Events | Politics & Society | Religion & Culture | Arts | Sports | Travel & Living | Chai Tea | InFocus | InTune

My Observations on Sexual Phenomena in the South Asian Context

By Mrinalini Ranjan 19 November 2008 2,679 views 30 Comments

Have you ever felt that on some days, the universe conspires to embarrass you? Well, the gods were definitely a bit bored the day my mother (who was also the head of Special Education in my school) ended up giving the sex talk to the boys of my sixth grade class. Needless to say, I was mortified, and the forces governing the cosmos had a good laugh. My mom was considered way cooler than me that year. But that sex talk was the first ever open acknowledgment amongst my peers that we all knew what sex was and we all wanted to do it one day. Or so I thought.

Being a girl who had had crushes on boys since she was in kindergarten, my sexuality was like a secret identity I never revealed to anyone in India for a while. (Also being a highly geeky looking individual with a long braid, glasses and braces through most of my adolescence, I didn’t really get much opportunity to). I was silent on the issue primaily because for many years, my female friends behaved as if their sexuality didn’t exist. I mean, come on! Who has not visited a porn site–“Oh my god you saw one of those? Yuck! Gross!”–or read a slightly adventurous novel by the age of 17? Well they claimed they hadn’t and didn’t want to. They also claimed I was insane. Either all of them were lying to me, or they really never had the urge to, you know… explore… which then made me think; what the hell was wrong with me? Also, why is it okay for boys to do this stuff and unacceptable when girls do it? I will never forget the statement uttered by a certain 20 year old South Asian UT student who had just heard me warning everyone to stay far away from South Indian pornographic cinema (surely a topic for another article). His exact words were, “Girls watch porn too?” He was shocked - a real culture shock, perhaps.

Masturbation was another topic of intense discomfort amongst us all - and yet another clear cut example of the gender enculturation surrounding individual sexuality. I am going to state certain generalizations, and you are free to disagree, but the following is a brief summation of my observations. In a group of South Asian boys, when one claims he has never masturbated by the age of 18, the others look at him in shock and disbelief. However, in a group of girls from a similar background, when one claims that she has, the rest look at her in a mixture of disgust and awe. “Why on earth would you do such a thing?” they ask. Amusingly, an even more common response is – “Wow, how did you even manage it?” and of course the saddest one: “I tried that one day, but then I gave up.”

The truth is that as a community, South Asians are pretty conservative about such issues. At this point I would like to make it clear that I feel that being conservative is actually a good thing. To protect your sexuality till you have a safeguard such as marriage in place is an option that is beneficial to everyone who attempts it. Couples who wait till marriage have negligible chances of contracting sexually transmitted diseases or being in very tricky pregnancy situations. They also have better opportunities to build strong bonds of intimacy which are not as threatened by all the obstacles unmarried couples face, such as uncertain futures, capriciousness and broken hearts. In light of all this, people don’t understand why premarital sex is becoming increasingly common amongst youth in South Asia. Yes, there are certain western notions that have influenced our culture. With half of all marriages in the US ending in divorce it is no secret that the West ( and Western media) doesn’t attach same importance to monogamy and abstinence as does the East. But beyond this argument lies the fact that there is a trend towards a higher marriage age. Hormones come into play by puberty, but nowadays people tend to get married in their late 20’s and early 30’s. Those who advocated abstinence in the past were also the ones who were married by age 16.

The concept surrounding the idea that women have more to lose than men when it comes to spontaneous sexual activity is why generations before us have developed ways to curb female expressions of sexuality, rendering it unimportant, unnecessary and almost dirty. And their ideas remain ingrained within our society.

But things weren’t always this way. In the East, Confucius and LaoTzu, the Upanishadic sages, Mahavira, and the Buddha continued to speak of the importance of women as sexual teachers and their active role in ritual sexual union. Women are given much importance in books such as the Kamasutra, and are affirmed as sexual beings by the erotic temple carvings in the Khajuraho temples in South India.

Another interesting fact: A Jewish tractate in the Babylonian Talmud, echoed later in an Islamic creation myth, tells us that “Almighty God divided sexual beauty/pleasure into ten parts. Nine parts he gave to women. One part he gave to men” (Brooks, 1995; Kiddushin daf 49B). In Greek mythology, when Zeus and Hera argued whether males or females had a greater capacity for sexual pleasure, Tiresias, who had experienced half of his life as a man and the other half as a woman, maintained that when it came to the capacity for sexual pleasure, women were by far the winners1.

So whatever happened to the above mentioned philosophies? As time progressed, the balance of sexual power shifted towards men. There are many theories regarding how and why this took place. Some claim sexuality is a portal to spirituality and men wanted to dominate that. Others claim it was a natural progression of events to protect female society as a whole from unprotected sex with random men. Repression was never more apparent. While semen was considered sacred, menstruating women were considered impure and – again – dirty. I once heard a bizarre myth from our washerwoman back home in India. She claimed that women should not touch pickle while on their period. Apparently this makes the pickle go bad. And that was just one example in a series of superstitions put out there solely to malign all evidence of the ‘good’ in our sexuality. I don’t even know a word for the female genitalia in Hindi which is not simultaneously a swear word!

So yes, it’s true that female sexuality has a sad story to tell. But it’s never too late to change. With the advent of birth control, the idea of men having an unfair advantage when it comes to sex becomes a much weaker argument. There are numerous developments occurring in the world today where women in relationships are asserting their right to sexuality and their male counterparts are happily giving it to them. To recognize the value of sexuality and understand its importance in the realm of societal egalitarianism will benefit both men and women in their relationships with one another and with respect to their own genders.

Footnotes:
1. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_3_54/ai_n8706636/pg_1?tag=artBody

Photo Courtesy: margolove, independentman

Related Articles:


Email This Article
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (7 votes, average: 4.43 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

30 Comments »

  • 20 year old South Asian UT student said:

    I guess its ok for girls to watch porn too…

    [Reply]

  • Mrinalini (author) said:

    Thanks dude. I appreciate it.

    [Reply]

  • Aditya said:

    Scandalous? I think not.

    For your information, there is a word for female genitalia in Hindi which is not a swear word. But I think that’s probably because no one would have heard of it.

    Nice, very off-the-beaten-path type of article.

    [Reply]

  • yaman said:

    lots of comments
    first, i’m sure it was class 7
    second, and i don’t know if this counts as keeping it clean, but YONI
    and third, and by a distance most importantly, i think that your first conclusion sort of militates against the second… because if you think that conservatism is in general a good thing then you’d also generally think that repression of sexuality is a good thing. Because sexual expression includes having sex when you think it’s the right thing to do, and i don’t see why any of the reasons you list for being conservative really over-ride the importance of sexual expression.
    I don’t think that there’s a particular intimacy standard that must be reached before you have sex. I don’t think that there’s any reduction in your ability to be intimate on any other level after you’ve had sex. I think the problem is that conservatism makes sex a HUGE deal, leading to repression, largely of women
    So I’s say decide between “conservatism is good” and “repression is bad” because one is a direct consequence of the other

    [Reply]

  • 20 year old South Asian UT student said:

    I am not who u think I am. I am not A…..

    [Reply]

  • Isha Paul said:

    Mrinalini,

    This article is amazing. I absolutely loved it. I am glad you decided to write about it!

    [Reply]

  • mrinalini said:

    yaman: a) maybe it was class 7. btw im surprised there was no crack on the lack of opportunity part
    b) now i know a word. I will use it.
    c)I added the conservative part in my article because I am in no position to say that conservatism is a bad thing. It certainly doesn’t harm anyone. I also dont think that being conservative and comfortable with your sexuality are mutually exclusive. I only used marriage as one example of a safeguard in a relationship - there can be others. You do not have to wait till marriage to be conservative with your sexuality.Im just not condoning throwing it around.
    If there is mutual consent between two people then I don’t see any issue. the issue that my article is dealing with is the fact that many south Asian women - whether in a relationship or not - are not open to experimenting and exploring their sexuality at all as it is ingrained into thier brains that its not important and to forget about it. But I do get your point.
    @ 20 Year Old South Asian UT student: Dunno who you or ‘A…’ is, but still appreciate it.

    [Reply]

  • mrinalini said:

    @ Isha: Thanks!

    [Reply]

  • Simrat said:

    very interesting read.

    [Reply]

  • ankit said:

    nice article! Btw, Khajuraho temples are in Madhya Pradesh and not in South India.

    [Reply]

  • Lavanya said:

    I totally agree with you on the Mallu Porn thing, its beyond shit.

    This was brilliant, btw. :)

    [Reply]

  • yaman said:

    ok… what i’m saying is that you don’t have to say that it’s good just because you’re not in a position to say that it’s bad
    what i’m also saying is that when you refer to being sexually active/expressive/free as ‘throwing it around’ you’re reinforcing the problematic stereotype
    and what i’m trying to say is that this the stereotype that leads to repression. So, conservatism is what causes the sexual repression that you’re talking about.
    people in relationships or not in relationships currently tend to think that sex is too big a deal as opposed to unimportant. That’s why they aren’t open to experimenting with it.

    That’s the problem and that’s the harm that conservatism leads to. That’s how it harms people, and it clearly does harm people. It is the single largest reason for sexual repression. Because telling people that it’s only ok to have sex when you’re in a committed relationship of any sort, or telling them that they’re throwing it around, or being slutty or loose by having sex with lots of people, is repressing sexual expression. Conservatism is the problem here.

    [Reply]

  • Suchi said:

    Almost equal amounts of marriages that start with virginal women end in divorce around the world, abusive situations, or cheating-only because women and men are not equipped to deal with what happens in a relationship after the honeymoon rush, so on and so forth.

    Although, I don’t think there is anything wrong with conservative behaviour-I think both sexes have to understand how the relationship or what relationship consists of beyond sexuality and man/female power roles.

    I think there is a conservative identity in South Asia that if far beyond just being conservative, but to the point of neglecting to educate and setting women up for abuse and trauma in relationships/marriage. I mean outside of the metropolitan areas.

    [Reply]

  • Suchi said:

    By the way, this article is awesome

    [Reply]

  • Mohit said:

    It is a matter of pride that Nazar is able to manufacture articles of such depth for every edition. Well done Mrinalini!

    [Reply]

  • Abhay said:

    Great job Mrinalini!

    Sexual conservatism is one of the primary issues where the gender biases in India are most prominent, and you do bring that out in the article.

    I do think that Indian society in particular is very hypocritical in general because even 50-year old men are very comfortable with watching 20-something women dancing around on Indian television wearing very close to nothingness, only as long as their daughters and sisters are not involved in any events of this nature. But I would certainly say that due to the marrying age of both Indian men and women, repression of feelings have gone down a great deal and more and more urban Indians have had at least one or more sexual partners before their marriages. Comparing rural and urban India in this case would make for a very interesting read here, because we all know of the vast dichotomy here.

    [Reply]

  • Nadir Sharif said:

    The fact that you are writing this article, and not doing so anonymously, is a reflection of a much greater movement among women of South Asian descent toward a much more open, and bold mind when it comes to the issue of their sexuality. I have three sisters, but I never really understood what “those days” were in the ads on TV for StayFree Secure, Always or Kotex, it was only after I came to the US that I realized what a sanitary napkin really was.

    This situation is even worse in Pakistan (where I am from), at least in Indian TV commercials for condoms, they used the word condom, in the Pakistani version, there was no mention of that word! All it said was “AIDS is incurable, abstain from sexual depravity!” and I still remember the visual of a romantic couple just walking on the beach.

    The world is changing fast today. The pace has proved a bit much for many patriarchal males who have not had the time to respond so that they could hold back the women. Other factors include the massive influence of the media. Most places where the media has a strong influence (Perhaps, I should say western media) have reported a drop in the average age when women reach puberty.

    Men do have a slight advantage in the arena of premarital sexual experimentation, we don’t need to bleed on the first night to prove anything to our wives. But clearly, with many Muslim women in the UK opting for surgical ‘re-verginization’ procedures, this is a big issue for our female counterparts.

    I am encouraged though by the increasingly visible population of South Asian males that do not vilify women who have had premarital sex. But at the same time, I did think twice about putting my real name on this comment, for I don’t think that any of my friends or relatives would quite approve of my position on the issue!

    Oh, well, we are moving in the right direction - if only a little slower than the desired pace :-)

    [Reply]

  • Adithya (UM) said:

    “Have you ever felt that on some days, the universe conspires to embarrass you? Well, the gods were definitely a bit bored the day my mother ended up giving the sex talk to the boys of my sixth grade class.”

    OUCH!!…Now that must have been an interesting day to say the least…i’m going to reply to this in a rather discontinuous way as there is a bunch of things I want to say and I don’t have the time to put them in order.

    Very different article that stands out among the mundane things your find on the web. You’ve addressed the usual uncomfortable situations that majority of Indians face in terms of their sexuality and given people a spark to think about why things have become so. In a humorous way, the idea that any kind of sexuality is taboo in India is quite contradictory and hypocritical considering we are the country with the 2nd largest population in the world.

    One thing I would like to point out is that the situation of women could be even worse today than you put it though. Forget female expressions of sexuality, even things that are taken for granted in the western world, like waxing/shaving, are considered hush-hush things that cannot be uttered. Going one step further, even today, there is a raging battle in Indian courts for the legalization of homosexuality in India (it is currently punishable by law and almost the worst form of taboo if you’re a lesbian). You have courts asking for hard evidence one side and on the other you have religious organizations and even political parties presenting so called “moral” reasons against it while no one looks at the mental aspect of it and almost no one looks at what point this was deemed illegal.

    In all my years on the internet and especially the blogosphere, this is the first article of its kind that i’ve come across from a South Asian or even more specifically Indian perspective (for that I applaud you). I find that quite sad as it shows that the dawn of a new millenium is yet to bring about much change in the archaic thought process in our country. And while your last sentence is an accurate depiction of what can be, it is quite a distant possiblity unless there is a radical change in the mindset of the common man (or woman). The majority of South Asian people are yet to accept the fact that sexuality is a natural part of life and something that is ingrained so deeply will take years (even centuries) to change.

    [Reply]

  • Vidur said:

    Brillo!
    :-)

    [Reply]

  • sparrowbird said:

    I think southasians should start considering sex as just another part of life as there are other things in their life like bollywood, serious in career, etc. It gets better and better with number of times. i personally think that one can have fun before getting married and use their youth for fun, learning, exploration. theres nothing wrong with it. people should not make a big deal about it.

    but as always, each one is an individual free to do/think whatever.
    Just do it, as Nike says.

    [Reply]

  • Anish said:

    very brave! good job M :)
    enjoyed the explicitness and the openness!

    [Reply]

  • mrinalini (author) said:

    Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions!

    [Reply]

  • Nikamma said:

    Mrinalini,

    You make some keen observations, and you write very articulately. Keep writing these intriguing columns.

    Now, a few quick comments. I have the sexual revolution in the US since the sixties in mind as I write them.

    If the goal was more freedom - more freedom to express your sexuality, more freedom to fulfill your sexual desires - then ‘progress’ is certainly made in the US.

    But if the goal was equality, dignity, and respect as a full human, opposed to being reduced to objects of sexual desire and fulfillment, I don’t know if the situation has gotten better, or worse.

    What remains unexplored is the link between an expansion of sexual freedom and women’s social and personal well-being in different societies. Are they more emotionally, physically, and socially secured now than what they used to be? Are they more happy and satisfied today?

    There is an old saying, ‘Men go after sex, Women go after love’. Not that women do not have sexual desires at all, but it’s about the relative weight they place on love and sex. This old wisdom is still true for a lot of women out there, no matter what alternative modes of desires and intimacy ’sex and the city’ kind of shows present on tv.

    Throughout history, women may have attached love as a condition for sex partly because of various kinds of vulnerabilities involved in intimacy. I don’t think that by making themselves easily available for intimacy, after the ‘pills’ ease, the situation has become any better. Guys tend to learn quickly, ‘why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free’. Love, commitment, marriage - these were meant to provide that ’security,’ which are so often missing in intimate relationships these days, and women are usually at the receiving end, paying its emotional, physical, and social cost.

    The solution is not to revert back to an old conservatism. But it is not in eradicating all social norms and taboos either. I am sure only a few people on this forum would disagree with the ‘norm’ of monogamy and the ‘taboo’ of incest.

    For the solution, we need to think out of our possessive individualism and think in terms of society and future generation. Because the prescriptions offered in such debates, no matter how individualistic and liberal they may be, affect the whole society.

    [Reply]

  • Crisco said:

    I agree with this well thought out, highly developed article: sexual repression sucks.

    To Nikamma: What does being seen as an object of sexual desire and fulfillment have to do with equality, dignity, and respect of a “full” human? I frankly think Bipasha Basu is hot. Does that mean she is any less “equal”, or less dignified, or less respected?

    In fact, for centuries, people did the opposite. They prayed to goddesses of love and fertility. Sexuality and its derivatives are not debasing qualities. They are a form of beauty in a world that sometimes seems too dreary and too gruesome.

    I do however find it interesting that you think an expansion of female sexual freedom should be dependent on the benefits of such an expansion on women’s social and personal “well-being”.

    Your next three paragraphs lay out your general view of women as vulnerable sheep surrounded by packs of wolves ready to end their virgin days.

    But really? Ask any guy who’s been dumped or cheated on by his girlfriend: you’re wrong.

    I agree with you in part. Evolutionary psychology claims and is supported by studies that women are more likely than men to look for long-term relationships. They have fewer sexual partners, etc. The psychologists believe this derived trait is a result of the “survival of the fittest”. And, the fittest female found a long-term mate.

    But note this: I said “more likely” and this trait has long since been diluted through our ancestors’ essentially “random” survivals.

    To say that all women place more emphasis on love than on sex and that men don’t is incorrect. Even if men have sex more than women, the fact is that you’re talking about percentages. To generalize an individual by any category or a percentage is simply retarded. A women can be sexually aggressive and similarly, a man can be sexually repressed.

    Frankly, the best way to approach sexuality is how Mrinalini presented it: to value it no matter what gender it is in.

    I disagree with the “norm” of monogamy and so does common sense. In a country, where half the couples divorce, if a set of humans can create a family structure in which they can find emotional fulfillment, why should it not be normal? Parents and kids both fare better in a happy environment and if that environment is not a monogamous one, who cares?

    We have biological (psychological and genetic) reasons for tabooing incest.

    And finally: women aren’t cows to be bought. Really, they aren’t.

    [Reply]

  • Nikamma said:

    Dear Crisco,

    While I appreciate your interesting response, I am afraid that you have largely missed the nuances of my argument.

    Note that I wrote “being reduced to objects of”. It was obvious in my whole argument that there is nothing wrong with gender attraction and intimacy. It is when instead of treating women as ’subjects’ - with thoughts, feelings, values, desires - you reduce them to mere ‘objects’ of male desire and for companies to sell cheap products. Jean Kilbourne makes this point very well in her documentary “Killing Us Softly”. Parts of this documentary are available on youtube. I don’t know about you, but as a male myself, I find this objectification of female selves, bodies, or parts of their bodies, quite offensive and degrading. And, no, there is nothing patronizing or patriarchal about my feeling this way.

    Also note that I said women attach love and commitment as a condition for sex “partly” due to various vulnerabilities. The two kinds of question I ask at the beginning - are they more “secure” and are they more “happy” - should have made it clear that the instrumental reason (protection from vulnerability) is only part of the equation. Again, I don’t know about you, but from my conversation with many female friends, they see sex to be a part of a whole experience, involving care, romance, commitment, even sacredness. That whole experience constitutes complete satisfaction and happiness to them. For many, separating sex from that whole experience is reducing it to a primitive, animal-like fulfillment. This ‘mode’ of sexual fulfillment is more than just about carnal desires and satisfaction; It’s about meaningful-ness in the sexual act. I feel that this wholeness of experience is very much the reason why there is an emphasis on monogamy. Call it “sexual repression” by social ‘norms’ or whatever you like.

    Note also that I said “women are usually at the receiving end”. “Usually” obviously means that it’s not always that only women suffer in relationships. Men can too. In the context of my argument, the point was to refer to the emotional, physical, and social risks involved in intimate relations. The disparity in this regard should be obvious to informed readers. See some facts at this link: http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/Media%20Readings/ol%20Killing%20Us%20Softly%203%20ed.htm

    On a side note, I find it curious that you do not extend your argument of evolutionary psychology to incest. It’s connection to genetic disorder should not be an issue anymore. With the freedom accorded by contraceptive methods, it is easier to involve in intimacy without having to bear the consequences (pregnancy, etc.). So why not a liberal prescription for incest too, similar to what you suggested for monogamy.

    This is just to push your argument to its logical direction. I personally think that monogamy as a ‘norm’ and incest as a ‘taboo’ are valuable in themselves and also functional for the social order. I am sure many readers also feel the same way. May be we are not ‘enlightened’ and ‘liberal’ enough.

    Further, please note that I did not suggest that “female sexual freedom should be dependent on the benefits of such an expansion on women’s social and personal “well-being”". You are making a normative statement here, whereas I framed it as a question, a question requiring empirical social research. I only suggested at the end that for a solution we need to think beyond our possessive individualism. Further, in view of the point about ‘wholeness’ of sexual experience, I think that the idea of “sexuality”, “sexual expression”, and “sexual freedom” should be scrutinized more deeply. The question needs to be questioned first.

    [Reply]

  • Crisco said:

    Dear Nikamma,

    I’m so sorry I missed the nuances of your argument.

    First, If women have been “reduced to objects of” anything, the same can be applied to the men. Plentiful of hot guys with cute butts swooning over women with perfume adorn the pages of several fashion magazines.

    As for women being reduced to being objects for advertisements and being used to incite male desire, only one thing can be said: regardless of time, people have always found it hard to relate to women they find on magazine covers. That does not mean that we personally treat women as “subjects”. It just means that we buy some very mundane stuff, like cologne and razors, depending on how we percieve the females to like the choice. If you think about it, it’s a homage to the power of women’s sexuality over us.

    Look all I’m saying is that putting people in barely naked clothes on the covers of magazines is not dehumanization. It is merely a recognition of a human “weakness”/necessity: the approval of the opposite sex.

    Concerning your next paragraph, there will always be a certain percentage of both guys and girls who feel that way. And yes, I agree that, on average, girls tend to prefer monogamous relationships with less emphasis on sex.

    But this was my point: defining a person by their gender and by that gender’s percentages is pointless. The particular of one’s sexuality is individualistic. Trying to frame them into a category is wrong.

    For example, here I will present a scenario and please, I am NOT racist. Black people are both by volume and by percentage one of the largest racial group incarcerated in the American prison system. Does that mean when I see a black person walking, I should call the cops? Should I deny black people the right to work as police officers, as teachers, as medical professionals based on percentages? The fact is that framing a person into a category is wrong, regardless whether that frame be race or gender.

    We are still psychologically primed against incest. <-evolutionary psychology. A basic psychology book can explain it much better than I can.

    The only reason I said monogamy didn’t have to be the norm is that men and women can both find whatever they need, whether it is sex, support, love just as well in a non-monogamous relationship.

    I am however highly amused by the application of the “liberal” label. I prefer pragmatic and freedom-loving, regardless of the situation or choices.

    I’m saying that empirical research means nothing, because collectives and solutions beyond our possessive individualism mean nothing. We are individuals. We should make choices based on what is right for us, not for a concept, and not for some percentages. Sexuality is a highly individual trait and societal constraints on it only end up being pointless in the long run.

    [Reply]

  • HMF said:

    I’m curiuos if any discussion will be had on the relative privilege women have in terms of using their sexuality to advance in certain realms and spheres witth respect to men? It seems like the discussion is completely dominated by the “victimization” of women and repression of their sexuality.

    [Reply]

  • HMF said:

    “If you think about it, it’s a homage to the power of women’s sexuality over us.”

    This is 100% true, in fact, I don’t consider it exploitation of ‘women’ It’s exploitation of the male response to women. It’s the same reason women are guaranteed entry into a bar/club if they’re looking hot and fine.

    [Reply]

  • Arjun said:

    Really good article; I enjoyed reading it!

    [Reply]

  • Jayesh said:

    Excellent article.

    Think of Radha and Meera,both loved Krishna in their own ways.I think the way forward is to simplify our lives. Too much of anything is bad.Does the man respect you? If the answer is no, just walk away.”Jo tum todo piya me nahi todo” is old fashioned. When girls are young they are taught to be Meera to protect them from this cruel world. Once grown, I think they need to know that Radha does also exist in them. Meera should team up with Radha and then Krishna will understand their might and plight. I have also wondered, what if Radha also loved Meera? Taboo???

    [Reply]

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled website. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.