A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices K.G. Balakrishnan, Deepak Varma, and B.S. Chauhan, while reserving judgement on actress Khushboo‘s petition seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed premarital sex in magazine interviews, makes the following observations.
# “When two adult people want to live together what is the offence? Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence.”
# “Even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology.”
# “There is no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.”
# “What is the offence and under which section? Living together is a right to life.”
# “How does it concern you? We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?”
Also read: How is this dress an affront to Hindu culture?
Top-up or bottom-down, it’s there for all to see
Desh ke police kaise ho? Moral police jaise ho
SUNAAD RAGHURAM: Kissing isn’t a part of our culture, pissing is?
churumuri 
Agree, BUT there is a reason marriage institution is there in every time, region, religion.
LikeLike
Uff! From the same state where well known people have “small” and “smaller” houses. Bah.
LikeLike
india’s supreme court — led by a dumbass of a chief justice — seems to be wasting time on absurd nonsense.
is premarital sex even an issue for the highest court to debate? indians are crying for resolution of key constitutional questions over reservation, freedom of expression, taxation, property ownership, equal treatment under law, and religion.
indians are crying for relief from corrupt government, exploitative corporations (including media corporations), crooked middlemen…
and here we have a supreme court insulting taxpayers with ridiculous non-sequiturs.
shame!
LikeLike
The challenge is living together post wedding.
LikeLike
Hope this sends out a message to people who have a little too much time on their hands ..and nothing productive to do with it.
LikeLike
First it was the gays and homos OK decision…now it’s the pre-marital sex OK …whats it gonna be next ? Zoophilia??? SC has gone nuts
LikeLike
In Society marriage became an institution, with two specific purpose.
1. To ensure the paternity of a child is certain. As they used to say, maternity is a fact, and Paternity is a matter of opinion.
But that’s no longer true. Paternity can be accurately identified.
2. It was an implicit (sacred) contract, that bound two people for life.
The society needed a method to enforce a discipline where a couple will stick through thick and thin. The idea was to provide for a mechanism which put a moral pressure on the couple to stay together.
But, this necessity started breaking down when society started permitting the divorce (an accepted way of dissolving a contract).
Bottomline:
Many people considered marriage to be the only permissible way to have sex. This was natural in days of non-availability of Birth control, as if people engaged in casual sex, then paternity couldn’t be decided.
This not being the case, and marriages susceptible to dissolution, the institution of marriage is indeed purely one of choice, rather than a social necessity.
So, it is but natural that legal system will support live-in and casual sex.
LikeLike
same holds good in ranjitha and nityananda case.
what is the offense in the case ??
there is no law which prohibits a married woman from having sex with a swami.
how does it concern the government of karnataka ??
LikeLike
“Even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology.”
After Balamurali Krishna it’s now BalaKrishna’s judgement.
According to history followed in Karnataka more than Krishna , Jamadagni is followed where Parashurama was ordered to behead his mother for seeing love making -which can be attributed to pornography nowadays.
With Nityananda ,why do Tamil urbanization have only led them to follow stories of Krishna?
Howcome the oldest land of world of Tiruvalluvar only knows about Krishna. Where does Yagnyavalkya , Gargi and Parashurama go?
Richard Gere kissed Shilpa because she was paid heavily for the show.
If anyone in Mangalore would have pulled her like that and kissed she would have cried foul and termed it as Talibanism.
Same way she was called DOG in a show where she was paid heavily. Obviously she wasn’t questioned by anyone for breaking a marriage since it was her personal choice.
There are people who can stoop to such low standards for money and they need not represent anybody’s culture.
Can’t believe wonderful writer like Sunaad can be so naive about Indian culture!!
With this judgement ND Tiwari and Nityananda can be evicted and all justices can have multiple arrangements legally . This can be the hidden agenda.
***
If Krishna is part of our culture , then abduction by Ravana is also very much our culture.
And then comes rape , molest , murder and so on. Why are they illegal?
They are all very much our culture. As culture of sustainabillity there is culture to destroy the evil too.
LikeLike
Going by Indian culture Vishnu shares his wife and hence it may become a law and what can be told about Brahma!!
A supreme judge taking cock and bull stories of culture and giving laws . Really hilarious.
I wonder how come Muslim community neglected in such wordings that too in Congress regime. (Since Khushboo herself is a Muslim probably they thought Taslima and she can together bring about renaissance!! )
In the midst of martyrs like Bhagat Singh who died without compromising we get to hear a wonderful bit of Indian culture.
On the other hand to consider some KGB would well be a supreme court judge being a shudra according to our culture!!
How people fall into their own dug up graves!!
In much liberated America Tiger Woods is considered to have faltered.
WTF is this judge upto in the name of Indian culture?
Recently there was a law in Mumbai saying live-in relations divorce will have to be paid remuneration.
Being a strong opposer of Brahmin marriages which says
Naaticharaami and then also Shayaneshu Veshya , these live-in relationships will become a big menace to control with chaos everywhere.
With Ramya wearing a chaddi hand in hand with son of Rajkumar for IPL shows the power of money and how it can undress the culture, these judges go on further to degrade by quoting incidences to their own advantages.
The most considerable aspect is the people who actually live-in relationships for love and not for sex never crave for legal recognition.
This is just a step for free sex. If that is the case then why not proclaim it as right to sex rather than right to life and all bs about culture?
And after that he will have to take all judgements like Father’s name not to be asked at schools. No surname menace in IT companies for promotion. If a foreigner live-in relation then what will be citizenship of child , if a terrorist lives in relationship will his child be taken to mainstream etc etc.
Is the good old Balakrishna ready for all this? He is just good for Raasa Leele’s like Nityananda. Quite another reason to show failure of Vedas – this time from the hands of Tamils. Now that most Vedic people have migrated to America – they would want to educate people of India.
One more reasons for Karnataka to get out of India.
LikeLike
VGP:
>Going by Indian culture Vishnu shares his wife
Going by Indian culture, we should be burning our widows and marrying off our children too.
That’s not the point. We take what’s relevant and discard, what is not.
>these live-in relationships will become a big menace
How so? How does it bother you if two people consenting live together or have sex? it is between them.
As Supreme court rightly asked – What law are they breaking?
>This is just a step for free sex
I’d say Three cheers. It is right to life, because sex is part of life.
>If a foreigner live-in relation then what will be citizenship of child
If a child is born in a country, he is natural citizen of that country. What is the ambiguity here?
>Quite another reason to show failure of Vedas
This is incoherent babble. What’s Veda got to do with this?
***
>If Krishna is part of our culture , then abduction by Ravana is also very much our culture.
Krishna’s Rasleela is celebrated, not Ravana’s atyachaar.
But, it indeed is strange that SC should invoke religious references to a question that is purely in the domain of Logic & law.
LikeLike
Make prostitution legal. As there are apsaras in heaven according to Hindu mythology.
LikeLike
Mysore Peshva:
The real insult to taxpayers’ money has come from those holier-than-thou assholes who filed suits in court against Khushboo’s comments in the first place. The Supreme Court judge has got it right this time – the bloody jobless scum who took this issue to court should have their ass caned for filing frivolous lawsuits.
And it drives me to despair to see that dumb nutcases like ‘gajee’ above still exist in the country. Why the fuck are you bothered if the actress gives statements to the media with her opinion? Keep your thing tightly buttoned up if you want to – no one will force you to open up, I assure you.
VGP:
Youngsters will indulge in more and more free sex going forward whether you like it or not. Deal with it. Go live in a cave or something and jerk off alone in the dark, bloody loser.
LikeLike
It is disappointing to see so many comments which is almost one-sided. (Just like the moral brigade on the prowl huh!). Its plain and simple-Living-In and premarital sex are not illegal. Somebody had to pronuounce it and the Supreme court did that. Whilst there are people who are already doing the same, it must be noted that court isnt forcing people to do the same. It simply says its not illegal. Well, fail to understand why there is this talk about marriage being an institution, free sex, nithyanandas bla bla bla….hehehe… Ridiculous
If divorce is legal ,why not living-in and pre-marital sex? What is the harm when two consulting adults get to enjoy sex.–This is what appears the court said. so lets leave it at that…..
LikeLike
Cool Dude:
>Make prostitution legal. As there are apsaras in heaven according to Hindu mythology.
You are absolutely right about making prostitution legal. But, not because of mythology. SC didn’t use mythology in context of a judgment, but they were just asking a rhetorical question to people who pointed to our culture as reason against live-in relationships.
Prostitution, or paid sexual companionship, is certainly not a social evil as it is made out to be. Having a controlled/regulated prostitution is much better than exploitation that happens today.
***
RashtraKoota:
>If divorce is legal ,why not living-in and pre-marital sex?
Excellent question. At a time Divorce laws were opposed too. Just as people opposed laws against SATI and WIDOW REMARRIAGE
All of these are accepted as norms today.
The bottom line for folks who don’t like liberty of others to do things within the framework of law is to – GROW UP
LikeLike
Nice slap on the face for Chinnaveedu boys
LikeLike
It makes perfect logical sense to make Prostituition legal now. Consenting adults can have sex and one of them pays for it. What’s wrong with that. In most marriages the financial status of groom/bride is the primary concern. Marriage is also in a way legalized prostituion. Prostituition is also required in this hectic modern globalized IT software era where people do not have time for lasting relationship.
LikeLike
Many folks who think that Supreme Court is slowly taking us towards ‘adho-gati’ see the pattern in legalising gay, lesbian relationships and now this take on live-in relationships and pre-marital sex.
It is argued by them that gay and lesbians defy rules of nature and thereby indulge in unnatural acts. Let’s for arguments’ sake accept that fact – from the perspective of reproduction. But how natural is the institution of marriage?
Are human beings naturally hard-wired for marriage (thereby monogamy)? Or is it merely a social construct to ensure property rights and there is nothing ‘natural’ about it?
Justice Markandey Katju has a good take on the institution of marriage – amongst other things in his lecture(rather lengthy..but then when were our esteemed judges known for brevity?:))
An excerpt ->
‘After private property came into existence man was seized with the acquisitive instinct. He wanted to acquire property and retain property. One can retain property as long as one is alive, but people wanted to retain their property even after their death. How could this be done? This could be done by ensuring that one’s property goes to one’s child, because in a sense one’s child is part of oneself. Hence the Law of Inheritance was created, which is also one of the basic laws, apart from the criminal law.
The institution of marriage also came into existence with the coming of private property. Since man wanted his property to go to his child after his death, he wanted to make sure that a certain child was his child. This was only possible if the woman with whom he had sex relations had no sex relations with any other man. Only then could he be sure that a particular child was his child. Thus, exclusiveness of sex relations is the basis of marriage, and the purpose of the marriage institution is to ensure retention of private property even after one’s death.’
For full text check..
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264730
Rather long one but interesting.
LikeLike
@Horkol,
Gurugale Namaskara,
I have been keenly following most of the posts in churumuri (perhaps the only blog site I follow!!, though I dont necessarily comment on most.)and I must admit , it is sometimes refreshingly original and sometimes inspiring and also sometimes, downright stupid. I have also noticed u post some long comments which are very reasonable and above all -Rational to the core, which I am afriad does not seem to touch the chord with the other commentators! and u seem to put it across (or Give it back or educate or what have you!)to most of the them with your counter arugment with enormous ease. You would make a fine defence lawyer for sure. Finally, I believe you are a wise man sir. We don see too many of your kind here. Someone who is very balanced in his/her approach!
Ok, I was trying to say that if Divorce is legal (Indeed it has to be legal right?, else how can a divorce be called a divorce?) , Live-in and premarital sex should as well be recognised as such in this day and age. This,someone had to slam it across the skulls of the scum bags who are against this with whimsical(disgusting) reasoning, which I believe you would also approve of! I am not so great @ history of SATIs and the WIDOW remarraiges and the many etc accompanied with the past passage of time. I dont think I have the necessary knowledge of history to tackle people whenever there is such a situation. Actually I don think one shud really care! We need to think we have moved beyond that and are reasonably rational. Really, isnt the same people airing views and more or less, they don really change their viewpoint with every new post? Its getting very predictible at the least! It gets bland with time but hey thats the fun actually!Its intersting one gets to read a lot of history huh! Very informative.
LikeLike
Thankfully I have begun to see some sensible comments towards the end. For a moment I thought churumuri was becoming completely overrun by stinking scoundrel Moral Police.
LikeLike
1. These are observations made orally by judges during arguments, not the letter of the law being laid down in a judgment. Chill.
2. The Times of India and almost every other newspaper bar the Hindu are staffed by legal illiterates.
3. Wait for the judgement.
LikeLike
The Times of India piece also reports the following exchange which reportedly took place between the complainant’s counsel and the Bench
Court: Does the complainant have a daughter?
Complainant’s Counsel: No
Court: Then you have no case.
WTF?
LikeLike
The travesty here is the law which can allow 22 criminal cases to be filed against her for some trivial statement and it can come up in highest court in the land so that some judge can enjoy his 15mins (and extend that to 15 years). Hope you are happy Mr. Ambedkar. The retards led by this dude, added considerable amount of ambiguity in almost every law and the result is that the lawyers and judges are enjoying themselves.
May be we need to relook compensation for judges … pay them by how many cases they clear or some other performance criteria.
We should have got George Carlin to clean up our laws while he was still alive… he would have got it down to 10-15. :)
LikeLike
You should put up the photos of the 22 mahatmas who have filed the cases against Kushboo.
We should get to see mugshots of these wankers.
LikeLike
The relationship between Radha and Krishna was not live together. It shows very poorly that Chief Justice Of India completely unaware of mythical, philosophial currents of the country but make comments that are not only false, can outrage people.
Why always selectively distort Hindu tranditions?
LikeLike
The bottomline is: there are some things the state just cannot interfere with. Some douchebag commentators on churumuri seem to want to impose their version of ‘morals and culture’ on the entire nation. May those commentators’ daughters start banging guys as soon as they are old enough to!
LikeLike
Harkol>>How so? How does it bother you if two people consenting live together or have sex? it is between them.
I dont support Rama Sene type violence (latest update on that states it was sponsored by underworld). But in the name of freedom, total anarchy cant be allowed either.
As some people argued in case of MFHusain’s naked Hindu God(ess), freedom is finite.
We need to protect, promote MARRIAGE, FAMILY, FAMILY VALUES. Much of West’s problem comes from socalled total freedom of sex. People are not marrying, birth rate have fallen drastically in many countries, or massive changes taking place in demography that will change the underlying religio-cultural values of the Europe.
When basic building blocks of society (marriage, family) are corrupted, no houses built on that can sustain.
LikeLike
PIATS,
Please tell us what the real relationship between Radha and Krishna was?
But there was no necessity for the judge to bring up some radha-krishna-personal-life mumbo jumbo while making an observation. I dont think even the judge in his infinite knowledge knows what exactly the relationship between two mythical figures was, if they even existed.
Vinay,
They will, or as the learned judge would say, some krishna will come and take away the virginity of their daughters or some old man mohammed will make their daughter his thirteenth wife.
LikeLike
PIATS, what exactly are you afraid of? You say –
Much of West’s problem comes from socalled total freedom of sex. People are not marrying, birth rate have fallen drastically in many countries,
If “freedom of sex” you’re afraid that … the birth rate may fall. Because more people having sex automatically leads to low birth-rate? I am not following your logic here.
Even if your self-contradictory claim was correct, a falling birth rate is a bad thing for India because….?
LikeLike
@PIATS,
two people having consensual sex is total anarchy?
FAMILY VALUES … lol
ps: The people who made the term ‘FAMILY VALUES’ popular, i.e conservative republicans in USA were caught in a lot of gay sex scandals … not that there is anything wrong in that ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
LikeLike
PIATS,
Pre-marital sex or living together does not mean no MARRIAGE, FAMILY, FAMILY VALUES.
West has no problem. The drop in birth rate is more possibly due to education rather than anyone living with anyone else or having free sex. You dont need marriage to breed – there are countries in Africa where the attitude towards sex is freer, but you done see any drop in birth rate there.
India has a much bigger problem than the West (or for that matter most other countries) – one of poverty, malnutrition and disease. Multiplying fast does not solve that problem either. Living in any slum in a large Indian city (where most people live BTW), should bring someone who cant see to their senses.
Once education levels increase in India, there should be a drop in birth rates. Even in India, educated people who are settled tend to have less children than those who are not – married or not.
You promote whatever you want, Kushboo has the same right as you do – as long as both of you are not breaking any law of the land.
LikeLike
When tons of case files were stacked up in courts of all kinds in this country, what is this non-case doing in SC? Who is the asshole and scumbag who filed this time-pass case? where is he/she? He/she should be thrown behind bars, for wasting tax-payers money and courts time, and made to undergo rigorous imprisonment, and made to eat cockroach sambar and worm pongal, for filing such lousy suit.
LikeLike
Anon>>Please tell us what the real relationship between Radha and Krishna was?
Its beyond the realm of Indian Judiciary.
—————-
Anon>>I dont think even the judge in his infinite knowledge knows what exactly the relationship between two mythical figures was, if they even existed…….
Sri Krishna is not myth- he is an hisorical character.
ITI + HA + ASA = ITIHASA (Thus indeed it was). The Ramayana and Mahabharata are collectively called our Itihasa.
Much of our problem today, our ‘intellectuals’, including the Chief Justice comes from colonial consciousness. Most of us learnt English thro indian languages, and in the process neither understood indian language, our traditions, nor the western one. We can’t access our experience.
(Interesting after 5:30)
Please watch these videos, where Dr. De Roover, Prof. Balagangadhara and Prof. Bilgrami talk about it. The seminar took place in Delhi in 2009.
Chief Justice of any Country is a hugely important position. If PTI report is correct, the way CJI termed Radha-Krishna’s relationship, spoke in favor of pre-marital sex, live in- the country should be really worried.
LikeLike
Nova Nova:
>Court: Then you have no case.
Jurisprudence normally works on the basis of ‘locus standi’, which means, you must be directly impacted by an event to be a party to a court case. Even in case of a Public Interest Litigation, the people filing case should be able to show themselves, as part of public, being affected.
The argument of the people complaining about Kushboos statement was that acceptance of pre-marital sex will lead to relaxation of social pressures for our girls to stay virgin until marriage (Note most folks aren’t worried about boys).
So, court was questioning their locus standi in the matter.
***
PIATS:
>total anarchy cant be allowed either.
Anshuman:
>Thus, exclusiveness of sex relations is the basis of marriage
This thought is absolutely right. The institution of marriage came up largely to be deterministic about paternity of a child. In fact, even men being allowed multiple marriages, but women not being allowed to do so is based on this basic fact – Paternity wasn’t easy to decide, but Maternity was.
Today with Paternity tests, that requirement is no longer true.
However, the 2nd purpose of marriage still remains good. For many (like me), it is a sacred contract with another person with an mutual obligation to respect, love and be there for duration of the contract, ideally life long – With or without children in the picture.
This holds good for Gay and lesbian relationships too. That is why I support Gay marriages.
***
Anarchy means lawlessness. Gays, Pre-marital sex etc. doesn’t break the law, as derived from constitution, as defined by Supreme Court of the land. Thus – No anarchy. Anarchy happens when our system allows motivated people to browbeat people who don’t agree with them – Senes, Bajarang Dal, MIM etc.
>We need to protect, promote MARRIAGE, FAMILY, FAMILY VALUES.
True. It is an institution to cherish and needs to be promoted.
But, this can’t be done thru law, which derives its legitimacy from a libertine constitution to let people follow their own faith. Who is to say Not marrying can’t be an article of faith to someone?
And who is to say, just because a person wants to have sex with someone, he needs to enter into a lifelong, binding contract?
>West’s problem comes from socalled total freedom of sex
hmm… This assumes west has a problem!
I have had extensive talks with my western friends about the institution of marriage and they can’t understand ‘arranged marriages’ and also people sticking to marriage (resistance to divorce).
A hundred years back west’s system was more like ours. Victorian morality, marriages lasting life ling etc. Today’s Western value system is based on Individual liberties, with social security being ensured by the govt. Indian value system is based on the old Victorian system.
We probably will move the same direction west did, over next 100 years or so… Divorce rates will increase, pre-marital sex will be the norm. Institution of Arranged marriages will start fading away – with Individual rights becoming supreme – thus people being able to rely on a different kind of social security.
LikeLike
PIATS:
People like you talk and talk and talk about ‘morals and culture’ and snigger at the West’s ‘lack of morals’. Rest assured, we have much greater problems than the West. Most people in the country, including me, would prefer it if India suddenly turns into a country like Switzerland or Austria overnight.
When you don’t have food to eat and too many people living in inhuman slums it is laughable to sit on the high horse of ‘culture and tradition’. The rest of the world laughs at people like you.
I see where you’re coming from. No dumbass, we should NOT be worried about what the CJI said. We should be worried of people like you who, if given half a chance, would roam the streets and peep into people’s bedrooms. You would dearly love to do that, wouldn’t you? And as a bonus you could get to bash a few girls who dare to be in ‘live-in relationships’.
That is exactly the kind of country we will end up with if the likes of you have their way.
LikeLike
PIATS,
You didnt tell me what the relationship between Radha and Krishna was? Is it beyond discussion too for you? If it is, then why shouldn’t someone judge that it was not a live-in relationship. After all Radha and Krishna were having sex and were not married right?
And how do you know things about the past with such certainty? Just by saying itihasa or some other word, does not make it so. Those times are gone. And how do you know who this Radha/Krishna really were and what their relationship was – they may have nothing to do with your past or majority of Indians past either. More real proof of our history has come from the British than anyone else – if I say that most of what you know about India’s past is due to what the British uncovered and recorded, and the rest is just conjecture, what would you say? Why should I listen to you about something which happened before the British and the Mughals and even before that?
BTW the point I am making is not whether some religious characters existed or not, just that the supreme court would do well to steer clear of religious mumbo jumbo when making important observations. Let them worry about the constitution, denial of basic rights and social justice (to majority of people) and the backlog that clogs the system. We can move on to metaphysical discussions and religious debate when we are ready.
LikeLike
Vinay,
So, in your wisdom, if people start having pre marital sex, live in- all these poverty will go away? Guess what- you are reincarnation of Osho Rajneesh. Pranam Gurudev!
Subramanian Swamy just tweeted some people are approaching court on reference made to Radha-Krishna by CJI. So, we have not heard last on this. I think he should apologize for his comments on RadhaKrishna. Its a serious matter to most Indians.
——————
Harkol- Like Bollywood does not represent India, Hollywood dont represent West. There are powerful movements, specially amongst the young people now who are for abstinance of sex as teenager.
Teenaged sex/pre marital sex have caused massive social problem in the west. it was not so even few decades back. Now, I think close to one third child born in the US are outide wedlock. There is huge problem in bringing them up as a good, normal citizen. If a child is not brought up properly, it affects their future mental build, education etc as well as their role as parents. Its a cycle that is impossible to break.
In many European countries, people are not marrying sufficiently, or falling population thus demography is altering. If its not reveresed now, within next 4-5 decades, Europe will become Eurabia (Europe + Arabia).
So, social policy has tremendous meaning for a country.
LikeLike
@Harkol,
>> In fact, even men being allowed multiple marriages, but women not being allowed to do so is based on this basic fact – Paternity wasn’t easy to decide, but Maternity was.
Really? The only operative phrase in marriage is ‘exclusive sexual access’. Me no want big Mo boink my chick, so get tribe to cut big Mo’s balls ;) Obviously women had no say in framing the rules since they were the weaker ones.
LikeLike
PIATS:
One-Why are you so worked up on what the Bench said on this issue with reference to the Khusboo case? There is anyway some thing called JUDGMENT WRITERS for the bench and they as far as I am concerned frame almost all of the replies which are touted as the opinion of the bench themselves and mind you they are way smarter than you. Whilst it is unfortunate that Krishna-Radha reference was made, why are you so worked up man? I guess you very much belong to the SRS class…May be, they are starving for need of people like YOU than anybody out there coz u would be a very very prized “Intellect” for them.
Teenage and pre-Marital sex has caused massive problems in the west? Oh really? How so man, dumbo? How can teenagers having sex cause tremendous problems man. Enlighten me. Its just like recreation if its not for procreation.Very simple. So wat if one thold of em are born out of wedlock? Do they abandon or wat? What do you mean by children not brought up properly? Do u think children are brought up very properly here?
Demography is alteringa? wat the ***K man ? is it more skewed up than the Indian demography what with all this female infanticde and all that? You are just a joke. Nothing Less I bet.
What you are saying is, there is a fall in population due to such teenage sex. So be it man. You ll have a lille fewer people suffering from this circle of life in India and you certainly will have fewer people defacating in Full public man. You will certainly be happy!!!! or will you not be?
India may be shining in bits and pieces and I would love to see this Race go forward but with people like you , it simply aint a possibility.
So STFU before one or more of em come and use much more graphical language to silence ur stupid teenage sexy views! Its better to have a gud **** Man at the least, if you like it and find it! No Teenagers here Huh!Please
LikeLike
PIATS,
“Now, I think close to one third child born in the US are outide wedlock.”
“In many European countries, people are not marrying sufficiently, or falling population thus demography is altering. If its not reveresed now, within next 4-5 decades, Europe will become Eurabia (Europe + Arabia).”
References?
Open your eyes and look at the problems of India first. They arent going to be solved by bad-mouthing other religions and nations. Your religious bigotry will only come in the way of anything good happening.
***
Rastrakoota,
I am really hoping you are a youngster and PIATS is a middle-aged or older person – because that would be a reflection of what I believe is good about India’s future.
LikeLike
PIATS:
How old are you dumbass? Or are you mentally retarded by any chance?
I said, stop this pious bullshit of denigrating the West using arguments related to ‘moral values and culture’. Did I say that having pre-marital sex will get rid of poverty you perverted lout? You certainly have the brain of a caterpillar.
I get a feeling you’re too obnoxious to have a partner of the opposite sex and just plain jealous of those who do.
LikeLike
KH,
Why the urge to have exclusive sexual access in men? The base instinct driving this feeling would be to ensure paternity right? After all by nature most men want to have exclusive sexual access to a woman, but on the other hand want to have sex with as many women as they can (which I guess we suppress with cultural conditioning/marriage law etc. which are a control mechanism to prevent anarchy for greater good of society – as PIATS points out).
While I am not sure about what Harkol said – that the knowledge of the existence of paternity tests would make this basic instinct encoded in our genes to go away, he has given a convincing reason. OTOH to add to Harkol’s point, cultural/religious conditioning and using our brain to control our urges is also a powerful thing. So it is conceivable that in a 100 years if paternity/DNA tests are easily available to all, in India too we will develop cultural values like has happened in the west. Unless PIATS and friends have their way that is.
And Harkol being Harkol probably has references to real sources and published stuff on what he said too :)
LikeLike
AG,
>> Why the urge to have exclusive sexual access in men?
Just like men want exclusivity in every thing, my car, my home, my stuff etc ( the very reason why modern economy exists). Sex is one of the basic needs and its natural to have this exclusivity about sex too. I definitely don’t buy the paternity argument. Which do you think is the main driver for ‘marriage’ – prospect of guaranteed nookie or having a child? Do you think men in the middle ages worried about their kids? Sure they wanted one or two to take their name forward. Tribal people in Middle east, Genghis Khan to name a few were more concerned about having wives but were not really responsible about their progeny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
LikeLike
Karihaida:
>Me no want big Mo boink my chick, so get tribe to cut big Mo’s balls ;)
I lost you there.
Marriage wasn’t just about exclusive sexual access. Most kings and military commanders had that to their women, but not all those women were given the status of ‘WIFE’
The purpose of marriage was to ensure a legally/socially accepted paternity of a child, thus ensuring inheritance and also give status and guarantee to a person of continued support of another all thru life.
**
AG:
>And Harkol being Harkol probably has references to real sources and published stuff on what he said too :)
There are enough published articles and research into the changing Indian sexual mores.
Each generation changes the society (for better or worse). I am not saying what is happening is good or bad. It is too early to tell. But, it will definitely happen.
>paternity tests would make this basic instinct encoded in our genes to go away
The basic instinct encoded into our genes is to replicate as many times, with as many good mates as possible. This is true of both male/female. So, monogamy is rarely practiced in the wild. Marriage is an human social construct not a genetic one. However, exclusive sexual access is common in animal world too. Many animals fight to death for exclusive access to a female to ensure it is their progeny she will bear.
In a way what is happening in west is the society is more accepting of the individual’s genetic sexual needs, than social need for deterministic inheritance and the social security there-of.
**
Karihaida:
>Genghis Khan to name a few were more concerned about having wives but were not really responsible about their progeny.
Genghis khan’s oldest son was Jochi. But his paternity was contested by his second son and eventually another son, whose paternity wasn’t contested inherited the empire. What does that say?
I am not saying creating offsprings makes a man responsible for them. That is the basic instinct of any animal – procreation, for without that species won’t survive and won’t be diverse.
But, the social construct was to make sure that there was unhindered, uncontested inheritance – thus the institution of marriage and status that came with it.
LikeLike
@those who say europe does not have a falling demographic problem
The problem exists… proof is the reasoning behind the european governments trying to promote integration of immigrants into society, the reasoning of european laws being changed to economically aid young people who have families and children (lower taxes and other law relaxations etc.) and many more such social observations to be made on a daily interaction level, which I am not sure all the intellectuals commenting here about europe know about.
@rastrakoota
why do u mix up the points of PIATS and call him names when he makes a clear distinction in his comments between the out of wedlock child births in the US and falling demographics in europe? two different continents, two different problems mentioned as examples and u mess it up??? Congrats on successful muddling of the topic!
@everyone thupping at PIATS and his ilk
I am all for live-ins and premarital sex (which are legal due to the fact that they are not illegal!!!), but that does not mean someone who has a different opinion is a retard. Some secular intellectuals you are, unable to accept that the opinion you hold need not be the opinion of all.
Also, although freedom of sex etc etc are accepted as norms today, no one has distinctly proven that this is the pure absolute truth and that this is the pure absolute right! So in a way you are also jus imposing what you think is right onto others.
Lastly, just because you do not believe in religion/god does not make it mumbo jumbo. And, to call it mumbo jumbo blindly and to not see the wisdom that can be derived from it is to live in ignorance and arrogance(and no!!! ignorance is definitely not bliss!!!)
LikeLike
KH,
Sex is a basic need for what? I mean the end result… Making more little KHs and AGs. The pleasure factor has evolved to make sure we dont forget to have sex at all costs. Paternity argument holds.
Possessions are just ways of extending life and gaining more chances of attracting and keeping mate, having child and making sure they survive. You can see the difference though. If I ask you to share your car, home and stuff with me you would instinctively agree, if I were your friend or you saw some profit in it. Replace stuff by your girlfriend or wife and you will want to kill me right? (If you don’t I would really like to meet you :)
Harkol help me here on what the scholars/research says. We can do more thought experiments with KH on this, but I want to know what the accepted theories are on this one.
LikeLike
What is the need for sex when you get something like this:
`Take the best orgasm you’ve ever had, multiply it by a thousand and you are nowhere near it’ – Mark Renton
There should be a reason right?
for sex and for marriage
LikeLike
Prajwal:
“does not mean someone who has a different opinion is a retard”
You are certainly a retard because you can’t see the reason for my calling PIATS a retard. I told him to stop talking about “high Indian culture and morals” and how that makes us automatically superior to the West. And that retard came back with: “will pre marital sex help us get rid of poverty?”
Totally retarded argument, don’t you think?
“no one has distinctly proven that this is the pure absolute truth and that this is the pure absolute right”
What the hell are you babbling about?
LikeLike
AG,
>> Sex is a basic need for what? I mean the end result… Making more little KHs and AGs. The pleasure factor has evolved to make sure we dont forget to have sex at all costs. Paternity argument holds.
From a female prespective the end result is making more lil KHs and AGs, definitely from the male perspective. The female are coded to care for their offspring and to ensure continuation of the species not the males.
>> Possessions are just ways of extending life and gaining more chances of attracting and keeping mate, having child and making sure they survive.
So once you get a mate you stop accumulating your possesions?
>> You can see the difference though. If I ask you to share your car, home and stuff with me you would instinctively agree, if I were your friend or you saw some profit in it.
Not everyone. Even if they do if something is very personal do they share it? Sharing for profit does occcur in marriages too, there have been lots of such instances in history.
Harkol,
>> Genghis khan’s oldest son was Jochi. But his paternity was contested by his second son and eventually another son, whose paternity wasn’t contested inherited the empire. What does that say?
…
I am not saying creating offsprings makes a man responsible for them. That is the basic instinct of any animal – procreation, for without that species won’t survive and won’t be diverse.
That was from the sons point of view. From Genghis’ point of view when he had Jochi the job was done… there was a male to carry on his name.
Procreation argument holds for the females… definitely not the males. The job of the male in any species is to fertilize. For ex females of lions, tigers try to save their young ones from the males.
So when the males made the rules for marriage what do you think the motive was?
LikeLike
Prajwal:
>does not mean someone who has a different opinion is a retard
Certainly. It is sad people focus on personal abuse, instead of issue at hand.
>which are legal due to the fact that they are not illegal!!!
Indeed. We are at liberty to do anything, within the constraints of law.
>no one has distinctly proven that this is the pure absolute truth
There is scientific proof that Monogomy is indeed a distinct Homo Sapien trait. Most recent genetic studies have proved that monogomy was an competetive advantage for Homo Sapiens in ancient world, where Homo Sapiens competed with other primates and neanderthals for primacy.
Apparently Monogomous nature of Modern Man, let him focus on nesting behavior more than procreating behavior of other primates.
So, there is lot to be said about the institution of marriage in older times.
However, with birth control becoming the norm, and an individual success no longer limited to family support, those old advantages start breaking down.
***
Oh Just in case anyone is interested, couple of more recent studies on monogomy in Humans:
http://heritage-key.com/blogs/malcolmj/research-sex-lives-ancestors-hints-why-monogamous-humans-out-competed-neanderthals
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302112018.htm
LikeLike
Prajwal:
Right, I did call “dumbo” and no more than that, certainly no “names” beyond that! Sure you seem to have ample proof that the demographics are falling in Europe for cretain reasons only intellectuals can understand and that Immigration integartion is one among ’em. Whats all this Sir, can u elaborate on this please if you may?
I aint sure why there was this discussion on Teenage sex/pre-marital sex combine? Teenage sex is a different matter and pre-material sex is a different issue. Whilst the former is definitely illegal (provided we follow the law laid down by the land about certain age when we can have sex), the latter was never illegal. Just that some bunch of morons wanted to drag the issue to the court on such a frivolous matter, the court had to take a stand and set a precedent. Above all, it was just an opinion of one popular face on a TV channel. Just because someone said so, some people took it to court and it had to be expedited in real quick time and any more of such cases would ideally not be entertained! tHE COURT HAD TO DO THIS RITE?
As far as mixing up the issues are concerned. I guess you are rite , I did mix it up and thanks, but what was the issue about ? Teenage sex/premarital sex/poverty/demographics/children outta wedlock …what? Ok, these may be mutually inclusive bu I wasnt sure why the WEST was being used all the way here! That was the common factor my friend to which I got confused and hence mixed up!(US and Europe arent WEST?)
PIATS-You can take it easy. U have a lotta friends here. Not in my nature to offend people just like that!
LikeLike
AG:
>I want to know what the accepted theories are on this one.
KH is wrong about man’s role being only that of a sperm donor. Procreation is not the only instinct a male has. Another – Survival/protective instinct is even stronger.
Males of a lot of species will lead in protecting the group (pride/Family). The primary purpose of this is of course, to ensure the continuation of his gene pool within the pride.
Every animal also has a social system that enables the survival of the species. Some animals give birth and die soon after to make sure there is no competition for food with new offspring, Some even kill their weak offspring. Humans protect their offspring to ensure continuation of gene pool and its success.
This led to a social system in humans, where marriage was a way of defining and protecting a family. Procreation instinct pushes man to acquire assets, which increases his chances of mating with best female.
Survival/Protective instinct, needs this assets to be transferred to his progeny to ensure their success in finding a good mate. Illegitimate children couldn’t inherit, for their paternity wasn’t certain.
Marriage & monogamy may not serve a purpose in future, because paternity can be determined and security of progeny can be ensured through other legal means. Procreation instincts can be satisfied through sex without children.
So, offshoot of survival instinct winning over procreation, is that people are choosing not to have babies (or having less babies). It increases their chances of having a better financial security in their old age as well as providing better for their progeny.
Social systems thus change as species progresses.
LikeLike
Prajwal,
So Europe is solving its problem in the ways it should. Good for them.
India has to feed its population, solve large health problems – we are making an attempt in our bumbling, inefficient ways. Europe/US/Japan/China are the best templates on how this can be done. Religious mumbo jumbo and bullshitting about some lost past will help. Maybe they can be used for some secondary effect, though that may lead to other problems like religious riots and internal strife, adding to the long list of problems we have.
Religious mumbo jumbo is religious mumbo jumbo. Belief in religion/god is belief in religion/god. Related but not the same. If you have something to say in the defense of religious mumbo jumbo, go ahead, we are all ears.
LikeLike
@ag
I suppose you are right in saying religious mumbo jumbo is religious mumbo jumbo, exactly like scientific mumbo jumbo is scientific mumbo jumbo and legal mumbo jumbo is legal mumbo jumbo and administration mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo. It just depends on the POV of the person who is using it and the context in which it is used. So argument of the court steering clear of “religious mumbo jumbo” is invalid. Simple reason for this is that the logic behind it being used in whatever context by the judge is known only to his brain, you and me are just speculating in what sense he used it! So you cannot deny “his right to expression” by telling him to steer clear of using what is to him, a perfectly valid usable “example”(i guess..?)
Europe is solving its problems in ways that is good for europe, so is India! If ours is a bumbling inefficient way of solving it, then so is the one being used in Europe, I never contested that! So i have no idea what you point at here!
@rastrakoota
teenage sex is illegal, but regulating it violates the right to privacy of the teenagers, besides, I suppose we agree that we cannot stop teenagers who want to have sex from actually doing it! Teenage pregnancy can lead to lot of issues. For example
1. teens may decide to do something stupid like kill a baby after it is born because they cannot support it and because they cannot take it home(out of fear or out of financial inability). May not be frequent news but is a possibility.
2. Social stigma preventing the teen from actually settling into a comfortable life.
3. The teenage boy/person involved in impregnating the teenage girl might harm the girl to avoid the pregnancy from coming to light! This is not out fiction!
4. The child may not be raised properly (proper childcare being defined as properly fed, vaccinated, education etc… speaking of education, do u know how ridiculously expensive good schooling is today?? Renowned good schools “interview” parents, and children themselves before admission and charge anywhere between 75000-1.5 lacs a year for KG…i am sure a teenager will be able to afford this!!stats are for blore and chennai!)
These are examples of why teenage sex may be problematic!
Coming to pre-marital sex and out of wedlock babies, similar issues hold for a financial level. I suppose we agree that it is not as easy for women to get into high paying jobs in reality as it is on paper(by the law i.e.). Furthermore, it also raises the question, once the baby is born, who is to care for it and how? Are you referring to baby care and crushes? That doesn’t seem to be an efficient solution to me, but mebe we disagree there!
Poverty and demographics are related, but I suppose that is another debate. “The court had to do this”, I AGREE! never said i disagree!
In you long verbally explicit comment to PIATS u also refer to skewed demographics of female infanticide. That is a bloody complicated issue, isn’t it now? While we almost always read how baby girls are aborted, there are almost no references of how many baby boys are aborted! And out of how many abortions in all. Sounds like skewed numbers to me! Further more it depends on the assumption that everyone accepts the right of a parent to have a child or to go in for adoption. Bloody hell, if a parent can decide to abort a child, then they can decide to have the abortion after knowing the sex of the child, it is their private matter, and we as members of society have no f**king right to dictate to them what they should do with the product of their procreation, because in doing so, we violate their right to freedom of choice and their right to privacy!
If you are talking about babies being butchered/killed etc after being born, it is murder! i agree! it is wrong, but it is also difficult to control due to the facts that
(1) the bodies of the babies are really really small and hence relatively easy to dispose in our vast network of unregulated neighbourhoods and
(2) our system of administration and policing crime is just not designed to handle this effectively, it is too cumbersome.
I suppose this can be attributed to our “culturally superior” assumption that no parent will willingly harm his/her child.
Basically, sounds to me that we need to scrap our constitution and need to rewrite the whole damn thing!
As to why the west is used, we use the west as a basis of comparison for everything! WTF, even our constitution is apparently a mixture or an adaptation of the constitutions of 7 different “western countries”. Sounds like more proof for us to scrap our present constitution!
@Vinay
No, i do not think PIATS nor his replies are retarted, I want to know more about his opinion and his reasoning to be able to judge his statements, but your calling me a retard seems to make me more curious about what skewed reasoning u are using as a basis for the usage of the word “retard” :P
Refer to harkol’s comment about what I am babbling about!
@harkol
thanks for the ref. But proof of studying history is always speculative because we do not live in that time, but we reconstruct it from whatever remains! So in a weird way, if we accept marriage as a advantageous evolution of human society, I suppose we will also have to accept the possible existence of mythical characters under the “proof” of historical remains of the city of dwarka etc.
Monogamy is also found in other creatures (animals, birds and insects and mammals), but i suppose u mean a combination of social and sexual
monogamy. Also, my point is that, scientific proof in this case is speculative, because it has an implicit assumption of the present state of our existence as an advantage to humankind. But I do thank you for the references and te proof of monogamy in society!
:D
LikeLike
see!! this is what caused our honourable SC to mention the two most celebrated figures of indian culture..
they wanted us to talk , talk and talk about it..good or bad..but it have us say something..with friends, relatives, girl friends co-passengers…among all of us..
this is the most noblest of all the reason i can think of for the mention..
LikeLike
Why are women entirely absent from this discussion?
LikeLike
PTL,
How do you know that?
LikeLike
There is some sanity –
“A bench comprising Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice BS Chauhan quashed 22 criminal cases against her, saying that her statement on the issue of pre-marital sex and live-in relationships was her personal view and the Indian Constitution entitles her to express it.”
I thought they would also make all Indian citizens comply with it.
LikeLike
The Supreme Court judgment related to Kushboo is acceptable. Kushboo commented candidly on the premarital sex. In ancient times marriage system is not their in this world. People lived together with marriage in ancient times. If the comment of kusboo changes Indian youth to engage in premarital sex, the moral valued comments proclaimed by famous persons lead the youth in good direction. The persons who went against the actress Kushboo made the issue big and gave wide publicity, otherwise the comments of Kushboo vanish on the of commented day it self. Personal opinions we have to listen only, because every person having right to comment on any issue in this democratic country. We the people are giving unnecessary publicity to this issue and indirectly we are encouraging the youth to involve in premarital sex. Not only Lord Krishna and Radha lived together all the ancient people lived together without marriage. If we scan religious books number of persons lived together without marriage. No person spoils their lives by the comments of some person. I humble request the Indian individuals by keeping their hands on their hearts – is premarital sex not their in our country before the comments of Kushboo? Or only it started after the comments of Kushboo? Unnecessary, the media and we giving importance’s to the personal comments. and personal life. I request the Indian individuals to concentrate of the important issues like polution, immunisation, domestic violence, child labour, unemployment etc which hinders the growth of our country and children, but not on silly comments of Kushboo. I feel happy if the persons, who went against Kushboo, divert the spent money to the court, to build a school or orphanage etc.
LikeLike