Jump to content

About sex


Guest Asiss

Recommended Posts

Quote

I think a lot of this stems from the restrictions placed on each gender. Who is to say the colour pink for example is only for girls? Who is to say that car toys are only for boys? Why can't we just remove all the gender stereotypes and then allow people to be who they are, and that might stop a lot (not all obviously) but it might stop a lot of the gender identity issues.  If a girl wants to be a mechanic, or join the military let them. Don't place restrictions on them. If a boy wants to play with baby dolls, let him. To say that either is restricted to one gender is entirely a social construct. We as humans made those stereotypes. We can remove them. Then a boy can still be a boy, while playing with dolls. A girl can still be a girl while learning to fix cars.  Then maybe they won't reject their gender. Obviously this doesn't cover homosexuality or gender identity in its entirely. But does address some of the issues.  I say treat humans as humans not put them into boxes we create. Every opportunity should be given to every individual. 

How many women like girly men?when a woman do man's job she is praised , when a man do woman's job , he is eunuch , sissy , gay etc

let me ask you hypothetical situation  a robber enters a house where there is a man wife and kids , now what everyone expect that man should face the robber , what if he does not have courage to do it? will he be respected ? what are going to be consequences. Just turn the table and wife does not have courage to face robber , will anybody say anything to her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I am not advocating creating new boxes (effeminite men etc) what I am saying goes beyond this. What I am saying is the society created the idea of what is or what is not effeminite.  What if a man wants to stay home and take care of the baby? While the Mother works? If she had the higher paying job I mean. why would anyone look down on either of them? why is it considered the woman's job to serve me, clean the house and change nappies? I am perfectly capable of cleaning a house, changing my daughters dirty bum, and cook my own food. My wife is perfectly capable of much more (physically and mentally) than household chores. She would go nuts if she didn't work and was forced into the box or stereotype of having to serve me and cook. So we both work and pay for care now that our paid leave is over. And we both do chores with the house we both cook together and we take turns with our daughter. DOes that make me effeminite? Should I feel guilty for doing this? Should she feel guilty because she works and wants to strive for more than being a simple housewife? If someone really wants to do certain things, we might not like it personally but should we force them into the box WE think they should be in? Or remove the boxes all together? If we removed the restrictions we place on people baed on what is between their legs, then maybe they won't want to reject their gender and become the other gender. My point is, maybe that boy will play with a doll (and so what if he does? He will likely have children someday! And he should know how to care for them just as much as a little girl would!) But if he is allowed to explore those interests, maybe he won't reject being a boy alltogether! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

How many women like girly men?when a woman do man's job she is praised , when a man do woman's job , he is eunuch , sissy , gay etc

let me ask you hypothetical situation  a robber enters a house where there is a man wife and kids , now what everyone expect that man should face the robber , what if he does not have courage to do it? will he be respected ? what are going to be consequences. Just turn the table and wife does not have courage to face robber , will anybody say anything to her

That's easy. Because what what men have been traditionally doing is valued way more than what the women were doing. So of course the women are praised if they can do what the men can, because she's able to do something that matters more. And of course the men who do what women typically were forced into are called sissy etc because what women did was always seen as weak, simple, doesn't require much physical effort or brains and most importantly was seen as a servant role because men never valued it or appreciated it! I agree remove the gender stereotypes and let people be who they are.  I never liked babies or housework, but it doesn't mean I hate being a woman. Why not let me choose what being a woman is to me? For me that's a career in the Navy. And my career doesn't affect the closeness with my husband one iota in fact he is proud of what I have accomplished. By the way I agree sex between husband and wife is fine as its within marriage. It doesn't have to be only for procreation or else every couple in their mid to late 40s would have to become celebite when she can no longer pop out babies at menopause. (Reading your story above guest makes me even less inclined to have any ...... Shudder!!)

 

kddingh80 - I'm more for everyone being trained to defend themselves and carry protection than relying on a man and hiding in a corner. That's why we all carry kirpans no? I also have pepper spray here and not afraid to use it. As last resort I also took Taekwon do which taught me it's far worse to be afraid and cower than it is to at least fight back. Stop teaching women they need to cower behind men. I'm not saying teach men to be cowards but why not teach women to fight too???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guest said:

Actually I am not advocating creating new boxes (effeminite men etc) what I am saying goes beyond this. What I am saying is the society created the idea of what is or what is not effeminite.  What if a man wants to stay home and take care of the baby? While the Mother works? If she had the higher paying job I mean. why would anyone look down on either of them? why is it considered the woman's job to serve me, clean the house and change nappies? I am perfectly capable of cleaning a house, changing my daughters dirty bum, and cook my own food. My wife is perfectly capable of much more (physically and mentally) than household chores. She would go nuts if she didn't work and was forced into the box or stereotype of having to serve me and cook. So we both work and pay for care now that our paid leave is over. And we both do chores with the house we both cook together and we take turns with our daughter. DOes that make me effeminite? Should I feel guilty for doing this? Should she feel guilty because she works and wants to strive for more than being a simple housewife? If someone really wants to do certain things, we might not like it personally but should we force them into the box WE think they should be in? Or remove the boxes all together? If we removed the restrictions we place on people baed on what is between their legs, then maybe they won't want to reject their gender and become the other gender. My point is, maybe that boy will play with a doll (and so what if he does? He will likely have children someday! And he should know how to care for them just as much as a little girl would!) But if he is allowed to explore those interests, maybe he won't reject being a boy alltogether! 

 

Helping around the house,  or with the kids or even cooking doesn't make a bloke into a he-b1tch. 

 

But in an increasingly violent and volatile world it is only prudent that a Singh act like a man and not a pussy. This doesn't mean women have to be perpetual victims either before anyone jumps in with that. 

 

We've already got a plethora of emasculated blokes as it is, we need to reverse this - not accept it like Guest in his last post appears to have done.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dalsingh101 said:

Screw that! 

I mean, I know what life is like, occasionally some of the toughest guys I've known have had some really effeminate, b1tch-ass sons. But called me old fashioned, call me a dinosaur - I still say the ideal is having boys that are strong and masculine. 

lol

Banday banjoah......me and you would say ."Tenu meh dollian dindhah, bandah banjah"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 I never liked babies or housework, 

The first one is straight weird: wtf happened to your maternal instincts? What kind of person doesn't like babies??

 

As for not liking housework - that's some spoilt brat bullsh1t! No one (or very few people) REALLY like doing housework. They just have enough mental maturity to know that it needs to be done lest they end up living like pigs in a pigsty. Girl you iz nasty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lucky said:

lol

Banday banjoah......me and you would say ."Tenu meh dollian dindhah, bandah banjah"

To paraphrase my mother: 

 

"Dolly chak kay teray sirchh maar na!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

The first one is straight weird: wtf happened to your maternal instincts? What kind of person doesn't like babies??

 

As for not liking housework - that's some spoilt brat bullsh1t! No one (or very few people) REALLY like doing housework. They just have enough mental maturity to know that it needs to be done lest they end up living like pigs in a pigsty. Girl you iz nasty!

I never said I didn't DO housework. I just don't like it as a career choice. So I'd never be a housewife.

And no I have no maternal instinct. None. I know I don't! I actually feel awkward around babies. If one cries I have absolutely no idea what to do.  At all. I've never craved for one. Give me a 3 year old or older and I can relate to them somewhat. The older the better though. But never had the urge to change diapers and have an infant hanging off my breasts full time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

But never had the urge to change diapers and have an infant hanging off my breasts full time.  

This only lasts a few years.

 

Quote

I never said I didn't DO housework. I just don't like it as a career choice. So I'd never be a housewife.

I grew up in the 70s/80s. Even then, plenty of Sikh women including my mother weren't housewives. Only the REALLY illiterate/unskilled types were. A lot women worked sewing clothes back then, either in factories or at home. I worked in a (Panjabi owned and run) warehouse when I first left school and the owners' (a bunch of brothers) wives would work there too (they were allowed to leave early though). 

Your apparent perceptions of gender roles and norms in society seem so cliched and bizarre to me, seriously you seem a bit 'off your trolley'. It's like your head is stuck in some Victorian era? Strange. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, dalsingh101 said:

This only lasts a few years.

 

I grew up in the 70s/80s. Even then, plenty of Sikh women including my mother weren't housewives. Only the REALLY illiterate/unskilled types were. A lot women worked sewing clothes back then, either in factories or at home. I worked in a (Panjabi owned and run) warehouse when I first left school and the owners' (a bunch of brothers) wives would work there too (they were allowed to leave early though). 

Your apparent perceptions of gender roles and norms in society seem so cliched and bizarre to me, seriously you seem a bit 'off your trolley'. It's like your head is stuck in some Victorian era? Strange. 

I know its only a few years and I am scared to death of those few years!!! Thankfully if we have a child, I know he will do 50% of the work because he actually loves babies. I don't know I am petrified by them.  As i said once they get to the point where they can communicate then I am ok so toddlers.  But even then, I have no idea what to do once they start wailing. And the screeching goes right through me. 

When I got married, even though my husband and his family are very open and encouraging to my husband's nieces to have good careers etc. I was taken aside by my husband's brother's new wife. She told me that 1) I am expected to produce a male child, 2) I have to 'serve' the husband as a wife, and 3) then she said something about how she doesn't even refer to her husband (my husband's brother) by his name as if it's wrong for her to use it. Apparently its ok for him to use hers through. 

My husband later told me this is NOT how their family does things, it was how his brother's wife was brought up.  But the inferior role of wives serving the husband is still very prevalent.  She was from Jammu if it helps... I'm lucky in that my husband is not scared to cook or help with cleaning etc. As for a baby we are leaving it to Waheguru as I am near 41.  It may or may not happen.  But if it does, I am definitely exploring PLANNED c-section to avoid labour and all of the above issues that guest posted. And I am petrified of those first few years. Seriously. Petrified. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once you get pregnant, the hormones generated will take care of the maternal instincts. Nature is very powerful indeed.

Rest is in Gods hands.

Yea, not taking the Husbands names is quite common. My mom and most female relatives never call their husbands by names only by "hainji, sunde ho, xyz de papa" lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ragmaala said:

Once you get pregnant, the hormones generated will take care of the maternal instincts. Nature is very powerful indeed.

Rest is in Gods hands.

Yea, not taking the Husbands names is quite common. My mom and most female relatives never call their husbands by names only by "hainji, sunde ho, xyz de papa" lol

But why is it only one way?  Why do they feel its wrong to use their husbands name but perfectly fine for the husband to use theirs? And how does that work in a crowd?? LOL.  Luckily my husband doesn't buy into that. To me it sounds like some admission of inferiority in the minds of the women.  Or they are artificially elevating their husbands above themselves. In and of itself that is not anything wrong, but surely the husband should do the same then else it seems lopsided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is for the devotional audience:

Even some Sikh Saints do not utter the name of their "Master Saint" through their tongue.They usually refer to them as Baba Ji. Example, Sant Baba Ishar Singh Ji kaleran wale never uttered the name of his master, Sant Baba Nand Singh Ji with his tongue. He always referred to him as Baba Ji. This was a show of extreme respect.  One time, a Hindu saint came to visit Baba Ishar Singh Ji. During the conversation, the hindu saint asked, " aap ke guru ka kya naam hai ?"( who is your master ?) Baba Ji went into a divine mystic rapture. The nearby devotees then answered the Hindu saint.

So even some saints follow this theme of not taking their masters names. However, he was a true master. This does not mean that husbands are masters lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

But why is it only one way?  Why do they feel its wrong to use their husbands name but perfectly fine for the husband to use theirs? And how does that work in a crowd?? LOL.  Luckily my husband doesn't buy into that. To me it sounds like some admission of inferiority in the minds of the women.  Or they are artificially elevating their husbands above themselves. In and of itself that is not anything wrong, but surely the husband should do the same then else it seems lopsided.

I really do not blame you for not understanding.

But I cannot explain well or convince you.

That is the way things have been in indian culture lol

How does this work in a crowd ? Then you should just call out his full name  ex Inderjeet Singh Ji,  add singh & jee to call him out loud. 

Indian women are shy....but things have changed now. Many women do call their husbands names these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, gdskler said:

Shabad Guru surat Dhun Chela by Giani Sant Singh Maskeen at page 101 to page 102.

Thanks bro for the reference.

If Daas finds the audio reference by Gyani Inderjit Singh jee Raqbewale, will posit it.

Spiritually hollow people (Daas belongs to this category too) will find it difficult, imagining a happy married life, without any sexual activities for pleasure.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Thanks bro for the reference.

If Daas finds the audio reference by Gyani Inderjit Singh jee Raqbewale, will posit it.

Spiritually hollow people will find it difficult, imagining a happy married life, without any sexual activities for pleasure.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Veer Ji you are assuming that sex is only done by husband and wife for physical pleasure. It is not. Its an expression of love, the same as a kiss or hug. Only you can kiss or hug your sister as well. Thus meaning that the only thing which would make someone a husband or wife, is that there is an intimate relationship there which is not the same as with a brother and sister. If you remove that, then they are in effect just like a brother and sister.  So why even be married at all? See how this thinking then leads us to the path of asceticism and rejecting life, which Guru Nanak Dev Ji actually warned us against as a means to spirituality.

It's more spiritually hollow to try and justify being married to someone you treat only as a brother or sister. Especially when there is a much higher connection than purely physical pleasure between a husband and wife expressing love.

Finally, should we not follow our Gurus over Sants and Babas?

Did Guru Ji not tell us to multiply our love with our spouse as much as we could, but to only maintain that relation with our spouse and not even go in our dreams to the bed of another? He said nothing about becoming a celibate. Also I have read those pages referenced in Shabad Guru Surat Dhun Chela, and nothing in there actually says to stop sexual relations with your spouse at all. It makes mention only vaguely how focusing on physical sexual pleasure is a hurdle to spirituality. This is not speaking of marital relations but of sex in excess and for wrong purposes such that it becomes an unhealthy focus and takes you away from your spiritual path. Keeping sexual relations in check however with one's spouse only and in moderation, is entirely different from what is being alluded to. 

The way of the ascetic / celibate and rejecting living normal family life is not the way to find the divine.  By renouncing one's sexual desire all together, they will only create more of a monster inside. What good is refraining from the physical deed all together when your mind will still crave closeness with your spouse? Then you will start to experience the dreams that Guru Ji warned against anyway!
Instead, moderating sexual desire through being in a healthy family life with one's spouse while also balancing that with spiritual path and sharing spiritual life together with that spouse, then everything is in balance. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2016 at 10:03 PM, Guest Akash said:

It's more spiritually hollow to try and justify being married to someone you treat only as a brother or sister. Especially when there is a much higher connection than purely physical pleasure between a husband and wife expressing love.

Do you mean sacred sex? That is part of Hinduism (Tantrik Vidya).

 

Bhul chuk maaf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Guest Akash said:

Finally, should we not follow our Gurus over Sants and Babas?

Sants and Babas follow Sri Satguru jee. Gurbani clearly instructs us to follow Gurmukhs, Saints, Babas, etc, and abandon our Manmat, as they are way closer to the Almighty God, as compared to normal humans like me.

 

9 hours ago, Guest Akash said:

 

Did Guru Ji not tell us to multiply our love with our spouse as much as we could, but to only maintain that relation with our spouse and not even go in our dreams to the bed of another? He said nothing about becoming a celibate.

 

The above lines are from Sri Dasam Granth Sahib jee (Sri Charitropakhian Sahib jee). Do you believe in entire Sri Dasam Granth Shaib jee or not?

 

9 hours ago, Guest Akash said:

The way of the ascetic / celibate and rejecting living normal family life is not the way to find the divine.  By renouncing one's sexual desire all together, they will only create more of a monster inside. What good is refraining from the physical deed all together when your mind will still crave closeness with your spouse?

 

Are you aware that many great Singhs/Shaheeds of our Panth were celibates?

It is not mandatory in Sikhism to get married unlike Islam, where it is a must.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Guest Akash said:

It's more spiritually hollow to try and justify being married to someone you treat only as a brother or sister. Especially when there is a much higher connection than purely physical pleasure between a husband and wife expressing love.

It is completely imprudent to compare brother-sister relationship to marriage. Do you think that when a couple performs sexual act, with the aim to procreate, they will always succeed in the first attempt? At times, sexual intercourse will have to performed multiple times to get the wife pregnant. 

It is extremely unethical to compare such a physical/intimate relationship, to that of siblings.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Guest Akash said:

 See how this thinking then leads us to the path of asceticism and rejecting life, which Guru Nanak Dev Ji actually warned us against as a means to spirituality.

There are tuks in Gurbani, which can be used to reject a householder (Grahasti)'s lifestyle too.

An Ascetic, who is free from all vikars, will also be accepted by Sri Satguru jee.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

That's easy. Because what what men have been traditionally doing is valued way more than what the women were doing. So of course the women are praised if they can do what the men can, because she's able to do something that matters more. And of course the men who do what women typically were forced into are called sissy etc because what women did was always seen as weak, simple, doesn't require much physical effort or brains and most importantly was seen as a servant role because men never valued it or appreciated it! I 

 

 

Agree what man has been doiung has always been more valued , but just 1 question how many women want to be with guy who is girly ? or do woman's jobs. It is well known fact that jerks , bad guys and even criminals find women  , but girly sissy men has difficulty in that, Naturally men will be more attracted what is seen as dominant 

 

I never liked babies or housework, but it doesn't mean I hate being a woman. Why not let me choose what being a woman is to me? For me that's a career in the Navy. 

[/quote]

I have said it before and saying it again choice is something is reserved for elite in world, out of 7.3 billion 6.8 or 6.9 billion have no choice they work to earn and then reproduce this is the way society has been running and will run. Indivisually  person  can go what he/she want but on larger scale this is not possible. Nobody is saying that you should do housework or have babies , but your lifestyle cannot be applied on larger basis

 

Quote

kddingh80 - I'm more for everyone being trained to defend themselves and carry protection than relying on a man and hiding in a corner. That's why we all carry kirpans no? I also have pepper spray here and not afraid to use it. As last resort I also took Taekwon do which taught me it's far worse to be afraid and cower than it is to at least fight back. Stop teaching women they need to cower behind men. I'm not saying teach men to be cowards but why not teach women to fight too???

First try to understand what I am saying . In imaginery world everybody has to be brave , but in real world most people including very large majority men are scared , what I am saying is that in an unfortunate situation woman can easily opt not to fight and nobody will say a word but a man has to fight and if he refuses  the entire world including his close people will curse him for life and as for kirpan everybody knows that if you are not trained which 99% are not is just a toy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that once you take away the intimacy between them, they may as well see each other as brother / sister type relationship. 

If a couple finds out they are infertile they should stop being married? Or just stop having intimacy? If so, what is the difference between that and seeing each other as brother / sister?

If a woman had a hysterectomy due to illness etc. prior to being married, does that mean she should never get married at all? Or a man who is infertile (maybe had cancer or something)? 

You are defining marriage as ONLY to create children. This is not a correct depiction of marriage. Marriage is the coming together of two souls into one. It is not a platonic relationship by definition. When two bodies merge, there is an energy merging. I am sorry you can't see sex as anything beyond the physical pleasure of it, and well, frankly if that's all you see it as, then please never get married (if you are not already). I would pity the thought of a woman stuck with you to be seen only as a breeding machine. She deserves to be loved.  And I am sorry there is a huge difference between platonic love and love between husband and wife.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kdsingh80 said:

Agree what man has been doiung has always been more valued , but just 1 question how many women want to be with guy who is girly ? or do woman's jobs. It is well known fact that jerks , bad guys and even criminals find women  , but girly sissy men has difficulty in that, Naturally men will be more attracted what is seen as dominant 

 

 

That depends on what you consider to be girly?  Why is it that the job of a nurse was always seen as girly while that of a doctor is seen as manly?? Who decided that? In reality, nurses go through four years of university learning MUCH of the same things doctors do!  There are many male nurses today.  But at one time, it was seen as girly for them to be.  This 'view' was entirely created by society.  It's an illusion.  Because doctors were seen as the authority figures and nurses acted on the authority of the doctors, it was seen in this light. Also the fact that the doctors did little actual dirty work (like cleaning up someone who has shat themselves for an example) so the dirty menial work was seen as a woman's job.  But who came up with the idea that woman do the menial simple and dirty tasks, while under the authority of males, while the males do the authoritative jobs? It's entirely created by society and society's views of women, and how that society values its women. 

If from the start both genders were allowed to be doctors and both genders were allowed to be nurses, without it being seen as scandalous if a man god forbid took an order from a woman... then there would be an entirely different view. Of course society now is getting over that. But we have a LONG way to go! For the record, I know male nurses, they love their job, they are put under just as much stress (especially in the ER) and they are not gay or seen as girly at all. 

I guess my point is, lets remove these illusory labels we have created, that says this is a male thing or that is a female thing.  Why can't things just be things?? 

Also, your very statement above "how many women want to be with a guy who is girly" illustrates my point.  It makes the statement that 1) being a girl is bad while being a boy is good 2) uses all of the cultural and societal things which we created as the criteria to decide what makes one 'girly'.  If we stop saying that being open with one's emotions is being 'girly' and is just call it a human trait, then a guy won't be labelled 'girly' for being open with his emotions, but instead just be seen as human.

Also its been proven that cultures which empower their girls and train them to fight and defend themselves, is hugely positive. Societies with submissive helpless women brought up to be obedient to men and incapable to defend themselves, the women are that way because its how they have been conditioned.

If I have a girl, you can bet she won't get dollies and toy vacuum cleaners and play kitchens. She will have chemistry sets, microscope, telescopes, her own tools, even cars etc. so she can learn actual skills. And she will be enrolled in tae kwon do from a young age. 

By the way many men like dominant women too. And two dominants does not mean clashes. It just means they both respect each other on equal level. Instead of one being placed in inferior or subordinate role. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...