Ethnic identity, religion, and gender: an exploration of intersecting identities creating diverse perceptions and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships amongst South Asian youth in Canada.

Zaidi, Arshia U. ; Couture-Carron, Amanda ; Maticka-Tyndale, Eleanor 等

Abstract

The migration of South Asians from one country to another is becoming increasingly common. This movement comes with post migratory challenges that extend to second-generation South Asians who have to negotiate socialization into two often conflicting sets of values, beliefs, attitudes, and practices: those within and those outside the home. One such challenge faced by second-generation South Asians is the negotiation and formation of cross-gender heterosexual relationships. Using qualitative data, specifically in-depth interviews with second-generation South Asian Christians, Muslims, and Hindus in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), this paper examines how intersections of gender, ethnicity, and religion shape participants' perceptions of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships. The results indicate that there are variations within each source of identity, and acceptance of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships differ depending on how these identities intersect and interact.

Resume

La migration des Asiatiques du Sud d'un pays a un autre devient de plus en plus commune. Ce mouvement souleve les enjeux post migratoires qui affectent la seconde generation des Asiatiques du Sud, qui doivent negocier une socialisation assez conflictuelle entre les deux generations, en s'adaptant aux valeurs, aux croyances, aux attitudes et pratiques: ceci avec tous ceux qui sont a l'exterieur du pays. Un autre defi qui s'impose a cette seconde generation d'Asiatiques du Sud est la negociation et la formation de relations heterosexuelles de genres croises. Se basant sur l'analyse qualitative, specifiquement pour des entrevues approfondies avec les Asiatiques du Sud de la seconde generation--chretiens, musulmans et hindous dans la grande region du centre Toronto, le present travail examine comment les chevauchements entre sexes, ethnies et religions influencent les perceptions et les experiences des participants dans leurs relations intimes croisees avec d'autres genres. Les resultats montrent qu'il existe des variations au sein de chaque source d'identite et d'acceptation ainsi que les experiences des relations intimes croisees avec d'autres genres qui dependent de la facon dont les identites se chevauchent et interagissent.

INTRODUCTION

Canada prides itself on being a multicultural country with great diversity and rich ethnic composition (Jibeen 2011). Multiculturalism, however, comes with multiple challenges. Not the least of these is the challenge posed by the co-existence of diverse cultural systems related to gender and sexuality and the cultural value conflicts these may produce (Inman 2006). Such conflicts are particularly evident within families that have migrated from societies that hold to traditional, often religiously based, values and beliefs with respect to gender and sexuality, and strong collectivist, patriarchal family systems (Triandis 1995). What they encounter in Canada is a society where gender roles, identities, and sexuality are more post-modern, secular, egalitarian, and fluid (Bauman 2000) and where individualism and a more gender-balanced family system prevail. As the children of such immigrants grow up in and experience the post-modern culture of their own country of birth, while living in a parental home where the traditional culture of their parents' country of origin dominates, intergenerational struggles may emerge.

This diversity contributes to differences in opinions and life experiences from those considered typical by Western standards. One example is in intimate cross-gender relationships, or dating. Dating is widely accepted in the United States (Bogle 2008) and Canada. It is not the norm, however, for many Eastern cultures. The children of immigrants may thus face conflicting norms and expectations. As Kibria (as cited in Foner 1997, 962) states, "immigrants may walk a delicate tightrope as they challenge certain aspects of traditional family systems." In this paper, we seek to answer the following research question: How do ethnic identification, religion, religiousness, and gender intersect to shape second-generation South Asian youths' perceptions of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships in Canada?

THE CANADIAN CONTEXT

In its 2005 report, the United Nations ranked Canada as 7th in the world in the number of immigrants it receives (United Nations 2009). According to census data, 40% of Canada's permanent residents are first- or second-generation immigrants (Statistics Canada 2011). The Greater Toronto Area (GTA), with 41% of its population of 5.5 million considered immigrants, receives the largest proportion of immigrants to Canada and justifiably fits the descriptors of "world in a city" and "around the world in one weekend" (Siemiatycki 2011, 1219). The South Asian population, in particular, has grown immensely with approximately 1.3 million Canadians tracing their heritage to South Asia (Statistics Canada 2010). South Asian descent encompasses origins in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka with religions including Islam, Hinduism, Bhuddism, Christianity, and Sikhism (Fleras and Elliot 1999). Despite these diverse national, cultural and religious characteristics and/or differences, South Asians have been described as sharing "similar worldviews that impart common values and behavioural expectations for men and women" (Inman 2006, 307) and core values that have been intact since 7000 B.C. (Shariff 2009,36). That being said, it is still important to acknowledge that not all South Asians subscribe to the same belief system. There is no universal South Asian culture, but there are some norms and expectations (even with slight variations) that are fairly common.

GENDER, ETHNIC IDENTITY, RELIGION AND CROSS-GENDER INTIMATE PARTNER RELATIONSHIPS

Although the immigrant family, as a whole, can experience acculturative stresses, research demonstrates that first- and second-generation immigrant youth experience these acculturative stressors differently (Abouguendia and Noels 2001; Lay and Nguyen 1998). Despite efforts to "inculcate ethnic pride and awareness of their cultural heritage" (Das and Kemp 1997, 28), these two generations continue to face unique social obstacles and challenges in their daily lives. One intergenerational South Asian conflict, in particular, is the practice of dating and formation of cross-gender intimate partnerships of their children.

Second-generation South Asians living in Canada are typically socialized according to these traditional norms and expectations within the home. Outside the home and ethnic community, however, they are surrounded by others who are allowed to form cross-gender relationships and even encouraged to do so. Dating, affectional, and even sexually intimate relationships, including casual relationships, are common prior to marriage in Western cultures (Paul, McManus and Hayes 2000). Moreover, as Leonard (2003, 70) observes, "sexual matters [are] ... left to individuals subject to adulthood, free consent, and privacy." Dating is typically considered a normative part of growing up that contributes to teaching youth about decision-making, responsibility, their own sexuality, and the feelings associated with it. According to Ghuman (2003, 34) "for white young people, dating and now premarital sex form an important part of the rites of passage to adulthood and to attaining independence." Moore and Rosenthal (1993) agree:

   Sexual behaviour is one of the key ways, in modern society, for
   adolescents to 'desatellite' or begin, emotionally, to leave the
   family orbit and move towards independence. Successful moves
   towards gradual attainment of adult sexuality will heighten
   feelings of self-esteem and perceived competence to cope. (37)

Second-generation youth are left to navigate these competing normative systems. To "fit in" they must behave differently inside and outside their home. They are caught between two cultures, (Wakil et al. 1981) "living in translation" between modern and traditional value systems (Hall et al. 1992, 310). This cultural clash is heightened in urban landscapes, like the GTA; such cities are the hub of not only racial, but also sexual diversification (Dilworth and Trevenen 2004). Living as a bicultural individual can exert considerable strain and pressure, especially when making personal life choices and decisions, with these stresses greatest for South Asian women (Dasgupta 1998). To violate norms forbidding cross-gender relationships is to violate the family and poses a threat to each family member as well as to the welfare of the family as a unit. Given the unique position that second-generation youth are often in with respect to managing multiple cultures, it is worthwhile to try to gain insight into the various factors that influence decisions in areas of cultural conflict, in this case, cross-gender intimate relationships. Although not exhaustive, there are three key factors that are particularly relevant with respect to perceptions of and experiences with cross-gender intimate relationships. These include: gendered cultural norms and expectations, ethnic identification, and religion.

Gendered Cultural Norms and Expectations

Although not typically realized, the ideal in most traditional South Asian families in the heritage and host countries is the segregation of men and women outside the family with cross-gender intimate relationships forbidden prior to an official engagement and/or marriage. This segregation is thought to preserve premarital virginity, which is crucial to a family's honour and reputation (Handa 2003; Huang and Akhtar 2005; Samad 2010; Zaidi and Shuraydi 2002). Since, as Inman (2006, 307) notes, women "bear the disproportionate burden of perpetuating an authentic culture with its traditions and customs," these expectations are applied most stringently to them. Religion, family, and community structures reinforce and police these norms (Hennink, Diamond and Cooper 1999; Rosenthal and Feldman 1992) through, for example, marriages arranged by family members (Basit 1996; Naidoo 1984; Wakil et al. 1981; Zaidi and Shuraydi 2002). The power of the family, in particular, in the arena of sexuality and cross-gender relationships is exerted not only through the external mechanisms of chaperonage and surveillance, but also through the internal ties of loyalty and care for the family and its members. Cultural expectations related to gender and sexuality combine with core cultural values prioritizing the welfare of the family (Shariff 2009). Following the collectivistic nature of many South Asian cultures, family members are expected to consider the needs, position, and honour of their family over their own needs or desires (Ghuman 2003, 34; Samuel 2010; Wakil, Siddique and Wakil 1981; Zaidi et al. 2012; Zaidi and Shuraydi 2002). To violate norms forbidding cross-gender relationships is to violate the family, and pose a threat to each family member as well as to the welfare of the family as a unit. This is evident even in situations where parents are more flexible and support their children's search for their own partners (Shariff 2009, 97) as seen in the views expressed by one father in Ghuman's (2003) study, "I tell her, find a boy and let us know and we will fix it" (33). While this father accepted and perhaps even encouraged his daughter to find her own life mate and, by implication, to search out and form cross-gender relationships in the process of doing so, the expression "and we will fix it" suggests that accommodations must be made to fit this approach into the frame of cultural traditions and to provide a public image that cultural norms have been followed. This is necessary because a family's honour and reputation are at stake.

Gender and gender roles also have a significant influence on how cross-gender relationships are viewed. In many South Asian households, girls and boys are socialized differently. Historically and traditionally girls were kept in the home and raised to be nurturing, responsible, and obedient women. The domain of boys was outside the home where they learned to achieve and be self-reliant, becoming the breadwinners of the family (Talbani and Hasanali 2000). As part of their family role, "girls and women are considered the keepers of the culture and heritage and are responsible for the reputation of the whole family" (Nesteruk and Gramescu 2012, 42). As a result, girls are heavily controlled and policed by family and community members (Naidoo 1984) and "face rigid gender specific norms" (Talbani and Hasanali 2000, 617). According to Pyke (2005), first-born girls experience the greatest pressure since they are expected to be role models for younger siblings and, consequently, are more heavily observed and monitored by elders. Gender differences and the gender power differential are clearly evident within these families. Not only are different roles and skills stressed for girls and boys, but parents are also "more indulgent to boys and often overlook their breaking of social norms, [food] taboos, dress codes, dating and drinking" (Ghuman 2003, 33; Shariff 2009). Being raised as a son or daughter is likely to result in different approaches to understanding and experiencing cross-gender relationships and sexual activity. While premarital chastity is expected of both men and women, women are more stringently controlled than men because, it is argued, family honour is more directly linked to a girl's behaviour (Dasgupta 1998; Nesteruk and Gramescu 2012; Samuel 2010; Talbani and Hasanali 2000; Zaidi and Shuraydi 2002). Women are, by far, expected to be more sexually conservative. Thus, young women and men are likely to initiate, form, and negotiate cross-gender relationships very differently with the same behaviours having different degrees of deviation from the ideal son or daughter role. This helps to explain why current trends in the literature indicate that South Asian unmarried men (Mattila et al. 2001) and those who are less religious (Sherkat 2002) are most likely to partake in sexual activities. These gendered differences in cultural norms and expectations are relevant to consider as they can lead to variations in perceptions of and experiences with cross-gender intimate relationships.

Ethnic Identification

Ethnic identification can provide insight into variations in the degree to which second-generation South Asian youth identify with norms and expectations stemming from their family's country of origin or even within their home. Given the cultural differences regarding intimate cross-gender relationships between mainstream Western and South Asian cultures, the conceptual framework of ethnic identification may help us understand why some second-generation South Asians are more accepting of intimate cross-gender relationships and others are not. According to Leiblum, Wiegel and Brickie (2003), one's ethnic identity is a process that is in flux over time and across contexts (Purkayastha 2005). Thus, ethnic identity is seen as being achieved through an active process of decision-making and self-evaluation varying based on cognitive and social maturation and social contexts (Phinney 1990). Many conceptual models of ethnic identity development use a stage or phase approach (Marcia 1966). Phinney's three stage model provides a framework for understanding how ethnic minorities subjectively negotiate the diversity in cultural scripts to create their own personal scripts (Phinney 1992). Her three fluid and negotiable stages include: Unexamined or Received Ethnic Identity characterized by an uncritical identification and/or acceptance of norms, values, and practices upheld by the heritage country; Explored Ethnic Identity understood as the critical exploration and appraisal of the host and re-evaluation and questioning of the heritage culture; Achieved Ethnic Identity characterized by re-appropriation and blending the two cultural scripts (Phinney 1989). Based on the characteristics of each stage, we would expect to find that involvement in intimate cross-gender relationships would flow along a continuum with it being most common and most involved (i.e., more physically intimate) among those with an explored ethnic identity, followed by those with an achieved ethnic identity and then those with an unexamined ethnic identity.

Religion

Commitment to religion is also closely linked to dating and sexuality (Lefkowitz 2004). In Islam premarital sex is considered haram, a forbidden act (Chakrobarty 2010). In Hinduism, however, premarital sex is not considered taboo (Okazaki 2002). Christianity falls in between these two with premarital sex discouraged, but growing in acceptance (Cahill Sowell 1993). Mattila et al. (2001) contend that level of religiosity is also correlated with sexual behaviour among youth. Studies on religion and sexuality have demonstrated that those who are more religious are more likely to be sexually conservative. Religion is correlated with the delay of sexual activity by way of social control or policing of behaviour (Rostosky et al. 2003; Hardy and Raffaelli 2003, 97). In the South Asian community religion joins peers, parents, and the South Asian media as a socialization agent that discourages premarital sex. Any deviation from religious norms can produce guilt and shame. Thus, the external controls of family and community exercised through surveillance and punishments such as public embarrassment and denigration of family honour are accompanied and reinforced by the internal controls of religious belief and "moral self-government" for those who follow religious teachings (Rostosky, Regneru and Wright 2003; Hardy and Raffaelli 2003,97; Sullivan 2012). The role religion plays in the lives of South Asian families is also critical to understanding how cross-gender relationships are understood and experienced. Within South Asian cultures, there are four major religions: Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Sikkhism. Religious beliefs guide individuals in establishing and experiencing values, emotions, and ideals in regards to cross-gender relationships. Studies among South Asian immigrants have shown that religion is a strong influence in the lives of the first-generation, primarily for Muslims than Hindus and Sikhs. In fact, it was this generation of immigrants that built and established mosques, gurdwaras, and mandirs (temples) across North America, Australia, and Britain (Stopes-Roe and Cochrane 1990; Wakil et al. 1981). Religion, depending on the level of religiosity, plays a pivotal role in gender role construction, ethnic identity, and the decision-making of both South Asian parents and youth. Dhruvarajan (1993) notes that South Asian women (regardless of generation) who are religious have increased patriarchal views, disapproval towards interracial marriages as well as dating of daughters.

The intersection of gender, religion, and ethnicity is well documented in previous research with the implications of this intersection much debated. Some scholars see them as mutually reinforcing (Abramson 1973; Dolan 1972; Smith 1978; Stout 1975), while others see them as in tension and having different influences (Herberg 1960; Lenski 1961; Yang and Ebaugh 2001, 368). Research has established that gender, ethnicity, and religious commitment all influence the initiation, shape, and form of intimate relationships among Canadian youth (Maticka-Tyndale 2001; Maticka-Tyndale 2008). A number of studies suggest that identity formation and development of a personal set of norms and attitudes in the domain of gender roles and sexuality is complex and challenging for youth from a South Asian background given their socialization to norms and practices that are as diverse and incompatible as those described above (Dasgupta 1998; Giguere et al. 2010; Talbani and Hasanali 2000; Wakil et al. 1981; Zaidi and Shuraydi 2002). While research examines gender, ethnicity, and religion as independent influences, or at best in two-way interactions, there are few studies that consider their effects on perceptions of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships from the perspective of intersectionality. This paper applies such an analysis to a qualitative dataset in order to understand how the young adult children of immigrants from South Asia who grew up in Canada understand and experience intimate cross-gender relationships.

Intersectionality grew out of critiques of mainstream feminism's primary focus on gender inequality above all else (Sokoloff and Dupont 2005) and assumptions of a homogeneous female experience. Kimberle Crenshaw was the first to use intersectionality in the late 1980s to shed light on the qualitatively diverse experiences of women (Yuval-Davis 2006). Intersectional analysis expands beyond the privileging of gender to a recognition that diverse social locations such as ethnicity, religion, religiosity, sexual orientation, and class interact to create distinctive experiences (Sokoloff and Dupont 2005). Crenshaw (1989) argues that, to better understand their social experiences, women of colour need to be recognized for their multiple dimensions of identity and not just as women or as 'coloured' (Hankivsky 2012). Intersectional analysis is based on the premise that lived experiences cannot be understood from the perspective of only one position or identity. The imbrication of multiple explicit and implicit positions and identities, each of which influences how the other is experienced and responded to, must be recognized and analysed to fully comprehend lived experience (Andersen and Hill Collins 1992; Brah and Phoenix 2004; Joseph 2006; Hankivsky 2012). Failure to recognize and examine these intersectionalities renders the ignored positions and identities and their intersections invisible (Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach 2008) and leads to the essentialization of a singular position or identity. This reduces people to unidimensional categories such as man or woman, South Asian or Canadian, each examined independent of the others. Such has been the approach in much past scholarship (George and Ramkissoon 1998). More recent research has grown to recognize the importance of examining intersections. However, there remains a paucity of such analysis, in part because of its complexity and, in statistical studies, the inadequacy of sample sizes to support it.

Further complexity is introduced into intersectionality by recognizing that identity and positionality are embedded in and influenced by multiple layers and structures of power such as those in families, ethnic groups, religious communities, and society overall (Mattis et al. 2008). Identities serve as more than descriptors as they have social consequences depending on their hierarchical position within society (Bograd 1999, 25). Different ethnic and religious groups are in majority or minority positions in different societies. Compare, for example, the position and power of Islam in North America to the Middle East or South Asia, or the position and power of European ethnic groups and cultures to aboriginal or South Asian in North America. As such, the norms and values associated with gender and sexuality supported by different religions or ethnic groups are positioned differently in different countries and regions of the world. Euro-centric values and norms are dominant in North America and enshrined in laws, policies, public education, media, and customs, with South Asian and Islamic norms and values lacking the power and acceptance that such laws, policies, public education, media, and customs provide. On a more interpersonal level, consider the power of parents, and especially fathers, in rigidly patriarchal family systems compared to that in more egalitarian family systems, or the power of the community in communally oriented societies as compared to those more individually oriented (Triandis 1995).

Research examining attitudes and practices in the realm of sexuality typically acknowledge that these differ by gender, ethnicity, religion, class, as well as other dimensions (Derogatis and Melisaratos 1997; George and Ramkissoon 1998; Inman 2006; Leiblum et al. 2003). Maticka-Tyndale (2001; 2008), for example, identifies differences among Canadian adolescents in their sexual attitudes and behaviours related to all of these dimensions. Thus, whether considering a specific ethnic group, such as South Asians, or the multiplicity of ethnic groups that make up the Canadian social landscape, when understanding attitudes and practices in the realm of sexuality and the interactions between parents and their young adult children in relation to these attitudes and practices, intersectional analysis helps to recognize and elaborate the complexities and diversities that are present and guards against essentializing the sexuality of young adults and youth.

Despite the many merits of this study, there are also limitations. First, this research has a limited number of Christians, especially men, resulting in unequal number of people in that specific group. Second, the majority of the sample is university/college students. We were unable to access those who were outside the university/college. It would be interesting to explore those who have less education, as well as people in the workforce. Finally, while both South Asian and Caucasian researchers conducted interviews, at times it seemed that some individuals answered in a socially desirable manner when interviewed by the South Asian researcher.

METHODS

Data Collection, Sampling Technique, and Sample Profile

We recruited participants primarily from university and college campuses in the GTA through posters, campus-wide e-mails, and advertisements in South Asian media and word of mouth. An honorarium of $20 was offered to cover transportation and to thank participants for their time. We selected the second-generation, which includes those born in Canada or who moved to Canada before the age of eight. We used purposive sampling with criteria for gender, religion, and South Asian country of origin.

We interviewed fifty-six unmarried, second-generation South Asian youth between the ages of 18 and 25 years using a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. The interview guide included the following themes: participant's background, parents' socio-economic status, race/ethnic relations within the host country, family, school, and community characteristics, personal accounts of cultural scripts regarding dating and sexuality of host and heritage country, participants' interpersonal scripts and experiences of dating and sexuality, primary/secondary socialization agents, and intergenerational conflicts. The researchers audio recorded all the interviews (with participant consent), transcribed the interviews, and checked the transcription for accuracy.

Sampling and data collection posed several methodological limitations. As previously mentioned, these include the small number of Christians and the overrepresentation of university/college students, both of which limit the conclusions that may be drawn. Finally, participants who chose the South Asian interviewer may have provided more socially desirable responses than those interviewed by the Caucasian interviewer. For more details, please see Couture, Zaidi, and Maticka-Tyndale (2012).

The sample consists of 30 females and 26 males. There are equal numbers of Muslims 20) and Hindus (20) and fewer Christians (16). Each of these groups (with the exception of Christians) is made up of an equal number of males and females. There are slightly more female (10) than male (6) Christians. The families of the majority of participants originated from Sri Lanka (20), Pakistan (18), or India (15). Three participants' families originated from Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka/India, respectively.

Data Analysis

We used simultaneous thematic coding to analyze the interviews with the assistance of QSR N6 software. We first coded the interviews for participants' gender, religion, religiousness, and ethnic identification. We determined religiousness based on the participants' self-identification or our assessment based on their responses to various questions. Participants who were identified as religious generally followed or believed all of the main tenets of the religion. The somewhat religious typically followed or believed some, but not all, of the main tenets of their religion. The not-religious followed or believed few of their religion's principles. Phinney's model was used to code ethnic identification. We examined responses to questions specifically asking about level of agreement with norms and expectations of the host and heritage culture, including norms related to cross-gender relationships. We coded those who were generally accepting and not critical or questioning of the rules and norms identified as common in their heritage country as having an unexamined ethnic identity. We coded those who were critical and questioning and did not accept the majority of these expectations as having an explored ethnic identity. Finally, we coded participants who articulated acceptance and criticism of norms and expectations of both countries as having an achieved ethnic identity. These individuals indicated that they blend elements of each culture. There were a few individuals who did not fit so easily into these categories. Some had a misalignment between norms and behaviours; others blended aspects of both cultures but were also exploring and critical.

A second round of coding identified themes related to cross-gender relationships such as attitudes toward dating and premarital sex. Participants' perceptions and experiences of cross-gender relationships were then compared based on the intersections of religion, religiousness, and gender. Comparisons across the three categories of ethnic identification were not made since ethnic identification was partially based on these perceptions.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to be able to tease out all of the intersectional identities or social positions one possesses. Thus, while we approach the data analysis from an intersectional approach, our focus is on religion, gender, and ethnic identification. To analyze the data, we first look at religion. As we previously noted, religion plays an important role in the formation of perceptions regarding cross-gender relationships. Moreover, to attempt to avoid essentializing South Asians, it is necessary to acknowledge variations that may exist among South Asians that may be due to religious differences. We then look at variations within religions based on level of religiousness and gender. Level of religiousness is important to consider because it may reflect the level of influence the religion has on particular individuals. Again, we are trying to acknowledge variations within religious groups. Finally, we incorporate ethnic identification when looking at the participants' experiences in intimate relationships (i.e., if they have dated and if they have had sex). The brief overview of their behaviours uses descriptive statistics to demonstrate the trends within combinations of religion, level of religiousness, gender, and ethnic identification. This is not intended to be an in depth generalizable quantitative analysis. All of the names in this section are pseudonyms. The end of each religion section concludes with a discussion of the trends and patterns based on these intersections. As the analysis progresses to another religion, conclusions include a comparison to the previously discussed religious groups.

ANALYSES BY RELIGION, GENDER, AND ETHNIC IDENTIFICATION

Muslim Participants' Perceptions of Intimate Relationships

Religious Muslims

There was a wide variety of perceptions of intimate cross-gender relationships among Muslim participants. Most of those who identified as religious (five of whom were female and three who were male), regardless of gender, believed premarital sex is a sin and dating relationships should not occur because they can lead to such "sinful" behaviour. Farah, for instance, explained: "Because I'm religious, right? So, I don't believe in like premarital sex, right? ... Premarital relationships are completely looked down upon and religion has a lot to do with it. I think ... it's a sin ... I agree with it." Similarly, Ahmar stated: "Islamically, ... not being married and having sex is a major sin." When asked if he agreed with these religious expectations, he confirmed that he does. Javed explained that forbidding dating can prevent premarital sex, which he viewed as a sin as well. When asked if he agrees with the prohibition of dating, Javed responded: "I think it makes sense in terms of religion, right? ... if having sex before marriage is a sin ... there's no other way [to stop premarital sex] ... I do agree with that actually because it [dating] does lead to sex."

Among the religious participants, there were also some who explained that dating should be restricted to only supervised dating or dating at a mature age. For instance, Aliya explained that this can prevent temptation. She said: "When you're getting older and you want to get married or you want to get to know somebody then I have no problem with say that guy, that girl going on a date to a public place and maybe taking a family member or someone who's trusted with them ... it's just to ensure that ... they don't fall into the temptation of doing something wrong."

Moderately Religious Muslims

Among the somewhat/moderately religious participants (of whom three were female and four who were male), there was greater acceptance of dating. For some, however, there was still a resistance to premarital sex. For example, Ali argued that spending time with someone is necessary, but premarital sex should not happen until one is in a committed relationship. He said: "I think you definitely need to spend time with somebody. One hundred percent you need to spend time with someone ... I mean there's a limit to everything. I mean no kissing. I mean a hug is fine, you know? A kiss on the cheek is fine, but I don't think anything further than that until you're really really committed."

Zainab was a participant who explained the importance of restricting dating activities to preserve the value of marriage. She stated: "Like I don't have a problem with dating unless ... you date to the point where like marriage would have no value at all 'cause you're like I don't know you were pretty much living with each other or, you know? ... but otherwise like the completely no dating at all ... I don't agree with."

There were two male participants who were especially critical of the restrictions placed on dating by their heritage cultures' rules. Habib, for example, said: "I'm overall critical of it [heritage culture's rules], it limited people's capability.... Why can't we date ahead? ... I believe we should date."

There was a female and a male participant who held perceptions that differed from other somewhat/moderately religious participants as they were more accepting of their heritage cultures' norms surrounding intimate cross-gender relationships. Sadiq, for example, stated: "Well in terms of like the arranged marriage and stuff like that's just the way I was brought up and that's why I find it more accepting ... I would lean more towards ... the Pakistani culture rules."

Not Religious Muslims

Those who we identified as not religious (two of whom were female and three who were male) were generally more flexible regarding both dating and premarital sex. For instance, Arzoo actually encouraged dating although she did not say the same for premarital sex. She said: "I'm very critical of those rules. I think you need to date. I don't necessarily think that everybody needs to have sex before marriage ... but I think you do need to date to have those experiences in order to figure out who you [are] ... [and] who you want to get married to."

Two of the three not religious males also spoke out against their heritage cultures' rules and expectations regarding intimate cross-gender relationships in a more defiant manner. Abid explained: "I don't agree with them at all ... I think they're ridiculous...." Similarly, when asked his opinion of his heritage culture's expectations regarding cross-gender relationships, Asad responded: "Well, I think they're ridiculous. You know? I think that side of the world is maybe four or five generations behind this side of the world.... I think that their whole um the way they make a taboo out of sex, it's not a positive thing." Although the third not religious male, Ibad, was not as outspoken about his disagreement with his heritage culture's norms in comparison to the other two not religious males, he did express acceptance of intimate cross-gender relationships at a particular age. When asked if people should have sex before marriage, he responded: "I guess, but maybe not young ... when you get older or something like that.... [Casual sex not a good thing?] Yeah, yeah."

On the other hand, Haniya, a not religious female, was more accepting of her heritage culture's norms. When asked if she agrees with her heritage culture's norms and expectations surrounding premarital sex and dating relationships, she responded: "I would agree to a certain extent with those cultures about sexual relationships that Pakistani people have.... Girls shouldn't be having sexual relationships with guys. I think that's for the benefit of the female and everyone else in society."

Muslim Participants' Intimate Relationship Experiences

Religious Muslims

When examining the participants' experiences, we also explored ethnic identity. Of the five religious females, three had an unexamined ethnic identity, meaning they were accepting of their heritage culture's norms, with one never having a dating relationship and the other two having dating relationships. All three were virgins. The other two females were religious, had achieved ethnic identities (i.e., there are aspects of the heritage culture's norms that they agree with and aspects they are critical of), dated, and one was a virgin, while the other was not. Of the three religious males, two had unexamined ethnic identities, both had dating relationships, but were still virgins. There was a religious male who had an achieved ethnic identity, a relationship, and was not a virgin.

Moderately Religious Muslims

Of the three females who were somewhat/moderately religious, one had an achieved ethnic identity and a relationship, but was still a virgin. One had an explored ethnic identity and a dating relationship, but was also a virgin. The final was accepting of the heritage culture's norms but admitted not following them, which means she had a non-conforming, but unexamined ethnic identity. She had a relationship and was still a virgin. For the somewhat/moderately religious males, one had an unexamined ethnic identity, had a relationship, but was still a virgin. One had an achieved ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was not a virgin. There was also one had an explored ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was not a virgin. The final had a non-conforming, but unexamined ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was not a virgin as well.

Not Religious Muslims

Of the two females who were not religious, both had explored ethnic identities, which means they were questioning and not accepting of their heritage culture's norms. They had dating relationships, but one was a virgin and the other was not. Of the three not religious males, all had explored ethnic identities, had relationships, and one was a virgin and two were not.

Summary of the Muslim Participants' Perceptions and Experiences

The results suggest that there may be a relationship between levels of religiousness and ethnic identification as more religious participants had unexamined ethnic identities while those who were not religious had explored ethnic identities. These results indicate that level of religiousness as well ethnic identity may both play a role in Muslims' experiences with intimate relationships since those with unexamined ethnic identities were virgins while more of those who had achieved or explored ethnic identities were not virgins. Overall, the Muslim participants' perceptions of and experiences with cross-gender dating or intimate relationships varied to some degree across the levels of religiousness and ethnic identification. With the exception of those who were not religious, gender differences in perceptions within each level of religiousness were not readily apparent. There were, however, notable differences between the genders with respect to experiences with cross-gender intimate relationships, sexual intercourse in particular. The results show that more males were not virgins in comparison to females.

Christian Participants' Perceptions of Intimate Relationships

Religious Christians

Generally, most Christian participants perceived dating to be acceptable. Similar to the Muslim participants, perceptions often varied depending on level of religiousness with those who were religious (five of whom were female and two who were male) not extending approval of dating to premarital sex. The disapproval of premarital sex, however, did not seem to be as vehement among the Christians as it was not equated with sin. For example, Mary agreed with dating, but not with excessive dating (i.e., numerous partners) or premarital sex as she values virginity: "I honestly think that it's perfectly ok for somebody to go out for coffee ... and you know get to know this person.... You can't be like having sex.... Like you don't want to get too friendly with too many people ... I never want to have sex before I get married just because I want my husband to be a virgin." Kathy also explained that she agrees with dating because it is a learning experience, which teaches you how different people react to different things. She does not, however, agree with premarital sex as she stated: "I probably have to say ... leave sex until marriage ... it could be also like because of the disgrace in the family."

While Nicole indicated that she approves of dating, she did indicate that premarital sex is not accepted in her religion, similar to the religious Muslims, and when asked if she agrees with norms forbidding premarital sex, she responded: "Yes, that I do ... as a Catholic, you're not supposed to have sex ... before you get married anyways."

The two religious male Christians did not seem to oppose premarital sex as strongly as the females. For example, David stated: "I mean you should be able to talk to a girl ... [do you agree that you shouldn't have sex before marriage?] Not that I agree with that, it's just like here it's a normal thing to date ... [do you agree with what is done in Canada within limits?] Yeah ... not the casual [sex]."

Moderately Religious Christians

For those who were somewhat/moderately religious (three of whom were female and three who were male), there was even more acceptance of dating as well as premarital sex. For instance, Eva not only indicated that dating is important, but also explained when premarital sex is acceptable: "I believe that you should date. You should get to know someone you like ... I don't think you should have sex right away ... I'd rather go the way where I know someone and it's a ... strong, good relationship ... if you feel like this is the right person to have sex with then okay." Sarah also believed that premarital sex should not be casual. She said: "I don't judge people like if they do what they want to do kind of thing ... I feel that ... it shouldn't be something that you just do for fun." Similarly, Helen approved of cross-gender intimate relationships, but he noted the importance of age, consistent with some of the Muslim participants. He stated: "I think that once you hit a certain age that you should be able to take responsibility and the freedom to do what you think is right."

Unlike those who were more accepting of premarital sex, Vanessa perceived dating as acceptable, but valued abstinence. She said: "I agree with abstinence. For me ... that's something you do with a person you're going to spend the rest of your life with, but dating and stuff, you know? I'd like to find my own person and ... experience it for myself."

The participants who were not religious (two of whom were female and one who was male) also agreed with dating and generally perceived premarital sex to be okay. For instance, unlike many other participants, Dolly specifically said that individuals should have premarital sexual relationships if in a secure relationship, which is similar to Eva. Dolly stated: "Spending time alone and like sexual relationships, I think that's okay before marriage because you have to experience all of that ... if you're going to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want to know before you commit yourself. So, I think if you're in a secure and safe relationship, it should be fine."

Not Religious Christians

Johnny was the only male Christian who was not religious. He believed that individuals should have freedom to date and have premarital sex, but pointed to the importance of practicing safe sex. He said: "Yeah, I'm critical [of heritage culture's norms] ... I don't think they mix well with today's world. I think people should have some type of freedom to go out and meet a girl or a guy ... [What about rules about premarital sex?] ... it depends on the person.... Well I would follow it [have sex] if I find a girl that I really liked ... as long as [you] practice safe."

Christian Participants' Intimate Relationship Experiences

Religious Christians

Christian participants' experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships followed a pattern similar to the Muslim participants. Of the five religious female Christians, two had unexamined ethnic identities, which indicates they were uncritical of the heritage culture's norms. They also never had a relationship and were virgins. There were two with achieved ethnic identity who blended aspects of the heritage and host cultures. These two had relationships, but were still virgins. There was one with an explored ethnic identity who was critical of their heritage culture's norms, had a relationship, and was not a virgin. Of the two religious Christian males, both had achieved ethnic identities, had relationships, and one was a virgin while the other was not.

Moderately Religious Christians

Of the three somewhat/moderately religious Christian females, one had an achieved

ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was still a virgin. Two had explored ethnic identities, had relationships, and one was a virgin while the other was not. Of the three somewhat/moderately religious Christian males, one had an unexamined ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was not a virgin. The other two had achieved ethnic identities. One had a relationship and was not a virgin, while the other did not have a relationship and was a virgin.

Not Religious Christians

Of the two not religious Christian females, both had achieved ethnic identities, and relationships. One was a virgin, while the other was not. The sole not religious Christian male had an explored ethnic identity, had a relationship and was still a virgin.

Summary of the Christian Participants' Perceptions and Experiences

Similar to the Muslim participants, a larger portion of the males had premarital sex in comparison to the females. The data shows that acceptance of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships corresponds to the level of religiousness (with those who are less religious being more accepting). Furthermore, ethnic identity appears to influence engagement in premarital sex in a manner similar to the Muslim participants as well. Those who had an unexamined ethnic identity did not have premarital sex with the exception of one male. Thus, a greater number of those with achieved or explored ethnic identities were not virgins, in comparison to those who were accepting.

Hindu Participants' Perceptions of Intimate Relationships

Religious Hindus

Consistent with the Christian participants, Hindu participants were generally accepting of dating as well. There was, however, little distinction across the levels of religiousness. Of all of the religions, fewer Hindu participants were religious. Among the religious Hindu participants (two of whom were female and two who were male), gender differences in perceptions of cross-gender relationships were more evident than among the other religions. Males were more accepting of their heritage cultures' norms surrounding cross-gender relationships than females. For instance, Raj believed that the rules maintain control over individuals. He stated: "I think it's just something that we should follow just because it keeps people in control in the sense that you have guidelines ... like keeps them straight in the sense that they'll know what they want to accomplish rather than going wild...." Similarly, Ravi explained that with age he began to understand the reasons for the rules in India and following those rules is what makes a person Indian. He said: "As you get more mature and you think about what they're talking about.... It makes sense to say no sex before marriage because also the worst case scenario is, in India especially ... the girl gets pregnant before even engaged or married and that's like a big thing, you know? ... That's what is kind of being Indian is, you know? ... if you're Indian, part of your identity is to follow these values." He did, however, explain that his parents have indicated that dating can occur, but it must be behind closed doors to avoid the "spotlight" on the family and to maintain your reputation.

Unlike the male religious Hindus, the two religious female Hindus perceived cross-gender intimate relationships as more acceptable. Rekha, for example, explained that dating is a reality for young people, but indicated that she will not jeopardize her family. She said: "They [the rules] just sound unrealistic. Like you cannot have a boyfriend at all. Like obviously that's not going to happen, you know? But like I do make sure that whatever I get myself into, it's not going to hurt my family."

Moderately Religious Hindus

Among those who were somewhat/moderately religious (six of whom were female and three who were male), intimate cross-gender relationships were even more accepted with more similarities between males and females than the religious Hindus. Some perceived premarital sex to be a personal choice. For example, Radah's statement below indicates her preference for Canadian ways and personal freedom. She said: "I still don't necessarily identify with the Indian ways. Like I'm not going to say that I'm never going to have sex before I'm married. That's not part of who I am ... it's also very Canadian in the sense that I don't see it as being necessarily only for marriage ... I feel like it's the person's business if they want to have sex before they're married, that's their choice. Have to make that choice as an informed adult."

While the data suggests that premarital sex is not as strongly opposed, there were multiple participants, male and female, who did put restrictions on these activities. These restrictions ranged from premarital sex occurring in a particular relationship to it occurring at a particular point in time. For example, Radah's statement below suggests that sex should not happen in casual relationships since it is more than just a physical thing. She said: "I think it's [heritage culture] affected me in the way I look at sex. Like I don't look at sex as just a physical thing." Manisha's perceptions are comparable to Radah's as she believed that sex should not be casual either. She also suggested the relevance of age and maturity. She said: "I just find that sex is not something that you do for fun ... it's a reflection of a relationship that you're having, you know? ...I find that girls are far too young and they don't have a very good understanding of themselves and then at that point are directed not by their heads, but by other areas of their body ... it's not healthy for someone who's not grown up ... I think you have to learn to love yourself before you can love someone else." Likewise, some male participants, such as Ajay, explained the importance of being of a particular age and mature when dating in order to make informed decisions.

In addition to speaking in support of intimate cross-gender relationships, there were two participants, in particular, who were more direct or blunt in their criticisms of their heritage culture's norms and expectations. Manisha criticized the gendered expectations regarding virginity specifically. She said:

   Becoming a feminist, I realized I didn't like the idea that males
   ... just had to hide the fact that they could have a sexual
   relationship ... whereas the female ... was pure when she had her
   virginity.... It [sex] isn't the worst thing in the world. So, when
   I actually had my sexual experience with my boyfriend ... I was ...
   thinking wow ... there's a little ... too much hype on the
   virginity issue. I didn't feel dirty ... I felt like okay this is
   not, this is not horrible and I enjoy it ... it was very healthy.

Vivek used words that have more negative connotations when describing his heritage culture's rules and expectations. He stated: "Premature [his heritage culture] in the sense underdeveloped where it's like the early stages ... they're still very very premature like ... very primitive."

While there were participants who were openly critical of their heritage cultures' norms, there were others who saw the value of them. For example, Kareena discussed the benefits, namely safety, of her heritage culture's norms regarding intimate cross-gender relationships in a fashion consistent with Ravi. Kareena explained:

I used to be totally against them [the rules] ... but now ... I think they're not that bad. Like I do get why parents don't want you to be sexually active and I kind of do understand why they don't want you to talk to guys too much or you know have a boyfriend or anything. Yeah, so I kind of agree with it now ... I personally prefer Sri Lanka's rules and their own little culture and everything just because I feel it's safer.

Not Religious Hindus

Generally, those who were not religious (two of whom were female and five who were male) had similar perceptions to those who were somewhat/moderately religious. The data suggests that the majority perceived dating relationships to be acceptable and not all were opposed to premarital sex. Consistent with many of the aforementioned participants, dating and premarital sex were perceived by some to be a personal choice. For example, Devi stated: "I think if someone chooses to have sex before marriage, it's totally fine ... I don't agree with how they hold us back I guess in some way to make our own independent decisions."

Others who were also accepting of dating and premarital sex did, however, put some restrictions on those activities. This is consistent with restrictions discussed by some of the Muslim and Christian participants as well as somewhat/moderately religious Hindus. Rajni's statement below is the first to imply that dating is fine when it is a healthy relationship. She stated: "Dating, I think it's okay as long as you're not obsessed with the person and just throwing away your life for that person." Another example of restrictions can be seen in Devi's statement below. She said: "If you're my age, you're old enough to do these things, you're old enough to make your own decisions.... Sexual relationships, they're fine as long as you're being safe about things." Rohan was another participant who perceived that premarital sex should not be casual and dating should occur at an appropriate age and maturity level. Likewise, Shankar also accepted dating and premarital sex with restrictions. For him, while dating does not have to be with only one person, it should not be serial dating and premarital sex should only occur within a committed relationship.

Shankar went even further than the previous participants by pointing out the importance of dating prior to marriage and was also more vocal about his criticisms of his heritage culture. Similar to one of the not religious Muslim males as well as a religious Hindu female, Shankar indicated that the rules are outdated and not practical or unrealistic today. He explained: "They [the rules] were put in place obviously for good reason, but when they put it in place, it's the whole other era ... it's not practical to follow that here." Govinda discussed dating as a personal choice in a manner consistent with Devi, however, similar to Shankar, Govinda was more critical in calling the rules "stupid." He stated: "Well like it's up to the person.... If you want to do it, go ahead like there's no sense being stopped over some stupid rule someone said years and years ago." Sanjay's opinions of his heritage culture's norms were also outspoken. He said: "Yeah, it's ridiculous. I wish everyone like in Toronto goes back to Sri Lanka and tells them 'you know what? You guys have to grow up' sort of thing. Like that's old school."

Unlike the other not religious Hindus, Sunil indicated that he understands the reasons behind not dating and did not suggest that he disagrees. When asked his opinion of his heritage culture's rules, he responded: "I think it's fair. Like it really doesn't bother me cause that's what they've become accustomed to. That's their culture like our, my culture. So, I don't really mind the rules. I'm just like okay well it kind of makes sense ... you should probably wait till you're married to have sex."

Hindu Participants' Intimate Relationship Experiences

Religious Hindus

The Hindus' experiences with cross-gender relationships were not consistent with the Muslims and Christians. Of the two religious female Hindus, one had an achieved ethnic identity indicating she was accepting and critical of different aspects of the heritage culture. She had a relationship and was not a virgin. The other had an explored ethnic identity, meaning she was critical of the heritage culture's norms. She had a relationship and was also not a virgin. Of the two religious male Hindus, both had unexamined ethnic identities because they were accepting and unquestioning of the heritage culture's norms. They had relationships, but were both still virgins.

Moderately Religious Hindus

Of the six somewhat/moderately religious female Hindus, one had an unexamined ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was a virgin. Four had achieved ethnic identities, had relationships, and were all not virgins. The last had an explored ethnic identity, did not have a relationship, and was a virgin. Of the three somewhat/moderately religious male Hindus, one had an achieved ethnic identity, had a relationship, but was a virgin. One had a blended, but explored ethnic identity, meaning he melded aspects of both the heritage and host cultures, but was critical of the heritage culture's norms. He had not been in a relationship, and was a virgin. The final had an explored ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was not a virgin.

Not Religious Hindus

Of the two not religious female Hindus, both had explored ethnic identities, one had a relationship and one did not, but both were virgins. Of the five not religious male Hindus, one had an unexamined ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was not a virgin. One had an achieved ethnic identity, had a relationship, and was also not a virgin. The final three had explored ethnic identities, all had relationships, but one was a virgin and two were not.

Summary of the Hindu Participants' Perceptions and Experiences

Contrary to trends identified amongst the Muslims and Christians, the aforementioned data does not suggest that there are clear distinctions in behaviours based on levels of religiousness among Hindus. This is especially evident when looking at the religious females as they were generally accepting of cross-gender intimate relationships. The gender differences evident amongst the Muslims in terms of virginity were not found amongst the Hindus (recall that the majority of females were virgins while the majority of males were not). The data shows that slightly more females in comparison to males were not virgins (six compared to five). Looking at ethnic identity, for the females, most of the not virgins had achieved ethnic identity. For the males, slightly more of those with an explored ethnic identity were not virgins in comparison to those with achieved or unexamined ethnic identities. Overall, the data indicates that more of the Hindu participants were not virgins (11 out of 20) when compared to Muslims (eight out of 20) and Christians (six out of 16).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The findings from our study indicate that among our participants, levels of acceptance of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships vary according to the intersection of various identities. Generally, among these participants, we see a gradual increase in acceptance of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships as we progress from Muslims to Hindus, with Christians falling in between. This was expected given the religious differences in norms surrounding intimate cross-gender relationships. The data also shows that, for these participants, different levels of religiousness influence behaviours and perceptions of intimate cross-gender relationships with lower levels of religiousness being predominately associated with greater approval of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships. Again, this is not surprising because research has consistently demonstrated that views on sexuality are linked to religiosity (Ahrold and Meston 2010, 190). Additionally, ethnic identity may also influence the participants' perceptions and experiences since we see patterns that suggest that those with more unexamined ethnic identities are less accepting of and less experienced with intimate cross-gender relationships. It was expected that those who identify more with the Western culture than Eastern cultures would be more tolerant and accepting of intimate cross-gender relationships as well as have more experiences with those relationships, as those activities are considered a normative part of growing up in Western societies (Ghuman 2003, 31). Finally, the female participants' experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships generally did not go as far as their male counterparts. Some were more reserved in offering their approval of intimate cross-gender relationships. This could be potentially explained by the primary role daughters' virginity plays in determining family honour within South Asian cultures (Chakraborty 2010, 1; Gillespie 1995; Varghese and Rae Jenkins 2009, 235). Within cultures valuing family honour, socialization teaches women that they are liable for "upholding the family's religious and cultural integrity" (Dwyer 2000, 478). Moreover, there are consequences for women who shame their family by having premarital relationships, such as poor arranged marriage prospects for the women and their family members (Abraham 2001, 133), increased parental control (Chakraborty 2010, 1), accelerated arranged marriages (Alexander et al. 2006, 144; Chakraborty 2010, 1), and being ostracized (Khan 2000).

It is the combination of these identities, however, that appears to shape the participants' perceptions of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships, which is consistent with past researchers' arguments that identities have different influences (Herberg 1960; Lenski 1961; Marty 1972). The individual identity does not have the same effect on perceptions and actions when interacting with another identity. For example, we did see that generally as religiousness increases, experiences with and approval of cross-gender intimate relationships decrease, but this was not the case when religiousness was combined with Hinduism. The various intersections create individual differences within the sample. This is suggested by the diversity of experiences and perceptions within each one of these identities depending on the combination of the other identities. For example, religious Muslim females with unexamined ethnic identities seemed to express the greatest disapproval of and lack of experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships generally. This is similar to Dhruvarajan's (1993) findings that religious females are more resistant to dating; it is the combination of being Muslim, religious, and female that influences the resistance towards actively pursuing intimate cross-gender relationships. Thus, it is not just being a Muslim, just being religious, just having an unexamined ethnic identity, or just being female that causes such perceptions or experiences. Rather, it seems that it is the intersection of these identities that shapes those perceptions and experiences. As previously explained, intersectionality is critical of assertions of a homogenous experience within groups. Our study has found support for the use of intersectionality when understanding perceptions and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships (i.e., dating and premarital sex). Contrary to the popular misconception that all South Asians are critical of dating and premarital sex, our study suggests that not all South Asians feel the same way about such activities. Furthermore, even within the religious groups, levels of religiousness, ethnic identity, and gender, there are variations in perceptions and experiences. In other words, not all Muslims held the same perceptions, not all religious participants felt the same, etcetera. It is the intersection of these identities that appears to lead to unique perceptions and experiences these youth face.

In summary, the results of this exploratory research clearly exemplify that perceptions and behaviours related to intimate cross-gender relationships amongst our participants are not shaped by just one identity. These findings point to the importance of giving adequate consideration to the intersections of gender, religion (including religiousness), and ethnic identity when examining perceptions of and experiences with intimate cross-gender relationships of South Asian youth. This can also be expanded to understanding second-generation's beliefs of and experiences with other issues that are sources of cultural conflict. Gender, religion, and ethnic identification can provide insight into why the second-generation follows more closely the norms of their families' origin countries or the settlement country. In the final analysis, dealing with varying intersecting identities has taught us about what is essential for "inclusive and effective research" (Hankivsky 2012, 7). Such analysis "encourages complexity, stimulates creativity, and avoids premature closure" (Davis 2008, 79).

Additionally, this research complements the growing literature on South Asian young adults in particular. Despite the common misconception that South Asians are not typically involved in these relationships, the current findings suggest that this may not be the case. Recognizing that South Asian young adults do take part in intimate cross-gender relationships can direct future research to the consequences of such relationships. For instance, future research can build on this by exploring familial conflicts and sexual health among South Asians. Moreover, research should be directed towards cultural competency in areas such as sexual health services as well as police and counseling services (particularly with respect to dealing with familial conflict and dating abuse).

REFERENCES

Abouguendia, M., and K. A. Noels. 2001. General and acculturation-related daily hassles and psychological adjustment in first- and second-generation South Asian immigrants to Canada. International Journal of Psychology 36.3: 163-173.

Abraham, Leena. 2001. Redrawing the lakshman rekha: Gender differences and cultural constructions in youth sexuality in urban India. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies 24.1: 133-156.

Abramson, Harold J. 1973. Ethnic diversity in catholic America. New York: Wiley.

Ahrold, Tierney K., and Cindy M. Meston. 2010. Ethnic differences in sexual attitudes of US college students: Gender, acculturation, and religiosity factors. Archives of sexual behavior 39.1: 190-202.

Akpinar, Aylin. 2003. The honour/shame complex revisited: violence against women in the migration context. Women's studies international forum 26.5: 425-442.

Alexander, Mallika, Laila Garda, Savita Kanade, Shireen Jejeebhoy, and Bela Ganatra. 2006. Romance and sex: pre-marital partnership formation among young women and men, Pune district, India. Reproductive health matters 14.28: 144-155.

Andersen, Margaret L., and Patricia Hill Collins. 1992. Race, class, and gender: An anthology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Ballard, Catherine. 1979. Arranged marriages in the British context. New Community 6.3: 181-197.

Basit, Tehmina N. 1996. "Obviously I'll Have an Arranged Marriage": Muslim Marriage in the British Context. Muslim Education Quarterly 13: 4-19.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Massachusetts: Polity Press.

Bogle, Kathleen A. 2008. Hooking up: Sex, dating and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.

Bograd, Michele. 1999. Strengthening domestic violence theories: Intersections of race, class, sexual orientation, and gender. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 25.3: 275-289.

Brah, Avtar, and Ann Phoenix. 2004. Ain't I A Woman? Revisiting Intersectionality. Journal of International Women's Studies 5.3: 75-86.

Cahill Sowle, Lisa. 1993. Sex, Gender and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chakraborty, Kabita. 2010. The sexual lives of Muslim girls in the bustees of Kolkata, India. Sex Education 10.1: 1-21.

Couture, Amanda, Arshia U. Zaidi, and Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale. 2012. Reflexive Accounts: An Intersectional Approach To Exploring The Fluidity Of Insider/Outsider Status And The Researcher's Impact On Culturally Sensitive Post-Positivist Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology Review VIII. 1: 86-105.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago. Legal F.: 139.

Das, Ajit K., and Sharon F. Kemp. 1997. Between two worlds: Counseling South Asian immigrants. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 25.1: 23-34.

Dasgupta, Shamita D. 1998. Gender roles and cultural continuity in the Asian Indian immigrant community in the US. Sex Roles 38.11: 953-974.

Davis, Kathy. 2008. Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist theory 9.1: 67-85.

Derogatis, Leonard R., and Nick Melisaratos. 1979. The DSFI: A multidimensional measure of sexual functioning. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 5.3: 244-281.

Dhruvarajan, Vanaja. 1993. Ethnic cultural retention and transmission among first generation Hindu Asian Indians in a Canadian prairie city. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 24.1: 63-79.

Dilworth, Richardson, and Kathryn Trevenen. 2004. When Cities Get Married: Constructing Urban Space through Gender, Sexuality, and Municipal Consolidation. Urban Affairs Review 40.2: 183-209.

Dion, Karen K., and Kenneth L. Dion. 2004. Gender, immigrant generation, and ethnocultural identity. Sex Roles 50.5: 347-355.

Dodd, Peter C. 1973. Family honor and the forces of change in Arab society. International Journal of Middle East Studies 4.01: 40-54.

Dolan, Jay P. 1972. Immigrants in the City: New York's Irish and German Catholics. Church History 41.3: 354-368.

Drachman, Diane, Young Hee Kwon-Ahn, and Ana Paulino. 1996. Migration and resettlement experiences of Dominican and Korean families. Families in Society 77: 626-638.

Dugsin, Romola. 2001. Conflict and Healing in Family Experience of Second-Generation Emigrants from India Living in North America. Family Process 40.2: 233-241.

Dwyer, Claire. 2000. Negotiating Diasporic Identities Among Young British South Asian Muslim Women. Women's Studies International Forum 23.4: 475-486.

Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliott. 1999. Unequal relations: an introduction to race, ethnic and aboriginal dynamics in Canada. Toronto: Prentice Hall.

Foner, Nancy. 1997. The Immigrant Family: Cultural Legacies and Cultural Changes. International migration review 31.4: 961-974.

George, Usha, and Sarah Ramkissoon. 1998. Race, gender, and class: Interlocking oppressions in the lives of South Asian women in Canada. Affilia 13.1: 102-119.

Ghosh, Ratna. 1984. South Asian women in Canada: Adaptation. South Asians in the Canadian mosaic: 145-155.

Ghuman, Paul S. 2003. Double loyalties: South Asian adolescents in the West. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1992. Human societies: An Introductory Reader in Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giguere, Benjamin, Richard Lalonde, and Evelina Lou. 2010. Living at the crossroads of cultural worlds: The experience of normative conflicts by second generation immigrant youth. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4.1: 14-29.

Gillespie, Marie. 1995. Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change. London: Routledge.

Gupta, Monisha Das. 1997. "What is Indian about you?" A gendered, transnational approach to ethnicity. Gender & Society 11.5: 572-596.

Hall, Stuart, David Held and Tony McGrew, eds. 1992. The question of cultural identity in Modernity and its Future. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Handa, Amita. 2003. Of Silk Saris and Mini-Skirts: South-Asian Girls Walk the Tightrope of Culture. Toronto: Women's Press.

Hankivsky, Olena. 2012. Women's health, men's health, and gender and health: Implications of intersectionality. Social Science & Medicine 74.11: 1712-1720.

Hardy, Sam A., and Marcela Raffaelli. 2003. Adolescent religiosity and sexuality: An investigation of reciprocal influences. Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology 26: 97.

Hennink, Monique, Ian Diamond, and Philip Cooper. 1999. Young Asian women and relationships: traditional or transitional? Ethnic and Racial Studies 22.5: 867-891.

Herberg, Will. 1960. Protestant-Catholic-Jew: An essay in American religious sociology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Huang, Frederick Y., and Salman Akhtar. 2005. Immigrant sex: the transport of affection and sensuality across cultures. The American journal of psychoanalysis 65.2: 179-188.

Inman, Arpana G. 2006. South Asian Women: Identities and Conflicts. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 12.2: 306-319.

Jibeen, Tahira. 2011. Moderators of Acculturative Stress in Pakistani Immigrants: The role of Personal and Social Resources. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35.5: 523-533.

Joseph, Janice. 2006. Intersectionality of race/ethnicity, class, and justice. Women, law, and social control: 292-312.

Khan, Shahnaz. 2000. Muslim Women: Crafting a North American Identity. Gainseville: University Press of Florida.

Lay, Clarry, and Thao Nguyen. 1998. The role of acculturation-related and acculturation non-specific daily hassles: Vietnamese-Canadian students and psychological distress. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 30.3: 172-181.

Lefkowitz, Eva S., Meghan M. Gillen, Cindy L. Shearer, and Tanya L. Boone. 2004. Religiosity, sexual behaviors, and sexual attitudes during emerging adulthood. Journal of Sex Research 41.2: 150-159.

Leiblum, Sandra, Markus Wiegel, and Frank Brickie Statistical Consultant. 2003. Sexual attitudes of US and Canadian medical students: The role of ethnicity, gender, religion and acculturation. Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18.4: 473-491.

Lenski, Gerhard E. 1961. The religious factor. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Leonard, Karen I. 2003. Muslims in the United States: The state of research. Albany: The University of New York Press.

Marcia, James E. 1966. Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of personality and social psychology 3.5: 551.

Marty, Martin E. 1972. Ethnicity: The skeleton of religion in America. Church History 41.1: 5-21.

Maticka-Tyndale, Eleanor. 2001. Twenty Years in the AIDS Pandemic: a place for Sociology. Current Sociology 49.6: 13-21.

--. 2008. Sexuality and sexual health of Canadian adolescents: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 17.3: 85-95.

Mattila, Anna S., Yorghos Apostolopoulos, Sevil Sonmez, Lucy Yu, and Vinod Sasidharan. 2001. The impact of gender and religion on college students' spring break behavior. Journal of Travel Research 40.2: 193-200.

Mattis, Jacqueline S., Nyasha A. Grayman, Sheri-Ann Cowie, Cynthia Winston, Carolyn Watson, and Daisy Jackson. 2008. Intersectional identities and the politics of altruistic care in a low-income, urban community. Sex Roles 59.5: 418-428.

McIrvin Abu-Laban, S. 1974. Arab-Canadian Family Life. Arab Studies Quarterly 1: 135-156.

Mewhinney, Dawn M., Edward S. Herold, and Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale. 1995. Sexual scripts and risk-taking of Canadian university students on spring break in Daytona Beach, Florida. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality 4: 273-288.

Moore, Susan, and Doreen Rosenthal. 1993. Sexuality in Adolescence. London: Routledge.

Naidoo, Josephine C. 1984. South Asian women in Canada: Self-perceptions, socialization, achievement aspirations. South Asians in the Canadian mosaic: 123-142.

Nesteruk, Olena, and Alexandra Gramescu. 2012. Dating and Mate Selection Among Young Adults from Immigrant Families. Marriage & Family Review 48.1: 40-58.

Okazaki, Sumie. 2002. Influences of culture on Asian Americans' sexuality. Journal of Sex Research 39.1: 34-41.

Paul, Elizabeth L., Brian McManus, and Allison Hayes. 2000. "Hookups": Characteristics and correlates of college students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research 37.1: 76-88.

Phinney, Jean S. 1989. Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence 9.1-2: 34-49.

--. 1990. Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological bulletin 108.3: 499.

--. 1992. The multigroup ethnic identity measure a new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of adolescent research 7.2: 156-176.

Purdie-Vaughns, Valerie, and Richard P. Eibach. 2008. Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles 59.5: 377-391.

Purkayastha, Bandana. 2005. Negotiating Ethnicity: Second-Generation South Asians Traverse a Transnational World. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Pyke, Karen. 2005. "Generational Deserters" and "Black Sheep": Acculturative Differences Among Siblings in Asian Immigrant Families. Journal of Family Issues 26.4: 491-517.

Rosenthal, Doreen A., and S. Shirley Feldman. 1992. The nature and stability of ethnic identity: A comparative study of Greek-Italian-, and Anglo-Australian adolescents. International Journal of Psychology 20: 723-742.

Rostosky, Sharon Scales, Mark D. Regnerus, and Margaret Laurie Comer Wright. 2003. Coital debut: The role of religiosity and sex attitudes in the Add Health Survey. Journal of Sex Research 40.4: 358-367.

Samad, Yunas. 2010. Forced marriage among men: An unrecognized problem. Critical Social Policy 30.2: 189-207.

Samuel, Lina. 2010. Mating, Dating and Marriage: Intergenerational Cultural Retention and the Construction of Diasporic Identities among South Asian Immigrants in Canada. Journal of Intercultural Studies 31.1: 95-110.

Sapru, Saloni. 1999. Parental practices and the identity development of adolescents. A study of Indian families in Delhi and Geneva. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Geneva.

Shapurian, Reza, and Mohammadreza Hojat. 1985. Sexual and premarital attitudes of Iranian college students. Psychological reports 57.1: 67-74.

Shariff, Aneesa. 2009. Ethnic Identity and Parenting Stress in South Asian Families: Implications for Culturally Sensitive Counselling. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy 43.1: 36.

Sherkat, Darren E. 2002. Sexuality and religious commitment in the United States: An empirical examination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41.2: 313-323.

Siemiatycki, Myer. 2011. Governing Immigrant City: Immigrant Political Representation in Toronto. American Behavioural Scientist 55.9: 1214-1234.

Smith, Timothy L. 1978. Religion and ethnicity in America. The American Historical Review 83.5: 1155-1185.

Sokoloff, Natalie J., and Ida Dupont. 2005. Domestic Violence at the Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender Challenges and Contributions to Understanding Violence Against Marginalized Women in Diverse Communities. Violence against women 11.1: 38-64.

Statistics Canada. 2008. Ethnic Diversity and Immigration. Canada Year Book Overview 2008. http:// www41.statcan.gc.ca/2008/30000/ceb30000_000-eng.htm.

--. 2010. Study: Projects of the Diversity of the Canadian Population. The Daily, http://www.stat can.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100309/dq100309a-eng.htm.

--. 2011. 2006 Census of Canada: Topic-based Tabulations/Generation Status. http://www12. statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/tbt/Rp-eng.cfm?LANG=E8iAPATH=3&DETAIL= 0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0&GID=0&GK=0&GRP=1&PID=89431&PRID=0&PTYPE=889 71,97154&S=0&SHOWALL=0&SUB=0&Temporal=2006&THEME=72&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNA MEF=.

Stopes-Roe, Mary, and Raymond Cochrane. 1990. The child-rearing values of Asian and British parents and young people: An inter-ethnic and inter-generational comparison in the evaluation of Kohn's 13 qualities. British Journal of Social Psychology 29.2: 149-160.

Stout, Harry S. 1975. Ethnicity: The vital center of religion in America. Ethnicity 2.2: 204-24.

Sullivan, Winnifred F. 2012. Paying the Words Extra: Religious discourse in the Supreme Court of the United States. Canadian Diversite 9.

Talbani, Aziz, and Parveen Hasanali. 2000. Adolescent females between tradition and modernity: Gender role socialization in South Asian immigrant culture. Journal of Adolescence 23.5: 615-627.

The United Nations. 2009. International Migration Report 2006: A Global Assessment. New York, NY: Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Tong, Yuying. 2012. Acculturation, gender disparity, and the sexual behavior of Asian American youth. Journal of Sex Research.

Triandis, Harry C. 1995. Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.

Umana-Taylor, Adriana J., and Mark A. Fine. 2004. Examining ethnic identity among Mexican-origin adolescents living in the United States. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 26.1: 36-59.

Varghese, Anita, and Sharon Rae Jenkins. 2009. Parental overprotection, cultural value conflict, and psychological adaptation among Asian Indian women in America. Sex roles 61.3: 235-251.

Yang, Fenggang, and Helen Rose Ebaugh. 2001. Transformations in new immigrant religions and their global implications. American Sociological Review: 269-288.

Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2006. Intersectionality and feminist politics. European Journal of Women's Studies 13.3: 193-209.

Wakil, S. Parvez, Chaudry M. Siddique, and F. A. Wakil. 1981. Between two cultures: A study in socialization of children of immigrants. Journal of Marriage and the Family: 929-940.

Zaidi, Arshia U., and Muhammad Shuraydi. 2002. Perceptions of Arranged Marriages by Young Pakistani Women Living in a Western Society. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 33.4: 495-514.

ARSHIA U. ZAIDI is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Her core research interests using quantitative and qualitative methods include: gender, race/ethnicity, intimate partner violence, marriage, and sexuality in immigrant families. Much of her research focuses on the present-day challenges facing South Asian youth in Canada.

AMANDA COUTURE-CARRON is a doctoral student in Sociology at the University of Toronto and a graduate of the Master of Arts program in Criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Her research interests include: intimate partner abuse among immigrant women and first- and second-generation immigrant experiences (e.g., post-migration challenges, acculturation, sexuality, etcetera).

ELEANOR MATICKA-TYNDALE holds a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Social Justice and Sexual Health at the University of Windsor. Focusing on sexual health and rights, particularly for marginalized and under-serviced groups, her research has led to over 150 publications, development of school curricula deployed over provinces and entire countries, changes in legislation, community programming, and changes in the delivery of health and counseling services.

MEHEK ARIF is a fourth year undergraduate student in the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities and is a research assistant at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.