According to some, trousers many cause girls to become sexually active and turn them into tomboys. There is no recorded correlation between sexual activity and trousers, that I am aware of. From Reuters
Malaysia's police, who have recently cracked down on dissident bloggers and broken up anti-government demonstrations, say that protests over an edict against Muslim women wearing trousers are a security threat.
A security threat? How? In what possible scenario do women in trousers become a security threat?
Mainly Muslim Malaysia's National Fatwa Council recently issued a religious ruling that wearing trousers was un-Islamic.
It said that, by wearing trousers, young girls risked becoming "tomboys" who became sexually active.
"I'm warning them and will take stern action as it involves national security," Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan told reporters Thursday, according to the state-run Bernama news agency.
Malaysia frowns on oral and gay sex, describing them as against the order of nature. Under civil law, offenders -- male and female -- can be jailed for up to 20 years, caned or fined.
As well as women in trousers, the Fatwa Council is considering barring Muslims from practicing yoga.
Although it is not explicit in this article, here, it is explicit that tomboy means lesbian.
Last week the Fatwa Council decreed that tomboyish behaviour by girls, including wearing trousers, was immoral as it may lead to the practise of lesbian sex.
Gay sex is prohibited in this country of 27 million people where over half of the population is Muslim.
To drift slightly from the point... Is that a common interpretation? Tomboy for me means playing sports and wearing trousers. There is no sexual orientation implication inherent in the word. I was a proud tomboy as a kid.
Anyway back to the brain-shattering logic of wearing trousers makes one a tomboy and a slut. I've been in Malaysia and young people there dress conservatively compared to other countries in South East Asia. I find the article strange because Kuala Lumpur in a very cosmopolitan and diverse city.
Nevertheless, the tomboy as slut is classic woman-blaming and incitement to fear. The lesbian slut angle is interesting. While homophobia is great to manipulate fear, there is more "pity the boys" than "scary lesbians".
The interesting thing is that there is neither correlation or causation in this piece. It is barely journalism. Is this how a church thinks? I think I know the recipe...
- Take two unrelated facts
- Describe how they are destroying the purity of girls
- Add a dash of fear (racism and homophobia are best for this)
- Call Reuters
The article is full of double standards, heterosexist rhetoric, faulty logic and women bashing.
I think the obvious question here is whether trousers make boys slutty? Are trousers turning the boys into tomgirls? What about the boyz?