#religious protocol

It is an undisputed fact that whatever laws that have come into practice from the ancient and medieval eras are human made. They either found acceptance within various cultures and religions and became part of them, or were created based on prevalent ideologies on life religions were upholding.

Some laws, especially the ones that directly or indirectly revolve around a woman's virginity and chastity, were indeed crafted by men of the patriarchal society. They promulgated these laws and carried out their propaganda in such a way that these laws became morally, socially and even religiously binding upon women.

Family values and social perception on women were subject to moral character analysis and judgment, and any suspected slip from chastity was treated as a permanent taint and an unforgivable sin. Some societies were even promoting chastity belts for women. And these were happening, while men themselves were promiscuous in their social life and right when brothels and trading of women used to be a legal affair. History of many known civilizations vindicates this. Even literature hailing virtues of virginity and chastity of women were indeed promoting them relentlessly.

We can find references in the literature on how a woman was asked to testify her purity by entering into the fire or how a woman of absolute chastity could burn an entire city. Some literature even goes to the extent to say how chastity of the wife empowered her husband. Perhaps just a handful of them speaks about the chastity of men. What are they actually hinting? Is chastity an uncompromisable virtue? Is it just meant for women to observe? Aren't humans promiscuous in their minds, whether it is men or women? For what reason people are fostering this false social imagery?

Now, let's leave aside all the ideologies centered around virginity and chastity. To choose a life partner or to remain with or leave a partner is an individual's choice. While life shared by two people should be governed by their free will, mutual compatibility, and needs and need fulfillment, any imposing idea stemming from within the family or from the society in the name of cultural and religious protocols targeting one gender is something against the right of the individual to choose a partner.

Loyalty as a natural expression of love is different from a commitment that is enforced upon or asked for, in the name of pledges and promises. Promises indeed are sought by those who feel insecure and by those who suffer from poor self-esteem. They fear that those whom they court or live with could ditch them for someone else. The ambit of this fear is not confined just to the fear of losing one's partner, but also to the psychological hurt and social shame attached to it.

Among species beings, the fight for a mate drives them to become competent. Whereas, humans, who are supposed to be civilized to respect their mutual right, create value for each other and support one other by way of a social institution like marriage, unfortunately, seek shelter from laws that bind their mates just to coerce them to live along, even when they are unwilling and incompatible.

Most of the ancient and medieval laws that bind women but not the men are indeed scripted by insecure men of the past, who feared that they could lose their women of interest to other competent males. And by way of culture and religion, they have tried to immortalize such laws and have shut the doors of reformation with clauses of blasphemy. Now, unless we understand that all laws are human-made, subject to the possibility of errors, and as a society, we choose to accept or reject them through reasoning, we may just keep repeating the errors of these men for several centuries more into the future.

Article by Ajay Kumar Jagadeesh