beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I don't appreciate being personal comment made on. But on the point, similarly you can put some onus on girls to ask for marriage not promise of marriage if they want to establish a physical relationship, if they really care. However most of the cases around this situation would motivated with revenge and greed and law provides them tool for the same. I apologize for that.Just read another thread where you had complained about your experience.Again apologize. I bet most girls would refuse to get physical if told marriage was not implied .If they don't ...I guess the guy got lucky. I really don't see how it matters.The person who is not serious about marriage should let the other person know about it so that the other person has the option of opting out .It doesn't matter whether it is the girl or the boy.If the person is just looking for fun.....let the other person know. It is just that the girls are judged far more harshly than boys for such behavior .Like some wise guy in this thread implied...girls are ****s and guys are players.
DomainK Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Misreading the Madras HC ruling: Premarital sex is not marriage http://www.firstpost.com/living/misreading-the-madras-hc-ruling-premarital-sex-is-not-marriage-883429.html Like I said earlier, it seems like a specific case. The problem seems to be in some words used in a matter of rage or other things. Even the same blog agrees that the statement of the HC was idiotic.
Raghav_12 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I apologize for that.Just read another thread where you had complained about your experience.Again apologize. I bet most girls would refuse to get physical if told marriage was not implied .If they don't ...I guess the guy got lucky. I really don't see how it matters.The person who is not serious about marriage should let the other person know about it so that the other person has the option of opting out .It doesn't matter whether it is the girl or the boy.If the person is just looking for fun.....let the other person know. I shared my experience?? I think you are confusing me with somebody else. I never shared my experience on ICF. But in any case, it's okay which I believe you typed in zest. On point you are assuming too many things. Why put all the onus on guy? why don't trust girls with some intelligence to figure out what they treasure, what they not? In fact this law is disrespectful to intelligence of women. Practically, in India, cases are filed to harrass opposite party rather to get justice. When a relationship breaks and parties reach to court, of course there is dispute among parties and they are ready to wage legal wars against each other. It is unfair situation in any war or conflict when all ammunition is provided to one party.Only one party is allowed to go offensive and other can only defend. It's like giving penalty shoot out to only one tyeam in game of soccer. Anyways, I still haven't heard, why in the situation which I mentioned earlier, a girl should be prosecuted for robbery?
Rocky Balboa Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Beetle madam would appreciate girls wearing tight t shirt,jeans and other garments like westerners but wen it comes to sex, she is very much Indian and outdated.
Crookbond Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Even the same blog agrees that the statement of the HC was idiotic. Yes - it went overboard. Raghav has hit the hammer on the head though.
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I shared my experience?? I think you are confusing me with somebody else. I never shared my experience on ICF. But in any case, it's okay which I believe you typed in zest. On point you are assuming too many things. Why put all the onus on guy? why don't trust girls with some intelligence to figure out what they treasure, what they not? In fact this law is disrespectful to intelligence of women. Practically, in India, cases are filed to harrass opposite party rather to get justice. When a relationship breaks and parties reach to court, of course there is dispute among parties and they are ready to wage legal wars against each other. It is unfair situation in any war or conflict when all ammunition is provided to one party.Only one party is allowed to go offensive and other can only defend. It's like giving penalty shoot out to only one tyeam in game of soccer. Anyways, I still haven't heard, why in the situation which I mentioned earlier, a girl should be prosecuted for robbery? I guess I was mistaken then...anyways i apologize. I haven't personally come across any one who has taken anyone to court or anyone who has suffered .In most cases people go their separate ways.....sometimes both thankful that its over and sometimes one party more bitter than the other.These cases that come in the media are exceptions. As for the prosecution for robbery...I guess some one will have to take the lead and risk being called cheap ......just like the girls who take these guys to court risk being called easy.
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Beetle madam would appreciate girls wearing tight t shirt' date='jeans and other garments like westerners but wen it comes to sex, she is very much Indian and outdated.[/quote'] So do you think all women who wear western clothes should change their sexual behavior or thinking too? Clothes are just clothes . Besides what I have written is just generalization of what is expected.Personally I think people take sex too seriously in our country.It is just sex..just don't hurt someone physically or emotionally and don't exploit.
CSK Fan Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I really don't understand the paranoia and panic that grips some men every time such topics are brought up. There are some simple social rules to follow. Most Indian girls in India will expect to get married if you are already in the physical relationship. Most people do not jump into bed on the first few dates...the sleeping around comes after considerable going around. That time is enough to gauge if she expects marriage if you get into the next stage of relationship. If you have doubts...just ask.How difficult is it to say...look dear I am not to sure if this is leading to a permanent situation...in the mean while do you mind some sex.You will surely have your doubts cleared. Don't s*l*u*t around with good girls..don't aim to deflower girls .I am sure most of us don't expect our sisters,daughters to have casual sex with guys.Don't expect that from other girls either.Don't mess with people's emotions and bodies. Advice for both parties. If after a serious relationship you don't think it will work out ...then be sensitive about the breakup.Don't dump people disrespectfully. Don't hurt the ones you loved once just because that is the easier option. For those wanting the option of having sex without the promise of marriage ....There are girls(and guys) who don't mind having fun.....find them and let them know that you want only fun. Disagree. A law is not a substitute for a society's morality. You cannot force moral onto people Secondly relationships are never black or white like you make out to be. I know people who got into it only for sex (from the guy's part) and then ended up falling in love and still happily married. I know people who were very much in love but broke apart messily enough to want to kill each other Human relationships are seldom slaves to cultures and laws. Its a primal thing. Saying that these things are bounded by law is making slaves of human. Next what, control hunger for junk food? I really hate the fact how you objectify women and devalue them as persons. Using words like ****ting about, deflowering as if the girl gets tainted just by sleeping with a guy or that a woman loses more in sex. This just resembles all that's wrong with our society. Nor do I like the holier than thou attitude taken by some women that men don't lose anything in relation, a person has to be really soul dead not to feel anything even in a casual relation
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Disagree. A law is not a substitute for a society's morality. You cannot force moral onto people Secondly relationships are never black or white like you make out to be. I know people who got into it only for sex (from the guy's part) and then ended up falling in love and still happily married. I know people who were very much in love but broke apart messily enough to want to kill each other Human relationships are seldom slaves to cultures and laws. Its a primal thing. Saying that these things are bounded by law is making slaves of human. Next what, control hunger for junk food? I really hate the fact how you objectify women and devalue them as persons. Using words like ****ting about, deflowering as if the girl gets tainted just by sleeping with a guy or that a woman loses more in sex. This just resembles all that's wrong with our society. Nor do I like the holier than thou attitude taken by some women that men don't lose anything in relation, a person has to be really soul dead not to feel anything even in a casual relation Most of those words are used by men and have been used sarcastically .As for the rest...difference of opinion I guess.
Stuge Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I have nothing to say but to laugh :hysterical: Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Disagree. A law is not a substitute for a society's morality. You cannot force moral onto people Secondly relationships are never black or white like you make out to be. I know people who got into it only for sex (from the guy's part) and then ended up falling in love and still happily married. I know people who were very much in love but broke apart messily enough to want to kill each other Human relationships are seldom slaves to cultures and laws. Its a primal thing. Saying that these things are bounded by law is making slaves of human. Next what, control hunger for junk food? I really hate the fact how you objectify women and devalue them as persons. Using words like ****ting about, deflowering as if the girl gets tainted just by sleeping with a guy or that a woman loses more in sex. This just resembles all that's wrong with our society. Nor do I like the holier than thou attitude taken by some women that men don't lose anything in relation, a person has to be really soul dead not to feel anything even in a casual relation Most of those words are used by men and have been used sarcastically .The post is based on realism not idealism.The laws of a country are based on the society.You don't find anti dowry in the US for a reason. As for the rest...difference of opinion I guess. edit -The word S* lut has been used mostly as a common word for both genders specially to highlight how it is unfairly used for one sex..
1983-2011 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 everyone on here is married to their left or right hand or both
urbestfriend Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Misreading the Madras HC ruling: Premarital sex is not marriage http://www.firstpost.com/living/misreading-the-madras-hc-ruling-premarital-sex-is-not-marriage-883429.html Like I said earlier, it seems like a specific case. The problem seems to be in some words used in a matter of rage or other things. Problem is reading some portion of the judgement out of context, it should be read with the case concerned and it acts as precedent only for similar cases.
PriyankaSR Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 . Disagree. A law is not a substitute for a society's morality. You cannot force moral onto people Secondly relationships are never black or white like you make out to be. I know people who got into it only for sex (from the guy's part) and then ended up falling in love and still happily married. I know people who were very much in love but broke apart messily enough to want to kill each other Human relationships are seldom slaves to cultures and laws. Its a primal thing. Saying that these things are bounded by law is making slaves of human. Next what, control hunger for junk food? I really hate the fact how you objectify women and devalue them as persons. Using words like ****ting about, deflowering as if the girl gets tainted just by sleeping with a guy or that a woman loses more in sex. This just resembles all that's wrong with our society. Nor do I like the holier than thou attitude taken by some women that men don't lose anything in relation, a person has to be really soul dead not to feel anything even in a casual relation. She is NOT devalue-ing them as far as I interpreted her post. Where, in her post, has she objectified women? That is exactly what she is advising people not to do. To not **** around with girls who don't want casual sex. Don't AIM to deflower them. And no matter how bizarre it might sound, a girl will feel deflowered if it turns out to be that the other person was with her just for the SEX and she will ultimately regret it. And the word **** is CASUALLY, SARCASTICALLY mostly used by men. Even boys. To insult your ex or to hurt somebody, and I say this so surely because I have seen this happen so, so many times.
Desi Cartman Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I shared my experience?? I think you are confusing me with somebody else. I never shared my experience on ICF. But in any case, it's okay which I believe you typed in zest. On point you are assuming too many things. Why put all the onus on guy? why don't trust girls with some intelligence to figure out what they treasure, what they not? In fact this law is disrespectful to intelligence of women. Practically, in India, cases are filed to harrass opposite party rather to get justice. When a relationship breaks and parties reach to court, of course there is dispute among parties and they are ready to wage legal wars against each other. It is unfair situation in any war or conflict when all ammunition is provided to one party.Only one party is allowed to go offensive and other can only defend. It's like giving penalty shoot out to only one tyeam in game of soccer. Anyways, I still haven't heard, why in the situation which I mentioned earlier, a girl should be prosecuted for robbery? Ammunition and what not, bottom line is that a guy who is at least middle class and has 2 kids, has been asked to pay 500 bucks a month for each kid. What injustice to the poor male who will be out of pocket the grand sum of 2000 rupees in which his ex partner raise 2 kids and live a lavish lifestyle. Right ?
Yoda-esque Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Some of the unmarried guys on here under pressure
Lord Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Some of the unmarried guys on here under pressure none of us is unmarried as per Madras court:--D
Desi Cartman Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 none of us is unmarried as per Madras court:--D Zelig :dontknow:
velu Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 none of us is unmarried as per Madras court:--D :rofl: Zelig :dontknow: he is married to his right hand :giggle:
Recommended Posts