I wonder whether those who get uptight about Section 377 of IPC have bothered to read it. This is what it says, titled as "unnatural offences" - "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section."

So there is a requirement of penetration, though what is being penetrated is not specified. If something is being penetrated, the section applies to all relationships, man-man, man-woman, woman-woman and human-animal. And if nothing is being penetrated, the section ought not to apply. The point is the following.

Before passing any legislation, one should ask whether it can at all be enforced. In consensual instances between adults, how does one ever obtain evidence on an unnatural offence being committed? Such acts are unlikely to be committed in public. I tried to track down actual prosecutions under Section 377 since 1947. I may be wrong. But I haven't been able to find a single case involving an animal.

Every case I have found concerns non-consensual relationships, in particular, sodomy. More accurately, those are instances of rape and forced sex on minors. Therefore, if one amends rape laws, the rest of Section 377 is non-enforceable. Even if one assumes for the moment that this is against Indian culture, whatever that may mean, no convictions (as opposed to harassment) can result.

... contd.