The War on the Canadian Muslim Woman's Body

The debate sparked by Québec’s controversial Charter of Values last year has once again been ignited across Canada. Although there are other forces at play, we can probably attribute this to Prime Minister Harper’s comment that he is “offended” by the niqab and wants to appeal the court decision allowing a Muslim woman to cover her face during the swearing-in part of the oath of citizenship ceremony.

After our PM’s hyperbolic statement, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander made a comment lumping the hijab into the same category as the niqab when discussing the oath of citizenship, as if they were the same thing. Since the minister has yet to clarify his statement, this could leave the door open for the imposition of further rules on religious Canadians and especially Muslim women.

But our federal government isn’t alone in this mentality. Recently, a woman in Montréal who appeared in court was turned away by the judge because she was wearing a head scarf and refused to remove it. And another woman in Montréal was harassed and assaulted because she was wearing hijab.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois, which was thrown out by Québécois voters in favour of the NDP in the last federal election, appears to be using this supposedly secular fight to pander to similarly anti-Muslim voters. In an attempt to ride on the coattails of the NDP’s opposition to the new anti-terror legislation, Bill C-51, the Bloc released the following ad asking “Should you have to hide your face to vote for the NDP?”

Neither is this ad clever nor is it even logical. It is pure solicitation of the bigot vote. Incidentally, the Conservatives are also hoping to pick up some seats in la belle province by enticing those same voters.

A political war is being waged in Canada, and the battlefield is Muslim women’s bodies.

I am not a religious person, but I respect the beliefs of people of faith and their right to practice their religion freely. More and more people that I know are identifying as atheist. I see nothing wrong with this as long as they can allow those who do believe in God to have their beliefs. Yet I would also argue that this growing tendency toward atheism can be dangerous. When decent, level-headed religious people disappear from the landscape, the gap can be filled by people with extreme views.

The fact that a political party with many members who are unapologetically Christian, i.e., the Conservatives, would act as though they believe in promoting secularism, by removing all religious symbols from the public, is laughable. This is the same party with members who have wanted to re-open the debates on abortion and same-sex marriage. This has nothing to do with promoting secularism; what they are promoting is the marginalization of Muslims. The Sikhs, for example, have long fought to wear their turbans, as is their right, and they have won. So, why the sudden interest in removing so-called religious symbols?

The concept of exhibiting nationalism and achieving supposed unity by fighting the internal enemy is nothing new. One of the most salient historical examples of this was in Germany. But if humans have learned anything from the past, it seems to be how to carry on those evils, rather than ensure that they never creep up and divide us again. Right now, the Muslim is the internal enemy in many countries, including Canada. Never have I heard/seen so many non-Muslim “experts” on Islam as I do today, sitting at their computers at home or pontificating in the mainstream media.

If you demonize and dehumanize the Muslim, Mr. and Ms. X sitting on their island far away from the rest of the world are more likely to buy into propaganda about a ragtag army that is somehow free to post on social media; film, edit, and release stylized videos in the middle of a war zone or out in the wilderness; order n number of Guantanamo-style orange jumpsuits; purchase sophisticated weapons from Western countries; etc. etc. etc…. and thus support perpetual drone strikes or war in Muslim majority countries that are economically and politically important to certain powers.

I am not a fan of the niqab, as I see wearing it as more of cultural practice than a religious one, but I believe that integration into a new culture takes time and cannot be imposed on someone. So, I would hope that a woman who migrates to Canada, one day, will feel that it is not necessary to cover her face when she goes out in public, but it is not my job, nor my desire, to shout at her and try to shame her into conforming to my idea of how a Canadian woman should comport herself. And in my life, I can only think of one instance when I saw a woman wearing the niqab in my city. But the way people talk, you would think this is some epidemic. That’s the idea. When the hysteria is created, and the narrative is written that Mulcair and Trudeau would have us all reciting the Quran and living under Sharia law, then we must vote for Harper out of fear. Don’t fall for it.

When I hear people complain about multiculturalism, and whine that immigrants aren’t assimilating, I get irritated. How open are white Canadians to people from different racial and cultural backgrounds when they come to Canada? Most white Canadians who have spent their entire lives living in Canada know almost exclusively other white people with a similar history.

Some days, I wake up and I wonder where I come from, because it doesn’t seem to be where other Canadians come from. I grew up in a medium-sized city, in a fairly middle class neighbourhood. Right from pre-school, my peers were from different backgrounds. My friends were always of different ethnicities and faiths. That was, and is, Canada. Today, when I stop and think about it, it occurs to me that almost all of the friends I’ve made as an adult are immigrants, and many of the friends that I have had since my youth are the children of immigrants. Canada is, after all, an immigrant country. But if we develop a reputation as an unwelcoming, white country, people will stop coming. Some people might delight at this prospect, but what they don’t realize is that Canada needs people to sustain itself.

I am happy to come from a multicultural country, and I believe that it is worth fighting for. We cannot allow anyone to manipulate us into turning on each other and ignoring what’s happening in our country and overseas in its name. If people would come out of their cocoons and talk to others, they would realize how much they have in common, and together we could fight those who wish to harm all of us.

Secularism means not governing the state on the basis of religion; it does not mean telling a Jew to remove his kippa or a Muslim to remove her hijab. That anyone, especially a judge, would equate these things, which are worn for a reason, with objects like sunglasses and hats, shows a shocking lack of education and understanding. This ignorance and disrespect should be more offensive to Canadians than an individual’s religion.

Overdue sex-ed reform in Ontario

The Government of Ontario is finally updating its sex-ed curriculum, which has remained stagnant since the late 1990s. It tried to enact reform in 2010, but faced strong opposition from religious groups. Today, the provincial government is vowing not to back down. The most common comments that I have read from everyday citizens/parents is that they feel sex-ed should come from the home.

Of course, parents should have frank conversations with their kids about the physical and emotional changes they all experience, and about what they’re looking at and doing online. But do all parents do this? How comfortable are parents with discussing topics related to sexuality and sex with their kids, and how many kids feel at ease asking their parents about these things?

I remember when my mother had “the talk” with me. It was accompanied by an illustrated book from the library, and it was the most awkward conversation we had in the 28 years that we got to share with each other. And that was long before the Internet age. There are many more topics to cover today. My mom didn’t discuss pornography or sexting with me; the former was something that she could prevent me from accessing, and the latter didn’t exist. This is significant because the parents preparing to have “the talk” today didn’t face the same issues their children face.

Another key addition to sex-ed in Ontario is the subject of consent, which is due to children themselves asking for such discussions to take place. If the kids themselves want this to be part of their curriculum, what’s wrong with it? Adults, too, might benefit from some lessons on what consent and rape are, given some of the response to the Rehtaeh Parsons case, as just one example. I reflect on this example often. I was a 15-year-old girl once, and it honestly hurts me to know that people are so quick to believe that a 15-year-old girl would consent to being part of a gang bang.

My favourite comment that I have seen from a concerned citizen was one accusing Premier Kathleen Wynne of “hypersexualizing” our children by enacting this reform! I couldn’t help but laugh! Disseminating information and answering questions is hypersexualization?!? This is the old if you don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist logic that has been used in relation to important issues such as teen pregnancy and racism.

As if humans experience feelings and urges because we are told to do so! Nonsense. Such misguided thinking overlooks the fact that children and adolescents are intelligent beings. I had several heated discussions in the past with a particular person about whether it is right to discuss with kids what it means to be transgender. The notion that mentioning that there are people in the world who are transgender or intersexed will confuse kids and make some of them want to change their biological sex is utterly ridiculous. What is confusing is when kids lack information about subjects that puzzle them.

Education is the most important thing in this world, and kids are far more intelligent than adults often give them credit for. When they are equipped with knowledge, they have the tools to make the right decisions.

Those who are resistant to change in the education system could perhaps learn a little something themselves.

To tune in or tune out

Over the years, the topic of keeping up with the news versus tuning out has come up a lot in conversation with people. I have always been intensely on the tune-in side of this argument. Some people defend their lack of attention to politics and current events by stating that the news is “too depressing.” While I cannot dismiss this argument, I believe that refusing to listen to what is happening in the world not only threatens a person’s awareness of that which affects him or her directly; it risks erasing his or her compassion.

Admittedly, if you are a highly sensitive person who takes on the suffering of others, the news might alter your mood, and maybe even your blood pressure. In that case, I can understand keeping some distance. However, if this is not an issue, I think any reason you might give for tuning out is merely an excuse to remain within the confines of the reality you choose to create for yourself.

While I didn’t grow up in an avid news-watching/reading household, I was always curious and enjoyed reading and learning. So, the learning that I did in school must have piqued my interest in politics, philosophy, and world affairs.

The world that many of us inhabit is becoming increasingly individualistic, and with that comes less connectedness with others. Sure, we are technically connected to many people at any given time, due to our advanced communication systems, but how profound are these connections?

If you don’t know anything about the troubles that a family member is having, for example, why would you bother to learn about people who are suffering on the other side of the world? I’m not saying that people don’t care; rather, they’re not interested in hearing anything negative.

As someone whom others label as “negative” (*scoff*), logically, I won’t shy away from the negativity in the world. My mom always told me that I think too much. She was right, of course. She was an intelligent and pragmatic woman, so she was often right. I wouldn’t be the same person if I stopped thinking so much; we wouldn’t want that, would we?!

If we don’t listen to the voices of others, we cannot understand them. And this lack of understanding breeds a lack of empathy. That is how North Americans, for example, can move on quickly after hearing that thousands of people were killed on a faraway continent. And without this ability to understand and share the feelings of others, we will allow the needless suffering of others to continue.

Perhaps, rather than simply discussing whether or not to unplug, the question to ask is this: What do we gain from tuning out?

Patriarchy and Politics

As I stated several days ago, I believe that patriarchy hurts everyone. This harmful system frames how we view everyone, including our politicians. My personal frames of reference, Canada and India, both offer examples of this.

As soon as Justin Trudeau was voted leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservatives launched their assault, taking old video clips out of context to insinuate that Trudeau is a dumb, pretty boy who doesn’t know how to lead the country. In fact, taking the theme of this ridiculous video, they created an entire website to show us that he’s “in way over his head.” And then there was this nonsense:

Besides the text, which is basically dissing Canadians who work normal jobs—and in fact shows that Harper hadn’t done much of anything as of that time in 2013—look at the imagery. These are not straightforward, side-by-side photos. Why is Trudeau all sparkly?

Complementing these depictions are the constant references to “Trudumb” and “pretty boy” on social media, and Rob Ford’s alleged reference to Trudeau as a “fag” in his infamous crack-smoking video. This is the same idiotic stereotype that has long been associated with women (i.e. that one is either intelligent or attractive). But that is precisely the point; this gender association adds a deeper meaning. A handsome, clever, introspective man is often seen as effeminate.

But look at this man. No, really, look at him.

It’s not a crime to be beautiful.

Enter the supposed antithesis of Justin Trudeau (on the surface, yes; politically, I have my doubts). Stephen Harper never has to worry about anyone questioning his manliness (unless you believe the rumours about his wife having run off with a female RCMP officer). He is blunt, he doesn’t care about “root causes,” he loves war, and when he puts effort into his appearance, he goes from non-descript to frighteningly corpse-like.

Case in point:

Scary...

Similarly in India, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was often criticized for his quiet demeanor. He is a learned man, who had the respect of his international colleagues, like Barack Obama. His stature and personality always made him appear delicate.

Again, not manly enough to please the masses.

Enter Narendra Modi, with his 56" chest. In the run-up to the 2014 election in India, there was so much excitement on social media and in the mainstream media about the “weak,” old PM being replaced by butch Modi. And he played up to his macho image like anything.

Oh yeah, you da man, NaMo!

Patriarchy has convinced people that they need tough guys to look up to. And if a man’s image is more complex than that, no one wants to hear what he thinks or what he has done.

Personally, I have no use for tough guys. I want a leader with intellect and a vision for the whole country, not just a segment of it. These macho dudes work to keep their corporate friends and backers happy. Worrying about the poor or protecting the environment is for wussies. It's all about money and winning. Winning what, I'm not sure. But we must win!

What does this mean for our future generations? Do we want boys who let out their emotions with their fists? What happens to those who aren't necessarily violent, but want to be manly men? They end up like this guy, playing with the lives of innocent people who don't have a puppet as the leader of their strategically important country:

Or this guy, who wants to manufacture the weapons that will inevitably kill the aforementioned people:

I can't leave you with that image. Let's look at Justin again...

Canadians Have Been Fooled

If polls can be believed, 82% of Canadians support Bill C-51. What’s more, 36% of those polled claimed that the legislation doesn’t go far enough! So, the Harper government’s fear mongering has worked. The vast majority of Canadians are living in such fear, and with such hatred of Muslims and non-like-minded people, that they are eager to throw away their rights.

This is what happens when people are not engaged. This lack of engagement in Canada has given us almost a decade of Stephen Harper and his troupe of clapping seals. They have worked diligently for the oil companies during this time. They have shown time and again that they care nothing for us, and yet they have the nerve to accuse anyone who dares to stand up against them, like leader of the opposition Thomas Mulcair, of not standing with, and for, Canadians.

And what terrorists do we have to fear? No doubt, there are people who espouse dangerous ideologies, but how many of these people have launched attacks on civilians in Canada? Contrary to what the media and our beloved Prime Minister have told us, the murders that were committed by two mentally disturbed individuals in October 2014 were just that—murders. One man running over another man with his car, or one man shooting one unarmed soldier standing on ceremonial guard, does not a terrorist attack make. Conveniently, these murderers were both converts to Islam, giving the mainstream media and the government an opening to politicize these crimes.

Does the average Canadian know what we are doing in Iraq right now, besides giving Harper a second chance to get in on the action for which he yearned back in 2003? Yet our PM loves to invoke ISIS every chance he gets. He has Canadians so convinced that I have spoken to more than one person who fears that these men in black are heading to small Ontario towns to behead them in their beds at night. Oh yes, the fear mongering works! It’s about the only trick the Conservatives have to weasel their way back into power in this year’s federal election. Now that the Liberals have made a comeback, they know it won’t be so easy to rely on vote splitting to sneak their way into another majority.

We Need Feminism

I don’t remember when I first learned about feminism, but I know that I have identified as a feminist since I was probably in middle school. I knew that men and women were equal, and that was that. This was more than 20 years ago, but things haven’t changed much since then; girls are still reluctant to call themselves feminists because they think feminism means hating men or thinking women are superior to men.

Even when I was in university, I can remember girls in the women’s studies department who didn’t want to call themselves feminists. It was as if it was a declaration that either you were a lesbian or you had a problem with men… or both. Okay, I can imagine that this prospect would be a little scary for a girl hoping to find a guy whom she could potentially marry one day. Since my only aspiration in university was to get the most of out of my education, I had no such hang-ups.

I belong to the school of thought which argues that patriarchy hurts everyone, not just women. I believe in pointing fingers at systems and ideologies before groups of people.

We live in a time where the damage of patriarchy is everywhere. Now that the Fifty Shades of Grey movie has been released, the discussion sparked by the publication of the first book, about its damaging message, has been reignited. I admit that I have not read the book (I couldn’t get past the sloppy syntax and unengaging narration), nor do I intend to see the movie. Therefore, I will not pretend to be in a position to critique these works (beyond my observation above). I have, however, been reading articles written by people who have read the books and/or watched the film adaptation, and my interest is in discussing some of the ideas about relationships and sex.

For the record, I don’t condemn people for wanting to engage in consensual role play. Whatever floats your boat… again, provided everyone is agreeable. And by “agreeable,” I’m referring to consent, which does not mean “Well, you didn’t say no, so...” No, I mean there was discussion, and both (or more, if that’s what you’re into) people signed on for whatever was going to happen in the future. But when there is an imbalance of power, the question of consent becomes much more complex.

There is a line between BDSM and abuse, and that line is consent. This makes me think back to Jian Ghomeshi, who defended himself upon his dismissal from the CBC by almost boasting that he had had a fifty-shades-esque relationship with a woman who would soon try to discredit him publically because he had dumped her. Many women would later come forward stating that they had been physically and sexually abused by Ghomeshi without giving consent. Yet Ghomeshi had plenty of people defending him on social media, men especially. It was easier to believe that eight women were lying, as opposed to one man.

There must be a reason why sexual practices that were once taboo became mainstream. Certainly, it’s not because E. L. James wrote a contemporary classic that freed us from our puritanical ways. How does one go from vanilla sex to bondage?

I read a very insightful article today about the damage that pornography is doing. This particular paragraph is what interests me at this moment:

A new wave of feminists, who have betrayed the iconic work of radicals such as Andrea Dworkin, defends porn as a form of sexual liberation and self-empowerment. These “feminists,” grounded in Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, are stunted products of neoliberalism and postmodernism. Feminism, for them, is no longer about the liberation of women who are oppressed; it is defined by a handful of women who are successful, powerful and wealthy—or, as in the case of “Fifty Shades of Grey,” able to snag a rich and powerful man. A woman wrote the “Fifty Shades” book, as well as the screenplay. A woman directed the film. A woman studio head bought the movie. This collusion by women is part of the internalization of oppression and sexual violence that have their roots in porn. Dworkin understood. She wrote that “the new pornography is a vast graveyard where the Left has gone to die. The Left cannot have its whores and its politics too.”

In my discussions with fellow feminists, I have long argued that patriarchy is so well-ingrained in humanity that women themselves are the ones sustaining and propagating it today. Children are growing up in a world where Beyonce is the model feminist—a woman who rose to fame on her talent and, now, in her mid-thirties with a family, seems to be putting more effort into selling her body than her voice. Drunk in Love? WTF was that shitty song? And why was she rolling around in a wet bathing suit in the video, while Jay Z got to be fully dressed? It’s liberating, right?! Puh-lease!

Who is as famous as Queen Bey? Kim Kardashian, who is not only famous for being famous (a capitalist nightmare) but for making a sex tape and showing off her ass, both in and out of clothes.

And I’m not blaming them per se. There is a reason why women have to do whatever it takes to get attention. Our world is like that. This nonsense is part of a larger cultural problem. Pornography is ubiquitous. Hard core porn isn’t something you need to pay for anymore; it’s free and ready to be viewed on any device connected to the Internet. And the content of TV is changing. The days of good writing in sitcoms are over; now, all the jokes are about sex.

Let’s not forget advertising either. While there is a long history of pushing the envelope in this field, advertisers get away with imagery today that is reminiscent of porn. The first ad that comes to mind is one for Slice, starring Katrina Kaif. She waits longingly for the mango to ripen, and when it does, she splits it open, holds it above her face, and the camera focuses on a small hole at the top of the mango (not exactly the same opening she made in the fruit) that expels a drop on her lip.

This requires no imagination to see the analogy. And as a mango lover, I must say, no one eats mango like that! It’s a rather vile ad. But, hey, sex sells!

What is the message today? Women have to be hot. Who doesn’t want to be attractive? That’s fine. But who defines what’s “hot,” and why does hotness have to be about blatant sexuality? What happened to subtlety?

Getting back to porn, the evolution that it has undergone in the digital age is scary. I remember when pornography was people having sex. Whether they were both happy to be doing it is another issue, but at least they acted like they were. Today, there is a buffet of acts to watch, a lot of which are, quite frankly, gross. And a lot of the time, the people on screen look like they have contempt for each other. Slapping and spitting have become common. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want be treated like that, nor would I want to be with someone whom I would feel compelled to treat like that.

In Canada, I live in an apartment building with thin walls and floors, and I can tell you, on the basis of my observations (which I honestly wish I was never in a position to make), that adults have learned about sex from porn. And now that every kid has his or her own mobile phone, if their generation is learning about sex from porn, we can expect more violence and sexual dysfunction, and ultimately, fewer connections between people and less respect and appreciation for one another.

Feminism is crucial because things aren’t getting better. Women may be more visible today than they were before, but I have heard men complain that this has disenfranchised them. How can we have equality if either side feels this way? And how can we be happy with ourselves if we’re constantly being told that we’re no good? 

I guess this is why I relate to her work...

Simone de Beauvoir, one of my favourite French authors and philosophers, was quoted as stating the following:

I am awfully greedy; I want everything from life. I want to be a woman and to be a man, to have many friends and to have loneliness, to work much and write good books, to travel and enjoy myself, to be selfish and to be unselfish… You see, it is difficult to get all which I want. And then when I do not succeed I get mad with anger.

I love it. This is so me.

Old rants on foreigners in Goa

The following are some letters to the editor of mine that were published in Goa's Herald in the past. I wrote the second one in response to a displeased reply from a British national to the first one. Some things have changed since then: The rule that kept all foreigners out for two months between visits to India was scrapped.

Arrogant Foreigners in Goa

I am a Canadian who travels to India every year to visit family in Mumbai and Goa. I am appalled when I observe the arrogance of some of the foreign visitors to Goa who act as though spending a little money here gives them the right to stay for as long as they like, do whatever they please, and speak to the locals as if they are beneath them. I am equally disheartened when I witness the Goans who welcome the disrespectful behaviour of these types of people. The Indian visa rules have been changing due to the number of visitors who flout them, e.g. by working/doing business on a tourist visa, overstaying, engaging in illegal activities, etc. In a country that is constantly under the threat of terrorism, the tightening of these rules is necessary, commendable, and should be respected by all visitors.

A privilege, not a right

As I stated in my letter to the editor, Arrogant foreigners in Goa, I am Canadian. Hence, the same visa rules and laws apply to me. It is a privilege to visit a foreign country, not a right, and I repeat, as visitors, we must respect the rules of that country. No one is telling us not to travel to India. I don’t like the two-month rule either, but I respect it.

A British tourist who lives in a Goan village for five months out of the year might feel disconnected from the harsh realities that Indian citizens must deal with every day. While decent European or North American tourists might not be terrorists, there cannot be separate rules for us and the rest of the visitors to India. I wonder what Brian Morris (1 February, Arrogant foreigners?) meant by his observation that “class issues and Indian tourists are of concern.”

Furthermore, it is illogical to compare foreign nationals who come to Goa to live off their savings for part of the year to Goans who settle abroad. The latter must show all their assets to the government of that country and undergo a thorough selection process, while the former need only answer basic questions on a form and pay a fee. A tourist visa is not a residence visa; liking Goa does not entitle someone to remain in Goa. I would like to know what those foreign nationals who have chosen to stay beyond six months are doing here. Are they working for local companies and paying income tax to the Indian government?

Gender and the Definition of Sex

How do women have sex?

This is a question I’ve heard, and seen in print, too many times to count.

The fact that this eludes so many people points to the narrow definition that we have of sex. Sex without a penis seems unfathomable. That is why heterosexuals are able to grasp the concept of two men having sex, except that this understanding, again, underlines how limited our definition of sex is. It would be incorrect to assume that all gay men engage in anal sex, or that those who do, do so all the time.

When I was a teenager, I can remember hearing other girls say, “We [the girl and her boyfriend] haven’t had sex; we’ve only had oral sex.” I can also remember the following sly suggestion of a guy who was dating a friend of mine, who had vowed not to have premarital sex: “If we have anal sex, technically you’ll still be a virgin.” Oh, the horror!

So, when I reached adulthood, and I heard women confess that they had been sexually active for several years and had never had an orgasm, or thought they had had one (Honey, if you think it happened, it didn’t happen), it didn’t surprise me. If all sex is to people is vaginal penetration, then you can’t expect the outcome to be great for everyone all the time.

I read something yesterday that made me reflect (more than usual) on the fact that women aren’t taken seriously. Without getting into a discussion on same-sex marriage, as it requires more nuance than a passing paragraph can do it justice, I want to focus on gender and sex. In brief, according to the cited article, during the Victorian era in Britain, there were women who got away with marrying other women because one of the partners could pass for male.

The concept of passing plays into a persistent stereotype about queer women, which is that one must be “the woman” and the other, “the man.” This draws an obvious parallel to the heteronormative paradigm, much like the narrow definition of sex that I mentioned above. Thus, to have a relationship, or marriage, one might be taken seriously if one passes for a heterosexual couple. Yet this is a trap, since the absence of the penis means that sex cannot occur, and without sex, those in the Victorian era might argue, there is no marriage. So, I read this as a condescending pat on the back for women wanting to play “man” and “wife,” as if they were children playing dress-up.

This is important because the article mentions that there was no discussion of sex between women, and in fact, these couples “were not seen as sexually deviant.” Of course not, because without a penis, there is no intercourse, and without intercourse, there is no sex. Even today, gay sex is commonly defined as sodomy, which is not something anyone expects two women to practice, and therefore, women can fly under the radar and be together without actually breaking any laws. Although this oddly gives queer women a certain amount of privilege as compared to queer men, again, it underlines the dismissive manner in which women in same-sex relationships are treated. Why define sex between women when it poses no threat to the heterosexual, or even the accepted homosexual, norm? But I will argue later that it is indeed quite threatening.

That leads to my final point about the article, which is that it mentions that despite this relaxing of the definition of marriage, it did not apply to men, for whom embracing in public was still banned in the mid-twentieth century. This homophobic approach to gender is something that intrigues me as a person who divides her time between Canada and India. In Canada, there is a strict code of behaviour for men, if they don’t want to be perceived as gay. Beyond a handshake or fist bump, there is little touching. One of those manly hugs with loud back-slapping can be acceptable, provided you don’t linger for too long in each other’s embrace. In India, on the other hand, it is perfectly normal for male friends to walk hand-in-hand. And if you’re riding around on a pink scooter or wearing a flamboyant, floral printed shirt, you won’t have to worry about being the victim of a hate crime. In fact, chances are, no one will think any of these things says anything about your masculinity or sexual orientation. So, in the West, why is there this fear of seeing signs of anything associated with femininity in men? Is it really that easy to overturn one’s gender or sexuality?

I have frequently argued in the presence of friends that the world might be a slightly happier place if we were to abandon our rigid definitions, and men in particular were free to pursue sexual relationships with each other, since so many of them don’t seem to like women all that much and do seem to really enjoy the company of their male friends.

As for women, don’t worry, I’m not arguing that the answer to their elusive orgasms is to sleep with other women. The answer lies in their own hands. Pun intended.

I believe that this is the root cause of our sad and limited definition of sex. Boys are expected to masturbate. It’s not a taboo, as long as they do it behind closed doors. But girls are discouraged from getting to know their bodies. Boys are boys, full stop. But there are two kinds of girls: the good ones and the bad ones. The good ones are chaste, whereas the bad ones are filthy whores who can’t be trusted. Anything in between takes a very liberal, discerning eye to recognize.

Why is female sexuality hard to handle? Maybe because if a woman is in tune with her body and is a little assertive in bed, she’ll undermine and emasculate her partner, who is expected to be the assertive one. So, the alternative is what, then? She has to hope her partner is really looking to make her happy before he worries about himself, or she will be left forever wondering, “Did I have an orgasm just now?” Incidentally, her partner might be wondering the same thing about her, because it would be rude, after all, to tell the poor fellow that she hadn’t finished.

While two women together might be easily dismissed as a couple of silly girls pretending to have sex, the reality is that there is less room for pretense, which makes the act threatening. In order to have sex with another woman, a woman needs to know how the female anatomy works. That requires comfort with her own body and her partner’s. I scandalized a friend once by suggesting that there can be a degree of detachment in standard hetero intercourse, due to both the mechanics and the fact that the man is most likely thinking only of his pleasure, whereas sex between women demands engagement and more physical closeness due to the mechanics involved. This is not absolute, of course.

But seriously, the man gets to focus on his penis, the woman is expected to focus on the man’s penis; so, who’s focusing on the clitoris? Much like the women who have yet to locate the Big O, how is it that there are straight men who don’t know where the clitoris is? The only way you could miss it is if you’re just inserting… Oh, wait, that is what’s going on, isn’t it? There’s that narrow definition again.

Let’s be real. If there is nudity involved, if genitals are involved in any way, it’s sex.