Tuesday, November 29, 2005

The hands that raise a thousand eyebrows: One of the most common edicts passed by upholders of our cultural inheritance (read Shiv Sena and Co.), is a ban, 'informal' as it may be, on holding hands. I really don't understand why. I think that hand-holding is probably the minimal, non-invasive (culturally), action that a couple can engage in, which may nonetheless be (and I hear 'reports' that it is) quite affectionate. A ban on holding hands is a blow to the expression of a minimum, but quite effective, form of human affection. Such a ban should be severely deplored.

Also, I have thought of a clever substitute to holding hands for protesting against the bigotry- 'holding feet', since it can be done below eye-level. This habit, if sustained, may also have a happy evolutionary consequence- the development of toes that are as dextrous as fingers, leading to an invitation to a renewed arboreal way of life: a welcome escape from the concrete jungles. On a more prosaic note, it also may lead to shoe manufacturers having to radically modify their designs.

P.S: Post made upon popular demand from a few hand-holding couples who I know. They have now been encouraged to wiggle and exercise their toes as practice for holding feet.


Blogger Sumedha said...

Playing footsie, huh...

1:43 PM  
Blogger Hirak said...

Ready? ;)

3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anirudh said...

I'm unfortunately not part of a hand-holding couple but I'll join you in deploring the action anyway.

1:22 AM  
Blogger Saket said...

Deploring the action against hand-holding rather than the action of hand-holding I hope. ;-)

11:15 AM  
Blogger charvak said...

hold your prejudices, your insecurities and your bigotry........ and go and shoot couples........ dear ss types

12:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home