The Underwear Act

Once upon a time there lived a community of fishermen in the coastal city of Mosquito. The simple people did not have much contact with the rest of the country, and went about their daily business of living without a worry about change and technology.

After the governor fleed the country to live in a remote paradise island with his swiss-bank money, a new governer was appointed, who later appointed new municipals in all the cities of the governorate, including Mosquito.

The munucipal came from the northern mountains, and was not familiar with the lifestyle of the simple fishermen, but he was pleased with their dedication and love for peace.

One day, a fisherman walked into the municipality office to report a stolen boat. As the municipal recieved him in his office, the man walked in and before talking, wanted to tighten his loosening sarung. Before the fisherman wrapped his sarung tightly, he opened it revealing his manhood to the municipal and his assistant.

The municipal was outraged; how can anyone not have any shame and not wear any underpants??

His assitant explained to him that no one in Mosquito wore undergarments due to the extremely hot and humid weather. The municipal was even more upset and disgusted by the backwardness and indecency of the fishermen. That very night, he drafted a bill making underwear a citizenship requirement.

The next morning, the bill was introduced to the local council, whose members took offense at the inexplicable act of not wearing underpants. In a week, a law was instituted which required every citizen of Mosquito and the whole governorate to wear undergarments regardless of the weather, and put in place a 50-day imprisonment as a punishment for the inobedient of this law.

This is how Mosquito came to be the largest producer of undergarments in the country, after the fishermen stopped making fishing nets and worked to supply the great demand for underwear.

Trapped in Vagina

I am currently in a part of the world in which women cover. You see these unrecognizable blobs of black and wonder how anyone can tell who they are or what they are. How the hell do their kids know which one is their mom?
In this culture, women supposedly cover like that to prevent being seen as sex objects, and out of decency. Nevertheless, you see these women constantly harassed on ths streets by men of all ages and often groped and sexually attacked. And something I noticed is that the more covered up a woman is, the more harrassed she is. So how is this cover NOT making her a sexual object?
My theory is that in any patriarchal society, a woman , no matter how much she covers and tries to hide her womanhood, is automatically seen not as a whole being, but as her reproductive organ. Women are not seen as people with brains that create and hands that make, but as vaginas that exist for sex and reproduction.
Therefore, anything that makes a woman recognizable as a woman will therefore make her seen as a sexual object. Can a woman really hide being a woman? If she covers her face to hide the delicate features, baggy clothes to hide the buldge of her breasts, black wardrbe to hide her curves, or a scarf to hide her hair, can she really hide what makes her a woman? Doesn't the black really define who these women are and make them recognizable as women?
There has been a fundamentalist movement in this region to force women into covering more and more based on the above-mentioned argument that the current clothes do not hide enough. And the more these women cover, the more they are asked to cover more, and the more they are harrassed on the streets and seen as walking vaginas.
These women, no matter how they act, what the accomplish, how they carry themselves, and no matter what they wear, are always seen as sexual objects; they are trapped in a prison that is their vaginas. They can become government officials, soldiers, intellectuals, artists, or anything else, but they are not seen as who they are or what they do, and they are stll defined as a hole made for the pleasure of men and for bearing children.
If these women cannot satisfy their societies with being respectful members of the community, covering up, and also fullfil their duties in the bedroom all at the same time, then what the hell can they do? I have a simple solution.
The only way these women would not be seen as sexual objects in these communities is to figure out a magical/scientific way to remove their vaginas and leave them at home for the time they are to be used. Maybe even for those who do not wish to use them, get a "vaginectomy" and get rid of it once and for all.
Let's assume this is possible. Do you really think these women will stop being treated like peices of meat, like sexual objects that exist for sin, or will allow them to be fully functional and respected members of society?
The reality is, the vagina is not the prison for these women; their backward, sexist, authoritarian and patriarchal societies are. Hiding who they are and what makes them women will not free them, but will add shackles to those already pulling them to the ground.

Marriage and Government

These days everyone is talking about gay marriage, and whether it should or should not be legalized. This "controversial" issue made me think about what it means to make a marriage legal and what indications that brings. Why does the government have to tell me who I can/ cannot marry?
Marriage since day one has been more of a social/religious aspect; a couple are bound together before God or before their tribe/society, to get validation and accountability (maybe also approval). But since the establishment of nation states marriage became just another of the governmental institutions: it is no longer for God or for your family, you are marry for the political machine.
on one hand, I believe that it's none of the government's business to tell em who i can or can't marry, and as long as the marriage is a political institutioon, the government will always have a say in this very intimate aspect of our lives. Governments all over the world are imposing their marriage laws on people and tell you that you can't marry this person from bla bla sect or bla bla religion, or bla bla political party. If we are to see the family (which is established by marriage, in most cases) as the cell that forms societies and nations, and the government controles this cell, then hell, government controles everything, and will controle even more aspects of our lives as time progresses. Think about it: in the middle east the government law prohibits a mulsim to marry a non-muslim, in China you can only have one kid, etc. Soon, people will have to get medical tests and background checks by government agencies before they are allowed to be married. if the government has nothing to do with marriage, gay people, people of different relgions, etc will not have to be humiliated to get the fucking government's approval to be with the person they love.
On the other hand, I am reminded that marriage laws help protect children from being left on the curb by their parents, set rules for division of property after divorce, prohibit 50-year-old men from marrying their 12 teenage cousins, etc. of course these are good things, although some of these rules are only on paper in some cases. but can't we somehow have these regulatory rules in place without making marriage a legal matter in itself and having the government tell us who we can sleep with? I am not sure how this can happen or if it is at all possible. But well, after the seperation of church and state can't we seperate marriage and state?
Heck I dunno, i'm just ranting!