Tuesday, 9 June 2009

Sex With Women...A Response To My Profile Status!

Over the course of the last few days I have received numerous requests from friends, well wishers and men and women of good will asking me to remove my status statement which says, “I am sure that sex with a woman is nice but it’s not as good as the real thing”. The fact is that I do not personally know what the author implies by that statement but whatever he implies the fact still remains that he has got that literary licence to write whatever he wishes to write.

And come to think of it, writers are very controversial and most of us who are very familiar with the works of Wole Soyinka, Walter Rodney, Fredrick Nietzsche and Franz Fanon would easily bear witness to this. Writers are crusaders and warriors, the difference being that their weapon of war or crusade does not lie in the barrel of gun but on point of their pen. And quite unlike anyone else, writers have a privilege which all of us, no matter how intelligent we are, do not enjoy. This is what is called Literary or Poetic Licence and it gives them the right to write whatever they wish to write no matter whose Ox is gored.

They could write very wrong English and when criticisms comes from a group like the Plain English Commission, they will claim literary or poetic licence as a defence. It also happens when they speak a very wrong grammar filled with not only syntactical but also semantic errors. This is a big and unique privilege writers enjoy and that is why we envy their profession more than that of others.

It is this privilege that Charles Hawtrey relied on to make that statement and whatever he implies by that statement is a question which we must either decode or leave for literary scholars to decode. Many friends who approached me even along the road asked me to remove that quote because they feel that Charles Hawtrey is implying that sex with women is good but may not be as good as the main thing ‘which is sex with men’. But when I ask them who is Charles Hawtrey and how they know he is actually implying that sex with men is sweeter compared to that with women, they will suddenly go quiet.

As a result of this, I did a little research on who Charles Hawtrey is. Born in Hounslow, Middlesex, England, as George Frederick Joffre Hartree. He took his stage name from a celebrated theatrical knight, Sir Charles Hawtrey. Charles Hawtrey made an early start to a career that was to span a period of almost 60 years, and broke through in all the major entertainment media of the time.

He began in the field of music as a renowned boy soprano, making several records before then moving onto the wireless where he performed in programmes for 'Children's Hour'. Following study at the Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts in London, he embarked on a career in the theatre as both actor and director.

Hawtrey is actually a homosexual but very little is known about his private life as he guarded his relationships very carefully – perhaps no surprise in an age where male homosexual behaviour was illegal and punishable by a prison sentence. However during his life he never hid his homosexuality, and was one of the first actors in British cinema to be identifiably 'gay' in the characters that he played. His outrageous drunken promiscuity however, did not portray homosexuality in a positive light to an unsympathetic world, and nor did his general demeanour with those around him earn him many (if any) close friends. He made the news in August 1984 when his house caught fire after he went to bed with a male teenager and left a cigarette burning on the sofa.

From the above, it is therefore a fact that Hawtrey was gay but whether he was implying that sex with a man is the main thing in the above quotation is what we cannot conclude at this point in time since we do not have access to the context on which the quote was made. At this juncture, one begins to ask what about it if sex with men is sweeter to Charles Hawtrey than that with women.

This is where democracy comes in. The essence of every democracy is to cater for the rights of all individual in that state despite their creed, religion, colour, sexual orientation and other differences. In fact the more their way of life appears strange to the majority, the more the state is expected to protect them. Our inability to understand a ‘strange’ way of life should never be an excuse or reason to become aggressive, antagonistic, condemning or brutal towards them. It is more reason we should be sympathetic and allow our intelligent mind to come in.

This is in form of sociological, psychological and anthropological researches to find reasons behind behaviours. The state must always strive to ensure that the rights of the minorities are not only protected but also preserved from being dominated by that of the majority. Truly, democracy is a form of government that relies heavily on majority but then common sense should always be allowed to prevail to ensure that the majority do not use their power to impose their will on the minority.

There is no sense in imposing our religious belief on other people because they simply do not want to buy our opinion. Democracy has got more to do with choice and that choice must always be guaranteed.
I have no doubt that issues surrounding sexual affairs should be left for individuals to decide upon with the state setting only the guidelines on how it should be conducted. In this case the state is expected to come up with regulations on how this should be conducted.

For instance the state in a bid to safeguard the right of the girl child to a normal teenage life is morally justified to come up with a law that would prevent me from marrying that girl if she is below 18 years and should also punish me if I contravene this law. In the same vein two same sex adults who agreed to have sex, should not be punished for their choice but should be protected by the state since the main locus of the sex is a prior agreement and consent between two of them. The state can only punish this form of relationship in the event of rape or when one has a carnal knowledge of his same sex partner who is below the age of consent in the state or having carnal knowledge of someone without their consent.

It is based on this logic that I have come to the conclusion that I am not going to remove that quote from Charles Hawtrey. It is also important that we take a closer look at my political and religious view. Politically and religiously, am a liberalist and very open minded and what that means is that what people decide to do with their life should not bother me so far it has a democratic protection and is not against the law or infringing on the rights of other people.

My liberalism is deeply rooted in the fact that everybody is free to purse happiness and achieve that happiness in whatever way they feel good and happy. The everybody am referring to here include straight, gays, lesbians and bisexuals, white and black, tall and short. They all have the right to pursue happiness and feel happy with no intimidation from nobody.

It is therefore based on this understanding that I concluded that the quote shall remain till that time when men and women shall be judged not by the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation but by the content of their character.

No comments:

Post a Comment