Humans have a knack for sharing intimate moments in unlikely places, as membership of the mile-high club demonstrates. So there is a significant chance that the launch of the space tourism sector may be swiftly followed by the first sex in space.

But having researched the issue, my colleagues and I believe that space tourism companies haven’t adequately prepared for the consequences of people joining what we could call the “Kármán line club” (referencing the 100km-high boundary between Earth and the rest of the cosmos).

Talk of space tourism has always been in terms of the distant future. But sub-orbital space tourism – short flights with only a few minutes of spaceflight and weightlessness – already exists. Tickets range from freebies, to costing millions of dollars.

Much longer flights are just around the corner. Companies such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX have well-established track records of developing spacecraft faster than the public sector. SpaceX’s larger and more capable Starship spacecraft will likely operate routinely in the next few years.

When, not if

Flights have been reserved and passenger lists assembled for private flights that will loop around the Moon. Spacecraft such as Starship will have the capacity for tens of passengers, in a large cabin environment, possibly with private cabins.

Considering that space travel is no longer reserved for professional astronauts, the various motivations of space tourists and upcoming spacecraft developments, we concluded that in-space sex will probably happen within the next ten years.

The real concern is not the sexual interactions themselves, but rather if they lead to human conception in space. Early orbital space tourism flights are expected to last for days to weeks, so only the early stages of human reproduction could happen in space.

Passengers will not be allowed to board if they are already known to be pregnant, although the space tourism industry does not appear to have considered concealed or unknown pregnancies. Sometimes women don’t realise they are pregnant until they go into labour.

From decades of human spaceflight, we already know weightlessness and increased levels of ionising radiation has a profound effect on our bodies. We don’t know how this will affect the physiological processes of reproduction.

Astronauts routinely suffer muscle and bone wastage as their bodies no longer have to resist the forces of gravity. On Earth, gravity influences the distribution of body fluids, such as blood. A lack of gravity can result in increased pressure inside the skull which can make people’s vision blurry and even change the brain’s structure.

Limited experiments on mouse embryos, which include one that used a mini incubator on a satellite, have shown changes in embryo viability after they were exposed to space. Knowledge of the impact on human reproduction is effectively zero, but we can assume that there will be effects.

Therefore, there is an unknown potential for developmental abnormalities in human embryos conceived in space. Additionally, there could be an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy in weightlessness conditions (when the embryo attaches outside the uterus, for example in the fallopian tubes).

Even if space tourists use contraception, we can’t be sure it will be as effective outside planet Earth. There have been no studies on how contraceptives will be affected by space environments.

Taking responsibility

For the space tourism industry, there are commercial risks of litigation, reputational damage and financial loss if people conceive during spaceflight – as well as ethical and reproductive rights issues. Our research found little evidence that the sector is taking steps to mitigate these risks. There is little anecdotal evidence from behind the scenes.

There is also a darker side to consider – the risk of sexual assault in space. Imagine trying to evade the advances of a fellow passenger or staff member during spaceflight. You would be completely trapped.

The space tourism industry and other relevant parties should urgently come together to discuss these issues and formulate a strategy to protect all those involved. A simple solution could be a combination of pre-spaceflight counselling with all space tourists about the risks of human conception in space. Legal waivers absolving the space tourism operators of liability if human conception was still to occur could also be considered.

Space tourism is already happening and it seems likely that sexual interactions between some participants will occur very soon. The question is whether the sector will be prepared for the possible consequences.

David Cullen, Professor of Bioanalytical Technology, Cranfield University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Before we answer this question, we must keep in mind that the current laws against homosexuality in India are based on colonial laws, which are based on Abrahamic mythology. It involves a reading – some would say a deliberate misreading – of a tale where God destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone because they perform acts that go against God’s commandment.

What these acts were is open to interpretation, depending on how you read the old Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek scripts. The anti-queer lobby says city dwellers indulged in homosexuality. The queer supporters interpret the story differently, that the city dwellers were not good hosts, and that they raped their guests.

Take your pick. What is curious is that shortly after this incident, the patriarch Lot, who flees Sodom and Gomorrah before they are destroyed, has sex with his daughters, and his incestuous act is not punished by God.

Such tales, of God prohibiting certain sexual acts but allowing others, are not found in Hindu mythology. While in many (not all) Abrahamic traditions, homosexuality is seen as an act against God, in Hindu traditions, homosexuality is seen as part of karma.

We are creatures of karma, and our actions contribute to our future karma. Thus homosexuality is seen as a manifestation of karma. We cannot fight it. We have to deal with it. Just as heterosexual desire needs to be regulated, so does homosexual desire. The extent of regulation varies depending on context.

Some believe sex must be only for producing children, some believe sex should only be between people in love, while some believe sex is just a form of pleasure and must not be taken too seriously.

The Vedas speak of Agni, the fire god, having two mothers! Must this be taken literally or metaphorically? Metaphorically, it refers to the fire-sticks that are drilled to create the fire for the yagna.

In the Puranas, God changes gender constantly: Every god has a female Shakti: thus Vinayaka has Vinayaki, Varaha has Varahi. Shiva becomes Ardhanareshwara, or half a woman, to make the Goddess happy.

He becomes Gopeshwar – milkmaid or cow-girl form of Shiva – to join Krishna in the raas-leela. When Kali decides to become Krishna, Shiva takes the form of Radha, as per Baul traditions. Vishnu becomes the damsel Mohini to enchant demons and sages.

In Tulsidas’ Ram-charit-manas, God says that he loves all creatures: plants, animals, males, females and queers (napunsaka), who give up malice and surrender to his grace. How does one read this? A comfort with gender and sexual fluidity? An acceptance of karma?

Medical texts, such as Shushruta Samhita, subscribe to the Tantrik belief that when a man and woman have sex, the gender and sexuality depends on the proportion of the male white seed and female red seed. If the male white seed is stronger then heterosexual men are born; when the female red seed is stronger, then heterosexual females are born.

When both seeds are equally strong, the child becomes queer (kliba, napunsaka, kinnara). Sanskrit texts on astrology, architecture and music all refer to three genders: male, female and queer. Thus the condition is seen as physiological, not pathological.

The Dharmashastras need to be located in this context. They were books that speculated on appropriate human conduct. They focussed more on “upper” castes and were relatively indifferent to “lower” castes.

Written by Brahmins in the period that saw the composition of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, they have a relatively casual attitude towards non-vaginal (ayoni) sex. This could even refer to anal/oral sex between adult consenting men and women, not just between men, or between women.

The Arthashastra of Kautilya, charges a fine, similar to fines for minor thefts. Women are fined more than men. The fine increases if one of the partners is not consenting. (IV.XIII.236)

The Manusmriti equates homosexual sex to a man having sex with a menstruating woman, or having sex during the day, and the punishment involves purification rites: bathing with clothes on, and fasting for a night, and eating specific cow milk and urine related products.

Failure to purify can result in loss of caste. The crimes of heterosexual adultery and rape, and deflowering a virgin, have much higher fines and more intense purification rituals. (XI:175)

The Dharmashastras clearly value heterosexual marriage and sex that results in production of sons. However, they do acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, the existence of other forms of non-vaginal sex, heterosexual as well as homosexual, and seek to restrain them with fines and penance, without overtly condemning them in religious or moral terms.

Not everything in Hinduism or India was governed by Brahmin texts and that is important to remember. In monastic orders like Buddhism and Jainism where celibacy is celebrated, sexual desire – be it homosexual or heterosexual – is seen as an obstacle to the spiritual path.

In Charvaka, or materialistic traditions, the intrinsic nature (svabhava) of living creatures must be respected and celebrated, rather than judged. Thus India has had a very diverse, generally liberal, range of attitudes towards all kinds of sex, including homosexuality, with warnings about addiction, attachment and obsession.

This article was originally published in DailyO. It has been republished with permission from the author.

Devdutt Pattanaik is an Indian mythologist and writer known for his work on ancient Indian scriptures.

Views are personal

Like most people, I watched the tragedy of the Titan submersible unfold with horror. We talked about it in cafes, jumped when news reports came in on our phones, and wondered why people would ever actually pay money to experience such risk. Are billionaires like this ultimately just vain or stupid? Or is reckless risk-taking in their DNA?

It turns out there is a good deal of research on why rich people take risks that encompasses a number of areas of psychology. One paper, published in Nature, investigated how the personalities of 1,125 people in Germany with a net wealth of at least €1 million (so not everyone was “super rich”) differed from the rest of us.

The study nevertheless showed that people on these compratively higher incomes were typically extroverts and, importantly, tolerant of risk. That means they might indeed be more drawn to thrill seeking and risk-taking, in terms of adventuring and extreme sports.

As an expert, however, my next thought is one of those chicken and egg conundrums. What came first? The huge wealth or the specific personality make-up? Does the money shape the personality, or does the personality allow the person to develop such wealth?

The answer here is a little of both. A risk-taking personality can most likely help you make money. But, when you have acquired an enormous amount of wealth, you most likely also have a lot of security in your life – never having to worry about where your next meal will come from, or whether you’ll afford heating your house in winter. Some may experience this as life being a little too safe.

The French sociologist Pierre Bordieau argued that our way of being in the world – our “habitus” – is part of who we are. People in distinct cultures or with specific histories tend to share a habitus – meaning society can ultimately shape the mind of a person.

Take, for example, how much money we have. The rich do not think of sportscars as unobtainable – more as a suggestion of what might look nice on their driveway. Their wealth in part shapes their view of the world and how they live in it. If taking risks is a part of the personality of the rich, it will be a relatively normal experience in their everyday engagement with the world.

But research has also shown that personality isn’t set in stone – it changes over a lifetime in response to experiences. For example, a new life experience, such as moving away to university or having a child, may alter your world view in such a way that your personality and the way you interact with the world change.

If you take a lot of risks in your everyday life, this becomes a reflection of what makes you who you are – boosting your risk-taking personality trait, which leads to more risk-taking experiences, and so on. This may explain why many rich people end up becoming risk-takers, whether it is in their genes or not.

Authenticity

Rich people may view risk-taking rather differently to those of us, like me, who regard ourselves as risk averse.

Dangerous activities for me are far from my own personality. So, when I do find myself engaging in something potentially risky, outside my normal habitus experience, I feel very uncomfortable. For the risk averse, “living life to the full” does not require base-jumping or free-climbing – these things are inconsistent with their experience.

By this logic, it makes sense that the rich engage in risky experiences. Driving fast cars, skiing and skydiving are normal expressions of this sort of risk acceptance for a lot of people. But if you’re very rich, even more extreme examples of very dangerous experiences open up, which may ultimately help them live an authentic life – being true to who they are.

Interestingly, a risk-averse form of living life authentically is not regarded with a great deal of social value. We often assume that a full life should obviously involve white-water rafting, horse riding and, if you can afford it, space flight.

Those who take risks are also often seen as desirable in business – as people who can move a company on. Again, risk-aversion is seen as less desirable here. Rather than viewing it as a reflection of solidity and stability, providing a calm and steadying influence, we often see it as holding things back.

I would argue that both ways of engaging with the world are perfectly valid and should be similarly valued. After all, our species has relied on a mix of the two to flourish: both explorers and risk assessors.

Eudaimonia

Capitalism is all about consumption – and it rules most of the world. From heavily branded handbags and sleek sportscars to expensive activities, it’s what we do and what many of us value. We even consume to fulfil our existential desires.

What might those be? “Eudaimonia” is about living life to the full in a satisfying way. Aristotle described it as the very highest of human virtues – a positive and divine state of being. Epicurus, his contemporary, argued that pleasurable living is the most authentic way to describe eudaimonia.

As such, I would argue that rich, risk-taking people are simply consuming in a way that satisfies them as much as possible in terms of eudaimonia. The risk-averse ultimately do the same thing, but in a very different way. Both are living authentically, pleasurably and naturally, with reference to their habitus.

It’s not weird that people would pay handsomely for the experience promised by Titan. Before we dismiss it on the grounds of greedy stupidity, we might want to consider the more respectable reasons behind such behaviour.

And if we want fewer accidents, we may want to consider how we as a society value risk-taking, and undervalue safety regulations, rather than blaming it on individuals who are just trying to live a fulfilling life – be they billionaires or otherwise.

Nigel Holt, Professor of Psychology, Aberystwyth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Brothers Karamazov is a novel by Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky, first published in 1880. It is a psychological drama that explores themes of faith, morality, and the human condition through the lives of the Karamazov family. The story revolves around the three brothers, Dmitri, Ivan, and Alexei, who have been raised separately by their neglectful father, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov.

Each brother represents a different aspect of the human spirit: Dmitri is passionate and impulsive, Ivan is intellectual and rational, and Alexei is compassionate and deeply religious. Their lives become entangled when their father is found murdered, leading to suspicion among the brothers and furthering the rift between them.

Throughout the novel, the brothers engage in philosophical debates that examine questions of faith, reason, and morality, making The Brothers Karamazov a profound exploration of human nature, spirituality, and the search for meaning in life.

Ten Best Lines

• ‘Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.’

• ‘The mystery of human existence lies not in just staying alive, but in finding something to live for.'”‘

• ‘What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love.’

• ‘There is only one salvation for you: take yourself up, and make yourself responsible for all the sins of men.’

• ‘It’s the great mystery of human life that old grief passes gradually into quiet, tender joy.’

• ‘Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams.’

• ‘I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage… in the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal harmony.’

• ‘Everyone is really responsible to all men for all men and for everything.’

• ‘Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic.’

• ‘The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular.’

Key Takeaways

• The complexity of human nature: The book delves into the multifaceted nature of humanity through its characters, highlighting the coexistence of contradictory traits, desires, and beliefs.

• Moral responsibility: The novel underscores the importance of personal responsibility for one’s actions and the need to strive for moral growth and redemption.

• The problem of evil and suffering: Dostoevsky grapples with the question of why evil and suffering exist, acknowledging that it is a difficult and complex issue to understand.

• Faith and reason: Through characters like Ivan and Alexei, the novel explores the tension between faith and reason, often presenting the two as irreconcilable aspects of the human experience.

• Free will: The novel asserts that humans possess free will and emphasizes the importance of using this freedom to make choices that positively impact oneself and others.

• The role of love: Love is a central theme in the book, with Dostoevsky asserting that true, selfless love is vital to one’s spiritual development and capacity for compassion.

• Family dynamics: The novel examines the impact of family relationships on an individual’s development, emphasizing the power of both destructive and nurturing familial bonds.

• The quest for meaning: Through the philosophical debates and dilemmas of its characters, the book explores the human search for meaning and purpose in life.

• Redemption through suffering: The novel suggests that suffering can serve as a catalyst for personal growth and redemption, ultimately leading to a greater understanding of one’s self and others.

• The importance of forgiveness: The Brothers Karamazov emphasizes the significance of forgiveness, both for others and for oneself, as a crucial aspect of spiritual and emotional healing.

Note:

This summary and the provided takeaways from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov are intended as a brief overview and do not encompass the full depth and nuance of the novel or Dostoevsky’s philosophy. His work is rich, complex, and multi-layered, offering profound insights into human nature, morality, and existence that cannot be wholly captured in a concise overview.

This article was created using a generative AI tool

READER QUESTION: Many people assume the patriarchy has always been there, but surely this isn’t the case? How did it really originate? Matt, 48, London.

The patriarchy, having been somewhat in retreat in parts of the world, is back in our faces . In Afghanistan, the Taliban once again prowl the streets more concerned with keeping women at home and in strict dress code than with the impending collapse of the country into famine.

And on another continent, parts of the US are legislating to ensure that women can no longer have a legal abortion. In both cases, lurking patriarchal beliefs were allowed to reemerge when political leadership failed. We have an eerie feeling of travelling back through time. But how long has patriarchy dominated our societies?

The status of women has been a long-standing point of interest in anthropology. Contrary to common belief, research shows that the patriarchy isn’t some kind of “natural order of things” – it hasn’t always been prevalent and may in fact disappear eventually. Hunter-gatherer communities may have been relatively egalitarian, at least compared to some of the regimes that followed. And female leaders and matriarchal societies have always existed.

Male wealth

Reproduction is the currency of evolution. But it is not only our bodies and brains that evolve – our behaviours and our cultures are also products of natural selection. To maximise their own reproductive success, for example, men have often tried to control women, and their sexuality.

In nomadic societies where there is little or no material wealth, as was the case with most hunter gatherers, a woman cannot easily be forced to stay in a partnership. She and her partner may move around together with her relatives, his relatives, or other people entirely. If unhappy, she can walk away.

That could be at a cost if she has children, as paternal care helps children’s development and even survival, but she can go and live with relatives elsewhere or find a new partner without necessarily being worse off.

The origin of agriculture, as early as 12,000 years ago in some areas, changed the game. Even relatively simple horticulture necessitated defending crops, and thus staying put. Settlement increased conflict within and between groups. For example, the Yanomamo horticulturalists in Venezuela lived in heavily fortified group households, with violent raids on neighbouring groups and “bride capture” being part of life.

Where cattle-keeping evolved, the local population had to defend herds of livestock from raiding, leading to high levels of warfare. As women weren’t as successful as men in combat, being physically weaker, this role fell increasingly to men, helping them gain power and leaving them in charge of the resources they were defending.

As population sizes grew and settled, there were coordination problems. Social inequality sometimes emerged if leaders (usually male) provided some benefits to the population, perhaps in warfare or serving the public good in some other way. The general population, both male and female, therefore often tolerated these elites in return for help hanging on to what they had.

As farming and herding became more intensive, material wealth, now mainly controlled by men, became ever more important. Rules of kinship and descent systems became more formalised to prevent conflict within families over wealth, and marriages became more contractual. The transmission of land or livestock down the generations allowed some families to gain substantial wealth.

Monogamy vs polygamy

Wealth generated by farming and herding enabled polygyny (men having multiple wives). In contrast, women having many husbands (polyandry) was rare. In most systems, young women were the resource in demand, because they had a shorter window of being able to produce children and usually did more parental care.

Men used their wealth to attract young women to the resources on offer. Men competed by paying “bridewealth” to the family of the bride, with the result that rich men could end up with many wives while some poor men ended up single.

So it was males who needed that wealth to compete for marriage partners (whereas females acquired resources needed to reproduce through their husband). If parents wanted to maximise their number of grandchildren, it made sense for them to give their wealth to their sons rather than their daughters.

This lead to wealth and property being formally passed down the male line. It also meant women often ended up living far away from home with their husband’s family after marriage.

Women began to lose agency. If land, livestock and children are the property of the men, then divorce is almost impossible for women. A daughter returning to mum and dad would be unwelcome as the brideprice would need to be returned. The patriarchy was now getting a firm grip.

When individuals disperse away from their natal home and live with their new husband’s family, they do not have as much bargaining power within their new household than if they had stayed in their natal home. Some mathematical models suggest that female dispersal combined with a history of warfare favoured men being treated better than women.

Men had the opportunity to compete for resources with unrelated men through warfare, whereas women only competed with other women in the household. For these two reasons, both men and women reaped greater evolutionary benefits by being more altruistic towards men than towards women, leading to the emergence of “boys’ clubs”. Essentially, women were playing along with the gender bias against themselves.

In some farming systems, women may have had more autonomy. Where there were limits on the availability of farmland, this may have put the brakes on polygyny, as men couldn’t afford multiple families. If farming was hard and productivity was determined more by the work put in than by how much land was owned, then women’s labour became a key requirement and couples worked together in monogamous unions.

Under monogamy, if a woman marries a rich man, all his wealth goes to her offspring. So women then compete with other women for the best husbands. This is not true of polygyny, where the family wealth is shared between numerous other wives offspring, so the advantages to women of marrying a rich man are marginal.

Thus marriage payment under monogamy is in the opposite direction than it is under polygyny and takes the form of “dowry”. The parents of the bride give money to the parents of the groom, or to the couple themselves.

Dowry, which is still important in much of Asia today, is the parents’ way of helping their daughters compete with other women on the marriage market. Dowry can sometimes give women more agency and control over at least part of their family wealth.

But there is a sting in the tail. Dowry inflation can make girls expensive for parents, sometimes with dire consequences, such as families which already have daughters killing or neglecting female babies (or now female-selective abortion).

There were other consequences of monogamy too. As wealth was still passed down the male line to children of one wife, males did all they could to ensure that those children were theirs. They did not want to unwittingly invest their wealth in the offspring of another man. So women’s sexuality became strongly policed as a result.

Keeping women away from men (purdah), or placing them in religious “cloisters” such as monasteries (claustration) in India, or 2,000 years of binding women’s feet to keep them small in China, may all be the results of this. And in the current context, banning abortion makes sexual relationships potentially costly, trapping people in marriages and hindering women’s career prospects.

Matriarchal societies

It is relatively rare for wealth to be passed down the female line, but such societies do exist. These female-centred systems tend to be in somewhat marginal environments where there is little wealth to physically compete over.

For example, there are areas in Africa known as the “matrilineal belt” where the tetse fly made it impossible to keep cattle. In some of these matrilineal systems in Africa, men remain a powerful force in households, but it is older brothers and uncles who try to control women rather than husbands or fathers. But in general, women do have more power.

Societies with an absence of males for much of the time, due to long distance travel or high mortality risks, for example due to dangerous ocean fishing in Polynesia, or warfare in some Native American communities, have also been associated with matriliny.

Women in matriarchal system often draw on the support of their mothers and siblings, rather than their husbands, to help raise children. Such “communal breeding” by women, as seen for example in some matrilineal groups in China, makes men less interested (in an evolutionary sense) in investing in the household, as the households include not only their wife’s children, but many other women’s children to whom they aren’t related.

This weakens marriage bonds, and makes it easier to pass down wealth between female relatives. Women are also less controlled sexually in such societies as paternity certainty is less of a concern if women control the wealth and pass it to their daughters.In matrilineal societies, both men and women can mate polygamously. The matrilineal Himba of southern Africa have some of the highest rates of babies produced in this way.

Even in urban settings today, high male unemployment often sets up more female-centred living arrangements, with mothers helping daughters to raise their children and grandchildren, but frequently in relative poverty.

But the introduction of material wealth, which can be controlled by men, has often pushed matrilineal systems to change to patrilineal ones.

The role of religion

The view of patriarchy I have outlined here may appear to downplay the role of religion. Religions are frequently prescriptive about sex and the family. For example, polygynous marriage is accepted in Islam and not in Christianity. But the origins of diverse cultural systems around the world cannot simply be explained by religion.

Islam arose in the year AD610 in a part of the world (the Arabian peninsula) then inhabited by nomadic pastoralist groups where polygamous marriage was common, whereas Christianity emerged within the Roman empire where monogamous marriage was already the norm. So while religious institutions definitely help to enforce such rules, it is hard to make the case that religions were the original cause.

Ultimately, the cultural inheritance of religious norms, or indeed of any norms, can maintain harsh social prejudices long after their original cause is gone.

Is patriarchy on its way out?

What is clear is that norms, attitudes and culture have a huge effect on behaviour. They can and do change over time, especially if the underlying ecology or economy changes. But some norms become entrenched over time and are therefore slow to change.

As recently as the 1970s, children of unmarried mothers in the UK were taken from them and shipped to Australia (where they were placed in religious institutions or put up for adoption). Recent research also shows how disrespect for women’s authority is still rampant in European and American societies that pride themselves in gender equality.

That said, it is clear that gender norms are becoming much more flexible and the patriarchy is unpopular with many men and women in much of the world. Many are questioning the very institution of marriage.

Birth control and reproductive rights for women give women, and also men, more freedom. While polygamous marriage is now rare, polygamous mating is of course quite common, and is perceived as a threat by incels and social conservatives alike.

What’s more, men increasingly want to be part of their children’s lives, and appreciate not having to do the lion’s share of providing for their families. Many are therefore sharing or even taking on the full weight of child-rearing and housework. Simultaneously we see more women confidently gaining positions of power in the world of work.

As men and women both increasingly generate their own wealth, the old patriarchy is finding it harder to control women. The logic of male-biased investment by parents is gravely injured if girls benefit equally from formal education and job opportunities are open to all.

The future is hard to predict. Anthropology and history do not progress in predictable, linear ways. Wars, famines, epidemics or innovations are always lurking and have predictable and unpredictable consequences for our lives.

The patriarchy isn’t inevitable. We do need institutions to help us solve the world’s problems. But if the wrong people come to power, the patriarchy can regenerate.

Ruth Mace, Professor of Anthropology, UCL

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Videos show the suspect holding the firearm, alleged to be a handgun, close to Kirchner, as she exited her vehicle and greeted a crowd outside her home in Buenos Aires.

The Vice President ducked, as the man brandished the firearm and was detained almost immediately.

Government officials describe the incident as an assassination attempt.

Tensions have been running high in the Argentinian capital as supporters clashed with police in the streets surrounding the Vice-President’s apartment in the upscale Recoleta neighbourhood, amid law enforcement efforts by police.

Kirchner, who has also served as the 54th president of Argentina from 2007 to 2015, has been a topic of larger public debates regarding a case involving alleged corruption in public works.

Ganeshotsav is celebrated for 10 days, with the 1st day being Ganesh Chaturthi, marking Lord Ganesha’s birth and the 10th day being ‘Anant Chaturdashi’

A woman in Suzhou, China, was reportedly detained recently for “provoking trouble”. Her alleged crime was being spotted outside wearing a kimono. The woman was dressed like a character from a manga (a Japanese comic). Arresting her might seem dramatic but there is more at play here than a simple fashion faux pas.

Clothing is a cultural identifier and, to many, a symbol of national identity and pride. When you think of the kimono you might think of Japan. However, the garment is rarely worn in Japan now, other than at traditional festivals or celebrations. As a result, the kimono industry, which experienced a boom in the 1980s, is currently experiencing a massive downturn.

The kimono worn today, however, is not an indigenous invention of the Japanese. It can be traced back to the 7th century when the Imperial Court began to wear garments adapted from Chinese styles.

Despite these Chinese origins, the kimono is a major cultural signifier of Japan globally. And, in many Asian countries, particularly those which were brutally colonised by Japan, the kimono remains a symbol of oppression.

From folk clothing to works of art

There is a long history of sartorial similarities between Japan and China.

Chinese explorers in southern parts of ancient Japan around the 3rd century BC observed people wearing simple tunics, poncho-type garments and a type of pleated trouser and top. These were similar to clothes worn in parts of China at that time. Images of priestess-queens and tribal chiefs in 4th century AD Japan also show figures wearing clothing like those worn by the Han dynasty China.

The first ancestor of the kimono appeared in Japan in the Heian period (794-1185). Still often worn with Chinese-style hakama (pleated trousers or long skirts), this garment was made from straight pieces of cloth fastened with a narrow sash at the hips. By the Edo period (1603-1868), everyone wore a unisex garment known as a kosode, made from straight pieces of fabric sewn together like today’s kimono.

In the early 1600s, Japan was unified by the Shogun Tokugawa into a feudal shogunate (a kind of military dictatorship) with Edo (now Tokyo) as the capital.

Japanese culture developed during this period with almost no outside influence, and the kosode, as a precursor to the kimono, came to represent what it meant to be Japanese.

Folk clothing and work clothes were also based on front wrapping (left over right), drop-sleeved tops and fastened with strings or cords following a basic kimono pattern. The role of kimono-making developed, and the value of some kimonos increased to the level of priceless works of art.

A symbol of Japanese culture

After previous eras of a “closed” Japan, the Meiji era (1868-1912) marked a period of rapid modernisation and foreign influence. The kimono, meaning “the thing to wear” had a proper name and officially came into being.

This was despite a new imperial edict that rejected old dress as “effeminate” and “un-Japanese”. As a result, men, government officials and military personnel were encouraged to wear western clothing, yōfuku, rather than traditional wafuku.

But as Japan was undergoing fundamental change on multiple levels, the sight of women wearing kimono was reassuring and a popular symbol of Japaneseness.

Women started wearing more western-style clothes, specifically underwear for women, after the Great Kanto earthquake in 1923. It was felt that a sense of shame in exposing themselves prevented many women from jumping or being rescued from the upper floors of buildings. The possibility that fewer women would have lost their lives in the disaster had they been wearing yōfuku or at least underwear beneath their kimonos was a catalyst for general westernisation.

Japan’s Showa era began in 1926 when Emperor Hirohito ascended to the throne. This period spanned two world wars and the rise of strident cultural ultranationalism and has been described as the most momentous, calamitous, successful and glamorous period in Japan’s recent history.

For those with a belief in the idea of Japanese uniqueness (Nihonjin-ron), which became especially popular after the second world war, the kimono (along with other aspects of Japanese culture) was considered superior to the western alternative. While the actual wearing of the garment decreased, the kimono’s symbolic status in Japan increased.

By the 1930s, Japan was a major colonial power, having transformed from a weak, feudal society into a modern, industrial, military power in the 1890s. As such, the nation had launched territorial conquests into neighbouring countries.

So, while people in Japan were “dressing the part” in a bold attempt to look powerful to the west, Japanese occupiers in Taiwan and Korea were actively encouraging local women to wear the kimono in order to display Japan’s superior role and “greater east Asian co-prosperity” in the region.

A study of how the kimono was perceived in Taiwan and Korea during the Japanese colonial period from 1895 to 1945 showed that the Japanese kimono is clearly linked to Japan’s colonial control and war responsibilities. The weaponisation of such a beautiful and elegant item of clothing has clearly left its mark.

As the woman who was arrested in China recently was reportedly warned:

If you would be wearing Hanfu (Chinese traditional clothing), I never would have said this, but you are wearing a kimono, as a Chinese. You are Chinese!

The kimono remains a symbol of Japanese tradition and a reminder of the dangers of nationalism for countries of wartime occupation and atrocities. But as Japan is preparing to double its defence budget, raising questions over its pacifist identity since the post-war period, and China is flexing its muscles in Hong Kong and Taiwan, there should be more for officials to worry about than a woman clad in a kimono.

Ella Tennant, Lecturer, Language and Culture, Keele University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

‘Are you saying my Krishna is polygamous?’ the man said, his tone angry and threatening. I could not believe his reaction. Why was he surprised? Why was he angry? Was this not common knowledge? Since that strange confrontation years ago, I have met dozens like him, men and women confident about the scriptures without ever reading a single one.

Yet Krishna’s many marriages have been described in the various sources of Krishna stories: Mahabharata, Harivamsa, Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, dated from 300 BCE to 1300 CE. Krishna has eight principle wives (the asha-bharyas) and 16,100 junior wives.

The eight principle wives are Rukmini of Vidarbha, Satyabhama, Jambavati, Kalindi, Bhadra of Kekeya, Mitravinda of Avanti, Satya of Kosala and Lakshmana of Madra. Rukmini elopes with Krishna. Satyabhama is given in marriage by Satrajit who is grateful that Krishna found the killer of his brother Prasenajit.

Jambavati is given in marriage by the bear-king, Jambavan, who is impressed by Krishna’s strength in wrestling. Kalindi is the river Yamuna who follows Krishna from the Gangetic plains to Dwarka. Bhadra and Mitravinda choose Krishna in their respective swayamvaras.

Satya’s hand in marriage is won by overpowering wild bulls, while Lakshmana’s hand is won by winning an archery contest. The 16100 junior wives are given protection by Krishna after he defeats Narakasura and discovers them in his harem. The story goes that when Narada visited Krishna in Dwarka he found 16,108 mansions and a Krishna in each mansion giving full attention to each of the senior and junior wives.

Arguments go that this is metaphorical, but then all of mythology is metaphorical, a set of symbols communicating complex psychological ideas, even the idea of Krishna itself.

Then there is Radha, who is not mentioned in early Puranas but appears in folk literature and finally later Puranas, like the Brahmavaivarta Purana, where she is presented as his true cosmic wife, even though on earth she never marries him, but stays back in Vrinda-vana, with her husband while Krishna goes to Mathura and thence to Dwarka.

And along with Radha are many milkmaids who dance around Krishna while he plays the flute in the forest of Madhu-vana at night. People have always been uncomfortable asking questions about Radha’s relationship with Krishna. In fact, in 1718, at the court of Nawab Murshid Ouli Khan there was a huge debate regarding the theology of Svakiya (Radha as married to Krishna) and Parakiya (Radha as married to someone else). The Parakiya side won!

Krishna’s polygamous nature is designed to stand in stark contrast to Ram’s monogamous nature. He is romantic rake, who breaks hearts while Ram is the faithful husband, who is always distant. Through these two contrasting forms of Vishnu, Vaishnava theology plays itself out.

But who is interested in theology and philosophy and metaphysics today? For many today, it is all about politics. We want our gods to be historical entities not psychological realities. We have convinced ourselves that the past is more important than present, matter is more important than mind.

Our gods must have all the qualities we want — they must be monogamous and vegetarian, stories from scriptures not withstanding. Anyone who tells Krishna is not what we imagine Krishna to be must be of a Western mindset, a left liberal ‘sickular’.

The imaginations of manipulative cult leaders have become the reality of their equally power-hungry domination-seeking followers. It does not help when ‘rational’ academicians use this information as ‘evidence’ to explain Indian patriarchy.

This article was originally published in Devlok, Sunday Midday. It has been republished with permission from Devdutt Pattanaik.

Devdutt Pattanaik is an Indian mythologist and writer known for his work on ancient Indian scriptures.