I realise this post will in all likelihood get a lot of people angry. Unfortunately, I don’t give a damn for political correctness, and never have done, so… Let me say it right away: in my opinion, marriage is a form of social prostitution, in fact prostitution in its most absolute form. There was an aphorism that I read a long time ago: “Men give love to get sex, women give sex to get love.” Well, to sex, add (from the woman’s side) cooking, keeping house, bringing up the kids (the man’s genetic heritage as passed on to the future generation). And from the man’s side add protection, food, shelter, and also the passing on of genes. Of course I’m talking of traditional roles here. But I wonder just how many men would be all at sea in today’s world if asked to cook something for themselves or sew buttons on their shirts. Are there really many such? I doubt it. Now let me put in a comment that was rather popular among my contemporaries some twenty years ago… “Marriage is a licence to screw.” Of course those were the days when the guns of the sexual revolution weren’t even booming on the horizon and live-in relationships were for hedonistic immoral Bollywood stars who would still pretend to be married, and no one single would ever admit to a loss of virginity. Hell, some married people would pretend to be virgins. But still and all, that comment about marriage being a licence to screw just about sums it up. OK, now, to get back to the topic: a prostitute puts out for money or favours. She is doing something that is an absolute contract – the man gets to put his penis inside her vagina and pays for the privilege – with cash or a piece of jewellery or the equivalent. Well, what then about marriage? What does the traditional housewife basically do? She allows the man to put his penis inside her vagina and pay for the privilege – with a lifetime of housing her, clothing her, feeding her, and paying for her to bring up her offspring. Which is the greater prostitution? Because, what is a traditional marriage? It is a woman’s putting herself (or having herself put) under the theoretical protection of a man, and repaying him above all with sexual services. Isn’t that so? As I said, the average man wouldn’t exactly die if his wife didn’t cook for him or sew his clothes. Also, the traditional housewife is a housebound person with no capacity for work, no avenue for earning for herself, dependent completely on her husband for everything, and giving her body to him in return…with any sexual pleasure for herself usually in the realms of the strictly mythical. Which, then, is the greater prostitution? I’m not blaming the woman here. In traditional social roles, the woman is a pawn. She has no control over her destiny, no way to achieve any ambition she has even if she wants to. It’s the system that makes her a prostitute. Logically, therefore, this train of thought leads me to the conclusion that a marriage with a woman who works and has her own income is not really a marriage in the traditional sense at all. Such a woman is no social prostitute, but in breaking that role she is no longer the stereotyped wife, either. I have this problem with “sexually promiscuous” women who are not prostitutes being called sluts, as well. The genuine sexually promiscuous woman asks for nothing in return for putting out except pleasure. She gets nothing out of it except pleasure and gives nothing except pleasure. Since her motives are the least complicated and totally free of material reward, she is the least “sluttish” of all. Now let the brickbats begin J
| pissycat wrote on Jun 29, '07, edited on Jun 29, '07 Lots of radical feminist theorists have said so.
But what's REALLY telling is just how many (American) men say that the costs associated with having a wife are such that they could "get their pussy cheaper" if they just stick with hiring whores.
Gawd, who'd wanna be married to some jerk who sees you as "pussy," anyway? It's horrid to think that so many men feel that way. |
 | . "Love is blind, but marriage is a very good eye-opener. " |
 | A good marriage is prostitution; a bad one is rape.
|
 | I share your opinion about traditional marriage |
 | So you say that no happy marriages exist at all? |
 | Hookers are honest, they ask for payment in advance. Some divorced friends of mine are still paying. |
 | Malcolm says
How could anyone disagree with this analysis? I always likened marriage as being closer to slavery than prostitution, but perhaps I'm more of a cynic than you are...?
|
| I'm in a good marriage, I just think you'd be an idiot to say something like this is free. And I think a good marriage, like good prostitution, is relatively honest compared to the rest of what's out there. How far should this analogy be stretched, I dunno, payment doesn't always take the form of cash and not all games/fantasies are pleasant.
A prostitute's job is a damn sight easier than a wife's though, I'll tell you that much, just because it's not supposed to last as long. |
 | If it's just for sex, marriage is a high price to pay !! Who would want a prostitute follow you wherever you go just cuz you once screwed her ? |
| You don't pay for sex, you pay for them to leave in the morning. I think Charlie Sheen said that. If you want them to stay, your payments take on a whole other aspect. |
 | Any man, or woman for that matter, that marries for sex alone is a fool. Marriage is much more than sex. Marriage should be based upon love, understanding, shareing, trust and much more. Sex is only a very small part of the agreement between man and woman. Therefor marriage is not prostitution in my mind. |
 | Old wine, new bottle. It all boils down to choice- abstinence or sleeping around or alleged moral prostitution aka marriage. |
 | Stormlizard очень правильно все сказал.
Согласна на 100 процентов. |
 | Marriage isn't prostitution .... I don't believe so ..... but there is no equality in marriages either ... one spouse almost always gives more than the other ... but that goes for most relationships .... even in friendships ! ... In a marriage "Sex" is in the list of giving / taking too .... I have known marriages where the women have held back on sex in the marriage ... so I do not believe that only the women are being taken advantage of... But then thats my personal opinion ! |
| kisalisa wrote on Jun 30, '07, edited on Jun 30, '07
And I don`t understand why Biswa wrote this provocative article? :(
Rubbish!
And what do you, Biswa, think then about marriages when man marries by prudence (if woman has much money)?
Such marriages becomes in fact more every day
or the man cannot basically be considered as the prostitute?
|
|  Marriage is much more than sex. Marriage should be based upon love, understanding, shareing, trust and much more.  There are many things wrong with this line of agreement.
In the first place, probably 90% of the marraiges in the world have no love or anything in them. In most of the world, all across Africa and Asia, the man and woman marrying don't even know each other in any real sense. They have sometimes - even in this day and age - never even met. The parents of most girls in India are just ready to et her married as soon as they can. She can be educated, but that education is virtually just to get her a better and more qualified, higher earning husband. it has nothing to do with her own employment and self reliance, and to this day millions of Indian husbands don't allow their highly qualified wives to work.
There is nothing peculiarly "Indian" in this line of thought. Till well into the interwar years, European marriages were no better. One might say that sometimes they still aren't, when marriages that are dead and done with still drag on because the partners just want the shelter and security of marriage without any love - let alone sex or tenderness - remaining. isn't this prostitution by other means? |
 | wizengeeky wrote on Jun 30, '07, edited on Jun 30, '07 Shanti stole my words. I had to run off somewhere, by chance, immediately after reading this and had in mind the reply I would write on returning, but its already been posted.
If marriage is prostitution, there would be a high divorce rate by the time the partners reach some 50 or 60 when they would seek active (younger) sex partners rather than their aging flabby spouses.
@ Tanya
Bravo! |
 | yamha wrote on Jul 1, '07 ok
is marriage prostitution?
Can you name your mother the prostitute? maybe are you bastard and had hard childhood ? |
| Amar bekur, как я тебе уже говорила, многие люди могут не понять твою статью.Вот и пишут всякие ужасные глупости!
Извини их, они головой плохо думают!
|
 | A very thought provoking article. It is unfortunately true that in some cultures the role of a married woman has not improved over centuries.
yamha, maybe you should read the whole article before commenting -
"Logically, therefore, this train of thought leads me to the conclusion that a marriage with a woman who works and has her own income is not really a marriage in the traditional sense at all. Such a woman is no social prostitute, but in breaking that role she is no longer the stereotyped wife, either."
I also agree with stormlizard, love, understanding, sharing, trust and much more is what a marriage should be based on.
|
| yamha wrote on Jul 1, '07
I have asked a question, What do you think about your mum. I did not assert, I not commenting. I asked.
Instead of the answer - you accuse me in bad knowledge of English language!)) the old way to avoid the answer is an attack.
You love mum and respect, ok maybe your answer will be - " she is not the prostitute, she is best mum in world ".
Then whose mother (the sister, the wife) is the prostitute in a marriage?
If you marry whom your wife will be for you? |
| Biswa, please answer Yamha. |
 | "In the first place, probably 90% of the marriages in the world have no love or anything in them"
From where you get this number 90%, Bill? You create your own numbers to convince people!
You seemed to be a loner with a bad childhood, who do not respect his mother and may be you consider yourself a bastard whose mom was a pro to his father. Example for this:
"My mother, on the other hand, was – and is – a bitch, with whom I have as little contact as I possibly can. "-Toxic relationships: are we all suicide bombers.
Bill, you are a poor child who like Guerrilla warfare. You very well know this kind of article will not be liked by people and no body can come and grab your collar. It’s a true behavior of a man(or may be a child inside a man) seeking attention without getting hurt.
Bill, you declare that man marry woman/or vice versa, only to give and take smth, like, sex, money, protection etc. A loner can't understand that marriage can be based on love and when you are in love, you only give - not just sperm but a life long pleasurfull company that withstands all troubles and hardships. A woman not merely cooks food for her husband to get protection or get jewellery. But to see how her husband is happy to have her nicely cooked food. The joy a woman experiences when she sees her husband or kid happy, is beyond some prostitute can experience when she’s having sex with a customer. When a wife sleeps with a man, she knows that she is not going to be divorced like that if she refuses to sleep. She sleeps for her own pleasure and to give the same pleasure to her husband. When her husband feels very nice with sex, she doesn’t think, in the back of mind, that how much she can squeeze from her husband for that session. A woman doesn't raise kids to keep her husband happy so that she can be protected from loners but because that kid is part of women’s own body. A wife is happiest when she sees a happy and perfect home around her.
Bill you write, "he is doing something that is an absolute contract – the man gets to put his penis inside her vagina and pays for the privilege – with cash or a piece of jewellery or the equivalent"..."the traditional housewife basically"..."allows the man to put his penis inside her vagina and pay for the privilege – with a lifetime of housing her, clothing her, feeding her, and paying for her to bring up her offspring. "
Bill, you have this wrong concept that people marry for sex. It’s foolish. Sex is available at price. You don't live the whole life with a person that can be purchased in market for price! Money is cheap, life is not. When you marry, you are not having an exclusive slut who is expected have sex with only you, but you want to remain in a lifelong romance of somebody whose smile makes you happy and whose charm makes to feel that life is worth living. With a marriage you spend life. People marry with opposite sex (in some countries, same sex) to live with some nice company that is unique and which is above give and take.
When young men say “Marriage is a licence to screw” they are not allowed to marry because they are considered immature young teens. Marriage is responsible life long affair and you should not prove your point by quoting such immature things.
Finally, going purely by your logic, all Hindu Gods are bastards because all have happy married parents, like Ram, Krishna, etc. Even Prophet Mohamed and Jesus Christ had married parents so by your logic, they are also, B******. You don’t want to mess with Gods, Bill, do you? If this article goes to hands of Bajrang Dal or VHP… just imagine how much protection will you need??! Ha…ha…ha…
Give your views..
Sayonara.
Mad Max |
 | my FRIENDS DOCTORS say u need councilling....
according to ur article ur mum is HI-FI prostitute.. just like other women.. and ur wife is gonna be prostitute also...
|
| Bill, I am not unaware of how things are in variouse Muslim, Hindu etc areas. My statement was my own personal feeling and beliefes upon this matter. John. |
| Hi Max,
I am inclined to agree with many of your points of view and several of your observations. I will here make a few statements,
1. Regarding Divorce, the laws in western countries/states vary considerably. USA = Man pays Woman, Man pays Lawyer, Lawyer and Woman become very wealthy, Man goes bankrupt. Denmark = Man/Woman share fortune and lawyer, nobody gains except Lawyer, just to name two opposite sides of the fence.
2. In my part of the world Love is very important, as is harmony between Man and Woman. |
| wizengeeky wrote on Jul 2, '07, edited on Jul 2, '07 Max, I think that is the most brilliant reply I saw so far. And especially...
"Sex is available at price. You don't live the whole life with a person that can be purchased in market for price! Money is cheap, life is not." |
| OK, I have not been online for about 36 hours, so I was off this thread and couldn't answer, so let me just make a general answer.
How many mariages do you think of in this day and age are love based?
Why do arranged marriages still exist?
Do you think arranged marriages exist beacuse of love?
Why do people in conservative cultures try and get their children married off as early as possible?
Is there love in those marriages?
Now I'm sure many of you did not read my article with any care. I can of course ignore the likes of pruthvikrishna and let his, her or its response stand as a proof of the person's own vulgarity. BUT - as I said, and especially for yamha - read back. I did NOT accuse women of prositution in marriage. I accused marriage, as an insitution, of being a prostitution in itself.
John - do you remember the advice given to Victorian brides, that their husbands will have to do nasty things to them to ensure the continuance of the race, and that they should then "lie back and think of England"?
I have also said that a modern marriage where women work and earn for themselves and have rights are not marriages in the traditional sense.
Till today, tribal people live together without marriage and voluntarily. Also live in relationships are not enforced legally or socially. Those are not prositution.
And while I'm on the subject, any relationship which depends on provision of material benefits as a reason for staying together (even if it is not involving sex) is prostitution. SO long as there is no emotional bond.
I'm glad I got some of you stirred up. Shows me the intellectual limits and tendencies of some people.
Oh, yes:
"Sex is available at price. You don't live the whole life with a person that can be purchased in market for price! Money is cheap, life is not."
That is why hookers are less of hookers than people in marriages where shelter and protection and food are bought at the price of sex and companionship. |
| yamha wrote on Jul 3, '07 Biswa thanks for the answer. On the Internet many similar articles, some of them http://www.forbes.com/2006/02/11/economics-prostitution-marriage_cx_mn_money06_0214prostitution.htmlhttp: // www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp? articleID=14204 I think,disput it is not right way to prove each other. Everyone will have different mind.)) I like a little hadiths from Prophet (PBUH) "Our life not that other, as pleasure and happiness, and the biggest in it pleasure - the just wife" "Marriage - my tradition, and the one who turns away from my tradition, not with me" Have nice day and God bless all good people |
 | Hey bill, unfortunately thought-inducing articles such as this will continue to attract the worst garbage by way of replies - not to mention a whole load of hate mail, some of which i can see above. For the rest I'll just say, in an Indian society, this is exactly what happens; a girl is given to a perfect stranger ALONGWITH tonnes of gold/assets, just so he can screw her and she will have a place to live in for the rest of her life. Once that's accomplished, the parents sort of wash their hands of her and congratulate themselves on a job well-done. 'got the girl settled, burden off our hands'. For the people who still refuse to understand, here was my take on it some time ago: http://stillhanging.blogspot.com/2006/11/where-fools-thrive.html |
| From your answers Bill "John - do you remember the advice given to Victorian brides, that their husbands will have to do nasty things to them to ensure the continuance of the race, and that they should then "lie back and think of England"?
I was not around then, but I have heard that mentioned even in my lifetime, it was not the general attitude, but that of a few prudes.
Two of my sisters still regard sex as being something dirty that must be tollerated for peace in the family home. |
| Hey bill, unfortunately thought-inducing articles such as this will continue to attract the worst garbage by way of replies - not to mention a whole load of hate mail, some of which i can see above. For the rest I'll just say, in an Indian society, this is exactly what happens; a girl is given to a perfect stranger ALONGWITH tonnes of gold/assets, just so he can screw her and she will have a place to live in for the rest of her life. Once that's accomplished, the parents sort of wash their hands of her and congratulate themselves on a job well-done. 'got the girl settled, burden off our hands'. For the people who still refuse to understand, here was my take on it some time ago:
http://stillhanging.blogspot.com/2006/11/where-fools-thrive.html "unfortunately thought-inducing articles such as this will continue to attract the worst garbage by way of replies - not to mention a whole load of hate mail"
WTF is a holier than thou attitude??? Stop being so smug about your own self-assumed liberality. And btw, its a healthy discussion except for some who cant express themselves resorting to more nasty limp retorts. You try to get real, and understand why some things work the way they are, and how they are not entire failures because they don't suit your benchmarks.
"a girl is given to a perfect stranger...""
So is the goddamn guy!
"...ALONGWITH tonnes of gold/assets.."
"Ton of gold" is not an entirely evil thing. In some communities, its seen as the girl's stake in the family property. I don't deny its essential tension with the in-laws demanding more, but in the business communties, it is the initial start up for the new groom to set up his business.
".. just so he can screw her and she will have a place to live in for the rest of her life."
A woman or man does NOT marry for the sake of shelter. We are all social animals. We need a companion for life. When your limbs get limp with age, you don't need a body to make you feel good. You need the love and affection that builds up with the relationship.
It is not neccessary that people be passionately in love, but as time matures, you accept and appreciate each other, which is how the marriage matures and works.
From your blog...
There are both sides to the coin. For the fact that girls are prevented from working after studying that much and turned into housewives. Its a medieval attitude. There is a high need of dual earning members, and nearly all girls who study that much, WORK. And those who do it for interest, do work, opposing some conservative family members. Some others do it to improve their marriage prospects and to get a husband who would be highly qualified, and they would make good paisa. Which part of it is wrong?
Secondly, when the family is increased to beyond the couple, with kids, it is not easy for the working woman to manage the upbringing of kids, household chores of cooking and all that alongside her career (YES, upbringing of kids is still the woman's job. That wont change in a long time. And, YES! Most men will not assist in the household chores. Thats a given in most families). THOUGH she very well does it nowadays! (My own mum) Being mum is a career in itself, and a full time job, though no one wants to see that, and would rather go on about how all women should work in order to feel liberated. When men start doing their equivalent in upbringing of kids by being there, and being around when the woman goes out to fulfil the demands of her profession rather than passively "support" her in her professional endeavors, then we can talk about liberation.
Thirdly... "these daughters feel so indebted to their parents". Who gave you the moral right to condescend on them? Or even, how do you know they are really indebted?
I DISS IT |
| You appear to support my original remark in this discussion, you have elaborated upon it. |
| “How many mariages do you think of in this day and age are love based?”
Bill, frankly, nobody can give you any data on “how many” couples today live in marriage with love. Actually this question itself is silly.
“Why do arranged marriages still exist?”
Arrange marriage, in my humble view, exists because it gives more data about other partner before marriage and therefore better chances of its survival. (In love marriage, a boy/girl assumes that they know the other person better because of love they have been together for a long enough time needed to know the other person.) When a father arranges marriage of his daughter, he is not presenting his daughter’s vagina to her future husband so that he can provide her security, money or jewels. In any case, before marriage, parents provide protection, education etc. to daughter. A father expects his daughter to feel happy and nice when she is in company of a man (in some case woman) who he, his family and daughter think will be able to give the daughter “happy and perfect home around her.” Furthermore, the boy’s father is equally interested that his boy is happy with his wife, not just sexually, but more importantly, mentally, health wise etc.
“Do you think arranged marriages exist because of love?”
Bill, you are assuming that arrange marriage can’t have love between wife and husband and that assumption itself is questionable and non-measurable. “Marriage is not about FINDING the right person, but about BEING the right person”. If you are prepared to be right person-try to understand the other half, try to be more mature and patient, any marriage can survive, but if you are stubborn and want others to change like you, no marriage, including love marriage, can survive. Only sex and protection barter can never sustain a long term relationship like marriage because both are easily available outside marriage.
”Why do people in conservative cultures try and get their children married off as early as possible?”
This, I believe, has more to do with the availability. i.e. demand-supply ratio. It is not conservative cultures. In early times, men used to die early or in more numbers because of wars, less internal strength to fight dieses etc. So less “eligible” men were there to marry with women. In India, nowadays, because of deaths of female feticide, less women are available compared to men and this is causing a disrupted supply-demand ratio. So in many parts/some casts of Rajasthan/Haryana…one wife can have many husbands…who actually has to pay dowry to wife’s father to marry her! However, in these cases also, the essence of a marriage is not lost. These men don’t pay dowry to have sex with wife and have kids but they still enjoy and see marriage as a gateway to happiness, a more stable life and a permanent bond to other human who is lovely.
”Is there love in those marriages?”
A marriage can be forced upon a girl and a boy against their will, but rest assured, they can’t survive on long terms. Humans and for that matter all animals seek happiness and peace and romance/love, not only sex, in life. If they don’t find it in one relation, they try for it with the other one. No parents, society can force them to stay together in marriage for ever. In my small experience, people eventually start loving the other person, as soon as they start feeling that the other person is one with whom he is actually a right person. Love is all about being right person.
“Now I'm sure many of you did not read my article with any care. I can of course ignore the likes of pruthvikrishna and let his, her or its response stand as a proof of the person's own vulgarity. BUT - as I said, and especially for yamha - read back. I did NOT accuse women of prostitution in marriage. I accused marriage, as an institution, of being a prostitution in itself. “
People are blaming not you, dear Bill, but your thoughts which are trying to accuse marriage a brothel of wife and husband. But when people read it, they obviously can’t stop thinking how you see your own parents fit in this and I want to know how you can apply this to our religions if your article is that universally appealing. In any case, marriage is not a brothel because its fundamentals are not just give/take for smth physical which you have misunderstood and afraid to accept. Marriage is humans search for happiness and stability-for both partners. Prostitution is not happiness for both, may be for one, and not a stable relation between man and woman.
”John - do you remember the advice given to Victorian brides, that their husbands will have to do nasty things to them to ensure the continuance of the race, and that they should then "lie back and think of England"?”
Do you judge the whole marriage institution based on this?! Some people do wrong things in history and you can’t judge an institution based on some incidents. Are you fool or something? Its like, 5 students fail in exam of 50 students class and saying the whole class is stupid. In that class, there must be 10 brilliant students also and 35 normal students also. Normal students are not failures, they are just less brilliant. Bill, you have a wrong ways of seeing life and I fill pity for you.
”I have also said that a modern marriage where women work and earn for themselves and have rights are not marriages in the traditional sense.”
Modern marriage, where woman shares financial responsibility is equally good traditional marriages as finance is not the only fundamental of marriage. These marriages can have same love between wife and husband who cherish for happiness between them and stability for family. Both share financial and homely responsibilities. In homes where woman is house wife, there man looks after the finance and woman homely responsibility. The essential thing that binds them in marriage is love. When more finance is needed to sustain stability of marriage, woman also earns to again get that preferable stability. And this doesn’t make them modern marriages!! They are same old institution called marriage, got it, bill?
”Till today, tribal people live together without marriage and voluntarily. Also live in relationships are not enforced legally or socially. Those are not prositution.”
By that logic, when the same tribal man who is in live-in relationship with a tribal woman, marries her, automatically they get into prostitution without changing anything, because just YOU are trying to accuse that marriage is prostitution!! What kind of logic is this, kid?
”And while I'm on the subject, any relationship which depends on provision of material benefits as a reason for staying together (even if it is not involving sex) is prostitution. SO long as there is no emotional bond.”
Bill, In partnership business, partners who stay together (people spend more time in offices then actually in home with wife, if we exclude sleeping hours at home) in business for material benefits (not involving sex), you will call them prostitutes? What are you talking, man? And even in prostitution, man or woman do it forcefully without, in most cases, enjoyment, as prostitution fundamentally is against human nature of getting happiness, romance and stability. So prostitutes are not that bad either as you are trying to use the word prostitutes as like equal to smth criminal. They are humans forced to work in that way, so that they can get what they really want to have: stability and overall happiness in life. Go it?
”I'm glad I got some of you stirred up. Shows me the intellectual limits and tendencies of some people.”
People are basically quite clever and intelligent, (unlike as you try to judge them), who live with patience to avoid un-stability. When they stop being quite, its called revolt.
“Oh, yes:
"Sex is available at price. You don't live the whole life with a person that can be purchased in market for price! Money is cheap, life is not."
That is why hookers are less of hookers than people in marriages where shelter and protection and food are bought at the price of sex and companionship.”
Bill, bill, bill, a dogs tail can’t be made straight, that’s what I conclude of this !!ha…ha…
Chao.
Mad Max. |
| Max, I sincerely hope I see you active on Multiply very soon. I dig your frankness. |
| so now I am smug and pretentious. I see. I still don't know why I deign to reply to wizengeeky in that case, but here goes:
There are women out there, I'm not denying, who dig this whole marriage thing, this taking-care-of-children and bowing-before-the-husband thing. Hey, it's your life, whatever makes you happy.
But...
There's also the girl who wants to, and I mean, really wants to - be 'liberated' as you say I put it. Who would like to choose when she is married (the friend in question was married off at 21 but wanted to do her phd before she got married. no one listened to her). There are women out there who would like to have a say in a lot of decisions her family makes for her. These same women are also very soft hearted when it comes to their family. They'd rather allow them to make these decisions for them than break their hearts by choosing their own way of life. My blog and hatred and writings have been dedicated for these women. Not that I hate them before you pounce on that point... No, I merely hate society that has reduced them to this.
And I don't believe in marriage. So.. 'I disagree absolutely with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' by Voltaire. Voltaire would be a good guy to follow here... |
| Hello,
Within your very long contribution to this discussion you mentioned a point/question aimed at me regarding the Victorian attitude. This was not a general attitude in England at that time, but an attitude held by prudish so called upper middle and above classes. Actually during that period there is evidence proving that sexual activity was very high (Death by venereal disease).
In my childhood/youth we were taught that kissing and sex was dangerous to health, I remarked that two of my sisters still hold that attitude even though both are married.
Did you read my first entry into this? Well if not, I stated that I believed that a marriage should be based upon love, shareing, harmony, trust etc. To marry for sex alone is both stupid of a man or a woman. For me marriage is/was not prostitution.
In my part of the world arranged marriages ceased many years ago, at the time it was quite a common practice was a matter of one land owner wishing to increase the estate size though marriage being one of many reasons.
Prostitution; Prostitution means to hire ones services in exchange for money or goods, it is not just a matter of selling sexual pleasure, which I'm sure you already know.
John. |
| LOL !! You deign to reply because no matter how much you live in denial, these are inevitable truths that will confront you, and you have your head buried too far down in sand to face it.
There are women out there, I'm not denying, who dig this whole marriage thing, this taking-care-of-children and bowing-before-the-husband thing.
And then there are women like Indra Nooyi, Indira Gandhi, Benazir Bhutto, Kalpana Chawla, Margaret Thatcher, Madonna and Hillary Clinton. Please wiki their profiles and see the family profile. There are N number of men of prominence, so wiki anyone and see what their family lives have been like... In both the cases, the spouses are probably linked as a relation to the person, with no personal remarkable achievements of their own. You need a supporting spouse, whether you are a man or a woman to do what you want. It doesn't mean that being a woman you would sacrifice on what you want to do.
I am not sexist, but with the exception of the Curies, Shabana and Javed Akhtar, the Blairs and Narayan and Sudha Murthy, there have not been many cases where marriages worked and both the partners did what they wanted to, professionally and have an entirely satisfying family life at the same time, arranged or love marriage. Something just HAS to be given up by one partner.
Most people like to share their lives with others, with some give and take. Sometimes the person may give more than take. And if they are happy, I don't see why you woefully click your tongue in sympathy for them how "society has reduced them to this". In no relationship is anyone less worthy because they are giving more than the other.
Hey, it's your life, whatever makes you happy.
Precisely, mademoiselle!
As for "So.. 'I disagree absolutely with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' by Voltaire. Voltaire would be a good guy to follow here..."
Refer back to the kind words you used to those who disagreed with Bill. Don't dig your own grave. |
| Well, those 'kind words' I used, wizengeeky were aimed at everyone in general and no one in particular. If you felt a personal slight, well, not much I can do about it, is there? I don't take back a word of what I said. You don't have to compare with the lives of celebrities when there are people and stories all around you. I know what this friend is going through personally and have therefore related her travails on my blog. Not everyone has to agree. I report facts and my opinions. Not everyone even has to read them.
Do open your mind, it's a beautiful, big world out there and there are many alternatives to what our forefathers have merely handed down to us through the ages. |
| wizengeeky wrote on Jul 5, '07, edited on Jul 5, '07 O_O Personal offense??!!
=))))) Personal offense, my rear. I hadn't even really commented till then. You dismissed everyone's views as garbage and rubbish etc (just to brush your memory).
You are basing your opinion and "reporting of facts" on ONE case. If whatever you are analyzing falls into a fixed pattern, you can crib - generalizing on solitary or isolated cases is BAD! I can't stress that enough, and I said this to you on an earlier post as well when you said all South Indians are narrow minded.
You wouldn't take your words back because, of course you wouldn't like eating your hat in public.
If you didn't want everyone to read it, then why did you link it and draw attention to it? You wanted us all to know you have a blog?
Sorry to burst your illusion bubble, but incidentally I am broad minded enough to *know* what kind of a world we are in (good, bad and the realistic).
Aaaarghhh, you are making my IQ points drop! I am nearly reaching your level !! :O Damn! :((((( |
| Man, touchy touchy. Look kid, if you can't stand my views don't bother reading them. You don't have to click all the links in the world. Relax and sit back. The web's a big place too. Find some sites that suit your tastes better. Keep them rose-tinted glasses on.. they become you. |
| This seems far more intelligent thing to do than reply to you. Adios. :) |
 | hi bill.. i think i'm gonna take this article as a reference in my blog, i hope u dont mind by that. just pay some respect and say hi.. |
| |
