Sexual purity also duty for men

In response to last week's editorial by Muhammed Khaled Hamou:

Muhammed, I agree with you that hypersexualisation of women isn't equivalant to liberation, but putting the obligation of sexual purity on only women is not equality either. I don't agree with France's decision to outlaw the burka, but outlawing it in Canada would be unlikely because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would like to say that I did not write that headline. It twists the meaning of what I was getting at. Both men and women have the right to dress as they please. And I would like to make clear that I have no opinion on sexual behaviour in general, choices about sex are deeply personal and private.

However, forcing a certain dress code on one sex is not equality, especially if there are serious consequences of not following the dress code (ex. sexual assault). Forcing a woman to entirely hide her body for sexual conservatism suggests that men are raving sex maniacs and rapists (which is a degrading towards men) thus, not responsible for their actions. It also assumes that women have no sexual desires, and if they do, they are unpure, surly. Its sexual discrimination at its purest definition: give rights to one sex (men, to show their faces, hair and legs) but not the other.

I would appreciate it if the editor would not put words in my mouth.

You should clarify your opinion.  In the first explanation you seem to be saying one thing, then in your explanation on your second post you are saying the oposite. 

We are confused.

Pierre

Since you have published my comment as an article, does that mean that I will be getting my 75$ in the mail? You can send it along with the other cheque that I never recieved for writing the article about the job success story.

I am quite clear in both articles. The articles are about the burka, not purity. Let me break it down:

Equality (E)= if x for Men (M) then x for Women (W) 

If no x for M, but x for W, then no E.

If x = Burka (B), then no B for M but, B for W then no E.

If x = Hypersexualisation (H), then no H for M, but H for Q, then no E.

By stating that I 'sexual purity for men also' you are insinuating that I am writing an article upon sexual behaviour and not the burka (with 'sexual purity' being the subject in that sentance, not 'burka').

Finally the original 'article' was not entirely coherent, nor developed and slightly confused. It is not simple to comment on a thought that is pointing in many directions.

Excuse me Ms. Smith that is not civil discord. You are condencencing and rude.

I would point you to your first sentence in your first comment.  You clearly state, "... but putting the obligation of sexual purity on only women is not equality either.". Hence its oposite connotation of the obligation, "sexual purity also duty for men". 

This is a logical inference.

All other circular arguments are inflamed gender war rhetoric.  There is no place for that in this newspaper.

Secondly, have you sent us an invoice for your article? We require an invoice to issue a check.  Commentary and Letter's to the editor are not assigned articles.  So, unfortunately, you are not eligible for freelance fee.