Interview: Guru Swarup Srivastava /  by Tara Kaushal

July 2011: Controversy-ridden art-investor Guru Swarup Srivastava, the man behind the headline-grabbing 100-Husains-for-100-crores deal in 2004, says the investment came first, the appreciation for art, second. I interview him on the recent death of MF Husain.

Walking in to self-made industrialist Guru Swarup Srivastava's Andheri, Mumbai, home is an experience in itself. This stunning, art-filled home comes across as a shrine to his aesthetic sense—but wait, he says he doesn't have one! Here, over a chatty evening, he talks about art investment, dispels the myths surrounding India's biggest art deal and reminisces about Husain. And, in his castle, this businessman from Agra and IIT Delhi patiently awaits the credit due for his contribution to the Indian art world...

Tell me about your interest in art. How did it start?

I had some money to invest in 2004, and was looking for a high-investment-high-return product. I considered land—but at a maximum of a lakh a square foot, it didn't hold a candle to art, at 20 lakhs a square foot.

I decided to test the waters and I bought assorted artworks for 50 lakhs—including Husain and Nikhil Chaganlal. The exhibition of these works, in the corridors of Standard Chartered bank, was a commercial success, and I decided this was the way to go.

When I started, I had no interest in art in the creative sense. I even told Husain up front: "I understand the colour of money, not the colours of paints and canvases!" Of course, since my business interest in art developed, I have begun appreciating it, and the artworks I have at home are soothing and thought provoking. I realise this is an unusual order of doing things...

But why did you choose only Husain? Why not the others?

Around this time, CitiBank in Dubai bought a Husain for 1.5 crores. I thought: I have a hundred crores to invest, what if I can convince Husain to sell me works for a crore each? Also, when I bumped in to Husain at The Ashoka in Delhi, I asked him why he didn't show as much in India as he did abroad. He said, “India mein paisa nahi hai.” I feel strongly about Indian talent having to seek appreciation and money abroad, and this became something I had to prove.

So how did the deal go down with Husain?

When I met him at his beloved restaurant Gallops at the Mahalaxmi Race Course on the 31st of August 2004, Husain was doubtful whether the deal in crores would go through. “It's all talk in India,” he said. But three days later, I handed him a banker's cheque. Once his son Owais told him it was for a crore, not a lakh, he simply said, “Kya karna hai? We'll talk after some time.”

We signed the deal—one hundred six-feet-by-four-feet Husains, plus 11 complementary ones after the deal was done—for one hundred crores. It was breaking news the next day.

The Earth is beautiful, with mankind and art and culture, and I believe India is the centre of it all. We agreed that Our Planet Called Earth would be a nice theme and name for the series. Husain had 25 works ready on the subject, and I bought them right then.

Then things went wrong with India's biggest art deal.

Legally, yes. With Husain, no.

I am fighting a legal battle with the CBI and NAFED (National Agricultural Federation of India) in the Bombay High Court, and the paintings are part of what we're tussling over. Contrary to popular belief though, the works are not confiscated by NAFED—they are in a locker at the IndusInd Bank in Andheri, that both parties must operate jointly. The way I see it, the Rs 12,000 per month I pay as locker fee is a great way to ensure the works are safe!

There have been several advantages to the controversy surrounding this deal...

Like?

Well, for one, the works are safe. Plus, during the court proceedings, the 25 works have been authenticated by an independent panel of professors from the JJ College of Art, appointed by the NAFED, CBI and me. The authenticity of the works can never be questioned again.

However, I would say that the biggest gain is not a personal one. Art in India has dormant business potential. And since the 100-crore deal hit the headlines in 2004, there has been a sea-change in the way people look at art. Like Husain who never clarified rumours, I have often chosen to let controversy and adverse publicity simmer in the media—at an enormous personal cost—to retain attention on the investment potential of Indian art. Today, art is corporatised and is considered an asset on balance sheets. Thieves in Hindi movies steal paintings. Banks have started art funds, with people expecting returns from art. There are more job opportunities in the creative fields. Artists are getting recognition and money, and those who aren't yet, are hopeful still... I feel I have done my duty towards the art community and the country.

I am curious—how were things still okay with Husain once the deal stalled?

From day one, the association was meant to be an ongoing one. Husain would create more works in this series, and I would pay him as and when I picked them up.

I had planned to pay Husain for the rest of the paintings by selling the first 25. But legal complications meant that, when Husain called me in 2008 saying the paintings were ready in London and Paris, and to pick them up at the agreed price, my funds were not ready. He understood.

Husain and I both realised the magnitude of this undertaking from the start, and acknowledged that one of us may not be around to see it to conclusion. In a heart-to-heart we had in Dubai in 2005, he said, “Mere ko kuch ho jaye toh bacchon ka dhyan rakhana,” referring to his children, including his son Shamshad, already in his 70s! It is a promise I intend to keep, even though he's gone.

From a business point of view, has his death made a difference to your investment?

Husain was lucky to have his genius rewarded with glamour, glory and gold during his lifetime, and our record-breaking deal took both of us to dizzying heights. Like Picasso, his prolificness only maintained and accelerated the stature of and demand for his work.

In 2007, the 25 works I own were valued at 50 crores. Of course, there is frenzied interest in the master after his death, something that Husain himself anticipated. He even told me which of the paintings I own—one of the Sheikh of Dubai's father—would be particularly valuable upon his death! I do not want to be opportunistic and sell the paintings immediately, but yes, art has certainly proved to be a good investment.

So what do you intend to do with the paintings once the legal issue is resolved? There was talk of a museum?

Husain drew up the blueprint of what was to be called the Maqbool-Swarup Museum. While he was keen to have in near Kamla Nehru Park in Juhu, Mumbai, we didn't get the municipal corporation's approval. I was inclined to have it built in Agra, near the Taj. But the idea is on hold right now; I am not sure what I will do with the works.

This experience must have been trying. What have you learnt?

Patience. From Husain, I have learnt to handle the adverse publicity with grace—demarcating the right from the wrong, ignoring what's not relevant and accepting the rest.

But I am happy that there are people who experience and live the advantages of this change in attitude, this new focus on art and its investment value. A few years ago, a man came up and thanked me on a flight. An old painting in his collection, bought for a few thousands, was sold for 20 lakhs, enough to fund his son's education abroad. I savour that memory as testament to the change I helped bring about.        

Future plans?

I will continue to invest in art, looking for newer ways to keep it in public consciousness. On Husain's birth anniversary, the 17th of September, I intend to launch a TV show art auction, the first of its kind in the world. Longer-term, I am working on a software that will quantify the selection criteria of artists and their works, helping systematise investment in art.

Finally, what are your memories of MF Husain, the person?

Husain was a family man, who missed his country intensely when he was, sadly, exiled during the last few years of his life. I felt that his creativity energised him spiritually, like meditative exercises, giving him wisdom, spiritual strength and a long life.

One of the most glaring disconnects between the media's projection and the truth was on the subject of Husain's fascination for Madhuri Dixit. While realms of gossip filled the newspapers, Husain's own reason was touchingly child-like. Having lost his mother at an early age, he simply believed that the actress resembled his mother at a certain angle—her left-hand side, to be precise...  

An edited version of this interview appeared in Andpersand in July 2011.

The Colour Purple /  by Tara Kaushal

August 2010: I wrote a poem for my mother. In ten minutes. On my Blackberry.

You're not the angelic boredom of white
Or the happy-stupid of yellow
Or grey that's mellow
Or the creeping gluttony of green. 

Would you really choose black
Or blue? 
(Which hue of blue do you think is you?)
Or the bubblegumness of airhead pink
Would you ever really choose brown ink? 

Do you really think
That the depthless orange
Tells true tales
Of all the women that you are
Of your travels wide and far
Of your deeps and shallows
Your intensity passion and courage? 
Does it lilt like your laughter... 

Why settle for (your favourite) angry red? 
When you can be purple instead!

 You're a purple, my dear mama. 
The intensity and experience of rich blue
Swathed in the salty-sweet-sour-bitter syrup of life
The giggliness and freshness of unjaded pink
In one whole multifaceted packet of perfection. Purple.

This poem was written in August 2010. 

The Colourful Sex /  by Tara Kaushal

September 2007: "No," said Aman, after a 15-minute-long phone-searching session, "I don’t know a single guy who’d interest you, babe. I just realised though, I know so many fascinating women—should make it a point to call them more frequently."

"Sorry, there are just no interesting guys…. But I can give you the numbers of heaps of exciting women. You swing both ways, don’t you?" said Simran.

I pretended to work and not listen as my editor comforted some newly single, to-be-divorced woman on the phone. "There," he said as he hung up and looked at me, "there’s another remarkable woman who’s now part of the dating-mating scene. There are so many lovely, lovely women out there. No guys."

Err… what’s going on? One’s a one off; two’s a worry; and three’s a fucking national crisis!

Now, I’ve always been someone who tries to look at the positive side of things. So I’ve always thought that a skewed National Sex Ratio (also) means that there are heaps more men for us women to choose from. Maybe, maybe there are men. But where is that rare, at-the-point-of-extinction species—the Interesting Indian Man (let me specify: under the Uncleji age)?

At 24, my survey group is between my age and 34 or so (which is a stretch anyway). A ten-year age span should well compensate for the ‘women mature younger’ adage. And still, zilch. In this age bracket, in my sample group, the women are by far more engaging. I’m realising that there are such few options available to a straight, sapiosexual (‘someone who finds intelligence the most attractive sexual feature’) woman.

And now you ask what makes a person interesting. Obviously, it’s the ability to hold my interest (of course it’s my interest… what or who do you think this article is about)! Someone with many layers (like an onion—only, for the purpose of this analogy, I wish it was a more exotic vegetable)! Someone who is intelligent (I certainly don’t define intelligence by IIT-IIM-astronaut-scientist-doctor and all those titles/achievements), and can have great conversations (about as many things under the sun as possible). A combination of a thinker and a doer. Who reads, travels and has varied interests. Is either left- and right-brained, or right-brained. (I have this remarkably unfair prejudice against left-brained people. It’s elitist, I know, but I have this theory that they’re bad in bed, and fairly mechanical and boring. And art and creativity are such turn ons! Oh, we’ll get to this in another article, okay?)

Unfortunately, more often than not, the people who fit this description are women. Watch 'Sex and the City'. Okay, don’t. Just look at the interesting women I know. Arati: a lost-and-found childhood friend is in IIM Calcutta. She is as deconstructionist as I am; a voracious reader; a theatre person. She’s walking the straight and narrow, career-wise, because she wants the money to be able to do what she wants to do at 35. Neha: works with Star News and makes films, writes on music and reads Spivak in her free time. Tanya. Shriyansi. The list is endless.

The other day, M ("I’ll get killed, babe!" A filmmaker.) and I were discussing the circle of people we grew up with. How most of the guys have ended up way-below consideration level: one-dimensional and invariably in the Merchant Navy or in call centres, while the girls are really multifaceted: psychiatrists, researchers, writers (yours truly), filmmakers, designers. And while we were congratulating ourselves and patting each other on the back, neither of us realised how this was just a microcosm of a trend that would prevent us from ever meeting interesting men!

The other day, I met someone who is a senior editor with one of the leading national dailies. And he pointed out that the crop of young editors was predominantly female. And it’s true for the book publishing industry as well. Almost all the independent, unique publishing houses are run by women.

This leads me to the reasons for this phenomenon. Why is it that young women are more interesting than young men? Why? I don’t know. I can only speculate.

Perhaps it’s because of sport. Playing sport is one thing. Spending hours mindlessly watching men in cars (that look horribly cramped and uncomfortable) go around a track (like some merry-go-round thing gone horribly wrong)… just seems like a colossal waste of time. Not to mention test matches. Oh no! Five days of watching cricketers try to do their job while you consistently ignore your own. Or… gosh, I could go on.

Or it’s the gizmo craziness. How many women do you see who are gizmo-gaga? Addicted to their X-Boxes and Gameboys?

Or it’s the hormones. Women don’t waste half as much time as men do watching random porn on the internet or masturbating.

Not being into all these things frees up so much time, doesn’t it? To develop as people. Read. Pursue various interests. Grow.

Or it’s because women can multitask. And do all the above but achieve so much more alongside.

Or it’s because women, as a rule, are exposed to so much more colour and so many more layers in life than men generally are. Women’s clothes and make-up display and require so much more thought and imagination than men’s. As children, women are exposed to the arts, creativity and colour much more than men are. Activities that are considered, in a traditional sense, ‘feminine’—dancing, making rangolis, arranging flowers, going for art classes—all push the development of the right brain, the creative side. As opposed to traditionally ‘masculine’ activities—sport and well, sport.

Or it’s because the world women face and negotiate is way more intricate and complicated than the world men see and deal with. In every sphere, including the sexual, life is more emotionally, socially and physically complex for women than it is for men.

I don’t know. I can’t figure it out. Maybe I’ve generalised too much. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m an intellectual lesbian. You may disagree with this analysis. You may think it’s lopsided. You may know many interesting men in this age bracket. Hell, you may be one yourself. Oh wow! Show yourself! I’m just waiting for somebody, anybody, a man-body, to please, please prove me wrong!

An edited version of this article appeared in Man's World in September 2007.

I have been proved wrong many times since, by the spouse and my myriad male friends. 

Aunty Climax /  by Tara Kaushal

September 2007: I answer questions on sex and interpersonal relationships as the witty Aunty Climax.

I had my first sexual encounter one day, many years ago, with a much older, married woman. Now, many women and much experience later, I realise that she had a yeast infection. And no matter how much I enjoy performing oral sex, every time I go down on a woman, I just cannot get the smell and taste of Aunty Reena out of my head. What do I do?

Now, here’s what I suggest you do—make a concerted effort to move on. You are a rare guy who enjoys performing oral sex—don’t deny yourself and your partner the pleasure. So this Aunty Reena—how do you know she had a yeast infection? Was there discharge and a foul smell? Well, I’m guessing so. Think of it this way—now that you know what a yeast infection smells like, you’ll be able to tell whether the woman you’re with has one or not much before your tongue gets involved. And once you’re secure in the knowledge that you have the ability to gauge hygiene beforehand, you’ll soon get over the fear of having another foul encounter.

I am a woman from a very traditional family. I had what is popularly known as a love-cum-arranged marriage eight months ago. We have not had sex. Not ever. My mother-in-law frowns on privacy and intimacy between us. But even when we are alone, I’ve tried initiating but he gets uncomfortable. I am not unattractive. And no, he is not gay. I’m on the verge of taking steps that will rock the boat fairly seriously. Should I?

This is not normal. First off, I’m assuming you are a 100% sure that your husband isn’t gay. Secondly, have you tried talking to him? What does he say? Eight months without the urge to have sex with a woman who sleeps in the same bed is too long to be justified by excuses such as exhaustion/work/lack of privacy. The two of you need to see a therapist. Now. Convince him through love and/or tell him that the stigma associated with seeing a therapist is less than that of getting the families involved in your problems and their reasons. If nothing works, leave. Today more than ever before, women have the right to a sex life and pleasure. You know that or you wouldn’t have written in, right? 

I am a 23-year-old guy. I dislike having sex with women. Correction: real women. Since I discovered my dad’s stash of porn when I was 12, I’ve become an addict. I watch/read/breathe/sleep porn. I find real women boring. They don’t look as good and aren’t as hot in bed. So how do I take my life from here?

Naomi Wolf, a famous, iconic feminist author, has a theory that she puts forth in her article 'The Porn Myth'. She believes porn dampens male libido with respect to real women who are flawed and well, ‘real’. That’s what’s happened to you. So unless you want to grow old in an empty bed with no companion or offspring, you’ll have to wean yourself off porn. And form realistic associations and expectations of flesh-and-blood women. Remember, porn stars too have chums and bad-hair days—they just aren’t shown to you! Like Wolf says, "If you associate orgasm with your wife, a kiss, a scent, a body, that is what, over time, will turn you on", and if you correlate arousal with unrealistic fantastic porn images, you won’t get aroused with less. Get it?

An edited version of this column appeared in Man’s World in September 2007. I wrote this column for six months or so, but can only find a few pieces.

Bravo Brassiere! /  by Tara Kaushal

August 2007: I love the feel of a sexy, lace bra against my skin. I think it is one of the greatest pick-me-ups in the world—and so do most men!

Though the humble brassiere has been around—in various and not-so-evolved forms—for some centuries now, it was in 1907 that it was first mentioned in the media, in the American edition of Vogue. So this year is the bra’s official 100th birthday. And all of us ladies have much to be thankful for—or not, actually, depending on the way you look at it!

Clothing is often laden with political and cultural overtones. In fact, it can be said that the changes in social perspectives on women, the female body and the feminine are reflected in, and indicated by fashion for the female body in general, and breasts in particular.

The precursor to the bra, the corset has been traced back to about 2000 BC. Recorded history indicates that the corset of those times was used to lift and expose breasts. As the Greek and Roman civilisations grew more male-dominated, breasts were flattened and large breasts were ‘constricted’. Between the 12th and 14th centuries, fashion in France had women in corsets that deemphasised breasts. In the 16th century, the breast was acceptable again and corsets made of whalebone and steel created cleavage while reducing the waist-size to less than 10”, expectedly causing many health problems. It was only in the late 19th century that traditional views of the ‘ideal’ woman began to be challenged and questions were raised about the unhealthy undergarments women were expected to wear.

Designs that resembled the modern-day bra began to appear in the 1850s. Marie Tucek patented the Breast Supporter in 1893 and socialite Mary Phelps Jacob patented her Backless Brassiere design in 1914. With World War 1 forcing women into the workforce, the corset, that was time-consuming and uncomfortable to wear, lost popularity and the bra began to gain widespread use in the 1920s. In 1928, Ida Rosenthal created cup size categories though it was in 1935 that bra manufacturer Warner came up with the cup sizing system—A to D—which continues to be in use today.

Since then, many social, fashion and economic reasons and manufacturing processes have revolutionised the bra and the way it is worn.

In the 1950s, (fashion) necessity became the mother of the invention of the strapless bra. It is safe to say that the invention of Lycra in 1959 has been a defining moment in the history of the bra. As was the entry of the legendary Wonderbra in 1964. Those of you who aren’t familiar with what a Wonderbra can do, let me tell you this: it does a lot! Sangeeta, mosquito-bites-where-breasts-should-be, actually has people complimenting her ‘well-fitting clothes’ when she wears hers (reserved for special occasions, considering the Wonderbra’s price and lack of availability in India). She once remarked that the Wonderbra was uncomfortable. When I asked her why she continued to wear it then, she said, "Who cares about that! It makes me feel like the sexiest thing alive!"

It was in 1968 that the notorious ‘bra-burning’ incident occurred (or didn’t—the jury’s still out on that), though what is clear is that it didn’t happen quite the way it’s gone down in popular imagination. A group of women protesting the Miss America pageant threw ‘feminine’ items, which they felt hindered the liberation of women—including bras—into a rubbish bin, called Freedom Trash Can. Some say they set it alight, others say the media ‘misreported or invented’ the burning of the can and bras. Yet the bra is still here. And we’re as liberated as we’ve ever been.

The bra came out of the closet, as it were, during Madonna’s Blonde Ambition tour in 1990. The Queen of Pop’s pointy golden bra is etched in public memory. "She looked beautiful," says Aman, "glorious and Princess Leia-eque, but not!"

Today, the bra is hard to ignore. From the Wonderbra to the minimiser; underwired and padded; the sports bra to the nursing bra; backless, strapless, seamless… now, there seems to be a bra for every shape, size, form, utility and sag of that beautiful piece of creation, the female breast. There are numerous books about the bra—Bras by Rosemary Hawthorne, Hoorah for the Bra by Cheree Berry and others, an interesting site called aroundtheworldwithonebra.com, and bra ads that are now in a league of their own. From the outright sexy (Eva Herzigova addressing her Wonderbra-clad breasts with a "Hello Boys") to the demure (Enamour: ‘No bra fits as beautifully’), they run the whole range.

Of late, many have begun to question the medical and practical need for the bra. Some believe that bras cause health problems that include backaches, shoulder aches, headaches, impairment of respiration and increased sagging due to decreased efficiency of the chest muscles. Socially too, aside from the feminist movement, many women are questioning the traditional values that propagate the use of bras.

Much has been said about the feminists’ take on bras. In the 1960s, the women’s liberation movement denounced the bra as a symbol of servitude and some radical feminists saw it as a tool to make what is naturally feminine conform to male desire and aesthetics. Radical feminist and writer Germaine Greer sees the bra as "oppressive". And the image of the ‘bra-burning feminist’ is an urban legend that refuses to die!

I think the decision to wear a bra is a matter of aesthetics and comfort. Mahima hates the bra and goes braless when she’s in the States, where she’s studying. As for me, well, I see nothing wrong with the bra. And I don’t see that as contradictory to my strong, strong feminist leanings. Bralessness, brafreedom or breast freedom (whatever you choose to call it) is not for me. I’m a 36 D. On a practical level, besides dealing with the natural sag of my breasts (that I have come to accept as normal, despite what porn and silicon-enhanced fashion icons will have me believe), bras also give me the freedom to run without a bounce, that often leads to breast pain. (You know what they say—one man’s food, another man’s poison? Some feminists believe a bra is oppressive. I’ve called it freeing!) I love the way a lacy bra makes me feel—and not solely for the benefit of my partner. A peeking bra strap doesn’t embarrass me and I like wearing my bra as an accessory through a sheer top, as and when.

Today, the bra straddles the worlds of functionality and wild fashion. To belong in either category though, it is important that a bra fits well. Here lies the catch. We’ve all seen what a bad bra can do. A badly fitted bra can result in double breasts (those funny, horrible-looking pouches of breast flesh above the bra area and/or under the underarms) and quite a bit of discomfort and pain. Unfortunately, cup sizes and fits vary between manufacturers and designs. And in India, large sizes are so difficult to find! Much like shoes, one has to try bras to get ones that fit just right and provide enough support.

So can someone please share this information—about the fit, fashion and functionality of the bra—with our actresses in Bollywood and Down South! The plain dirty white bra showing through clothes has been a Bollywood staple, while in the South, the double breast created by an ill-fitting bra is considered almost fashionable and alluring!

The bra. At the very least, it is a garment that supports the breasts. On a grander scale though, the bra is loaded with sociocultural significance that outweighs its actual, practical use. Bravo brassiere!

An edited version of this article appeared in Man's World in August 2007.

Aunty Climax /  by Tara Kaushal

August 2007: I answer questions on sex and interpersonal relationships as the witty Aunty Climax.

I’m a bachelor. My boss is a woman. Now, there is a link between these two statements. She always keeps saying stuff like, “Ah, last night was wonderful”, “Hubby’s finally fixed his back problem”, especially when I’m around or, more importantly, when no one else is. And then she asks me about my sex life which, I’m afraid, is not particularly happening these days. Quick question: is she hinting at something? Or is this just one of those things women like to talk to their subordinates about?

Quick answer: yes, she is. Loud and clear. Normal women (not those, like yours truly here, who write sex columns), especially those who are married, rarely talk about sex, especially not with men who are subordinates. Unless they want some. I suspect that her nights are not consistently as wonderful as she’d like them to be and that the husband’s back problem still gets in the way. Now, here’s the question: what do you want to do about this? Spice up your sex life with the boss-lady? There are pros and cons. You’ll have to be good—she wants some good loving and she’s your boss. She’ll always be in control—which may be a good thing, depending on how you see it. There better not be any passion-induced quickies in the office. You can’t get caught. And you can’t ever be to one to stop the sexationship, unless you leave the job. The great thing is, if you’re good in bed in general and to her in particular you’ll get chosen to accompany her on company-sponsored trips, get that out-of-turn promotion and be the regular career-gigolo. Choose.

I’m like Donna’s boyfriend in ‘That 70s Show’. No one, including me, knows how I scored her. She is definitely the ‘catch’ in the relationship. We’re both fairly powerful personalities but she has a better career, earns three times as much as I do, is gorgeous, better educated, great in bed… the works. But in bed, she heckles, taunts and hurts me until I retaliate: and that’s when she’s satisfied. Can you explain this behaviour to me?

Oh, my childhood friend Sam went through the same thing. After many days of seeing him scratched, bruised and black-eyed, I sat him down to ask him what was going on. I say to you what I said to him, those many years ago: this isn’t going to go away. If you’re okay with the way things are going to be, go ahead. If you’re seriously uncomfortable, walk out. Here’s why—when the famous psychiatrist Maslow studied dominance behaviour in human females, he found that sex and dominance were closely related. Your woman seems to fit right into the high-dominance category. She likes you, a high-dominance man and expects you to be rough, athletic and unsentimental. Maslow’s most interesting theory was that all women preferred men who were more dominant than themselves. Your girlfriend’s provoking you to a higher level of dominance and enjoys the resultant sexual equation.

I have a three inch you-know-what. I can satisfy women, can’t I? I want to increase the size of my penis and be as well endowed as the men in the porn films. I also think I have the potential to be a porn star. What are the avenues I could take?

There is this bizarre theory doing the rounds that women aren’t visually turned on. They are. So while, technically, a three-incher is good enough (women are sensitive only for the first couple of inches in their vaginas and all that blah), there are things you’ll have to learn to make up for the visual if not physical disappointment. Kiss like a dream (not too much tongue, saliva or teeth). Learn the fine art of cunnilingus—perfect it. Learn to locate and work the G-spot. As far as your career aspirations go—what can I say? I can be extremely condescending and say, “I admire your confidence.” Or I could just be honest and say, “Isn’t happening honey.” I don’t recommend penis-enhancement surgery and you just don’t have what it takes.

An edited version of this column appeared in Man’s World in August 2007. I wrote this column for six months or so, but can only find a few pieces.

Oh Cum On! /  by Tara Kaushal

July 2007: The storm over a vibrating condom.

Have you seen this Crezendo thing? It’s the condom that comes with a vibrating ring attached, aka the ‘vibrating condom’ that seems to have shaken up a little storm. Like everyone in the country who reads the newspapers, I’ve followed this little contraption’s course from mere contraception to infamy; observed the MP government sway over its sale in the state; sniggered about the collective gasps of horror at the realisation that it is being marketed by a government agency; watched the agency, Hindustan Latex Ltd (HLL) go red in the face denying its use for ‘self pleasure’; and applauded Union Health Minister Ramadoss’s stand in the vibrating condom’s support.

Perhaps no dialogue in India about sex, sexuality and related paraphernalia can be conducted without the mention of the Kama Sutra and Khajuraho. So, predictably, after the controversy hit, there were the usual articles about the Kama Sutra’s take on sex toys—how they are both mentioned and advocated; what materials it is recommended they be made from; what shapes are best; and how they should be used. But I say, forget all that. Stop harping back to ancient Indian culture. There is no point explaining to the Sangh Parivar (the generator of this vibrating condom controversy) that the Indian culture they defend evolved as a way to protect our women against invaders and is also a hand-me-down from Victorian morality. Forget the origins of our prudery. It is now a part—and perhaps the definition—of our culture today. What I ask is this: in principle, why do we have a problem with sex and sexual pleasure?

I use the words ‘in principle’ because it’s not like no one’s having sex or masturbating. Sex is the cheapest—and arguably best—form of pleasure. Ask our masses. Ask our billion-strong population how it came into being.

As I see it, there are only a few ways to prevent our billion strong from becoming two billion strong—abstinence, a neutered population or widespread use of effective contraception. And as the first two are, well, absurd, the only way we can prevent HIV/AIDS and control the population explosion is by advocating, no, pushing, the use of the humble condom.

So, what’s the harm? This ring makes the condom—arguably not the most conducive to sexual pleasure—more fun and popular. It was launched when market surveys indicated that condom use was declining and it has generated interest and demand throughout the country. This, in spite of the fact that, at Rs 125 for three condoms and a vibrating ring, Crezendo is expensive. And while it is not—as HLL has gone ballistic reiterating—intended or marketed as a sex toy, so what if it was? People would just have more fun masturbating, wouldn’t they?

I wonder whether the Mister Minister who stirred up this whole controversy anticipated hordes of men rushing to the local pharmacies to purchase this marvellous new product, only to walk around everyday with this device attached to their you-know-whats for an all-day solo buzz. This could only lead to drops in levels of morality and self-control. What an abomination! Or maybe he was afraid that the women would discover that the vibrator works much better than the wiener and would turn off sex completely. Whatever his reasoning, it’s ridiculous that he be allowed to generate so much noise about something so innocuous.

The fortunate thing is that Mr Ramadoss sees nothing wrong with the vibrating condom. He’s clarified that the condom along with the pleasure-enhancing ring “has been developed to entice men into using it both for family planning and protection against infections like HIV." He not only plans not to ban it but to promote it countrywide as popularising condom use is one of his missions.

All this being as it is, I don’t see why the government must get involved in people’s interpersonal relationships and sex lives. I mean, aren’t there more important things to keep it gainfully occupied? And even if there aren’t, and the government must make sex lives their business, it should deal with child sex abuse, incest, rape etc. Not with a measure that’s positives are being overlooked because of its—gasp!—horrible, immoral and illegal propensity to provide pleasure! I truly hope that the vibrating condom gets the support it deserves as an innovative technique to promote the use of contraception.

An edited version of this article appeared in Man's World in July 2007.