‘The parish priest was threatening the
fainthearted with celestial thunder.’
— Jean-Paul Sartre, The Words
Religion came into being with the dawn of civilisation. Initially, the moral structure of the society, especially sexual morality, was based on the beliefs of religion a person followed. Gradually, as democracies established in different parts of the world, a body of law was set up. This body of law, commonly known as the judiciary, dictated the fundamental rights of the citizens and established a code of conduct that was conducive for the ethical well-being and functioning of the society.
Although the judiciary was initially established to be an unbiased institution that believed in gender equality and freedom, in reality, however, most countries, especially the Indian subcontinent, still function on the moral code dictated by their religion.
Hinduism once believed in the equality of the sexes. Before the law of marriage was introduced, Hindu women enjoyed sexual freedom. They were free to go to any man they fancied; in fact, if the men declined to please the women, they were in danger of being labelled as eunuchs.
According to the Indian mythology, when Shvetaketu, a quintessential seeker of knowledge in the Upanishads, saw his mother in the arms of another man, he was enraged. He complained to his father who, in turn, told him that women were free to do as they wish.
Shvetaketu was horrified by his father’s reaction and decided to set things right. He decreed, what is also known as ‘Shvetaketu’s Law’, that henceforth, a woman shall have sexual relations only with her husband. Hence, he established the institution of marriage based on fidelity.
The idea behind the introduction of the law of fidelity from women was to enable the children to know who their biological father was. This demand curbed the sexual freedom of women and gave the husband unlimited rights over his wife’s movements. The women were expected to be chaste at the time of marriage. It is for this reason that the two women from the epic Mahabharata, Kunti and Satyavati, had to forsake their children who were born out of wedlock. This insistence on chastity and fidelity of women gave rise to the glorification of virgin brides and established a culture of gender inequality.
According to the doctrine of virginity, a holy woman was the one who was pure at the time of marriage and, after her marriage, was attached to one man only. A woman’s entire character was judged by her virginity and fidelity. And the authority to judge a woman’s character based on her sexual conduct and to control her sexuality gave rise to the patriarchal mindset.
With the advent of patriarchy, the world witnessed the culture of restricting a woman’s movements. The women were either escorted to places by a male member of the household or an elderly matriarch. The men, however, were free to go and do as they pleased.
While the idea behind the law was to avoid confusion regarding family lineage, the glorification of the virgin brides continues to dominate the Eastern psyche. Even the slightest allusion of doubt regarding her reputation, no matter how flippant, is enough to sow the seed of mistrust that affects the relationship.
In the Indian epic Ramayana, Sita is known to wonder if her husband would be as gracious in accepting her as he accepted the berries offered to him by Shabri, whom he met on his way to rescue her. Apparently, Shabri offered him berries that had been tasted by her first. The metaphor highlights the apprehension that Sita felt about being accepted by her husband now that she had lived under the roof of another man, Ravana.
Similarly, in the epic Mahabharata, when Bhishma, the guardian of the Kuru Dynasty who had taken a vow of celibacy, abducted the three princesses, Amba, Ambika, and Ambalika, for the betrothal to Prince Vichitravirya, Amba was livid! When Bhishma saw that she was furious at the proposed prospect, he let her go so that she could marry the man of her choice, Prince Shalva.
Her beloved Prince Shalva, however, refused to take her back, and told her, ‘How can I take back as queen a woman abducted by another man and then returned as charity?’7
Moreover, when she returns to Prince Vichitravirya, he admonishes her by saying, ‘What is once given away is never taken back.’8
A woman is deemed filthy and ‘unusable’ if she has been associated with another man. This regressive thought process affects a woman’s reputation greatly and makes it as fragile as porcelain.
Although the law allows her to exercise her sexual freedom once she has attained adulthood, she is still at the mercy of her reputation and is referred to as a used object if she exercises this freedom. Her character is summed up only by her chastity and every other trait, such as compassion and kindness, is secondary to it. She is constantly put to test; the mistrust and doubt regarding her character continue to express themselves all through her life.
In Islam, the Sharia or Islamic law comes before any law or rule instituted by the people. According to this law, women are subordinate to men. Islam believes that men have authority over women because God made one superior to the other based on their physical strength. Hence, it is the responsibility of men to protect their women.9
Islam also lays a strong emphasis on the culture of ensuring and guarding the chastity of women by men as it is considered to be a direct reflection of their manliness. Any threat to the reputation of their women is perceived as a threat to their honour. The culture of locating their honour in the sexual morality of the women in the Indian subcontinent gave rise to an obsession with their chastity.
The women who would bring disgrace to their honour were either disowned or murdered. This practice is popularly known as honour killing. It is far from being condemned and is seen as a morally acceptable conduct by different communities.
It is also believed to be a woman’s fault if she gets into any sort of a trouble. Ironically, in the Arab culture, if a woman gets raped, she is the one to receive the whiplashes because she was not invisible enough! Muslims believe that there is something in women which drives men crazy and it is for this reason that the women have to cover themselves with a veil.
This ‘gender apartheid’, as activist and author Ayaan Hirsi Ali calls it, manifests itself in an abnormal obsession with a woman’s virginity that leads to controversial practices like Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and infibulation, a practice where the clitoris and labia are removed and the edges of the vulva are sewn together in order to guarantee her virginity.
This practice was accepted by Islam and is still popular in various African Islamic countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Egypt.10 Hence, this barbaric practice makes the position of Muslim women the worst in the world.
The conservative Christians, under the rule of Queen Victoria, insisted that virginity was a symbol of purity of character. The Queen, perhaps, took the idea of Virgin Mary in the literal sense rather than recognising that this concept was used just to convey the existence of an energy that was greater than the forces of nature.
In the Victorian era, sex was considered to be a dirty, disgusting, and shameful act. It was to be indulged in purely to fulfil the needs of the husband and, most importantly, to procreate. Since the British Empire was spread far and wide, the Victorian notions of morality dominated the mindset of the people.
This twisted sense of morality is clearly responsible for the prevailing awkwardness and embarrassment surrounding sexual experiences. And even though most of the modern society is free of gender apartheid, especially after the wave of sexual revolution and feminism, it is still not entirely free of gender prejudices.