women - trouble with C.Bhagat ??? - Page 4

Originally posted by: moi-monster

THIS IS TM

i lost access to the other account

guyz the last few posts have been seriously off-topic

and pardon me for not being precise enough !

yes , a women's sexual activities are clearly her business

i might have forgotten to add

i had been meaning to

that women in bhagat's work are INSUBSTANTIAL

i mean did they ever talk sense

they sound so stupid

agree???

Originally posted by: boreddamsel

If a woman is having sex, its the society that decides what is right and wrong. 😳

I remember being taught that kunti misused the boon given to her and had sex before her marriage 😆 she was supposed to wait until after she got married. But then she was such a naughty kid, she couldn't wait

😲

I tried searching very hard for an editorial article which I read in Hinustan Times ages ago. It clearly expressed the ideas that people have been harbouring against women. I am typing down a little bit of it that I recollect in my own words.

Originally posted by: Riyasi

@bold- where did u get that from? Only Karna who was not one of the Pandavas was Kunti's eldest son born out of wedlock.

I was in a hurry, and whatever I intended to say came out wrong.. 😛 I was referring to art and literature in India. I don't know if Ramayana and Mahabharata really happened. But if it was Vyasa's creation, then hat's off to him for all the progressive thinking. If thousands of years ago, a woman could bear children from others, then our culture should have progressed enough to accept Kunti's premarital sex, and Karna. But, because of regressive thinking we are forced to show woman as someone's possession, not as an individual.

@Pandavas.. I had read an article that says how these epics are watered down to show the characters as some celestial beings, not humans, to appease the modern world. Hence, Kunti's story about how she got her babies has been skewed because they can't preach she had multiple partners. I can't remember other references right now.

Originally posted by: .Baazigar.

This will happen when science will analyse mythology, 😊 no sex nothing only gods grace and a simple tathastu .

In mythology generally it is considered as god gift childs , it can be born from one eating fruit gifted from god - rusi muni or reciting some sloka or just a tathastu from god.

Pandavas came from tatastu from different gods

Jarasandha born as two half baby as two queen ate half of mango each , later then unite the two half babies thats why Bhima killed him by equally divide with opposite direction.

Even Parvati created ganesha born from turmeric paste

even in ramayan the same gods grace is there .

Draupadi born from fire

so on . We are speaking about a period when anyone hardly knew how childs born. Even man hardly knew what is his role in a child birth .

Exactly! What we are taught at present is that the babies were presented to Kunti with the click of a finger. But, in older texts, Kunti undergoes a full term with Karna and gives birth to him like a normal mother.

Link here

@red: Come on! You are not giving enough credit to our ancestors. They were capable of flying vimanas, but didn't know a man's role in child birth?? 😆 😆

Originally posted by: Ribbon

I tried searching very hard for an editorial article which I read in Hinustan Times ages ago. It clearly expressed the ideas that people have been harbouring against women. I am typing down a little bit of it that I recollect in my own words.

Why is it that in the society its always the women who are given a tag. If she sleeps with a married man, she is a husband snatcher/ w****. Is she is seen with a rich man, she is a gold digger. If she is not married beyond a certain age, she has some defect. Why is it always the woman.

And the article went on to state many other things but sadly I am not able to find it. People so insolently rush ahead to make these judegments. Not once is the man in question characterless or a w****. This will hopefully if not change anyone's opinion atleast force people to see the truth in it.

And having sex before or after marriage is solely the each one's opinion. One's body is his own. Pre-marital sex doesnt make someone characterless. There are more worse things which lead to people deserving that tag. Apologies for any typo.

Originally posted by: moi-monster

with earnest regard to what u have spoken above .

i too agree that men are the ones who should be deemed characterless and the women should not solitarily bear all blame

but try to understand this

man = dog

everybody knows that , hence cannot xpct any better from them . infact its best not to expect any noble from them @ all .

now we women are the superior , more honorable form of being , hence we should dutifully preserve that honor so fervently trusted upon us .

i read this somewhere that no matter how pure the heart of a married man is , when a women poses semi-naked in front him , he wont shun his un-averted gaze .

whereas a women , when posed with a similar position , would think twice about her actions . 1 - for her family 2- for herself