From the same article: Even so, the reprimands did not stop Hindu radical activists here from storming Gandhi Park three days after the episode and, taking the law into their own hands, beating up the small handful of couples who had dared to return. The following day, Gandhi Park was empty, save the birds chattering in the trees.

It laughable to see the Hinduvta crowd co-opting Islamic/Victorian values and conflating them with 'Hindu values'.

Also from the same article: Getting up from her bench, Priyanka said she walked in the direction of the commotion when a police officer, Ms. Gautam, as it turned out, pounced on her and accused her of being a prostitute.
What is more, Priyanka said, the policewoman slapped her and called her a "chamari," a slur based on her caste. (Ms. Gautam denied making the remark.)

How did the police officer find out by pouncing on Priyanka that she was of a lower caste?
Hopefully the police officer got charged with assault/battery for slapping the girl.

Hopefully the police officer got charged with assault/battery for slapping the girl.

Ha, fat chance.

I just don't get the mentality of these Hindutvadis (or anyone else) who go out of their to beat up couples. Coppers like to flex the muscles, but regular citizens taking time to knock about couples - the mind boggles. Let's say, for example, I HATED clowns. I wouldn't go to circuses and start beating them up, I'd just tell everyone they're scum. What actually motivates someone to go and assault people who are actually very similar to them? People may say it's the same mentality as lynching of black people etc but this seems so weird, in today's time.

Couple of things strike me here 1) The valuation of private/public space 2) The role of love/desire in popular media. Cambridge University Press put out a volume (here) looking at some of these issues from a historical perspective. I spoke with one of the authors (Perveez Mody) at a seminar once and she had some interesting things to say about the way love, especially in the context of marriage, is still largely perceived as a threat to the stability of caste/class lines.

They're fighting a losing battle (the conservatives, I mean). Indian society is inevitably heading to sexual openness at least in relation to before. I think the process will be complete when the people who actually DO indulge in 'non-traditional' sex (pre-marital, for instance) actually be able to talk openly about it, and also stop being hypocritical about it themselves. I'm sick of the typical "pre-marital sex is ok, but I don't/won't do it", or the "pre-marital sex is wrong in general, I did it coz I was REALLY in love" statements I keep getting from Indians of my generation.

I actually thought the KS statement was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Again, feel free to accuse me of being an ignorant FOB who has not read enough Said, but it does have a point. The very existence of the Kama Sutra usually ends up being evidence for liberals of early Indian sexual openness, and many conservatives virtually consider it an embarrassment and aberration in Indian culture. But in this case of "public romance", that kind of KS-justification does not exist, so Indian liberals have to find some other basis for arguing why public romance and how much of it should be allowed. The usual argument of "even the Kama Sutra and images on ancient temples show this" doesn't quite work.

If only the Kama Sutra were always consulted for other forms of modern Indian ... ummm ... extracurricular activities. That's a pretty daft headline alright.

I love it when guests pull my copy of the Kama Sutra out of the bookshelf and discover (to their dismay) that it's all words, i.e. Vatsyayana translated, instead of pictures.

don't get the mentality of these Hindutvadis (or anyone else) who go out of their to beat up couples

I don't think beating on couples is so much a Hindutva thing, as much as it an anger management problem. All violent people are not religious fundamentalists just as all fundies are not violent. However, extremism does tend to attract people with issues.

Maitri, you said exactly what was on my mind... had I not refreshed the page before including my comments, we would have two comments with exact same intentions!

I don't think beating on couples is so much a Hindutva thing, as much as it an anger management problem. All violent people are not religious fundamentalists just as all fundies are not violent. However, extremism does tend to attract people with issues.

It's not the government's job to police private behaviour. Here's a related incident...

M. Nam

Sure Maitri, that's why I said anyone else. But it's undoubtedly been the religious right/Hindutva brigade who've been leading the moral police's renewed fervour in India. A large proportion of Muslims have been conservative for years. But it is in recent times that Hindus, previously predominantly laissez-faire, have found an element within them galvanised to the SINFUL YOUTH! They've taken it upon themselves to prudify India.

What I mean is, people in positions of authority have been doing the same things for a long time. But the general public getting het up over kissing couples AND ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING is a new phenomenon. In the past they would have scolded and tutted...or called the police.

If only the Indian police force worked as hard to actually protect and serve Indian citizens...that would be a nice change. And policewomen are worse then their male counterparts; they have no sympathy for women who come in to report sexual harassment. They will still ask you questions about what you were wearing as if that has anything to do with it.

Moornam: There is a lot of scientific research out there which has conclusively proven beyond a nano doubt that homosexuality will lead to the destruction of any society.
So the government should prosecute these sodomoties to the fullest extent of the law.

*I meant sodomites.

AMFD:>>Moornam: There is a lot of scientific research out there which has conclusively proven beyond a nano doubt that homosexuality will lead to the destruction of any society.
So the government should prosecute these sodomoties to the fullest extent of the law

You're joking, right?!!

M. Nam

No, I am not kidding nor will I ever kid about something which can/will destroy America.
Here are some tips which will help you if you have kids.

Well PG, with Manish (our anti-Orientalist headline critic) out of the country we are glad that you caught it.

I hope to uncover everyoneŽs inner Orientalism critic.

Then for a sequel I'll publish a novel called Hullaballoo in the Mango Grove. There will be hennaŽd hands on the cover. I'll claim the publisherŽs art department overruled me and commit hara kiri with a Persian samosa.

These people are acting like some morality police from Saudi Arabia or Iran. And the mad police woman - can you imagine how frustrated she must be? Put a petty failure in a uniform and look at the petty tyrant that comes out. Would it be sexist to say that she needs to get laid?

Pablo, I agree. (and no, it doesn't sound sexist since it was exactly what i thought too of how to calm the woman officer's frustrations.) there must be a few hundred different outlets on how to efficiently use their time rather than heckling young lovers in a park. personally, i wonder why they felt the need to harass young college students rather than chasing hardened criminals. what are a few innocent kisses and pda action in public?! the irony of it is that little is done about the filmi business which seems to show more eyebrow raising flesh yet people passively watch. (it'd be nice to see a film with quality content and plot lines rather than quantity of vapid actors and actresses parading around with no clothes on, but that's just me.)

i'm skeptical about whether these "values" that they try enforcing could be claimed as hindu or otherwise, since it seems to be more of a societal issue of rigidity rather than reading into the philosophy. don't they have bigger fish to fry? pansies.

AMFD:

I have debated before that sex with any person other than one's opposite-gender spouse is destructive to society.

Having said that...I disagree that it is government's job to handle societal issues. Government's job is to make sure that nobody violates anybody else's rights. Two gays in Lucknow do not violate my right. So the govt. has no right to act against them. Same goes for the lovers in the part in Meerut.

M. Nam

Can you imagine how bitter and twisted their souls must be, full of envy, to see young men and women holding hands, in love, flirting? Rotten to have nothing but bitterness in your heart like that.

Moor Nam

I have debated before that sex with any person other than one's opposite-gender spouse is destructive to society

You're not kidding! This is the title of your essay:

Premarital Sex - a Cancer to Desi Civilization

Dont hold back man! Tell it like it is!

Pablo,

I did not write the article (although I wish I did!). I only commented on it.

M. Nam

Pablo...ahh...i could suggest some Stevie Wonder songs to get 'em in the mood --- "you are the sunshine of my life", "cherie amour" --- better yet, some Isaac Hayes. yeah. that's enough to melt any postal worker on the verge of a breakdown. ;)

as for premarital sex....*gasp* :)

(maybe not so)random question: how many babies are born per minute in the world?

Moornam: I was of course kidding about homosexuality. I am presuming you did not click on my tip.

You have confused me though, as I am not sure if you were kidding when you said this,

I have debated before that sex with any person other than one's opposite-gender spouse is destructive to society.

How far the times editor will go to make headlines juicy? Seriously.

For the record, people who have not clicked on my tip, I was only mocking the Christian Right and apparently the Muslims for their views on homosexuality.
I guess its only funny when Stephen Colbert mocks the religious right :(
Shout out to all the Colbert Report fans!

I'm so torn: While I bow down to Edward's Said scholarship and output...I also find it hard to fault lazy media that makes reference to the Kama Sutra, therein presupposing and reinforcing my supposed sexual prowess by virtue of ancestry.

And it's not often I laff out loud while read Sepia but today was such a day:

I have debated before that sex with any person other than one's opposite-gender spouse is destructive to society.

God, I wish I knew how to quit you!

here, here for the Colbert report. the link had me on the floor, debauched one.

Pre-marital sex is ABHORRENT. Soon afterwards, I found myself developing chancres and boils all over my body. My testes fell off and I began to grow a hump on my back. The poor girl victim co-sinner soon died a horrible, painful, lonely death. The sin itself was a distressing, un-Godly experience. O Lord, why did I stray from your path?

Kids, DON'T DO IT.

I'm enjoying reading this thread. Please continue.

Premarital Sex - a Cancer to Desi Civilization

The traditional Hindu arranged marriage system presupposed a YOUNG marriage...nowadays parent's expect their kids to get an education, and then a graduate education, and then a job, before settling in the the sub-casted, gotra- and horoscope-compatible mate of your choice. Its no wonder that the traditional system is failing miserably. People are not meant to go sexless until 32 ( and they're not; they're groping women on buses and visiting prostitutes). This is not to say the western system where losing your virginity at 15 ( American average) is optimal, but Indian culture will need to accomodate overt premarital sex in some way.

When are our filmi copycats gonna cover Brokeback Mountain...The only man in Bollywood who's got the acting chops to play Ennis Del Mar is Vivek Oberoi.
You heard it here first, kids.

For those who actually read my comment: Which part(s) of it do you disagree with?

All (or at least most) of you are products of the lifestyle that I advocate - if anyone among you has parents who has slept with a person other than the opposite-gender spouse, please raise your hand.

M. Nam

Premarital Sex - a Cancer to Desi Civilization

Is the above a joke? or someone seriously thinks that Indian Civilization has a problem of premarital sex??

There is a lot of scientific research out there which has conclusively proven beyond a nano doubt that sex with any person other than one's opposite-gender spouse is destructive to society.
I encourage all young boys to take the Abstinence-Only Pledge so that the boy can his virgin penis for his future wife.
For girls I recommend another version of the same Abstinence-Only Pledge.

Good point Eddie - just about ALL cultures have increased their average age of marriage as they've modernised. Men staying virgins until they're 30 can frequently manifest itself in the behaviour you mention - groping up women and visiting hookers. Women have less trouble keeping their desires in check - but I would not want to second-guess what women think about pre-marital sex today. I personally think that both sexes are better off going into a marriage having experienced what sex is and knowing that they are sexually compatible.

At the risk of sounding crass, not having sex while you're young is a tragedy. We have contraception these days, so there should be no taboo attached to extra-marital sex. The taboo comes from a time when sex = kids. SAFE sex is nothing to be ashamed of and I'm sick of people sermonising and making others feel guilty about something perfectly normal. No matter how much sex you have, when you get older (and I already feel like I'm in the older category) you'll wish you had more.

Wrong forum for this discussion...

M. Nam

if anyone among you has parents who has slept with a person other than the opposite-gender spouse, please raise your hand.

I raise my hand sheepishly (sorry dad!) and I came out just fine except for this proclivity of mine for destructive behaviors like these.

AMfD you have all the cool links! I'm really trying to hard to figure out if that's a spoof. I honestly can't tell!

Ah, I've read the girls' one. Nothing with this passage can be real:

I used to suffer terribly from dirty dreams about boys. Thankfully, now my Iron Hymen Libido-Be-Gone™ thong panties keep my dreams clean – and my yucky cooter bone-dry!

Women have less trouble keeping their desires in check - but I would not want to second-guess what women think about pre-marital sex today.

Bong, I could be wrong but you may have stepped on a landmine here.

Wrong forum for this discussion...

Come on Moornam. Just between us. Is BB right when he says:

No matter how much sex you have, when you get older (and I already feel like I'm in the older category) you'll wish you had more.

In all honesty can you tell me that the various positions you have staked out in this forumn might not be a little bit more, relaxed shall we say, if your youth had been a bit more...licentious? Do I presume too much? :)

Only posting this because Abhi deserves the courtesy of a reply...

>>In all honesty can you tell me that the various positions you have staked out in this forumn might not be a little bit more, relaxed shall we say, if your youth had been a bit more...licentious?

Maybe. Maybe not. But if I were relaxed, then I wouldn't add any value to the discussion, would I? I would just nod my head vigorously to everthing that's being said. Where's the fun in that?

I come on this forum (as many others) to learn and teach. In this respect, I don't think any of you can teach me something that I don't know. However, Anna's Friday contest - that's something else!

M. Nam

Moornam: Dude, I am only kidding with you. Its all in good fun.

Abster (that could be an exercise machine), I did actually type something else after that phrase you've put in bold, to explain a bit - but deleted it in order to be more concise (I figure the shorter a comment, the more people read it). I just mean that women don't violate men when they're feeling horny anywhere near as often as vice versa. When I say 'violate' I don't mean rape in this instance, I just mean feeling up. Japan, India, Singapore, Iran - all different countries which look down upon pre-marital sex (with notable pockets in the community being exceptions) and all have a culture of girls getting groped by guys in the tube/bus etc. This is a whole different issue and of course there are biological differences between how the sexes manifest their libidos etc etc.

Don't take anything I say too seriously right now as I'm high on some weird energy drink and exhausted having just been to the gym for the first time in months.

I like your last line Abhi!

I am proposing that residents around merut to create a new festival. a large number of couples should march onto merut public park next year on that date and start making out. Its public defiance ofcourse.
Another advice for the up delegation for 26 January floats is to have a reanactment of the मोटी भेँस slapping girls.
Some one will need to stuff their pants with pillows for that.

Guru Gulab Khatri, hear hear!! I take it you saw the video.

Man what shit was that - and something almost scarier was how out of tune the police was with the rest of humans in the country when it hatched the plan. Evidently they brought a news crew along to give them an exclusive of police cleaning up the parks of amourous indecency and hence earning kudos. And the f**ked up b**ch polices joked and slapped girls on camera. I mean how inhumane is the law-order enforcement entity that it would completely misjudge the impending reaction when planning their atrocity! And it to me raises a few other disturbing observations - that police doesn't have the balls to go after criminals, so takes it out and feels good after abusing lawful citizenry. To think that the SP and other officers planned the event instead of reducing crime and corruption in the city is terrible.

Indians are terrible hypocrites when it comes to sex. Indian tv/films are one step from full on nudity, and many steps ahead of anyone in the world on suggestive visuals. Yet in Meerut couples dare not hold hands in public! Daing! There needs to be real legal payback to such taliban behavior.

By the way women sleep around as much as men. (Indian men love to think otherwise.) Premarital activity is almost equal, but females sensibly lie low and say nuffin'. If you have boarding schooled parents rest assured they have necked with the same sex. At least same sex pre marital necking does not produce kids. Usually in these parks, it is not handholding.... Perhaps the born-again American missionaries should enter Meerut and agree warmly with the local brahmins/mullahs/butchpolicewomen about the moral turpitude of today's young. All warmly united in disapproval of their young.

When are our filmi copycats gonna cover Brokeback Mountain...The only man in Bollywood who's got the acting chops to play Ennis Del Mar is Vivek Oberoi. You heard it here first, kids.

Actually, we heard it here first. Sepia volunteers?

Whats up with all the slapping ? The slaps were flying around like jalebis!

We have contraception these days, so there should be no taboo attached to extra-marital sex. The taboo comes from a time when sex = kids. SAFE sex is nothing to be ashamed of...

Hmm.. BB I like the way you think but I've got to get all Pollyanna for a second. I agree that premarital sex isn't a sin and all sex should be safe but what about mutually respectful and caring relationship etc? There's something to be said for the importance of emotional maturity when it comes to young people having sex. I don't think the taboo only exists when someone gets pregnant (but I do agree women bear the brunt of the shame BLAH BLAH double standard).

And encouraging promiscuity as long as you use contraception is kind of a weird message to the kiddies, future Dr. Bongsie! :) (And on a completely unrelated note, one day on peds we did adolescent medicine clinic and in preparation we were given complicated role plays and then interviewed by fellow classmates. My character was a 12yo girl whose boyfriend was pressuring her to have sex. I was being interviewed by my friend Dan and asked if he could write me Rx for birth control because "me and my boyfriend are gonna do it!" He said was I sure and maybe I should consider waiting.

R: "But why?"
D: "Umm...because your first time should be special?"

Which prompted hilarious laughter from both of us. We both went on to receive very poor evaluations that day eg "Student does not take rotation seriously etc")

Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the Western world (I think, certainly Europe) and one of the lowest average ages of de-flowering (!). The area I did my O&G rotation was called Croydon, a dump in South London which has the highest teengage pregnancy rate and chlamydia rate in Britain. So believe me, I've seen the bad side to sex.

I wasn't encouraging meaningless sex, I absolutely think that it should be with someone you care about (I'm not sure about having to love them) but I was just saying that I don't agree with the concept of 'saving oneself' for marriage. If you're going out with a guy/girl and you like each other and are getting bored of third base, go for the home run. If I married a virgin, I'll feel weird to say the least.

My advice has nothing to do with my future profession Rupa! But as Khushboo tried to explain - facing the fact that kids ARE having sex and concentrating on making sure it's safe is a lot more productive than telling them sex is a sin. That way they will still have sex, feel guilty about it and probably go into it without the education they need. Sex ed is shambolic in India. It's not even that good here in the UK.

Of course you're right that there is a taboo even without pregnancy (and almost wholly directed at the girl) but then...who needs to know? ;)

meh..premarital sex would just mean indian girls getting the same reputation as american girls. that is, being promiscuous whores. who wants that...all you'll get in the end is a bunch of foreigners up for some sex tourism.

Gotcha. Was mildly alarmed when I first saw your message. Responsible sex: hooray for all parties involved. (And I was happy to learn that sex-ed is now in fact being incorporated into Indian curriculums -- but it sounds like one big proselytization on abstinence, at least where my family lives. My 14yo cousin asked me if one could be impregnanted "by emotions." In the what now?)

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.

all you'll get in the end is a bunch of foreigners up for some sex tourism.

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:

premarital sex would just mean indian girls getting the same reputation as american girls

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.

meh..premarital sex would just mean indian girls getting the same reputation as american girls. that is, being promiscuous whores.

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 releases the patron/customer/exploiter from responsibility

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.

> supposes there in no economic context

You mean prostituition? Last time I heard, it was criminal.

> two assumptions that can only lead to more exploitation.

explain plz.

Bong Breaker:

> I'd rather be a woman in America than India, that's for sure.

Guess you have different tastes. I would rather be a man.

Wondering:

> Also am i the only one who doesn't seem to meet any of these "promicuous, whorish" types - Indian, American whatever ....

colleges, schools whatever ....

Guess you have different tastes. I would rather be a man.

Hur he hur hur.

Viponymous - why is female sexual activity so threatening that it needs to be wholly condemned.

meh..premarital sex would just mean indian girls getting the same reputation as american girls. that is, being promiscuous whores.

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.

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.

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:

>> isn't it fortunate everyone isn't brought up like you? The variety makes the world a much more interesting place.... Would you have been more relaxed if you had pm-sex?

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:

- It is against religion. It is sinful. Bible/Koran etc speak against this.
- It is against our great old culture. Let those "other" dirty, filthy Westerners do it. We'll have our sons like Rama and daughters like Sita.
- It is against society. How will we face friends and family? What will people think?
- You might get pregnant or catch some disease.
- What about the bad emotional and psycological effects?
- Pre-marital sex is ok for boys(wink-wink nudge-nudge) but bad for girls.

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).

- the religious/conservative among them claim that sex is only for procreation.
- the atheist/liberal among them claim that sex is only for recreation
- the middle-of-the-road claim that it's only for recreation, except when you are trying to have a baby, when it's only for pro-creation.
- the crusader/jihadi claims that it's only a tool of conquest. Fucking/raping the invaded/defeated opponent's mother/sister/daughter is the ultimate form of degradation that can be inflicted.
- the anarchist/celibacist claims that all sex is wrong, and only immaculate conception is the purest form of lifestyle.

All the above views are complete trash.

The modern(post Shankara) Hindu notion of sex is:

- It is a duty that a husband and wife perform for themselves(recreation), family(procreation) and society(continuity of culture, population), hence
- the individual must balance his/her needs with those of family/society, hence
- sex is ok only with spouse after the marriage is solemnised by family/society in a religious/caste setup.

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:

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.

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,

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:

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.

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,

What religiously derived interpretation? Did I use the words God or Krishna or Gita to justify my position?

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 ?

Which part of my interpretation do you disagree with? The part about gunas? The divergence?

I'm afraid I disagree with everything from the part discussing gunas right down to the comparison between money and women.

And why do you disagree?

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

>>The Vedas are Hindu texts, correct ?...

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.

>>Your complete dismissal of non-vedic notions itself is enough affirmation to your bigotry

Nonsense. Dismissal based on reason and debate does not constitute bigotry.

>>why are you guys insistent on forcing your values on to the rest of us...

Who's forcing anything? Feel free to skip reading my comments!

>>Please don't trash religions or beliefs that you don't agree with

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:

>>you start saying that the non-vedic notions are trash

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,

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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).

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.

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 in their own right and do not exist to "help you re-balance your gunas, realise 'Brahman'" ...it's your job to be loving, supportive parents towards them

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!

>>Marriage is by no means a "business transaction", and it is this attitude which has wreaked havoc within many quarters of Indian society

It has wreacked havoc *because* people have made into a monetory business transaction - which is completely against what I wrote!

>>is also something that some "social engineers" have tried to promote in recent times,

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,

It has wreacked havoc *because* people have made into a monetory business transaction

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.

As for other points: empathy, understanding etc... I think you came to the discussion with a pre-conceived notion that I was wrong.

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.)