Comments on: Karan Johar: To Be or Not To Be (Gay)

By: rahul

rahul — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:53:35 +0000

Yes, sure it’s a person’s choice to come out or not to come out… just like it was a person’s choice to fight for freedom or stay in bondage in aperthid driven South Africa, or British ruled India.

Action and Inaction, taking the easy way out or standing up for your self, is always a choice…

Thankfully there were enough people before ‘47 who had made the honerable choice…

and here’s hoping that even today there are enough people to stand up for who they are and not hide behind the “excuse” of “making a choice”!!

By: MJ

MJ — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:39:22 +0000

@Sneha – You know I should you just scrap up the entire post and state this one line – its a matter of choice – everything said in simplest fashion.

@Others – Well money or no money, security or no security, we are nobody to decide what’s best for Him or what’s best he could do for us. It’s his choice and lets just leave it to that.

By: CrazyDyke

CrazyDyke — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:54:38 +0000

Karan Johar has the choice of advertising his sexuality or not. We are nobodys to dictate what’s morally right or wrong. Hypocricy is what we thrive on.

By: SP

SP — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:35:44 +0000

I don’t believe in forced ‘outing’. There are situations where being ‘out’ can literally get you killed or raped (look up the phenomenon of ‘corrective rape’ for lesbians in South Africa). On the other hand, those of us who have the support networks and financial stability to be out without serious consequences, should be out.

I also agree that what people do in their bedrooms is their business. However, what irks me is when the bedroom-privacy argument is used only for sexual minorities. I don’t want to know the details of what my straight friends do in the bedroom either – but in their case, privacy regarding their sexual *acts* is not conflated with their sexual *identities*.

E.g., if a straight woman casually mentions her boyfriend/husband in a non-sexual context, the general reaction wouldn’t be ‘oh, let’s not go there – don’t flaunt your straightness – we don’t want to know what you do in the bedroom’. I agree, though, that there is a difference between ‘neither confirming nor denying’ one’s sexuality to the world at large, and *actively* reinforcing stereotypes, a la Johar.

By: Broom

Broom — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:16:40 +0000

I don’t completely agree. KJo has more than enough money for the next 20 generations. So his closeted existence is not completely justified.
At the very least he can stop lying about being straight.

If everyone stayed in the closet out of fear of repercussions, we would have no gay rights.

By: Sneha Sethi

Sneha Sethi — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:39:13 +0000

Being a fiction has always been useful to us. We all live somewhere between mask & face.
In all this talk of breaking the silence, we fail to realise that we risk the space which appears ‘normal’.
But, muteness is an option only for those who can pass as heterosexuals; it is of no use to those whose androgyny speaks for them & are therefore easy targets for discrimination. So ,even though increasing visibility will certainly make lives more difficult , beyond this lies the prospect of solidarity & freedom. don’t u think so ?

But we should reject the notion of a hierarchy which valorizes the ability or desire of individual men/women to be ‘out’. coz in the end , its a matter of choice.