I refer to the Malaysiakini report 'If consensual, why charge me only?'

We should rethink whether section 377B which criminalises consensual anal and oral sex is an archaic and medieval law out of sync with modern and contemporary intimate sexual expressions in private amongst consenting Malaysian adults.

Not only can it be used for political blackmail but can encourage conjugal blackmail of an average Joe who desires fellatio!

In Singapore there was this case.

The man's wife performed oral sex on him and then reported him to the police. She used the law against her husband, because she wanted to get back at him for having an affair with another woman.

When told that he could end up in jail, the man settled the matter by apologising to his wife, ending his womanising and gave her a huge matrimonial settlement. This is conjugal blackmail.

Section 377 is relic of colonial Victorian legislation (funny we keep it and yet are so anti-colonial in other aspects).

The philosophical rationale why consensual oral and anal sex is criminalised as unnatural is because what is natural is that which leads to the prospects of conception of a female egg being fertilised by man’s seed.

Since oral and anal sex leads to none of this, then it is unnatural. If we follow this thinking to its logical conclusion we should ban all contraceptives and condom because they promote sex for recreational and not procreation purposes.

Then what is going to happen to our public campaign against Aids which advocates condoms for safe sex?

The sodomy law is fraught with all kinds of contradictions in modern life.

I wonder whether when the Anwar Ibrahim-led Pakatan Rakyat comes to power, will they repeal section 377B under which Anwar has been charged.

The rub is can they when large sections of our citizenry are still conservative and religious? PAS as a major component party would surely be against its repeal even though such an archaic law has been used against the de facto leader of a coalition of which it is component.