Writ, and because the man himself suffers by bringing his lingam into contact with the mouths of eunuchs and women.”
Takeaways: Oral sex is disgusting, therefore, outlawed.
Note: So it does say oral sex is not to be performed, but it never really says it feels bad. Also, eunuchs are used as a derogatory term for outcasts of society. Lastly, oral sex, is not not to be performed, it’s not to be performed by learned man of good repute.
The questions: Really? Show of virtual hands, how many are against oral sex? If you do believe in the words spoken above, apart from the various other issues you probably need to be locked up for, do you think it would be okay if it were with someone of a lower caste? Also, and this probably has a more direct relationship with current times, are transgender or cross-dressing communities still outcasts? Do they still deserve to be shunned from society? (Image source: Getty Images)
“When a girl of the same caste, and a virgin, is married in accordance with the precepts of Holy Writ, the results of such a union are the acquisition of Dharma and Artha, offspring, affinity, increase of friends, and untarnished love. She should also be beautiful, of a good disposition, with lucky marks on her body, and with good hair, nails, teeth, ears, eyes and breasts, neither more nor less than they ought to be, and no one of them entirely wanting, and not troubled with a sickly body. The man should, of course, also possess these qualities himself.”
Takeaways: Men need to also have lucky marks(?) This is their version of a matrimony ad.
Notes: Men need to be of equal…um…whatever. There are strict guidelines, that a woman needs to fit into in order to be suitable for marriage.
The questions: For starters, what the f**k is a lucky mark? The obvious still rings true, yes, people still do put out ads for what they (or their families) believe is the perfect mate. But is arranged marriage still as big as it used to be? Do you believe a man needs to match up to these expectations you have set of women? Can a size zero lingerie model be categorized as someone with a “sickly body”? (Image source: Getty Images)
“When a girl becomes marriageable her parents should dress her smartly, and should place her where she can be easily seen by all. Every afternoon, having dressed her and decorated her in a becoming manner, they should send her with her female companions to sports, sacrifices, and marriage ceremonies, and thus show her to advantage in society, because she is a kind of merchandise.”
Takeaways: Have a good looking pre-pubescent daughter? Dress her up all shiny, and put her on a platform in the middle of the town and tell her to make supper. Auction time!
Notes: Useful, marryable merchandise.
The questions: How do you feel about children being ‘shown off’ for the world, and the men, to prove how useful she can be? Are women still considered “things” in India? (Image source: Getty Images)
“A girl who has fully arrived at puberty, is asleep, crying, or gone out of the house when sought in marriage, or who is betrothed to another, women with ill-sounding names, or with her nostrils turned up, with crooked thighs, a bald head should not be married.”
Takeaways: There’s a list of qualities one must avoid when looking for a bride.
Notes: Child marriage was obviously a big part of the times. It also implies that women who don’t want to be married to you should basically be left alone. Baldness could indicate disease. I’m fairly certain it wasn’t a fashion statement in 400 BCE. The same could also be said about the other physical attributes described here. Polio, defects, deformations.
The questions: Child marriage. No religious bashing, though. Keep in mind, this is considered to be a Hindu text. Do we, as a society, do men in Indian society, truly take the time to ask whether a woman really wishes to be married? Do we let our women actually choose to not be married off but marry those they may have promised themselves to? (Image source: Getty Images)
“When the girl cannot make up her mind, or will not express her readiness to marry, the man should obtain her in any one of the following ways:
On a fitting occasion, and under some excuse, he should, by means of a female friend with whom he is well acquainted, and whom he can trust, and who also is well known to the girl’s family, get the girl brought unexpectedly to his house, and he should then bring fire from the house of a Brahman, and proceed as before described. The man should, with the connivance of the daughter of the nurse, carry off the girl from her house while she is asleep, and then, having enjoyed her before she recovers from her sleep, should bring fire from the house of a Brahman, and proceed as before.” (Image source: Getty Images)
“By and by he should place her in his lap, and try more and more to gain her consent, and if she will not yield to him he should frighten her by saying ‘I shall impress marks of my teeth and nails on your lips and breasts, and then make similar marks on my own body, and shall tell my friends that you did them. What will you say then?’ In this and other ways, as fear and confidence are created in the minds of children, so should the man gain her over to his wishes.”
Takeaways: So there goes all the seemingly fair stuff out the window.
Notes: So, yeah, basically coerce the woman into being with you. One way or the other. Apparently they forgot about the whole “forget about the woman who doesn’t wish to be with you” pretty soon.
The Questions: Is this ever okay? This still happens now, all the time, but does it stem from ignorance or just creepy human nature, or does it mean that we haven’t at all been able to psychologically grow as a race? Do Indian women still need to be subservient in order to truly make men happy/be happy? (Image source: Getty Images)
“A virtuous woman, who has affection for her husband, should act in conformity with his wishes as if he were a divine being, and with his consent should take upon herself the whole care of his family. In the event of any misconduct on the part of her husband, she should not blame him excessively, though she be a little displeased.”
Takeaways: The obvious set, sexist gender roles.
Notes: This just says that a woman needs to be a quiet little mouse, even when unhappy, and just let her husband do whatever he pleases, even if it upsets her. And if it does upset her, she’s not allowed to show it because the book says sulking and foul expressions are not allowed.
The questions: I know what would happen to me if I told a girl to be subservient, but is this still a requirement in urban India? Is it visible? If so, who’s setting the roles? (Image source: Getty Images)