Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 I think in the wake of #metoo and the rising question of sexual conduct, this is the right atmosphere to talk about the general topic of sexuality itself in India. For a time now, it has become more and more evident to me, that what modern Hindus think of sexuality, its role in life, its acceptance, including behaviour, virtue(in context of sex) and clothing, are all DECISIVELY Islamo-christian moral code. This becomes more and more evident and apparent in the study of cultural histories of the Indian subcontinent. For example, there is evidence all over the place, that sex was a topic that was quite well in the open,explored and as a result, nudity itself is not a sexualized topic. This is counter-intuitive to conservative minds. They think that a sexually open society is hyper-sexualized about nudity. Yet, for a long time, the exact opposite is in view. For eg, there are nude beaches where i live. Over the years, seen many a hippie commune, been to festivals where clothing is seen optional, etc. The one thing that stands out, is that for most nudists, nudity itself is not sexual most of the time. So i will present a few case studies to demonstrate, how Hindus/Jains/Buddhists(Indians, as this is about us Indians culture of sexuality, not faith per se) are influenced by Islamic(primarily) and Christian (secondarily) code of conduct over nudity. CasualVisitor, beetle and velu 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 Warning: Graphic images of our ancestors and their ways of life. Time for those who think women should remain covered and cloistered, avert your eyes: Spoiler Painting of a dance troupe performing outside some homes and a small audience. Notice how our ancestors drew the 'audience' and its clothing : Spoiler Bodhisattwa/important person in the streets - some notice him, some don't. Note the rich lady who's wearing so much jewellery: These are how our ancestors dressed. These paintings are from prior to 600s AD period ( as far as i know) and therefore, pre-Islamic in its influence. We can see, quite clearly, that normal life depictions often show a 'universal loin-cloth but upper body garment optional for both genders'. This is also tough to argue from a 'poverty and the poor ones 2000 years ago were naked illiterate savages' angle, because we can also clearly see, some of the ladies potrayed top-less are no different than the rest shown and in some cases, extremely rich - like the one in the second picture ( the jewellery on her alone makes her upper class). Yet, not all the women are topless either. beetle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 Another lesser known angle, even amongst our Sanghi Islam-haters ( and the non-Sanghi ones as well) : We actually have a decent amount of literature from the 700s AD- 1200s AD from the Arab, Turkic sources regarding the infidel Indians they were conquering. For eg, they, like the Persians before them, called ALL of us 'hindus' - inhabitans of Al Hind. Not just the veda-vedanta followers. But the Jains, buddhists, etc too. One consistent theme of their literature, is graphic details of 'sexually perverse' conduct of the hindus - most of which really, centers around scorn of nudity. One particular item that they found highly offensive in the Arab sources, for example, is the 'hindus daring to insult the concept of God by having 'whores' in the temple!'. Yet, the description of these 'whores' in Arab literature closely resemble - in paintings for looks and in the Indian literaures for temple dancers & dasis. A position of high repute, education and pathway to women's empowerment in those days. This theme, with particular scorn directed towards nudity, is evident throughout the Arabic literatures directed towards India in this period. Even when they are full of praise or awe of major Indian powers, they make a point to describe the 'nakedness of Indians'. For example, there is an Abbasid era Arabic work, written around the time of the Apogee of Rashtrakuta Imperial Power, under Govinda-III's reign. it describes in detail the power and splendour of the Rashtrakutas, while taking time to mention the naked women in the courts. Another interesting thing to note, is that the arab word for 'naked' is literally, the same word for 'uncovered' in these literatures. They do not differentiate between topless and fully naked in most of their literature. This attack against 'nakedness' is carried over to the Turkic sources from the times of Ghazni and Ghorids as well. Although by this time, it starts becoming evident that the upper classes had started to abandon the less clothing aspect of Indian culture towards a more conservative dress code. These sources will take a bit of time for me to organize, but if there is interest to the discussion, i suppose i can look them up again. beetle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 It bears to mention, that the 'dress code' of Indians is not just restricted towards a marked attempt to conceal the women or cover them up in Islamic concepts of 'sexual purity'. This was reflected in the men as well. For example, earliest depictions of Rajput Art, which comes from 500-700s years ago shows nobility/power, such as the various Ranas and leaders, in extremely fine clothing along with jewels. Yet, almost all Indian art from 1000 years or more ago, shows the powerful men as also shirt-less. RajaRaja Chola era consecration images ( likely depicting RajaRaja himself) shows him as shirtless! At that time the golden period of Chola Empire, with total dominance of the BoB trade network and large presence in the Arabian Sea trade network, controlling one of the richest empires on the earth, is suffice to say, is of as much prestige to his subjects, if not more, than Rana Sanga was to his. Yet, while Rana Sanga wears fine livery, Raja-Raja is much more simplistic - with wealth and power conveyed via the jewelled adornments of his garb. The idea of nudity is specifically offensive to the Judeo-Islamic moral code with multiple injunctions against it. Yet, the idea of nudity ITSELF is not a source of direct scorn in Hinduism or most of Indic literature. Something, that is consistent with the art, the depictions ( both friendly and hostile) of the historic sources. beetle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 What is Hinduism ? Lets start with that. It clearly is not a term linked to ancient India. It is not a single religion or belief system. So what is this Hinduism you refer to ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, ravishingravi said: What is Hinduism ? Lets start with that. It clearly is not a term linked to ancient India. It is not a single religion or belief system. So what is this Hinduism you refer to ? hinduism is used in two context here: a) The modern usage of the word and the views on sexuality espoused, in practice, by most people who identify as hindus b) The ancient comparison, where the word is all-encompassing of all the various ideologies that lived together and got lumped in as an ethnic term (like it was before). Its important to realize, that there is no evidence that the concepts of sexuality or clothing in modern hindus are in any way relevant to the veda-vedanta followers of the ancient & early medieval times either. We go to Konark and see sexual sculptures in a temple dedicated to the Sun God 1000 years ago. built by a hindu dynasty who espoused veda & vedanta following. So there is no ' the people who actually lived by the ideologies that distilled into modern hinduism were the same ideology as sex and clothing as the average hindu is today', either. As i said, it becomes very clear that what we can 'identify' as religious hindus from over a 1000 years ago with remarkable similarity to us ( eg: Raja Dahir and the Brahman dynasty of sindh in 8th century AD. Or the krishna-rama following, vedic ritual performing, rajputs from the time of Mehmoud of Ghazni had no significantly different dress code than the 'classic phase of Indian civilization'. As i said, multiple, independent comment from their own sources talking about nudity is still present. We should be careful about dismissing all this Islamic depiction as pure vilification/exgaggeration, because by the early centuries of the last millenium, ie, 1100s, 1200s AD onwards etc, we see a noticable shift in Islamic literature directed at Indians. Still hated for being idol worshippers, unbelievers, etc. but the nudity part is clearly absent. This is also reflected, in our art from that period too. We start seeing more clothing and 'Islamization of clothing' taking effect in the subcontinent. Edited October 21, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) An interesting comparison, is provided for example, in comparing the original works from Mehmoud of Ghazni period of Indians and that of Tamerlane. During Ghazni's period, there is a scholar from his court, who writes a sort of 'anthology of Indians cultural, social and religious practices'. He gets many concepts wrong because he wrote from his numerous journeys accompanying Mehmoud on his wars in India. As such, he wrote what he encountered/saw and interpreted of the practices, customs etc and got many ideas wrong ( he struggled to tell Buddhists apart from Brahmins for eg and implied a giant hatred amongst the 'bammans'). Yet he makes multiple references towards clothing and how women & men barely covered their torsos ( consistent with the historic depiction of Indians). This was around 980s AD or so. In late 1300s AD, Timur set the stage of invasion of India for several years. Contrary to popular opinion, the Delhi Sultanate had developed a fearsome reputation amongst the Turks & Mongols by late 1300s, by being pretty much the only major Asian continental polity that directly defeated and expelled the vaunted Mongol military. India wasn't seen as a target 'ripe for picking' during his time, as was common with virtually all Turkic invaders. He was a sunni, who made a career out of genociding Christians ( the Eastern Church), Shias and various Islamic factions. Or those who directly competed with him over power. This put him at a quandry over Delhi Sultanate, because Delhi Sultans showed zero interest in even re-conquering Kabul from him and were themselves zealous Sunnis. He got several fatwas issued, where ultimately, he settled on the ' they are fake Muslims because they allow their infidels too much leeway'. This was the main way he got his army prepared to invade and several jihad calls across his realm exist, exclusively to motivate the invasion of India. He goes through great pains to describe the depravity of the infidels of India and how they should do something. Noticably, of all the things he hates the kaffirs of India for, nudity does NOT make the list. Contrast this with the Arab tales from 700s AD, where the hindu Raja Dahir's kingdom draws prominent attention for Nudity and it remains a subject nearly 300 years later under Mehmoud of Ghazni as well. Yet, by the time of Timur's invasion, aka nearly 1400AD, this aspect is completely gone. Also reflected in our artwork. So the strong correlation of our sexual & clothing views changing between this period of 980sAD-1400AD exists. Edited October 21, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alam_dar Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) Deleted Edited October 21, 2018 by Alam_dar deleted while non related to the topic of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Muhammad belonged to the Arabic Culture. Therefore, although Muhammad founded his newly founded religion on the bases of Judaism/Christianity, but still he took some practices from his Arabic Culture. One of the that practices from Arab culture was this that thousands of the slave-girls moved in the Islamic society "topless". Actually it was forbidden for the slave girls to take the Hijab which hid their head hairs and the breasts. There are tons of authentic tradition that the Caliphs used to beat the slave girls who tried to take Hijab, by telling her that Hijab is an honour and only the Free Muslim Women has the right to take Hijab. Today Muslims boast that Islam is the most "modest" religion, but unfortunately world (and even 99% Muslims) themselves don't know their shameful past where they compelled thousands of slave girls to move in the society topless. this has nothing to do with the thread..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 15 hours ago, Muloghonto said: Warning: Graphic images of our ancestors and their ways of life. Time for those who think women should remain covered and cloistered, avert your eyes: Reveal hidden contents Painting of a dance troupe performing outside some homes and a small audience. Notice how our ancestors drew the 'audience' and its clothing : Reveal hidden contents Bodhisattwa/important person in the streets - some notice him, some don't. Note the rich lady who's wearing so much jewellery: These are how our ancestors dressed. These paintings are from prior to 600s AD period ( as far as i know) and therefore, pre-Islamic in its influence. We can see, quite clearly, that normal life depictions often show a 'universal loin-cloth but upper body garment optional for both genders'. This is also tough to argue from a 'poverty and the poor ones 2000 years ago were naked illiterate savages' angle, because we can also clearly see, some of the ladies potrayed top-less are no different than the rest shown and in some cases, extremely rich - like the one in the second picture ( the jewellery on her alone makes her upper class). Yet, not all the women are topless either. Artistic expressions are not always a representation of the society they lived in. Most of the time, these are imagination of the artists. Artists are widely known to be more progressive or modern with wild imagination than other people. Number 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 You are also mixing up culture and religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 Culture does change. Religion does not. Religion does not decide what one should wear or not. Culture does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 21, 2018 Share Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, rkt.india said: Culture does change. Religion does not. Religion does not decide what one should wear or not. Culture does. I agree .... when there was no clothing available, we roamed naked. Then we used leaves and leather to cover ourselves .... and so on (cultural evolution) .... I will not be surprised to see that in many tribal areas people roam half naked as they have not been touched by modern culture, as propagated by the west Edited October 21, 2018 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 1 hour ago, rkt.india said: Artistic expressions are not always a representation of the society they lived in. Most of the time, these are imagination of the artists. Artists are widely known to be more progressive or modern with wild imagination than other people. how did you come to the conclusion that it is not representative, since the artist depiction of common life matches pretty well with written accounts of how we dressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 21, 2018 Author Share Posted October 21, 2018 1 hour ago, rkt.india said: Culture does change. Religion does not. Religion does not decide what one should wear or not. Culture does. false. religion does deciede/have influence on what we wear because of the morality espoused in it. It is pretty clear that what Indians today consider proper dress code is abandoning our own religion/cultural norms and adopting the muslim one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 12 hours ago, Muloghonto said: false. religion does deciede/have influence on what we wear because of the morality espoused in it. It is pretty clear that what Indians today consider proper dress code is abandoning our own religion/cultural norms and adopting the muslim one. Did you see Hindus breaking temples like Konark, Khajuraho, Halebidu if that's the case? Culture is changing, world over. I have seen teenage kids in the west sharing NatGeo videos of Amazon/African tribes and snickering about being topless. It's becoming a norm world over to cover bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 12 hours ago, zen said: I agree .... when there was no clothing available, we roamed naked. Then we used leaves and leather to cover ourselves .... and so on (cultural evolution) .... I will not be surprised to see that in many tribal areas people roam half naked as they have not been touched by modern culture, as propagated by the west The brainwashing is complete, as evidence in this post. Nakedness= backwardness/poor moralism of the Judeo-islamics. Bhai, lets put some numbers out there - people like Rajaraja Chola or Harsha, Vikramaditya etc. wore extraordinary jewels & gold on them with minimal clothing. For lack of a better description, think Mahabharata style clothing with more female top nudity. Indian kings/emperors at these periods ( 400s BC-1100 AD or so) would fully have periods of the most powerful man on the planet with control over the greatest pile of wealth. Again, no offence to our Brave Rajputs or Glorious Sikhs and the criminally under-rated Vijayanagras, but these chaps were never really the top of the world in power or wealth, nevermind both. Most of their art depicts them in their casual attires as loincloths while being richly adorned in jewels and gold, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 24 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Did you see Hindus breaking temples like Konark, Khajuraho, Halebidu if that's the case? Culture is changing, world over. I have seen teenage kids in the west sharing NatGeo videos of Amazon/African tribes and snickering about being topless. It's becoming a norm world over to cover bodies. Err, sure. Due to spread of Judeo-Islamic morals. I don't see why that takes away from my entire point. It is a freaking fact, that our modern hinduism is DIFFERENT in its religious-cultural angle than it is today. Culture may've changed but the religion's views on it changed too. Today you have legions and legions of hindu gurus and babas and various like who will, vocally associate nudity with carnality/unclean behaviour. Yet its important to realize, that in ALL the virtues extolled in by many of the classical era Hindu preachers - Adi Shanakara, for example, nudity was hardly a topic of conversation. There was no hindu prohibition on wearing less clothing, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin 3:!6 Posted October 22, 2018 Share Posted October 22, 2018 Ok though I didn't understood a word written in OP but my sexuality is not based on my religion. Its the last thing I want to mix. I can get horny anytime though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 22, 2018 Author Share Posted October 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, Austin 3:!6 said: Ok though I didn't understood a word written in OP but my sexuality is not based on my religion. Its the last thing I want to mix. I can get horny anytime though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts