Originally posted by: ThaneOfElsinore
CAUTION: IT IS A LONG POST.
This! This is exactly what I wished to convey in my original post. My question specifically to you, Ash bro, was: Why do you think pre-marital relationships are "immoral" or "characterless"? Who decided how women should behave in relationships? Men? And who gave men the right to decide how a woman has character or is characterless? I questioned the source of these morals in my views. My question is still not answered, Ash bro. Who decides these so called morals? What is the actual definition of morality? Society decide karti hai yeh sab? Vahi toh puccha maine. Society hum sab se, insaanon se banti hai toh phir yeh morals aaye kahan se?
Spirituality, divine scriptures etcetera are not plausible explanations. These scriptures are the roots of prejudices and discrimination. These scriptures justify targetted abuse and harassment towards certain sections of the society. These scriptures and cultures across the world, especially in India, have always oppressed women, tried to suppress their desires and bodily autonomy so that they remain in control. Why are you so threatened by individuality, by personal desires? Because it might lead to certain sections go out of control of the privileged ones? Because it might lead to erosion of the structures that put certain people at the top, deciding for all the others?
Let me make it clearer to you and everyone who's reading this. All these "morals" are actually present because sexual autonomy of women is a threat to conservative societies which rely on preserving exploitative structures like caste and religion through procreation. Purity, impurity in blood remember? That's the root of these "beautiful morals and culture".
1000 saalon se yeh "chochle" isliye nahi the kyunki more than 80℅ population uneducated thi. Most sections of the society were prohibited from receiving education and awareness. Women, marginalised castes and all the underprivileged people (all men and women) were not allowed to think for themselves. No one knew what human rights were. Aap isko humara culture, humari sanskriti kehte ho? 1000 saalon se yeh sab toxic isliye nahi tha kyunki toxicity was the norm. Discrimination and oppression was the norm. Kindly read up on unbiased history and sociology to understand the Indian and Human Society in detail. IIT mein Humanities nahi sikhate iska matlab yeh nahi ki society ke baare mein galat perception banake rakhna chahiye.
Maine aapko itne saare instances diye of EMA, polygamy, dometic violence, caste discrimination and everything present in the Indian society for millennia till date without Western influence, aur aapne use itna bada vala ignore maar diya? Usmein nahi dekhi aapne toxicity? Usmein aapko morals nazar nahi aaye? Especially when men were the perpetrators of these actual immoral activities, having multiple wives and concubines? You are romanticising the past, not viewing it objectively!
Aapne toh Mumbai ka example aisa diya hai jaise aap har ladki ko jaante ho. So much of anecdotal generalisation! Aise hi cuss word use kar diya? Any stats there? The historical acceptance of harmful practices disguised as culture is not a sign of a morally superior society but is a consequence of widespread ignorance and oppression.
Talking about the statistics and data about divorce rates being higher in the West, that's a misleading data. West mein divorces report hote hain. And how is divorce rates data connected to morality and pre-marital conditions? I would love to be enlightened on this particular correlation. Again, like I said before which you missed out on, correlation does not imply causation.
In India, divorces are seen with extreme stigma. Majority of our population holds similar views as yours: divorces are immoral (smh). There are multiple people struggling in marriages, getting abused (both men and women). Don't humiliate their unhappiness and struggles as mere "drama" or "chochle". They don't apply for divorce because of these societal "morals" which are suffocating their lives. Divorce rates are not reliably indicative of the rate of failure of marriages. India mein rates kam isliye hain kyunki yahan koi report hi nahi karta. Isliye nahi ki yahan sab shaadi karke khush hain. As you are a data science student, I hope you know what selective bias and over-generalisation in data interpretation means.
Aap unhe losers bula rahe ho jo apne hi rights ke liye apni awaaz utha rahe hain? But your reply doesn't seem to be critical of misogynistic children and teens these days. Uska bhi koi culture theory hai kya? You claim to respect different views and be flexible but are labelling those with opposing views and "morals" as "losers," indicating a lack of genuine open-mindedness in the same breath.
Also, as I said in my previous posts, I'm not a fan of the discriminatory attitudes of the upcoming generations. Ironically, despite our progressive ideas, we're seeing a worrying trend of conservatism and regression in younger generations, both here and in the West. So, I'm not blindly justifying everything today, as there's a lot of hatred around. These "morals" you defend can contribute to that negativity.
Ash bro, as a someone who has read and is reading extensively in literature, history and economics, I think you're quite misguided due to your prejudices. I have tried my best to atleast give you a hint of a path towards critical thinking, it's your choice to accept the facts or live in denial.
Abhi thora kaam hai kal subah pakka reply karunga with thorough analysis and answer to each of your questions...
Just clear me this thing for you....
World works as per different ideologies and everything comes with an expiry date, nothing progresses it just transfers, if you throw a ball and live long enough woh pure universe se ghum ke aapke haathon me hi aayega....every aspect of world woh kisi bhi subject ka form le cannot deny mathematical nature of neutrality-God's language....That's how this modern mentality is....
You are being shaped in a box jisne experience hi wahi kiya hai which they wanted to.....that's why you are siding the aspect of liberty....there is hidden agenda behind this and you are just another medium...Chhota sa example in 1920's what girls wear as western outfits now even deep neck were worn by strippers....and male gaze ko entertain karne ke liye dress aur short karke normalise karte gaye, aaj ladkiyaan usi ka support kar rhi hain as sexual autonomy....
Main kal reply karunga this would be ending up as bulky books ka summary but phir bhi....
Ps. If you didn't understand this I will clear up later as a whole and don't need to bring literature here students passed out from hansraj, Xavier's still come to our institute for exposure and placements aapki toh journey abhi start huwi hai PhD tak kuch baat banegi waise and liked reading....
....
238