Farzana Versey May 5, 2005
#46 Posted by amrita on May 7, 2005 8:49:16 am
Re: # 45
Sure, but the specific examples Farzana discusses here are of those who fall in love even though they are married to other people. She notes the more common examples above.
Sure, but the specific examples Farzana discusses here are of those who fall in love even though they are married to other people. She notes the more common examples above.
#45 Posted by tahmed32 on May 7, 2005 8:42:01 am
amrita #44: adultery does not mean that a man is in love with more than one woman. On the contrary, it indicates the man is in love only with himself.
This is because clearly the man seeks to maximize his personal sexual enjoyment without regard to the miseries and difficulties it creates for his wife and children. I have seen this happen with people.
This is because clearly the man seeks to maximize his personal sexual enjoyment without regard to the miseries and difficulties it creates for his wife and children. I have seen this happen with people.
#44 Posted by amrita on May 7, 2005 8:24:18 am
Re: # 39
DM - Cool. Btw, my feelings are about the same except I think these are individual choices rather than cultural.
And [this is more general] I dont think Farzana advocated adultery or tried to determine the amount of virtue in it - the article seems to question the sufficiency of the institution of marriage as a buffer against falling in love with a third person.
DM - Cool. Btw, my feelings are about the same except I think these are individual choices rather than cultural.
And [this is more general] I dont think Farzana advocated adultery or tried to determine the amount of virtue in it - the article seems to question the sufficiency of the institution of marriage as a buffer against falling in love with a third person.
#42 Posted by vivek on May 7, 2005 7:46:41 am
Mahesh,
Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the mormons seems to have had a huge number of wives, all loyal to him. Not much of infightings in the Mormons record. So you are being too conservative in choosing the number to be 4. I suggest 50.
Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the mormons seems to have had a huge number of wives, all loyal to him. Not much of infightings in the Mormons record. So you are being too conservative in choosing the number to be 4. I suggest 50.
#41 Posted by MaheshG2 on May 7, 2005 7:39:02 am
Vivek, no I haven`t.
I suggest to make any form of relationship legal among a limited group of men and women.
I suggest the group size be limited to 4. The group could consist of anywhere from 1 to 4 men or women.
Increasing the size would lead to petty jealousies and breakdown of society.
I suggest to make any form of relationship legal among a limited group of men and women.
I suggest the group size be limited to 4. The group could consist of anywhere from 1 to 4 men or women.
Increasing the size would lead to petty jealousies and breakdown of society.
#40 Posted by vivek on May 7, 2005 7:37:19 am
DMji,
I do not think of adultery as a virtue but it is not a crime. It happens everywhere so we have to learn to live with it.
I do not think of adultery as a virtue but it is not a crime. It happens everywhere so we have to learn to live with it.
#39 Posted by dost_mittar on May 7, 2005 7:23:05 am
amrita, vivek:
I believe that a loving single parent family is preferable to a dysfunctional two parent family. Yes, adultery happens but it is another matter whether one should consider it virtuous.
I believe that a loving single parent family is preferable to a dysfunctional two parent family. Yes, adultery happens but it is another matter whether one should consider it virtuous.
#37 Posted by MaheshG2 on May 7, 2005 6:54:44 am
#34,
We should legalize polygamy and while we are at it legalize polyandry too. Why shouldn`t women have multiple partners? While we are at it we should legalize same sex relationships too.
To keep things from getting too complicated the only legal form of polygamy-andry should be the one where one limited group of men and women are wed to only that particular group. The men and women should not be allowed to have relationships outside this group. Otherwise we will have a situation where every person is connected to the other through only six degrees of separation in legal relationships.
#36 Posted by vivek on May 7, 2005 6:43:09 am
Naqshbandi,
There is evidence of some women in almost every society having paramours throughtout history, so should we legalise the right of a woman to have multiple patners too?
DMji,
Adultery sometimes happens and is often not planned. Many people who have committed adultery also are loving family members. Then again, adultery has been taking place all through Indian history inspite of all the tall claims that Indians make about them being the ``living for the family`` type.
There is evidence of some women in almost every society having paramours throughtout history, so should we legalise the right of a woman to have multiple patners too?
DMji,
Adultery sometimes happens and is often not planned. Many people who have committed adultery also are loving family members. Then again, adultery has been taking place all through Indian history inspite of all the tall claims that Indians make about them being the ``living for the family`` type.
#35 Posted by amrita on May 7, 2005 6:23:49 am
Re: # 34
No. You cant right a wrong by legalizing it.
No. You cant right a wrong by legalizing it.
#34 Posted by Naqshbandi on May 7, 2005 6:18:13 am
sattar ignoring your offensive remark, i made the point that in every society concubines existed and performed a social function--otherwise why did they exist for so long. as for prostitutes--i have a lot of sympathy for them; they get a raw deal from society. in an ideal society they wouldn`t exist but since humans aren`t perfect they will always exist.
my argument is that isn`t polygamy with all its responsiblities better than adultery?
my argument is that isn`t polygamy with all its responsiblities better than adultery?
#33 Posted by amrita on May 7, 2005 5:15:45 am
Re: # 32
DM - let me play devil`s advocate here. Is it in the greater interest to consign oneself to an unhappy marriage that sees, say, daily screaming matches, indifference, children who become pawns, etc or is it better to cut the chord once and for all and grab your chance at love when it comes up knowing that this might be your one chance to become a happier and perhaps kinder person in the process?
DM - let me play devil`s advocate here. Is it in the greater interest to consign oneself to an unhappy marriage that sees, say, daily screaming matches, indifference, children who become pawns, etc or is it better to cut the chord once and for all and grab your chance at love when it comes up knowing that this might be your one chance to become a happier and perhaps kinder person in the process?
#32 Posted by dost_mittar on May 7, 2005 4:31:36 am
Dear Farzana:
It all depends upon what value system one follows. Let me explain:
There is the system which places a higher value on collective good over individual rights - the collective could be a biradari/jirga, ethnicity (e.g., quebecois, maratha), state or a supranational entity, such as ummah.
The second system is one that puts family above an individual and society; this is the system prevalent in most of Asia, including India and Pakistan. At its best, you see this system at work in Bollywood where brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers are competing to sacrifice themselves for others; at its worst one sees it in people killing their own to protect the family honour.
The third system is the Anglo-Saxon system where it is the individual uber alles. Here, all that counts is I, me and mine and everything else is secondary. This system seems to be the model now for the Indian Gen-Xs as well.
What you say in this article is valid only if you believe in this third model.
It all depends upon what value system one follows. Let me explain:
There is the system which places a higher value on collective good over individual rights - the collective could be a biradari/jirga, ethnicity (e.g., quebecois, maratha), state or a supranational entity, such as ummah.
The second system is one that puts family above an individual and society; this is the system prevalent in most of Asia, including India and Pakistan. At its best, you see this system at work in Bollywood where brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers are competing to sacrifice themselves for others; at its worst one sees it in people killing their own to protect the family honour.
The third system is the Anglo-Saxon system where it is the individual uber alles. Here, all that counts is I, me and mine and everything else is secondary. This system seems to be the model now for the Indian Gen-Xs as well.
What you say in this article is valid only if you believe in this third model.
#31 Posted by drlokraj on May 7, 2005 2:00:02 am
Children are undoubtedly the worst sufferers of their parents` adultery which leads to broken homes.Maximum patients of serious psychiatric illnesses, drug/alcohol dependence
and deliberate self harm come from broken families.
and deliberate self harm come from broken families.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- mohar11: Re: # 98 Right on...... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Dash_Dot: Re: # 84 sabji... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- mohar11: I mean - zardari... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Dash_Dot: Tahmed32 sabji LOL at... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- AlephNull: There's nothing particularly mysterious... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- mohar11: kaal oh, we understand it... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- mohar11: if pakis really want... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Eklavya: mohar, Pakistanis may be... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in








reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content