Five reasons the term ‘gay sex’ doesn't explain the problems with Section 377

In news articles, blog posts, Facebook debates and impassioned tweets on Section 377, you’ll notice that the phrase “India’s gay sex law” is commonly used to describe the issue. And somewhere in said article, blog post or debate, the writer will explain that this particular section of the Indian Penal Code makes “gay sex” illegal, and that the "gay sex" law needs to be amended for the emancipation of the LGBT community.

Section 377 is a terrible thing. It tells us that some sex acts are “unnatural”. In particular, it tells us that if you put an all-natural man penis where it doesn’t belong – meaning anywhere but the nature-certified, strictly female vagina – you can be put behind bars for life. This could mean anal sex or oral sex or any-other-orifice sex: no vagina, no entry.

Section 377 is reductive, narrow, bigoted, and all-round stupid. As it can be used to prosecute, it is particularly threatening to trans people and those who identify as anything but heterosexual as they are quite likely to engage in these acts during their against-the-order-of-nature sexy times. In short, Section 377 needs to be scrapped, especially for the sake of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex, Asexual people, those whose sexuality is undefined, and for the sake of everyone else too.

But if we’re trying to have a thoughtful discussion on sex and sexuality, and if we are trying to break down codified notions of naturalness, why miss the mark in the very description of the problem? By continuing to refer to these acts as “gay sex”, we perpetuate the narratives that see some forms of sexual expression as deviating from the norm. Here’s why the term is a problem, and why you should stop using it:

1. It suggests that there is a “non-gay” way to have sex.

By defining a category, you also define what doesn’t belong in it. So if there is such a thing as gay sex, it follows that there has to be such a thing as non-gay sex. By our own logic, anal and oral sex count as gay sex. So what is non-gay sex? Oh hello there, penis-in-vagina normativity. Nice to see you again.

2. It implies that sex can be neatly categorised, and, in turn, that sexuality can be neatly categorised.

The term “gay sex” puts our understanding of sexual activity into little boxes. It tells us that gay people have gay sex, other people have other sex. It tells us that people who have gay sex must be gay, and people who don’t have gay sex must not be. It tells us that the way we express desire necessarily defines our identity. It takes the wonderful variety in sexual expression and sexuality and lumps them into two categories. It creates boundaries at a time when we’re finally trying to break them.

3. It perpetuates the Othering of non-normative desire and sexual expression.

When a heterosexual person has sex, it’s just called sex. Did it include a blowjob? Still sex. Was there anal fisting? Yes, sex. No special descriptors needed. Not hetero-sex. Just sex.

But if a homosexual person is having sex, it must come with its own label. That’s because we love our labels; they keep us safe. Even when we’re marching alongside everyone else at a pride parade, we want a way to “describe” the Other kind and the Other things they do. It’s not just sex you know, it’s gay sex.

4. It reduces a complex and nuanced topic to a gay/non-gay binary.

When talking about anything related to gender and sexuality, binaries are bad. Repeat after me – binaries are bad. Now say it again. And again. Now say gay sex. Does it make you uncomfortable? No? Read some Judith Butler. Pick up a Fausto-Sterling. And repeat. Binaries are bad… binaries are…

5. It’s really not a thing.

Hopefully by now, you have realised that there really is no such thing as “gay sex”. So it’s about time we stopped using the term. We are doing the entire movement a disservice by insisting on it, even if it is rather convenient when strapped for headline space.