|
|
|
General Forum: Society | | Sexual Relations | |
| yep, i understand and agree with most of all u said anil, except the "restricting" part. anil is right hima samira, true "marriage" is the union of two minds, bodies and souls, while "wedding" is just a ceremony. they r 2 different things, each with its own importance, but with no direct relationship as such. even if its nice to assume that they often co-exist, in india we have to accept that one often exists without the other. due to several reasons.
but anil, u said ,"Me, nor any other person who respects himself would not like to restrict him self on restrictions set by a soceity whose average intelligence is much less that his"
i dont think true marriage has anything to do with society or weddings, then how can u how can u assume that true marriage (with or without a wedding ceremony) is a restriction? hasnt it got anything to do with a WILFUL and a pure commitment? does such a commitment make a man/woman any less intelligent or respect himself/herself any lesser than before?
Posted by: Ms. G Sunita At: 30, Jun 2003 5:16:28 AM IST
Apologies for the duplicate post.....
Posted by: Mr. Anil Bezawada At: 29, Jun 2003 10:48:16 PM IST
Hima,
After going thru what u have written there can be only two possibilities - that either u are romanticizing things a bit too much or other wise u really understand the meaning of love to the depth u have been talking. Asuming the latter option to be true i would extend this assumption that you would also realise that love is the epitome of a union of spirits.
Then why should this union be confined to one entity... why cant i love more than one person at a time... What aspect of such union says that i or any one can luv only one person. In reality its not that one loves a person first and then his habits.. rather u love a person as he conforms to ur standard of life, ur philosophy of life. U like people who have thought patterns similar to u. So in true sense u love ur philosophy. And u fall in luv with all other entitities that can unite with this philosophy, with this way of life.
When such union occurs.. it can be between two males, two females and a male and a female .. and to all such people you would like to be as close and intimate as possible. When the two ppl in context are of same sex then the possibility of expressing that intimacy thru sex is ruled out b'cos of the obvious bilogical repulsion towards such relations. But when its between a male and a female the highest form of expresing that luv or that mutual respect is thru sex. Well wat ever i have just spoken completely rule out fundaes like 'luv at first sight'... these things would work only if underneath they are supported by what i call a common way of life or the common spirit.
See if marraiges are just based on sexual satisfaction... then i should pity such marraiges. No marraige should start with sex as basis. All the emotions and feelings you have expressed would come only when sex is an extension of the luv one has for the other person. And one cant just have imaginary figure as wife or a friend and then can put any body into that black box and start luving him. It indeed surprises me that one would luv some one just because he or she is married to him/her. That by no means is luv -- its compromise. Just because a person has adorned ur neck with a magal sutra one is ready to sleep with him and would also enjoy that experience.... does it not sound animalisque. If any thing i can interpret out of it is that till that point all the feelings that have been contained in that person suddenly erupt out just b'cos he/she has a licence to have sex and since its a socially acceptable experience he is supposed to njoy it to the fullest and should treat it sacred. Such sex is really not sex out of luv. This is real animal sex... sex out of desire. What u have tried put across is the most lowest form of exercising discretion. Probably next only to prostitution.. Sorry if my choice words hurts u but from where i see the only difference is i pay and get sex in the latter context and in the former i am entitled to sex since i am married. After saying all this about maaraige being insignificant... there is no significance attatched to the word 'Pre-Marital' in the phrase 'Pre- Marital Sex'.
Also one should start respecting one self more. I am a human and i am intelligent enough to exercise a discretion on what i should be doing and what not. And i am responsible for all the activities i am doing. Guilt is a facet of people who are not sure of what they are doing. Its a trait of people who dont beleive in what they are up to. When i am sure of what i am upto and understand the meaning of it, why should i feel guilty.
Do u really think marraige has as much significance as u are asociating to it. Marraige is a big farce. Its not for the intelligent human. Its for people who have no control over themselves. Who need to be policed. Any human who respects his individuality and believes in his faculties of discretion would not like to be policed nor is there a need for such policing. Me, nor any other person who respects himself would not like to restrict him self on restrictions set by a soceity whose average intelligence is much less that his.
Posted by: Mr. Anil Bezawada At: 29, Jun 2003 10:46:38 PM IST
Hima,
After going thru what u have written there can be only two possibilities - that either u are romanticizing things a bit too much or other wise u really understand the meaning of love to the depth u have been talking. Asuming the latter option to be true i would extend this assumption that you would also realise that love is the epitome of a union of spirits.
Then why should this union be confined to one entity... why cant i love more than one person at a time... What aspect of such union says that i or any one can luv only one person. In reality its not that one loves a person first and then his habits.. rather u love a person as he conforms to ur standard of life, ur philosophy of life. U like people who have thought patterns similar to u. So in true sense u love ur philosophy. And u fall in luv with all other entitities that can unite with this philosophy, with this way of life.
When such union occurs.. it can be between two males, two females and a male and a female .. and to all such people you would like to be as close and intimate as possible. When the two ppl in context are of same sex then the possibility of expressing that intimacy thru sex is ruled out b'cos of the obvious bilogical repulsion towards such relations. But when its between a male and a female the highest form of expresing that luv or that mutual respect is thru sex. Well wat ever i have just spoken completely rule out fundaes like 'luv at first sight'... these things would work only if underneath they are supported by what i call a common way of life or the common spirit.
See if marraiges are just based on sexual satisfaction... then i should pity such marraiges. No marraige should start with sex as basis. All the emotions and feelings you have expressed would come only when sex is an extension of the luv one has for the other person. And one cant just have imaginary figure as wife or a friend and then can put any body into that black box and start luving him. It indeed surprises me that one would luv some one just because he or she is married to him/her. That by no means is luv -- its compromise. Just because a person has adorned ur neck with a magal sutra one is ready to sleep with him and would also enjoy that experience.... does it not sound animalisque. If any thing i can interpret out of it is that till that point all the feelings that have been contained in that person suddenly erupt out just b'cos he/she has a licence to have sex and since its a socially acceptable experience he is supposed to njoy it to the fullest and should treat it sacred. Such sex is really not sex out of luv. This is real animal sex... sex out of desire. What u have tried put across is the most lowest form of exercising discretion. Probably next only to prostitution.. Sorry if my choice words hurts u but from where i see the only difference is i pay and get sex in the latter context and in the former i am entitled to sex since i am married. After saying all this about maaraige being insignificant... there is no significance attatched to the word 'Pre-Marital' in the phrase 'Pre- Marital Sex'.
Also one should start respecting one self more. I am a human and i am intelligent enough to exercise a discretion on what i should be doing and what not. And i am responsible for all the activities i am doing. Guilt is a facet of people who are not sure of what they are doing. Its a trait of people who dont beleive in what they are up to. When i am sure of what i am upto and understand the meaning of it, why should i feel guilty.
Do u really think marraige has as much significance as u are asociating to it. Marraige is a big farce. Its not for the intelligent human. Its for people who have no control over themselves. Who need to be policed. Any human who respects his individuality and believes in his faculties of discretion would not like to be policed nor is there a need for such policing. Me, nor any other person who respects himself would not like to restrict him self on restrictions set by a soceity whose average intelligence is much less that his.
Posted by: Mr. Anil Bezawada At: 29, Jun 2003 10:34:14 PM IST
sex is like a Road Not Taken...
the first time its always mysterious
once u get urself familiar with it .. !!
well marriage is just a cause(or a vehicle)
Posted by: Mr. Srikanth Kolleru At: 29, Jun 2003 10:16:20 PM IST
lol
Posted by: Ms. G Sunita At: 29, Jun 2003 4:27:18 PM IST
baaga chepparu hima samira garu. in my opinion sexual relations before marriage is not compulsory.because it is not a learning one .it knows very natural.adavilo nemaliki evaru natyam nerpistharu ............
Posted by: Mrs. madhavi madhavi At: 29, Jun 2003 12:48:07 PM IST
`enti mama thega discussion lu pettav ;)
Posted by: Mr. pitt brad At: 28, Jun 2003 6:44:57 PM IST
2 hima samira
baagaa chEpparamDi...mee opinion maatram anubhavam lEkundaa chEppagaligEdi kaadu sure.
mee anubhavam chEdudai naa,teepidainaa..chaalaa thanx andi..Ento valuble message ni ichchaaru.defenitly idi kontamandi jeevitaalalo maarpu testundi...modata naa jeevitamE kaavachchEmo..
regards
Posted by: Mr. sujeeth mvr At: 28, Jun 2003 4:21:47 PM IST
ee topic ee modern world lo chala mataladedi emo..
shurngaram (sex) ante manasu, shariram, aatma, panchaindriyalu(5 sneses) mamekam avvatam.
pelli ki oka pavitratha pedda vallu pettaru.. karanam mana korikalu kuda oka paddhathi lo teerchukomani.
ee generation valla ku aa pavitratha (piousness) gurunchi pedda ga teliayadu.. daaniki thodu.. ee media.. vere konam lo veelanu teesukoni potundi.
Jantuvula korikalu chala varaku.. santhana aapeksha tho ne modalu avutai..konni kalalo matarame avi sangamistai.
manishi matram tana anandham kosam kuda shurungaram loki velatadu.
sheelam(charcter) anedi naitikam(mental) and sharirakam(body) kooda. kevalam sharirika pavitratha okkate sheelam ki kola badda kaadu.
mana kanna mundu. generation lo pelli vayasu mana kanna 5-10 years mundu vundedi.. ippudu adi peri gindi.
entha varaku manushulu correct ga vuntunnaru ante.. cheppa kudadu .. chala badha ga vundi.
ippati generation 18-21 years valla alochanale chala differnet ga vunnai.. valla ki bayam ledu.. pavitratha value teliyadu.
mana media(t.v, magzines) chudandi.. entha shurungara bahavanalu reketinche vi ga vunnayo.. poorvam ila vundedi kaadu.
"AATHI SARVATRA VARJAYETH" ee visyam lo aathi pani ki raadu.
malli shrungaram kunna pious ness manushulu teluskonataru edo oka roju.
Posted by: Haroon At: 27, Jun 2003 9:25:00 PM IST
| |
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
