A couple of you (thanks Eric) have sent us an article out today in the New York Times that follows up on the incident of the women police officers beating up on canoodling couples in an Indian park. At first I hesitated to even blog that story because it seemed like on of those “only in India” type off-beat news stories. Apparently though, it has caused a national uproar:
From the political right and left came condemnation of the police action. Brinda Karat, the most prominent woman representing a coalition of leftist parties in government, denounced the police for pouncing on courting couples while violent rapes remain unsolved. Sushma Swaraj, a legislator from the Hindu nationalist opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, took the podium in Parliament and called it a product of “a sick mind.” [Link]
Former SM pin-up girl PG writes not about the story, but about the headline of the article in the New York Times:
This appears to be the rare occasion on which I can criticize the NYT’s India coverage before any of the bloggers at SM does.“Is Public Romance a Right? The Kama Sutra Doesn’t Say”
has got to be one of the stupidest Orientalist headlines I’ve seen on the Times. The actual content of the story, written by Somini Sengupta with additional reporting by Hari Kumar, mentions absolutely nothing about the Kama Sutra.
Well PG, with Manish (our anti-Orientalist headline critic) out of the country we are glad that you caught it. I wonder if the Times keeps stats on whether it gets more hits on news stories that have “Kama Sutra” in the headline.
Rupa: My 16 year old cousin told me she lost her virginity when she was 14! Bit of a contrast eh? Although she’s known as the ‘wild child’ of our family and hence it’s obvious why she’s my favourite. Yeah I agree with you about sex ed in India – it’s not so much sex ed and no-sex ed. It’s like AMfD’s links up there ^
Sex education in India…what can I say, a nun came to our class and talked about changes in the body, starting with the mammary glands (class of 40 girls with said mammary glands sitting there absolutely clueless). Then she muttered something about the male anatomy including the what-goes-where bit and left it at that. The nun was a kind soul who must have been handed the “unpleasant” task by the principal and she did her best. I hope things have changed since then.
complete bollocks. you think there isn’t already “sex tourism” in india? and how is this different from the domestic “tourism” that takes place in red light districts and truck stops across the country?
blaming sexual-economic exploitation on some alleged lack of female morals is the oldest trick in the patriarchal book. it releases the patron/customer/exploiter from responsibility and supposes there in no economic context. two assumptions that can only lead to more exploitation.
(as an extra bonus, in the indian context, good luck fighting hiv/aids starting out from this premise.)
peace
Good point Sid and the same commenter also said:
Which I think belies a definite snobbery. I’d rather be a woman in America than India, that’s for sure.
I was just writing about Muslims burying their head in the sand when it comes to terrorism, denying a problem. It’s just occurred to me that this is no different, ostriches come in all shapes and sizes.
and of course the men are all absovled from all this … just keep the chicks in check!
Also am i the only one who doesn’t seem to meet any of these “promicuous, whorish” types – Indian, American whatever ….
siddhartha m:
It doesn’t release the ‘patron/customer/exploiter from responsibility’. It is the job of the patriarchal establishment to contain itself. I am assuming the exploiter is part of the patriarchal establishment. Therefore the full reponsibility goes to the patriarchal establishment.
You mean prostituition? Last time I heard, it was criminal.
explain plz.
Bong Breaker:
Guess you have different tastes. I would rather be a man.
Wondering:
colleges, schools whatever ….
Hur he hur hur.
Viponymous – why is female sexual activity so threatening that it needs to be wholly condemned.
wow!
wow!
wow!
sorry, just cant help saying
wow!
wow!
it is rare to come such a post – what a wonderful paradox. it is either brilliant sarcasm or head in the ass pontification. I’m trying to put words to the emotion… it’s like standing at the intersection of two roads right on the magnetic north pole and wondering which is the right direction south.
Wondering, I have nothing against female sexuality or sexuality in general. I was talking about pre-marital sex.
Also, regarding the original story, they were in a park . That’s as public as it gets. The society certainly has the right to intrude.
Well, seeing as how most female posters here are American women, Viponymous is out to offend as many as he can. You’re all WHORES! PROMISCUOUS WHORES!
They weren’t screwing each other in the park. They were kissing, at most. Are you now saying you’re in favour of the cops? Ah, the truth outs. At first I thought you were a bog-standard stuck-in-the-past prude. I wouldn’t want to speculate on your religious fervour, but I’d assume you were religious. Now I realise you’re a loon.
except no one was caught with their pants down. I’ve seen desi couples in the park and that aint a grope session.
I don’t want to see couples necking when I go the park. They can do it all they want in the bedroom thx.
They know people don’t like it, so why do it? They know cops are trying to stop them and it angered the radicals enough that they used violence themselves. Why did they still keep coming back? I am guessing it’s more of a political statement than anything but I don’t know, I am not there. Frankly, they deserve it for being so stupid.
Err. I read the article and apparently they were going after couples who are just sitting together. So I take some of what I said back.
Viponymous – that was a ridiculously offensive comment, even if I’m an Indian woman. There are many ignorant generalizations like this on both sides of the world, like how all Indians smell and Indian women are submissive and have no sense of identity besides their fathers or husbands. It’s all stupid and it’s all wrong.
M.Nam – interesting comments on the linked page. Not sure if you noticed that although you ended the comment with a statement about this not being about india vs the west, or anything religious, your comments are in fact drenched with “moral” vs “immoral” judgements and “…most indian families” or “…most american families”. On the other hand, I do actually agree with well-defined, ‘strict’ upbringing.
But isn’t it fortunate everyone isn’t brought up like you? The variety makes the world a much more interesting place.
Vip’ please RTFA first, especially if you’re going to come out with such strong statements that will inflame a good portion of the board… then we can pre-empt unnecessary hate and vitriol, and save it for really important topics like Salman Khan’s hairplugs. Plus it’s friday, just chill.
I’m not a hussy, I have an Iron Hymen. Libido-be-gone!
This is going to be a pretty long post by SM standards. I did not want to post my views on this topic because I am aware that most SM’ers claim to be having pm-sex, and most of them do not like anybody to pass any judgement on any private activity. So talking about my views here is more like talking about virtues of teetotalling in a bar. Wrong place. Wrong audience.
But what the heck. Others are passing judgment on me, so I have to defend myself.
GreenAngel and Abhi wrote:
It’s a common misconception that people who advocate celibacy till marriage are stiff-assed prudes and are usually religious fundamentalists who also advocate conformity and deride diversity. In the following arguments, I will attempt to disprove this notion. But first…
Rupa writes: >>I agree that premarital sex isn’t a sin
People who talk against pre-marital sex usually give one or more of the below reasons:
All of the above reasons are complete trash and need to be discarded with absolute contempt.
Before I give my reason against pm-sex, let me compare the Abrahamic notion of sex with the modern Hindu notion of sex and the Vedic(pre-Adi Shankara/Buddhist) notion of sex.
The Abrahamic notion of sex, is rooted in the old-testament, and like it’s monotheism (ONE God) tends to attribute the same character to sex (ONE reason).
All the above views are complete trash.
The modern(post Shankara) Hindu notion of sex is:
The above notion of sex is like a perfectly good piece of unopened chocolate-bar that you accidentally drop into the garbage. It’s a good idea in a bad setup.
The Vedic notion of sex considers race, language, culture, society, government, family, country as tangential effects – not cause. The cause is an individualistic one based on philosophy.
A human being is born into the world with both male and female gunas(qualities) in equal quantity. A child does not have the identity of a male or female. This identity is formed later in life and accelerates with puberty. By the late teens, women lose most/all of their male gunas and men lose most/all of their female gunas. This is a growth-defect, like polio, and needs to be corrected. The best and only(in most cases) way to do this is to have a close relationship with a member of opposite sex until you both achieve balance in each of your gunas. It’s a business transaction, without the monetory component. Everytime you have satisfying sex with your partner brings one step closer to realising your feminine self(for men) and masculine self(for women). And sex is just one way to accomplish this. Everytime a man helps his wife cook or changes the baby’s diapers, he comes one step closer to propping up the feminine in him. Everytime the wife helps the kids with the math homework or helps her husband change the oil or brake-pads on the car, she comes one step closer to her masculinity. Everytime a man watches “Sleepless in Seattle” or some other chick-flick, he is getting the same benefit as as his wife who watches “Saving Private Ryan” or the baseball game with him – they are awakening their opposite-sex potential.
The above activity is successful only when you start with the same partner and end with the same partner. That is, if you both are virgins and if both of you die in each other’s arms at a ripe old age. Children are a tool to help you in this endavour, a human tool which is useful not only for your emotional needs, but who will be useful to family, society, religion, country etc etc. These are all effects, and not the cause of sex.
What if you achieve balance midway? You really don’t need your spouse anymore. It was a business transaction and the product is delivered. What if you never diverge during puberty and you retain your balance of gunas that you had in childhood? These are all questions I’ve answered in this article.
Sex is just a form of energy that you expend to bring you closer to Brahman. It’s just a job. That’s covered in detail in another article here.
There is a strong relationship between sex and wealth. Money behaves exactly like a woman. That’s covered in yet another article here and the comments therein.
When I say pre-marital sex, it is marriage as defined by the individual – not as defined by society, religion, government or the neo-cons. Define marriage for yourself. It may be just giving a rose. Or it may be an elaborate ritual around the fire with 5000 guests. Marry according to your own definition, and then do what you please.
Now I hope people realise why I am against pre-marital sex. And btw, I’m no stiff assed, high-strung prude. That’s because my views are based on concepts that are true for all races, religions, countries, cultures for all time to come, unless the human evolves from his present state. I’ll dance circles around any of you to a bhangra beat – trust me!
M. Nam
Moornam,
blockquote>are usually religious fundamentalists who also advocate conformity and deride diversity. In the following arguments, I will attempt to disprove this notion.
With all due respect, rather than disproving the negative stance some SM participants may have on your views, you may well have actually confirmed it, with the following sentence:
Not everybody is necessarily going to agree that the Hindu concepts you’ve mentioned are valid (including other Hindus, both liberal and conservative). Especially the contents of your post from “Children are a tool to help you in this endeavour….” onwards.
However, it has provided a revealing insight into explaining your position on various matters.
Moornam,
With all due respect, rather than disproving the negative stance some SM participants may have on your views, you may well have actually confirmed it, with the following sentence:
Not everybody is necessarily going to agree that the Hindu concepts you’ve mentioned are valid (including other Hindus, both liberal and conservative). Especially the contents of your post from “Children are a tool to help you in this endeavour….” onwards.
However, it has been a revealing insight into explaining your position on various matters.
MNam… Please don’t trash religions or beliefs that you don’t agree with, you really should know better. You’re certainly entitled to your own beliefs. And I am certainly entitled to mine.
Jai,
These are not Hindu beliefs just as e=mc2 is not Jewish science. These are fundamental truths (which cannot be proved in a scientific setup).
Regarding children: I did not mean to de-emotionalise the little bundles of joy! I used tool due to a lack of proper word. Probably “means” would have been a better choice.
M. Nam
MoorNam,
You’re risking triggering an inter- and intra-religious “flame war” on this thread. These may be “fundamental truths” from the perspective of a Hindu — or, more accurately, a Hindu who shares this particular religiously-derived interpretation of the matters you’ve mentioned — but they are not necessarily “fundamental truths” from the perspective of people of other religious affiliations (or none).
You’re basically saying that your own worldview on this issue is the “correct” one; however, the point is that this is not necessarily factually correct, even though you may believe so and even though you are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinion.
O hymen, o hymenee.
O HYMEN! O hymenee!
Why do you tantalize me thus?
O why sting me for a swift moment only?
Why can you not continue? O why do you now cease?
Is it because, if you continued beyond the swift moment, you would soon certainly kill me?
Jai writes: >>religiously-derived interpretation of the matters you’ve mentioned
What religiously derived interpretation? Did I use the words God or Krishna or Gita to justify my position?
Which part of my interpretation do you disagree with? The part about gunas? The divergence? And why do you disagree?
Fundamental truths can be debated upon.
M. Nam
MoorNam,
I believe your exact words were: “The Vedic notion of sex considers race, language, culture, society, government, family, country as tangential effects – not cause. The cause is an individualistic one based on philosophy.”
I am presuming that everything you wrote after that is based on your interpretation of various Vedic concepts. The Vedas are Hindu texts, correct ?
I’m afraid I disagree with everything from the part discussing gunas right down to the comparison between money and women.
It’s a combination of common sense, personal life-experience, and serious ethical/moral objections to several of the key points you’ve made, although there are certain associated tenets regarding my own religious affiliation which also have a different stance on these issues and which happen to be in line with my own viewpoint. The latter is something I hesitate to bring to this particular table as it risks subsequently turning matters into a “my religion vs your religion” argument, and in any case one should not blindly believe in something purely because one’s own religious texts say so; personal experience and honest critical analysis are also very important.
All the above views are complete trash. (refering abrahamic religious views) …. The Vedic notion of sex considers race, language, culture, society, government, family, country as tangential effects – not cause. The cause is an individualistic one based on philosophy.
Your complete dismissal of non-vedic notions itself is enough affirmation to your bigotry.
in any case one should not blindly believe in something purely because one’s own religious texts say so; personal experience and honest critical analysis are also very important.
Jai, I agree with you – one’s own critical thinking is far more important than adhering to a text that spoke to a community of thousands of years ago.
I have debated before that sex with any person other than one’s opposite-gender spouse is destructive to society.
Well, there are as many Hinduisms as Hindus, and thank Brahman for that! The smritis are a prescriptive/idealized account of the orthodox Brahmanic position on family life, and–most importantly–can be changed/modified with the zeitgeist. “Hindu” mores are also geography dependent: a Hindu in Bali is undoubtedely more relaxed about sex than a Hindu in Trinidad, who is more relaxed than a Hindu in Rajasthan.
Regarding gay Hindus, here is an interview with the most prominent gay activist in India.
And here is a book review he wrote on a recent queer studies volume.
This is a different perspective on gayness and sex, but also a Hindu one. ARK also supports the Hindu Nationalists in India. On nationalist listservs, he is never called up or derided for being a homosexual. Such a phenomenon as him would not be possible in any other “right-wing” aggregation.
why are you guys insistent on forcing your values on to the rest of us. who cares man. you are all winners. just think pleasant thoughts for the next little while … axually i’m taking a cab to the airport in like hmmm… 32 minutes… WWooHhoo. i still get a thrill going to india… and then the joy of coming back… i want to kiss the ground when i land at pearson … my ardour is very public… my arousal less so… see .. it is possible to walk the fine line
No. Vedas are texts written by Hindus. They are works of philosophy and as such can be followed by anybody. Very similiar to Plato or Aristotle. It’s not based on blind belief. Please read up on the difference between Shruti and Smriti.
Nonsense. Dismissal based on reason and debate does not constitute bigotry.
Who’s forcing anything? Feel free to skip reading my comments!
Why not? Nothing’s beyond reproach, especially if it defies reason. When people claimed that the earth was round and that it went around the sun, they were in effect trashing religious beliefs that they didn’t agree with.
M. Nam
Nonsense. Dismissal based on reason and debate does not constitute bigotry.
well, I don’t see any reason when you proclaim vedas to provide the ‘fundamental truth’ about marriage. Do you also agree with the vedic notions of Brahmacharya (even thinking about opposite sex is forbidden!) and Sanyasa as well? There are elements of truth in various religions and philosophies, but when you start saying that the non-vedic notions are trash, while there are issues (say celebacy) that you disagree with even in certain vedic concepts, you are clearly being bigoted.
najeeb writes:
I did not say that about everything. There are some fundamental truths in all religions(some more so than others) and I recognise them.
However, when it comes to pre-marital sex, the reasons given(against pm-sex) by non-vedic paths are crap.
What is your notion of pre-marital sex? Is it wrong? Why? Why not?
M.Nam
“… That’s because my views are based on concepts that are true for all races, religions, countries, cultures for all time to come, unless the human evolves from his present state.”
And this view is based upon?
I say we have a bhangra dance-off to see who’s right – you just lemme know when and where MoorNaam!
What is your notion of pre-marital sex? Is it wrong? Why? Why not?
I think there is nothing wrong with it as long as the people involved in are responsible – meaning they take enough precautions to not have children unless they are willing to look after them for a long time. I don’t guide my life with any sacred text, but my own consciousness and practical reasoning. I find the vedic notions of Brahmacharya and Sanyasa as unnatural while I see Judeo/Christian/Islamic notions of ‘sex for reproduction’ animalistic. From the evolution stand point, marriage solved a lot of problems for societies where men were away from women on work and women stayed faithful to their husbands. The rivalries between clans reduced when men-women formed exclusive bonds and societies started respecting that. in that sense, marriage has practical values in society, though the old reasons have lost much of its value in the modern times. But, I am not going to say that it is the best thing to do for everyone. If one cannot stay faithful to his/her partner or can’t put effort into bringing up children, may be the best thing for them is to stay unmarried. but are you saying they shouldn’t have sex then? come on, give me a break.
Moornam,
There is a difference between theoretical philosophising and works of divine inspiration. There may well very often be an overlap between the two (in terms of the “driving force behind the scenes”), but philosophy without genuine divine inspiration is potentially just guesswork and/or flawed/biased reasoning based on certain individuals’ subjective viewpoints, and does not necessarily fall under the banner of “universal, fundamental truths.”
Works of pure philosophy are perfectly fine to read if one views them from a purely academic perspective, but if one is looking for “real”, all-encompassing truths, they may not necessarily be the best source of guidance. Not entirely, anyway. And especially if one is discussing extremely sensitive moral issues, where the viewpoint of a genuinely saintly person would be a better source of guidance than a postulating philosopher would may well be highly intelligent and know how to make his opinions appear to be rational and coherent within the framework of his ideas, but who may not have the requisite moral/ethical authority.
I agree, but the issue is not specifically what you are saying, it is the manner in which you are saying it. Religious matters can be extremely sensitive issues for the people who hold them sacred, and although one should indeed question the tenets concerned if one genuinely disagrees with them and feels that there is going to be a tangible benefit of voicing one’s concernes, it is important to choose one’s words with care. It’s possible to make your point effectively and diplomatically, rather than being unnecessarily blunt and insensitive. It is also possible to promote the perceived benefits of one’s own theological/philosophical worldview without having to resort to simultaneous attempts to disparage and debunk other religions. And by the way, there are other monotheistic faiths in the world which are neither Abrahamic nor “Vedic”.
Moornam, my thoughts on your earlier post are as follows:
No. Children are not a “tool” or “means” full-stop. They are fully-valid human beings in their own right and do not exist to “help you re-balance your gunas, realise ‘Brahman'” and so on. The latter may well be by-products depending on your attitude towards your children and the psychological/emotional/spiritual impact they have on you, but they do not exist specifically for this purpose. If one is going to refer to this issue in spiritual terms then children are a gift from God and “on loan” to you during the course of your lifetime — meaning you don’t “own” them, but it’s your job to be loving, supportive parents towards them, to give them the psychological tools they need to succeed in their own lives, and (again, if one is going to refer to religiously-related issues) to assist them in becoming more spiritually-aware if possible.
No. Marriage is by no means a “business transaction”, and it is this attitude which has wreaked havoc within many quarters of Indian society for a very long time indeed. You ideally marry the other person because you care for each other very deeply (ideally to the extent of literally being soulmates), because having each other in your lives enriches your existence, because you are both a genuine source of support, compassion, and companionship for each other, and (from a spiritual perspective) the emotional & psychological impact you have on each other is such that it makes both of you essentially nicer people and increases your spiritual awareness. Your spouse is certainly not a “use and dispose” tool, where you “cancel the contract” once you have allegedly “achieved balance”.
No. It depends on the specific motivations as to why one is having sex with the other person, the internal attitude one has towards the other (eg. is there genuine goodwill and empathy involved, or are they just completely ‘using’ each other with little compassion and basic human respect involved), the dynamics of the romantic relationship, and the level of egotism involved within each individual. It’s also a very strong method for mutual emotional bonding — but again, it depends on what each participant is like as a person. Having sex per se is not going to automatically bring anyone closer to ‘Brahman’ (the latter is obviously your terminology, not mine).
No, this is completely wrong, and — somewhat ironically — is also something that some “social engineers” have tried to promote in recent times, although the view is now changing. Children certainly do have both ‘male’ and ‘female’ qualities, but to state that they are both in equal proportion in newborn children, or indeed that the child has no gender identity in its formative years, is completely wrong. Anybody who has actually had children could tell you that, along with medical doctors with a sufficient amount of experience in neonatal medicine and paediatrics (like my father).
With regards to pre-marital sex, regardless of whatever certain religions may supposedly state as the “official” reason why one should not indulge in it, I think it’s common sense that the primary reason is to mitigate the risk pregnancy, especially when you consider that effective contraception was not available to most of the world until relatively recently. The potential adverse psychological/emotional/spiritual effects are valid in some cases but secondary, and depend on what the particular individual is like, their motivations for having pre-marital sex, and their attitude towards the people they have sex with. Different situations will have different effects on different people.
*risk pregnancy
Typo: Should say “risk of pregnancy”.
jai:
Children are fully valid human beings – which is why they can aid you in realising your completeness – which is why they need to be nurtured and cared for! They have to attain Niravana too!
It has wreacked havoc because people have made into a monetory business transaction – which is completely against what I wrote!
Social Engineers have tried to force this issue in public schools hence it has backfired.
As for other points: empathy, understanding etc… I think you came to the discussion with a pre-conceived notion that I was wrong.
M. Nam
Moornam,
You’re right, but I wasn’t referring to just that. Indians also marry for blatantly “political” reasons, status, and so on. It’s not always about money if both the man and the woman are relatively equal earners.
I think that the phrase “male and female qualities” is a difficult concept. Men and women may — very broadly-speaking — have some different tendences as per their genders, especially due to the differences of the relative levels of sex hormones they produce (testosterone etc) and the impact these hormones subsequently have on their brains; however, beyond a certain point I disagree with the idea of certain qualities being inherently either male or female. Courage and compassion respectively, for example, are positive human qualities and not specific to either men or women, despite the stereotype, even if the outer manifestation of these virtues sometimes differs between the genders. Ultimately you just have “positive” and “negative” qualities. One’s soul has no gender, after all.
You’ll have to clarify exactly which part of my posts you’re referring to with regards to “empathy, understanding etc”. However, in terms of your second statement, I’m afraid you’re mistaken, buddy 😉 I had no preconceptions whatsoever, and only based my responses after reading through your various posts on this thread along with the various links you’ve provided. My earlier comments after your long post — no. 68 — were actually an attempt to help you (due to your comment about believing you were being attacked here), as you risk being ambushed on this thread by other, significantly more hostile, participants.
India is not an exception…
Two Kiss in Church, Are Ejected
People were angry at this outright desecration of the church.
Mexico hotel ejects two men for kissing
A gay couple was tossed out of a Los Cabos resort hotel for sharing a kiss in the pool.
Gay man stopped for kissing in public in Britain
A gay man has complained after he was approached by a security guard who told him to stop kissing another man.
Moscow considers kissing ban “Our children are getting love lessons all day long from what they see around them,” Ms Maksimova said.
Indonesia to ban kissing in public
Travellers caught kissing in public in Indonesia could face five years in jail. A new anti-pornography bill proposes a ban on “kissing on the mouth in public” and on “public nudity, erotic dances and sex parties”.
http://www.seiyaku.com/customs/kiss.html
# First, public kissing is frowned upon by Japanese (and Chinese and many other cultures). It is seen as bad etiquette to do certain private activities in public. Conversely, loudly slurping food is not considered impolite in those countries, although it sends westerners insane. The world would be much poorer if we didn’t have these cultural differences. What all the different human cultures do agree on though, is that homo-sapiens are one cut above other animals, and having ‘rules of etiquette’ is one way of showing this. To break one of these ‘rules’, for example kissing in public, is considered bad form.
Secondly, although kissing is a very natural activity (as explained above), many people in the East believe it was an import from the West. To use a kiss in a wedding ceremony in Japan is to show that the couple chooses to use a style that is thought to be non-Japanese, giving perhaps a more exotic image to the ceremony. (See western-style wedding in Japan for suggestions about why people choose this style of wedding.)