NAKED. GRACEFUL. WOMANLY.
SEX IS NOT THE ANSWER
It has often puzzled my companions—and not infrequently provoked their concern—that I can live quite blissfully without tethering my feelings to another through the flesh. From time to time, I do indulge the bodily appetite, though never as one enslaved to it, but as a man might sip a cordial on a cold evening: not for nourishment, but for warmth. Yet, truth be told, these encounters have seldom offered more than a fleeting quenching of the senses—a momentary hush upon the clamour of the body. They have never been the hearth at which my spirit is warmed.
My innate satisfactions—those rich, inward raptures that steady the heart and animate the imagination—have ever resided elsewhere: in the slow bloom of a letter composed with care, in the vibrant silence of a painted canvas, in the quiet company of books or the solemn symphony of thought. These things, immaterial though they be, have never left me barren. Indeed, they have fashioned for me a more durable fellowship than many a bedfellow ever could.
When, some time ago, I parted ways with a woman with whom I had shared four years of companionship, I felt no rupture of the reason, no weeping wound. Life, with its curious resilience, proceeded untroubled, and I with it. My friends, startled by my composure, presumed some grave suppression of grief. One, with the tenderness of a mourner and the persistence of a preacher, insisted that I must be grieving in disguise—that I had, in some subterranean way, murdered the very meaning of what we had. When I explained, gently but firmly, that a thing lost is, quite simply, lost—and that I did not find it fruitful to steep myself in sorrow over what could not be reclaimed—she recoiled, as though I had committed a blasphemy against the human condition.
More bewildering still was her reaction when I disclosed that my life’s concern did not rest in marriage, nor in the rearing of children, but in the pursuit of coherence—in truth, in beauty, in divinity, or whatever invisible thread binds the disposition to eternity. At this, she declared me less than human and fled, as though I had exposed not a philosophy but a crime.
Modern sentiment is insistent upon the notion that man must, from cradle to coffin, be cradled yet again—this time in the arms of another; that companionship of the romantic sort is the keystone of happiness, and those who live without it are either broken or bereft. And yet, from my earliest youth, I have stood somewhat apart—neither miserable in my solitude nor longing for its end. I have often wondered whether this marked me as defective. But reflection, that faithful old friend, assures me otherwise.
I possess—by what unearned grace I do not know—a naturally cheerful spirit, a modest taste for pleasure, and a temperament more inclined toward activity than brooding. Whatever impish passions once flared within me have, I suppose, been gently dimmed by time or tamed by temerity. Thus, I have come to believe that not all artists must be tormented, nor all solitary souls sad. There is more than one way to be human, and more than one melody in the plainsong of joy.
And yet, I cannot help but notice the deep confusion that seems to have seized the age. We have mistaken the intensity of appetite for the depth of meaning, and thus, the act which was meant to signify love has been swollen into a counterfeit of love itself. Sex, when torn from its rightful place—as sign, seal, or sacrament—becomes a poor prophet and a worse tyrant. It promises union but delivers only the echo of it. It mimics intimacy, but without the metaphysical gravity that true intimacy requires.
We are told that to live without constant romantic entanglement is to live a diminished life, as though eros were the only wing upon which the spirit could soar. But there are loftier loves—agape, caritas, even philia—which ask not for possession, but for presence. They do not burn so brightly, perhaps, but they endure the night. And when the fever of youth has cooled and the flesh grown silent, it is these loves—humble, unswerving, radiant in their invisibility—that remain.
If, then, I am strange, let it be said that I am strange only in this: that I have refused to let the cry of the bosom drown the whisper of the music. For the music, when it listens, hears a hymn no physical pleasure can compose—a music that plays not for gratification, but for glory.
I DON’T KNOW. DO YOU?
LOCKS AND KEYS – A MEDITATION ON MAN AND WOMAN
On the Folly of Superiority Between the Sexes
I have never quite understood the impulse—so persistent and yet so ill-founded—that leads men and women to speak of one sex as superior to the other. Such talk strikes me not only as a category error, but also as a profound failure of imagination. It is as though one were to declare the violin superior to the piano, or the sun to the moon—not recognising that their powers are not in competition but in concert.
The sexes are not identical; thank Heaven they are not. They are not even symmetrical, as though cast in the same mould with minor adjustments. They are complementary: each possesses what the other lacks, each is weak where the other is strong, and each reaches its fullness only in union with the other. It is a great pity that modern thought, so often enamoured with notions of equality, forgets that equality does not mean sameness. A lock and a key are equal in value, but their functions are not interchangeable.
To speak of superiority between man and woman is to miss the point entirely. It is a bit like asking whether the heart is more important than the lungs. The question betrays a deeper ignorance—not of biology, but of purpose. For the design is relational. One gives what the other receives; one begins where the other ends. They are halves of a whole, reflections that find their meaning only in relation to each other.
And is it not the height of folly—indeed, of arrogance—to compare where one ought to cooperate, to boast where one ought to bless, to dominate where one was meant to delight?
When each humbly acknowledges the glory in the other, when man and woman cease to be rivals and begin to be allies, then—and only then—do we catch a glimpse of the harmony intended from the beginning: not a sameness of roles, but a oneness of purpose; not uniformity, but unity.
PLAY TIME!
Ah, but when was the last time you truly let yourself go—wholly, unapologetically, gloriously yourself? Not the polished, presentable version you parade before the world, but that inner child who once laughed without permission and danced without music. I confess, for me, it was a long time ago, at one of those parties where the air is thick with the stale scent of adult concerns. The conversation meandered grimly from one sorrow to the next: sickness and scandal, the frailty of economies, the looming shadows of war and death, and the general conclusion that the world was teetering on the edge of some vast abyss.
And just when it seemed we might collectively dissolve into a puddle of solemnity, an old man—white-haired and wonderfully unbothered—rose from his chair, lifted his glass, and cried out, “Play time!”
Play time.
It was not merely a declaration but an invocation. At first, of course, the room recoiled. Whispers rustled like dry leaves—“Has he lost his senses?” “Is he drunk?” “Senility, perhaps.” You see, it is a dangerous thing in modern society to be unguardedly joyful. We have come to equate gravity with wisdom, and frolic with foolishness. But I tell you, there was more wisdom in that man’s outburst than in all our gloomy prognostications combined.
For there is something divine in the impulse to play—something that connects us to the wild joy of being alive, to the eternal laughter at the heart of the cosmos. It is the mad, inexplicable gladness that reminds us we are not machines grinding through productivity charts, nor merely minds churning through data and doubt. We are souls—souls made for wonder, mischief, and glad-hearted delight.
Too many, I fear, have forgotten the value of a little holy madness.
So let us ask ourselves—not with guilt, but with a wistful sort of hope—when was the last time we allowed joy to take the reins? When did we last leap before looking, sing before speaking, or dance when no one else heard the tune? And if it has indeed been too long, then perhaps, like that old man, it is time to stand and declare, without shame or irony, “Play time!” again.
SAMMIR DATTANI
It is not the mingling of flesh and blood that makes us kin, but rather the mysterious alchemy of the heart—that invisible thread by which fathers are made of friends, and brothers of those who share neither cradle nor name. A family, in truth, is a curious little fellowship: a band of assorted souls meandering through the wilderness of life, borrowing toothpaste, disputing over desserts, hiding shampoo like ancient treasure, waging petty wars over bedroom doors, and yet—almost in the same breath—wielding the comfort of love with the very hands that inflicted the wound.
And yet, so familiar is their presence, so constant their orbit, that we grow forgetful of their gravity. We take them lightly, these characters of our private stage, as though the play would run on with or without them.
But today, in a moment of idleness, as I wandered through the shallows of televised distraction, I stumbled upon the trailer for Mukhbiir, Sammir’s latest work. And there he was—not merely performing, but inhabiting a character of great depth and tension. My heart, I confess, swelled with a pride I could scarcely contain. Yet it was not the craft of his portrayal that arrested me most, but his eyes. Ah, those eyes! They held the menace of a drawn sword and the mercy of an open hand. In one instant, they could wound; in the next, they could woo. They carried, as great eyes do, the power to terrify and to gladden, to command and to console.
How strange, how sudden, to see in him not the boy I once watched grow, but the man he has quietly become. Just yesterday, it seems, he was the younger brother in jest and in truth. Today, he stands with a stature all his own. And oh, how proud I am of him.