I did not read Osho before. I know very less of the guy. But yeah he is not really a guy who likes homosexuality. But I understand his reasons. The guy does not hate homosexuals but neither is he really a proponent of it which I understand totally. Yet, of course a lot of people hate this fact about him. I wondered why exactly. It’s not really homophobic if you are not really a proponent of gay culture. Maybe, there is a reason? If he is gay bashing severely I would obviously dislike that.
To me personally, there are many propagandist stuff related to gay culture and even straight culture that I do not really support. I am not a proponent of those cultures. I find them glittery and really misleading so that is why I do not like traditional romances, romance literature much as in Mills and Boons and all those and also not a LGBTQ supporter.
So my comment to this article was this:
I am not a proponent for LGBTQ nor am I a homophobe nor am I a great fan or fan or anything of Osho’s. I recently bought his books to see what he is about. I will say in some ways he is right. When I first read gay literature, and even now I like yaoi genre in Japanese anime a lot, I think my ideas had been a bit different. Now, they have evolved a bit more and I say most notions of homosexuality and even heterosexuality are propagandist. A bisexual person I once talked to and even Nivedita Menon had very different ideas of being “queer” which is not at all persistent with traditional, liberal ways of looking at queer people, Firstly, queerness is not only a phenomenon related to a person’s attraction towards same-sex people pr love of same-sex people. It is a multitude of different feelings, ideas and experiences. Menon and that person actually agreed with this (that is why the person being bisexual or more gay if I am correct did not support LGBTQ).
Heterosexuality is not only about child rearing and giving birth and all those things and so when Osho says that homosexual relationships are more understanding between men but women will never truly love another as they know each other too much I was like “ok, that sounds a bit weird as in a bit incomplete”. I know that relationships between different genders and sexes is necessary and that only polarizing it as sexual and nonsexual is both a problem of homosexuality and heterosexuality. I think that is why I agree with him to that extent that there are manufactured ways of looking at sexualities and that if there is a heteronormative there is also a homo-normative. I see it in the easy uses of the word “feminine” and “masculine” and what not. A free thinker will not easily use words like that. Remember we are always living a dichotomous world and that for some people being gay may be a stage of attraction that comes and goes and not really what they want. But our binary system has forced people in sets. I think Osho also mistaken when he says that man and women are always in turmoil and can never be friends and that creates mystery and misunderstanding to a good — he is right about that but not fully. Sometimes the best understanding and love you get from who you call the opposite sex and it may not entail sexual intercourse and childbirth. So, yes, we must look at these with an open mind. I think at times that a “monastery”, “army” or even “hostel” is more about an enivironment that is akin to that. Like a clinic can even be a school. Clubs can be akin to brothels if they systematically encourage you to do things in a similar way. Like in some clubs how date rape is so exercised because the conditions are so simulated that you are in a brothel and these men and women are your brothelites and you may do with them as you please and unfortunately they you as well. Yes, Osho should have been more articulate in his ideas. I can’t fully talk about sexualities here also. It’s brevity destroys his witty soul.