Miniskirts and myopia; is the government barking mad?

by Pearl Thevanayagam

(January 05, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) Former First Lady Hema Premadasa’s thighs when she plays netball or First Lady Hiranthi Rajapakse’s ageing huge mammaries do not set young bollocks on fire. But nubile thighs in miniskirts which are a sight for sore eyes will be banned to preserve the decorum and modesty of this Asian sub-continent. The monks who carved out the frescoes in Sigiriya were not inspired by divine intervention. They were satiating their inherent lust in the absence of any intercourse with the opposite sex.

Even Lord Buddha enjoyed the vicarious pleasures of having been married and begotten children before he tired of them and sought some quality time away from the nitty-gritty of confronting a wife and her constant nagging. In the process he founded Buddhism and found peace within himself.

Jesus had much forethought. He refused to get married and was happy going his merry way with his 12 apostles and occasionally consorting with the opposite sex aka Mary Magdalene, a well known prostitute, without the cumbersome ties of a marriage. He had heard more than enough of his humble birth in a manger surrounded by filthy donkeys and cows and freezing cold weather which his ma endured and it put him off marriage for a lifetime.

Both founded two great religions or philosophies and they have lasted well over 2,000 years.

Mahathma Gandhi was another maverick who while lying with young women who were mesmerized by his ahimsa swore that he was celibate. He should have been charged for adultery but he was clever enough to fool even his wife Kasturibhai that his action was noble. But then there were no one to question him in those days.

Miniskirts are a part of the growing process in a teenager’s life. Most of us have cut off six inches from our uniforms and quite unwittingly attracted a few admiring glances from comely youth and that was all the pleasure we got. Sex was the furthest from our minds.

While the government condones madames who supply its politicians and judges with imported East European belles it also feels duty bound to ban indecent attire. Although it is beyond comprehension when ample midriff, neckline and busts are blatantly exposed in the national attire of saree, a sneaky peek of thighs of women in miniskirts is sending the moral police squirming in their pants and going for the jugular of our young women.

We have stood silent while the media is suppressed; we looked the other way when judges genuflected before the President and deflected their judgments in his favour never mind what their conscience dictate. But it is a sad day in history when we are dictated to on how we should dress so as not to excite the libido of the average Sri Lankan male.

No wonder we cannot travel safely in public transport without a lecherous male rubbing himself against you since he is forbidden by decree to imagine a female form other than his wife whom he had long tired of and who is well past her sell-by-date.

Where do you find most rape cases? Not in the West where women have as much right as men in the field of sex but in Islamic cultures such as in the Middle East and Pakistan. Talibanising our culture could only churn repressed men who in turn would resort to inhuman sexual acts such as rape and incense.

In the second decade of the new millennium do we really need a police state which watches over even our private lives? As the saying goes; if you have got it flaunt it, miniskirts and comely thighs notwithstanding.