Pity

Re: PM, #45

``I`m lost here...I`m really confused``

I thought you would be. Your post reflects that.

Patrick M, you`re a nice person, mainly because you know the word koan. You`re too innocent, though. It`s a tough world out there. Watch out.

Re: Your Post #47

``which do [you] enjoy more-- the righteousnes or the indignation??``

With two question marks? Both and neither!!

Urstruly #43, ``The problem arose when women became non-dependent of men.``

WRONG, it wasn`t a problem, it was a solution to hundreds of years of being doormats.

``The new liberated women now associate sex with their past dependence on men, which pains them.``

WRONG again, women don`t think with their gonads as men do, thus sex isn`t the driving force behind their ``liberation.`` It is men`s supression and his need for woman`s submission that motivates women towards liberation.

``The delima thus is that women want ``love`` but they do not want to obey the other clause of the contract i.e. they have to satisfy the lust.``

what? (delima = dilemma by the way)

``This argument may be extended to include the new woman`s insistence on monogamous relationships on part of men.``

And what`s wrong with the insistence on monogamous relationships? The age of the hen chasing, procreation driven rooster is gone. STOP using that outdated, biological explanation for men`s wandering desires.

What if a woman demanded polygamous relationships? Would her spouse/lover happily agree to that? I think not. What is the point of marriage or of having a serious relationship with a person of the opposite gender anyway?

``Men and women must recognize the fact that they are two different species.``

Nope, they are one species, two types. Both have libidos, both have brains to control them. Both have a responsibility to this world and to their children. That doesn`t mean that they both like wearing lipstick, but who cares about such measly differences. Save for the special maternal role of woman, we`re essentially the same.

``Therefore, they cannot be ``equal.``

I suggest you study the Yin and Yang sign deeply.

Look at it, evaluate it, and come up with an answer. Men and women are complementary, equal in what matters the most, unequal in what matters the least.

PM #44, `` All men of nobility were required to - shall we say `nurture` - adolescents of promise--

while still performing their procreative duties with women.``

That`s pretty sad if you ask me. There`s one thing in being a man and loving men only, but this business of bisexuality is too shady. I don`t believe in it, I don`t agree with it. I`ve heard that the same type of ``nurturing`` of adolescent boys happens in some Pathan groups? Now I`ve always wondered if that was really true, or just a social stigma?

``In fact, if gay porn sites are anything to go by, it`s almost all about unuaduterated :)lust.``

Ummm, I really did not have to know the details of your web surfing. :)

..... And all because two teenagers were writing a special moment in their lives !! Haven`t we all? maybe not on the beach like them,but in love synonymous to temporal`s love .... his stolen moment in the carribean !!

Oh what is this world coming too?

What would we do with our free time , if there was no daily Baithak at ChowK ?!! any suggestions // anyone ??

Regards,

Shirin

re. Godot #49:

Sir, you reproduce bits of my post thus:

[Re: PM, #45

``I`m lost here...I`m really confused``]

and respond:

``I thought you would be. Your post reflects that.``

It is a little disingenuous of you to cut and paste phrases-- not even sentences-- in this way! It reflects a certain -- shal we say, `wrong mindulfulness`, if you get my drift.

``Patrick M, you`re a nice person, mainly because you know the word koan. You`re too innocent, though. It`s a tough world out there. Watch out.``

Godot, if, after all my efforts to explain why I think there`s nothing wrong with satire that is not demeaning, you are still convinced that I am merely `too innocent`, well, I`ll thank you for the prior compliment and leave it at that.

....And what do you mean ``mainly because you know the word koan``?? (second Q.mark just for good measure :)) --- we lit candles before the portait of Capra back in the Theosophical Library on M.A Jinnah road, Karachi. :)

rgds,

PM

Scout & PM

There are several ways to look at the human beings. The science of anthropology is one of them. Human beings are too complicated to be analyzed with the tools of just one science. Sometimes I marvel at the religion`s understanding of human nature and its effects on us to shape our destiny. This is a perfect system, which defines the role and responsibility of each species by recognizing the difference in them. That is the key to understand the role of religion in our lives. Anthropology is not an exact science. Every new theory may be considered as ``dogmatic`` as any other religion. These theories only reflect on our perception and to some extent reality. Whereas religion reflects on the reality while being a big modifier to our perception (I have no comments whether it is good or bad).

Multiple Spouses:

I don`t think that in liberated societies the issue of women having multiple spouses is really a moral issue anymore. The issue however is its implementation-the big hurdles being new tax structures, modification of laws of inheritance, and the ownership of the property and the custody of children. A good number of population is, as a matter fact, polygamous (both men and women). The adultery has become less of a moral issue and more of a technical issue-again the taxes, property and custody etc. My personal position on this issue is based on my religion, which you are well aware of. I believe, accept and trust the dogmatic nature of it. May be women having multiple spouses is best for society, who knows, this is as dogmatic as the religion is, isn’t it? But a good indicator is the happenings in the liberated societies. It is a lose-lose situation in all respects.

Homosexuality:
I think it is a natural process. It probably is in our genes. But again then diabetes and cancer are in our genes too. Homosexuality has delivered nothing to the society other than disease, decline of moral values, breakdown of family structure and breakdown of social fabric. Its contribution to the society is next to none. So in my opinion HS must be treated as a genetic disorder-just like schizophrenia, diabetes, and Alzhiemers. I might sound harsh but that`s the way things are. Homosexuality definitely has its roots in child molestation and abuse. Pederasty is not an accepted norm in the liberated societies yet but it will definitely lead to this end. There was even a club (first one) in (Massachusetts probably) which was shut down a few months ago, which was setup on the pattern of Big Brother associations but where parents were willingly sending their boys to be ``trained and educated`` on the ``Greek Pattern``. If the establishment of a ``Greek`` society is the ultimate goal (unannounced yet) of Homosexuals then it is a genetic disorder.

SAC
Please direct your inquiries to the renowned anthropologists Mr. I.P. Freely and Mr. Seymour Butts. I am just a student of anthropology.

Re: PM, #53

``It is a little disingenuous of you to cut and paste phrases-not even sentences-- in this way! It reflects a certain -- shal we say, `wrong mindulfulness`, if you get my drift.``

No, I don`t get your drift. You are too subtle for me. Moreover, I cannot tell right from wrong ``mindulfulness``.

Patrick, I know how to get to the bottom of it all fairly quickly, shall (notice two lls) we say. I find your post #45 to be disoriented and incoherent. Lost? Yes. Confused? Yes.

``I`ll thank you for the prior compliment and leave it at that.``

I second that.

#46 sac:

``urstruly:

Kindly enlighten us as to how many decades have passed since

your last encounter(platonic or otherwise) with a member of the

fairer sex. Please discount any cyberspace encounters.``

A 15-year old offered him her body for money once. We don`t really know what happened next. She was a kid but of the fairer sex nonetheless. But then, for all we know, it could have been a virtual encounter.

re. scout #51

``That`s pretty sad if you ask me. There`s one thing in being a man and loving men only, but this business of bisexuality is too shady. I don`t believe in it, I don`t agree with it.``

Spoken like a true late-twentiteth century American, ma`am! Everything must be nicely categorized, ordered, unambiguous. Only, life doesn`t work that way. Nature doesn`t. Over 400 species of larger mammals have been noted to engage in same-sex sex-play (not exclusive, though).. so much for the arguments about it being `unnatural`! :)

Maybe there is something in women that makes them naturally abhor the idea of sleeping with a man who sleeps with another... but then, you`re even concerned about men who LOVE both ways. Could it be that you`re not able to really fathom the love a man might feel for another man?

``Ummm, I really did not have to know the details of your web surfing. :)``

heheheh... Couldn`t resist that one, now could ya? :)

love,

P

Scout #50

Hurray.

I will support your fight for your rights till end.:-)

It is stated in Hadith that prophet received many revelations during his last times as his condition was like in receiving revelation. But whether true or not only God knows.

The last words on his lips were take care of women and slaves.

So Urstruly is not only giving the Danda of Islam to people in general, but women in particular.

And recent revelation of his study of anthropology is shocking and un-Islamic because I was confused that he is in some Engineering field in Michigan more Islamic in current century than say 3 centuries ago.

Urstruly #54

First off I want to apologise if my remarks are out of sync with the rest of the discussion, I haven`t been around much but the studiousness of a student provoked me to respond!

This post is to all those whose views are similar to those stated by Urstruly.

[I am just a student of anthropology.]
I believe, that the first requirement of being a `student` of anything is to keep an open mind and to learn. Your post unfortunately doesn`t show proof of openness.

[Homosexuality:
I think it is a natural process...
...has delivered nothing to the society other than disease, decline of moral values, breakdown of family structure and breakdown of social fabric.]

Ahem ahem, and what was this social fabric, family structure etc?

[Its contribution to the society is next to none.]

What has been your (a perfectly disease free heterosexual -- but not a white -- male )contribution to anything? Any original ideas in your studies so far? What has been the contribution of people like you? Shall I quote the geniuses from History who have been homosexuals and who *have * contributed to the so called society?

Homosexuality may scare the daylights out of you -- but sorry to disappoint you - it`s not a disease by any standards (If you doubt this research it).

Why does it threaten you in any way? Is it contagious like a cold? Did you ever catch it? I can bet you that you must have met a homosexual more than once in your life -- whether or not you knew it at the time.

Do you think stereotypes define things? What`s a stereotype that is normally applied to `people of your kind`? Does it fit you? All the things you quote about homosexuality are so outdated.

All what I talk about is what I`ve seen in a society which is unlike ours, where sexuality of any kind is suppressed. Guys have sex and prove varying degrees of supremacy? Women are needed but that`s about it, right? BTW I`d be curious to hear your comments on female orgasms and the likes. Do they exist, is it a disease? if so is it contagious etc.

[Homosexuality definitely has its roots in child molestation and abuse.]

Aha. And you know this for a fact because..?

If no one else here has the courage to talk about this openly, I shall have to plague this forum (apologies to the author) with researched info about people who are so scary to you. Eventually all of us grow up and stop being afraid of the dark.

God forbid your (the generic you - to all of you out there) kids turn out to be homosexuals, transsexual (yes there are variations to the disease) or in any way queer, you`ll cease to see them as humans, and send them to institutions, where different tactics can be used to `cure` them, and if nothing works, put them away -- in kindness -- the kind we show to animals.

I wish I could be more articulate about these issues, but oh well.

with regards
Brat

Urstruly #54

First off I want to apologise if my remarks are out of sync with the rest of the discussion, I haven`t been around much but the studiousness of a student provoked me to respond!

This post is to all those whose views are similar to those stated by Urstruly.

[I am just a student of anthropology.]
I believe, that the first requirement of being a `student` of anything is to keep an open mind and to learn. Your post unfortunately doesn`t show proof of openness.

[Homosexuality:
I think it is a natural process...
...has delivered nothing to the society other than disease, decline of moral values, breakdown of family structure and breakdown of social fabric.]

Ahem ahem, and what was this social fabric, family structure etc?

[Its contribution to the society is next to none.]

What has been your (a perfectly disease free heterosexual -- but not a white -- male )contribution to anything? Any original ideas in your studies so far? What has been the contribution of people like you? Shall I quote the geniuses from History who have been homosexuals and who *have * contributed to the so called society?

Homosexuality may scare the daylights out of you -- but sorry to disappoint you - it`s not a disease by any standards (If you doubt this research it).

Why does it threaten you in any way? Is it contagious like a cold? Did you ever catch it? I can bet you that you must have met a homosexual more than once in your life -- whether or not you knew it at the time.

Do you think stereotypes define things? What`s a stereotype that is normally applied to `people of your kind`? Does it fit you? All the things you quote about homosexuality are so outdated.

All what I talk about is what I`ve seen in a society which is unlike ours, where sexuality of any kind is suppressed. Guys have sex and prove varying degrees of supremacy? Women are needed but that`s about it, right? BTW I`d be curious to hear your comments on female orgasms and the likes. Do they exist, is it a disease? if so is it contagious etc.

[Homosexuality definitely has its roots in child molestation and abuse.]

Aha. And you know this for a fact because..?

If no one else here has the courage to talk about this openly, I shall have to plague this forum (apologies to the author) with researched info about people who are so scary to you. Eventually all of us grow up and stop being afraid of the dark.

God forbid your (the generic you - to all of you out there) kids turn out to be homosexuals, transsexual (yes there are variations to the disease) or in any way queer, you`ll cease to see them as humans, and send them to institutions, where different tactics can be used to `cure` them, and if nothing works, put them away -- in kindness -- the kind we show to animals.

I wish I could be more articulate about these issues, but oh well.

with regards
Brat

Godot:

Right Mindfulness: One of the eight noble paths of Buddhism/Zen.

Thank you for ``getting to the bottom`` of things. That was very impressive intellectually.

re. Urstruly #54:

``Anthropology is not an exact science. Every new theory may be considered as ``dogmatic`` as any other religion. These theories only reflect on our perception and to some extent reality. Whereas religion reflects on the reality while being a big modifier to our perception. ``

I think I agree with you. Except.... some parts of the `reality` (of life) in which a religion originated might not be so real or valid anymore. True, human nature hasn`t changed that much even in 1500 years, but many of the `realities` addressed by Religion, especially Islam (because it is so `complete`) have less to to with human nature than human convention. When conventions change, as they often do, the religious edicts addressing them may not be ``relections of reality`` at all-- in fact, just the opposite. Examples will be provided on demand. It`s 12:50 a.m. and I`m sleepy.

``Homosexuality:I think it is a natural process. It probably is in our genes. But again then diabetes and cancer are in our genes too. Homosexuality has delivered nothing to the society other than disease, decline of moral values, breakdown of family structure and breakdown of social fabric. Its contribution to the society is next to none. So in my opinion HS must be treated as a genetic disorder-just like schizophrenia, diabetes, and Alzhiemers. ``

I thought of not dignifying this drivel with a response, but since there might be other well meaning but well-indocrinated (in homophobia) readers out there, I will attempt a rebuttal:

``Homosexuality has delivered nothing to the society...``

Yeah, if you discount the legacy of the Greek to our entire philosphical lanscape; the contibutons of a majority of poets and playwrights, artists and sculptors, I guess you`re absolutely right.... those with expressed homosexual tendencies have delivereed NOTHING to society.

``... other than disease``

Oh really? What disease? Oh yes! the dimwitted HS-started-AIDS argument. Never mind that in Southern Africa (from where HIV originated) the infection rate is 25% of the general population --- which is vastly predominantly heterosexual!!

Never mind that homosexuality has a a recorded and colorful past as old as history itself, and that any number venereal diseasses were always associated with heterosexuality, not homosexuality. Of course, back then heterosexuality wasn`t to blame; promiscuity was. BUt now that there is an association of HIV-spread with promiscuous homosexuality, it is homosexuality, not promiscuity that is to blame. Prejudice rearing its ugly head.

``...decline of moral values,``

If your moral values dictate that homosexuality is bad, you`re simply engaging in circular argumentation. I thought you were smarter.

``breakdown of family structure``

Ah yes! The homosexual instinct, not the (admittedly overplayed) demand for equal rights by those with these `instincts` are to blame. And of course, we all know that most marriages are on the rocks because one or both of the spouses is/are suddenly attraced to someone of the SAME sex.

``...and breakdown of social fabric``. Yes, and while you`re at it, why not throw in the nuclear race escalation, global environmeant pollution, and all manner of political injustice too!

Brat #59

I seem to have somehow overlooked the most inane part of Urstruly`s #54. He states:

[Homosexuality definitely has its roots in child molestation and abuse.]

Thanks for highlighting that gem for me! Mr. Urstruly obviously cannot seem to make up his mind. First it is a genetic disease, then later, a psychological one.

rgds,

PM

Paritosh:
Great story, I loved the ending too. The ending leaves the door ajar for all these discussions that have been taking place! And the discussions so far have stayed around the same topic! Kudos to you!!

PM:
Thanks for putting across the points so much more clearly in your various posts about homosexuality and bisexuality etc.

The monogamous bit is where I myself falter. Is it important, natural etc....or are we all different shades, with different needs. Why should all men/women have the same biological basis for their behavior? To satisfy science?

Love. true or otherwise is causing me some cynicism, and I am too young for it too. But there might be hope.
The song from Sweet November -- by Enya --
Who can say
where the road goes
when the day flows
- only time.
And who can say
If your love grows
as your heart chose
- only time.

Who can say
why your heart sighs
as your love flies
- only time
And who can say
why your heart cries
when your love lies
- only time.

I guess the cynicism fades away with time, and you begin to treasure whatever `eternal` moment it was.
regards
Brat