Adultery no longer a crime as Supreme Court strikes down Section 497

[nikred]

Do you think marriage is just about sex?

How did you come up with this question from what I was saying?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

[Number]

Homosexuality decriminalised, Adultery decriminalised 

Govt ko chhut deni thi tax me, de rahi hai sex me. 

[Stradlater]

54 minutes ago, Number said:

Homosexuality decriminalised, Adultery decriminalised 

Govt ko chhut deni thi tax me, de rahi hai sex me. 

Lol it's chhoot

[Clarke]

1 hour ago, Number said:

Homosexuality decriminalised, Adultery decriminalised 

Govt ko chhut deni thi tax me, de rahi hai sex me. 

Supreme Court de raha hai sab. Govt ka bas chalta to sex pe GST hota.

[coffee_rules]

On 9/27/2018 at 8:31 AM, coffee_rules said:

Wife could've gotten the husband arrested for commiting adultery, but husband could only get the wife's lover arrested for the same crime, never the wife., as per this law, which is now atruck down.

I stand corrected, I had misunderstood the law, the wife cannot get the husband arrested for adultery, but if there was proof that the husband had married his lover, she can get him indicted for bigamy for all non-peacefuls only.

[coffee_rules]

After decriminalizing adultery and Sabarimal verdict, you can now go to Sabarimala with your neighbor's wife.

Forwarded from WA..

[Alam_dar]

Give a very honest answer to yourself about this question: "Do you still feel sexually attracted towards other beautiful women, despite having a wife"?

 

If yes, then it should be an acknowledgement that this thing is present in "human NATURE", otherwise for whole of our life we have been learning the morals which go against this feeling. 

 

I want to find out the scientific facts about human Nature and Love. 

 

What if we are close to Bonobos apes in our family structure? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Give a very honest answer to yourself about this question: "Do you still feel sexually attracted towards other beautiful women, despite having a wife"?

 

If yes, then it should be an acknowledgement that this thing is present in "human NATURE", otherwise for whole of our life we have been learning the morals which go against this feeling. 

 

I want to find out the scientific facts about human Nature and Love. 

 

What if we are close to Bonobos apes in our family structure? 

 

 

 

 

 

again, this has nothing to do with cheating, which is a matter of sharing information and mutual consent. 

[beetle]

On 9/28/2018 at 1:41 PM, Alam_dar said:

But for some, it would be ok if their partners go for sex with others. Just like the Muslim women of last 14 centuries, who were mentally prepared for it that their husbands has the right to sleep with other wives, and also he could buy dozens of slave-girls and could do sex with them. The still believed that their husband loved them despite having sex with dozens of other girls. 

 

So, the lesson is this that in Islamic society it was considered that husband is able of loving all dozens of women that he has sex with, but wife is not able to love the husband if she does sex with anyone else than his husband. 

 

You would be surprised to know that even today there exist many Muslim women (especially in Arab world) who happily look for 2nd or 3rd wife for their respective husbands while they believe that this will make their husband happy and he will become more loving to all of them. This is Islamic Religious Brainwashing which bring them to this mental state

majboori is not consent.

Do these muslim women have the choice of saying no?

Did muslim women have the right to marry non muslims to avoid this?

Did they have the choice of becoming non muslims?

 

Having no choice is not consent.

On 9/28/2018 at 1:41 PM, Alam_dar said:

Again some could also have mental blockage against the mutual consent too. They neither want to do sex outside of wedlock themselves, and also don't allow the partners to do it (like our society). 

That is called marriage. A commitment to being satisfied with one person.

The option of open marriage or no marriage is always there.

19 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

"Do you still feel sexually attracted towards other beautiful women, despite having a wife"?

Being attracted is different from acting on it.

 

On 9/28/2018 at 1:41 PM, Alam_dar said:

For example, for Inuits, it was hospitality and honour to serve the guest (close friend) his wife. They didn't have this mental blockage while doing so. 

Treating someone like furniture is not something that is acceptable in civil society. Sati was also acceptable at one time.Does not mean it is acceptable or can be approved.

 

[Alam_dar]

12 hours ago, beetle said:

majboori is not consent.

Do these muslim women have the choice of saying no?

Did muslim women have the right to marry non muslims to avoid this?

Did they have the choice of becoming non muslims?

I think there is some misunderstanding here. I am not supporting what happens to Musllim women, but my question has another angle i.e. "trained/brain-washed BEHVIOUR". 

 

Off course Muslim women could not stop their husbands to marry other women or to have sex with slave-girls. But they could still certainly show at least their anger and disapproval upon it. But this is not the case. They have been "trained/brain-washed" and they are pleased upon it and themselves try to find other wives for their husbands. It is almost their giving their "consent" under their trained behaviour. 

 

Please understand that the issue here is the "trained behaviour"  VS  "Natural Human Behaviour during several hundred thousands of Human Evolution". 

 

What if human commitment to being satisfied with one person is also only a "trained behaviour" and basically against our basic Human Nature?

 

Off course, the option of open marriage or no marriage is always there, but what even if after marriage one is over-powered due to nature and revolts against this trained behaviour by watching pornos, masturbation or having another sex partner? In other words, ethics of our society are colliding with our nature and thus we are having all these social problems. 

 

Could you with 100% certainty claim that being satisfied with one person in name of marriage is 100% Human Nature through which we evolved during last thousands of years?  

 

Don't you think that we have been trained for monogamous relationship, while if social barriers are taken off then Humans would love to indulge in sexual relationship with multiple partners? If I honestly answer this question, then I see a vast vast majority of at least men who will indulge in polygamous behavior. 

 

Quote

Treating someone like furniture is not something that is acceptable in civil society. Sati was also acceptable at one time.Does not mean it is acceptable or can be approved.

I didn't cite the Inuit practice to claim that it is Right, or it is exactly the Human Nature. No, I am not dealing with the morally Right or morally Wrong question here, but I am dealing with the Human Nature. 

 

For me, it may be that the Inuit men are compelling their wives to do so, and it also comes then under "trained behaviour". 

 

Or in Tibet/China there are tribes where wife shares brothers as husband. Or in some African tribes all men are allowed to cohabit with all women and children are raised from all. But still it could be also be a trained behaviour and not the natural one. 

 

For me, it is still an "open" question what exactly human nature is and what is the trained behaviour. I have not come to any definite conclusion about human nature. Unfortunately, I have only open questions, but no definite answers. 

 

===

 

Study of Bonobos is interesting and perhaps we could find some answers there. 

 

Among Bonobos, perhaps the family love is more that humans. They are perhaps also less aggressive than humans against each other.  Also they collectively take care of the children. Family always stays together.

 

Also there is consensual sex in polygamous manner. They use sex to over come any bad feelings against each others. They don't have jealousy due to this polygamous sex. 

 

Bonobo females are able to perform sex for very longer period (just like human females). It is concluded that this is the reason why there is no jealousy among the Bonobo males while every one gets enough time to have sex. 

 

As compared to the Bonobo/human females, the chimp females are ready for sex for a very short period of time, and thus there is huge competition among the males, which brings this extreme aggressive attitude and jealousy among the Chimps. 

 

Chimps are about war, while Bonobos are for love. 

 

Scientists and Researchers are thinking about this question, what if natural sexual behaviour of humans is also close to the Bonobos during whole history of our evolution? 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Alam_dar

[beetle]

10 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Off course Muslim women could not stop their husbands to marry other women or to have sex with slave-girls. But they could still certainly show at least their anger and disapproval upon it. But this is not the case. They have been "trained/brain-washed" and they are pleased upon it and themselves try to find other wives for their husbands. It is almost their giving their "consent" under their trained

No...trained behavior does not mean they are fine with it.

It still means  they have no option.

What would happen if she showed dosapproval? 

She would be punished.... so it is not trained acceptance.

It is like a young girl getting married into a family in India. She is trained from childhood to accept whatever is asked of her in in laws house, whether fair or unfair.

That does not mean she is trained to accept. This young girl very often fights back in due course of time and gets her say  in her life. Just because the muslim women are trained to accept does not mean they accept without resentment . 

 

 

 

[beetle]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Or in Tibet/China there are tribes where wife shares brothers as husband. Or in some African tribes all men are allowed to cohabit with all women and children are raised from all. But still it could be also be a trained behaviour and not the natural one. 

Even in uttarakhand.

That again is a majboori because it was given social sanction and women who entered into such alliance were keeping a family together.

 

In Haryana , it is becoming a majboori because they are very less women compared to men.

 

Majboori is not natural behavior.

Only something that comes naturally when you have other options , can be called human nature.

 

Being possesive , being jealous, wanting a partner in exclusive relationship are all normal human behaviors .

 

Some people  want open relationships, that is exceptional human behavior.

 

[Alam_dar]

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

 

Since Darwin's day, we've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. Mainstream science--as well as religious and cultural institutions--has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages. 
How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. While debunking almost everything we "know" about sex, they offer a bold alternative explanation in this provocative and brilliant book. 
Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is. Human beings everywhere and in every era have confronted the same familiar, intimate situations in surprisingly different ways. The authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity. 
With intelligence, humor, and wonder, Ryan and Jethá show how our promiscuous past haunts our struggles over monogamy, sexual orientation, and family dynamics. They explore why long-term fidelity can be so difficult for so many; why sexual passion tends to fade even as love deepens; why many middle-aged men risk everything for transient affairs with younger women; why homosexuality persists in the face of standard evolutionary logic; and what the human body reveals about the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality. 
In the tradition of the best historical and scientific writing, Sex at Dawn unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do.

 

 

Reviews and testimonies:

 

There are about 900 reviews about this book. I find them very helpful. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Alam_dar

[Alam_dar]

Here is the summary of what Dr. Ryan wrote about things which could be learnt from the Bonobo culture:

 

1. More sex = less conflict. As the great primatologist, Frans de Waal put it, "Chimps use violence to get sex, while bonobos use sex to avoid violence." While chimps victimize each other in many ways—rape, murder, infanticide, warfare between groups—there's never been a single observed case of any of these forms of aggression among bonobos, who are much sexier than chimps. As James Prescott demonstrated in a meta-analysis of all available anthropological data, the connection between less restrictive sexuality and less conflict generally holds true for human societies as well.
 

2. Feminism can be very sexy. When females are in charge, everyone lives better (including the males). While male chimps run the show, among bonobos, it's the females who are in charge, with much better quality of life for everyone involved (see #1).
 

3. Sisterhood is powerful. Although female bonobos are about 20% smaller than males—roughly the same ratio as in chimps and humans—they dominate males by sticking together. If a male gets out of line and harasses a female, ALL the other females will gang up on him. This sisterly solidarity, combined with lots of sex, tends to keep the males behaving politely.
 

4. Jealousy isn't romantic. While bonobos no-doubt experience unique feelings for one another, they don't seem to worry much about controlling one another's sex lives. Nor do bonobos seem to gossipmuch...
 

5. There's promise in promiscuity. All the casual sex among bonobos is arguably a big part of what has made them among the smartest of all primates. Until human beings came along and messed things up for them, bonobos enjoyed very high quality of life, low stress, and plenty of social interaction in hammocks. In fact, of the many species of social primates living in multi-male social groups, not a single species is sexually monogamous. Each of the arguably smartest mammals--humans, chimps, bonobos, and dolphins—is promiscuous.
 

6. Good sex needn't always include an orgasm, and "casual" doesn't necessarily mean "empty" or "cheap." Most bonobo sexual interactions are nothing more than a quick feel, rub, or intromission—a "bonobo handshake," if you will. (See Vanessa Woods's excellent book by that name for a personal story of living with bonobos while falling in love.) But bonobos are very romantic: like humans, they kiss, hold hands (and feet!), and gaze into one another's eyes while having sex.
 

7. Sex and food go together better than love and marriage—at least for bonobos. Nothing gets a bonobo orgy started faster than a feast. Give a group of bonobos a bunch of food and they'll all have some quick sex before very politely sharing the food. No need to fight over scraps like a bunch of uncouth chimps!

[beetle]

Humans are not bonobos!!!!!!

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

 

Since Darwin's day, we've been told that sexual monogamy comes naturally to our species. Mainstream science--as well as religious and cultural institutions--has maintained that men and women evolved in families in which a man's possessions and protection were exchanged for a woman's fertility and fidelity. But this narrative is collapsing. Fewer and fewer couples are getting married, and divorce rates keep climbing as adultery and flagging libido drag down even seemingly solid marriages. 
How can reality be reconciled with the accepted narrative? It can't be, according to renegade thinkers Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá. While debunking almost everything we "know" about sex, they offer a bold alternative explanation in this provocative and brilliant book. 
Ryan and Jethá's central contention is that human beings evolved in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and, often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, frequently overlooked evidence from anthropology, archaeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature monogamy really is. Human beings everywhere and in every era have confronted the same familiar, intimate situations in surprisingly different ways. The authors expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity. 
With intelligence, humor, and wonder, Ryan and Jethá show how our promiscuous past haunts our struggles over monogamy, sexual orientation, and family dynamics. They explore why long-term fidelity can be so difficult for so many; why sexual passion tends to fade even as love deepens; why many middle-aged men risk everything for transient affairs with younger women; why homosexuality persists in the face of standard evolutionary logic; and what the human body reveals about the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality. 
In the tradition of the best historical and scientific writing, Sex at Dawn unapologetically upends unwarranted assumptions and unfounded conclusions while offering a revolutionary understanding of why we live and love as we do.

 

 

Reviews and testimonies:

 

There are about 900 reviews about this book. I find them very helpful. 

As your views on raw foods has demonstrated, you have very little grasp of science and ability to discern facts.

I've read this book and this book is nothing more than trash. Ranges from speculative trash to outright,falsified trash.

 

The answer to human sexual behaviour, is in our genome. Humans have a very wide variety of mtDNA but far less variety in y-chromosome DNA. This means far less men got to pass down their DNA than women. This can be possible prior to birth control via only ONE type of mating strategy: very few men hogging most of the women. Aka standard polygamy, where men of power/status have humongous harems. 

This is the exact opposite of feminism. Men did not share women with each other, they jealously & violently guarded their own harems.

As mankind transitioned from hunter-gatherer lifestyle to farming, this model started to break down, with serial monogamy introduced into our societies, as human societies started to be more and more spread apart due to early farming. The greatest winners of monogamy were/are men. Not women. Most women got to pass down their genes anyways in the standard polygamy model. But most men were no longer excluded.

 

DNA evidence is decisive towards this model for heterosexual transmission of our genes. Rest, is bakwaas. 

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Muloghonto

[rkt.india]

7 hours ago, beetle said:

Humans are not bonobos!!!!!!

humans are not sheep as well.

[mishra]

Top post @Alam_dar and good joke  as long as you can share this with ur female acquaintances.

However it becomes very serious if male acquaintance of females of your family share above with them

 

[coffee_rules]

First day of Social Studies class ... Man is a Social Animal! 

[Alam_dar]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

As your views on raw foods has demonstrated, you have very little grasp of science and ability to discern facts.

I've read this book and this book is nothing more than trash. Ranges from speculative trash to outright,falsified trash.

 

The answer to human sexual behaviour, is in our genome. Humans have a very wide variety of mtDNA but far less variety in y-chromosome DNA. This means far less men got to pass down their DNA than women. This can be possible prior to birth control via only ONE type of mating strategy: very few men hogging most of the women. Aka standard polygamy, where men of power/status have humongous harems. 

This is the exact opposite of feminism. Men did not share women with each other, they jealously & violently guarded their own harems.

As mankind transitioned from hunter-gatherer lifestyle to farming, this model started to break down, with serial monogamy introduced into our societies, as human societies started to be more and more spread apart due to early farming. The greatest winners of monogamy were/are men. Not women. Most women got to pass down their genes anyways in the standard polygamy model. But most men were no longer excluded.

 

DNA evidence is decisive towards this model for heterosexual transmission of our genes. Rest, is bakwaas. 

I am fully open to any Scientific evidence. 

 

I have absolutely no problem in accepting your conclusion, based upon the study that you mentioned. It is indeed a strong evidence. 

 

Nevertheless, there come other issues, like your presented study has been  some what challenged by another later researched more detailed study (Link), which reduced this gap significantly and suggested other issues too. Link. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Alam_dar