Nayan Shah's book, 'Stranger Intimacy' examines the social history and backgrounds of South Asian migrant males in Canada and the American Northwest at the beginning of the 20th century. The unclear and fluid ideas of the age of consent, crime and human relationships introduce the concept of “legal boundaries” and how this has played a key role in the way legal bodies and officials have sought to define behavior and bonds “normal” and “correct”. among people. Shah further analyzes how the meaning of race and sexuality has been formed, controlled, and contested in this “borderland” of encounter and intimacy. Shah's study provides us with a narrow study of how the bodies of South Asian male migrants (largely Sikh with some Punjabi Muslims) have been racialized in terms of sexuality, heteronormativity, and foreignness. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayShah critically analyzes court cases, archival documents, property relationships, employment contracts, marriage contracts, and civil and criminal proceedings to describe what both secured migrants and living outside the bounds of the nation-state were like . This draws a parallel to Wendy Brown's article in which she mentions legal-liberal state legislature as the unlimited power of the state to protect white middle-class women who were willing to give up their powers to seek protection from the state. Shah further questions “three conceptual stabilizations” that pervade much historical scholarship, namely “permanence over transience,” “nuclear family,” and “polarized sexuality.” Shah examines legal cases through a close reading of court cases involving South Asian male migrants. and their difficulties with the justice system in the American Northwest, where they would be charged with sodomy, indecency, or a related crime of “criminal vagrancy.” The case of Samuel Robbins, a fifty-six-year-old white accountant accused of sexually harassing or assaulting sixteen-year-old Sidney, illustrates how the credibility of the “accomplice” depended on the circumstances and social status of the adult defendant in the alleged crime. The most interesting fact in this case is the fact that both males had white privilege, but despite this Robbins' defense was successful due to his white racial identity and respectable middle class status. Mrs. Nute's testimony, in this case, was also annulled by the court, as she was accused of "indiscretion" and had not witnessed the actual crime. Would it have been different if it had been the testimony of a white male rather than that of Mrs. Nute? In this context, age and class proved to be critical factors as respectable senior and white middle-class status served as symbols of “normal” masculinity and mentorship, thus contrasting with sexual predation. The whole “Big Brother act” idea mentioned by the judges during the trial describes how homosocial activities between white men-boys were perceived as natural, moral and “pedagogically” appropriate. Certainly, parallels could be found between the mention of the “big brother act” and the juridico-liberal state legislative power that includes the division of power into spheres and places the vulnerable part of society in a feminized position. In this case, judicial intervention upheld the reputation of a white, middle-class male and instead left Sidney to endure the trauma of.