CdnSikhGirl

Except I follow Sikh Rehet Maryada... It follows closest to what is actually in SGGSJ. Which I believe I have shown above that you have quoted. I am not DDT and not Nanaksar... I have not taken Amrit yet, but if I do it with ANY jatha, it would be AKJ. And in SRM there is NO restriction at all on women. Again, like others, you are parroting certain RMs and not supporting the reasons why with actual Gurbani. Instead of just being another sheep, we should use the brain given to us by Waheguru and go to the ONE source of information we CAN trust as authentic... and that's our only living Guru... Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Those specific RMs you mention are VERY sexist, and I will not 'just accept' them. First of all, there is no proof that they have been unaltered at some point, and second, that they were written taking in to account the actual teachings of the Gurus. I have shown in the Chaupa Singh Rhetnama recently, how there are inconsistencies, which point to very Brahministic thinking.... like waking at dawn and saluting the Sun with 'Namaste'. (only one example there are others), and low and behold.... what was Chaupa Singh's background??? Brahmin! So it's no surprise that his rhetnama contains instructions such that women should behold their husband as 'God' and he restricts women from nearly everything. And even the wording is almost identical to what is written in Hindu scripture! Mere coincidence I think not! There are many Rehet Maryadas... ALL differing in some ways. I am not obliged to follow the most sexist ones just... because some say I should?? I would prefer to go to SGGSJ and read for myself what it says about equality. And... I will NEVER serve a man as 'God'. Why should he be above me? We are both here on the same journey... shouldnt we serve each other equally? Or... maybe being born as a woman is somehow a punishment? Maybe we have to be reborn in a male 'joon' before we can merge back with God??? That idea has been thrown around too... also very Brahministic thinking which has no backing in SGGSJ.

paapiman, you keep saying that 'sex' is bad for the body? Can you show some scientific evidence for this? Because I can show scientific evidence for the opposite. Evidence shows that the physical pleasure of sex is only a small part of the benefit. There is evidence which suggests that regularly, it helps the body's immune system, lowers blood pressure, burns calories, lowers heart attack risk, lessens chronic pain, and actually helps prevention of prostate cancer in men and breast cancer in women. It also releases stress, and improves sleep. In addition to the physical health benefits, the hormones produced actually help the couple bond emotionally as husband and wife. Can you imagine being married but having no relations with your spouse how would that marriage really be? You'd be living as (ok you said brother / sister instead of friends - word play semantics). If we were as you said at that top level of Sikhi where we block sex from our marriage because we are not having children or done having children... what would that do the 'blissful union' that couple undertook? I think there is deeper meaning to this. Many spiritual paths explain an actual energy transfer happening between a couple during sex. This is not on a physical level but on a spiritual level. It's why multiple partners is not a good thing. All that energy transfer of different people, and the people they were with can become confusing. I truly believe there is something to this... because we all know the base level of everything is ONE. One energy field... ONE universal consciousness. This physical world really IS an illusion because as we peer deeper into quantum level we see the particles at some point disappear. And all that's left is one underlying energy field. Out of this field everything - ALL form arises. So our true nature is that spiritual energy. So when two beings couple, they are sharing that energy on a spiritual level... even beyond quantum level. This energy has also been referred to as 'pure light' so the verse where it says husband and wife are not those who merely sit together but become ONE light in two bodies.... to me that has a deeper level of truth. Blissful union because it happens at that base level of existence. This is something way beyond the physical. When two Sikhs get married, it's not only to produce physical children, but to rectify two halves of a whole, and become ONE in their journey spiritually toward the same end goal. A sister / brother relationship can not possibly ever compare. This is why I interpret it much differently than you. And also explains the verse where it says if being celebit were the key, then eunichs should have secured heaven. Sex with those who are not your spouse, is forbidden. And it's bad spiritually... at that energy level. Sex with your spouse however, strengthens that spiritual bond between husband and wife to truly become ONE soul in two bodies at the base level of all existence. The fact that there is physical pleasure is a side effect of biology. I believe the true message is to not become addicted to the physical aspects of it, become a sex addict, have sex with tons of people... because by focusing on ONLY the physical aspect of it, you will miss out on that spiritual deep connection. YOU are the only one hurt by this. But with that ONE person you vowed to spend your life with in front of Guru Ji, working towards merging back with Creator together on the same journey as ONE... this is a gift. Sex is not merely just a physical tool for procreation only. You can chose to believe however you want, but rather than listen to other's opinions of Gurbani, I read it myself and look at the whole picture. Many things are not written word for word... they are intertwined with allegory and metaphor. I see many descriptions of celestial vibrations, anhad naad, light / cosmic sounds in Gurbani. Consciusness and matter being intertwined.... It all comes down to one thing... vibration is frequency. All of these things are vibration or frequency in ONE medium.... In and of them self they are nothing.... they require a medium, and that medium is pure consciousness. And there is only ONE consciousness in existence. So sex for a married Sikh couple can bring them closer as ONE jot in two bodies, which will help them in their journey toward merging back with Creator.

Hmm if being intimate with your own spouse is wrong, then why get married? If it's only for a baby, then a woman can easily go get artificial inseminated. If a married couple only wants one child, are they supposed to never touch each other again after the child is born? Once the woman becomes infertile in mid 40's the married couple should get separate beds and become just friends? What's the point of marriage then? You can do all else with just friends. I thought the Gurus were in support of living house holder life and not that of an ascetic who avoids living. I have always read that there is a huge difference between showing caring and love for your spouse, and becoming attached and lustful. And that relations with your own spouse is fine. I am approaching 40 fast, and being married soon... to an Amritdhari Singh. He is NOT DDT affiliated though if that matters. But maybe since many women my age have trouble conceiving and carrying to full term, in your opinion should I just forget about marrying him and just have him as a friend? Same as all my other friends? SInce there is a good chance I may never have a child? I don't see a point marrying someone if you will only ever be 'married' in name only. And this doesn't seem right... Even the Amritdhari couples I know, who wanted one child, I am absolutely positive they have not all of a sudden got separate beds and decide to live as friends. Also is it anything that gives pleasure should be stopped? I get pleasure from skydiving, also playing guitar. Should I stop those too because they have no direct practical conclusion. They are only done for pleasure... Can you provide quote from SGGSJ to support this stance? I could not find anything about it in Sikh Rehet Maryada. It seems as long as a couple go through anand karaj, Sikhi seems to stay out of the bedroom so to speak... Is this only a DDT interpretation? Edit: When I searched in SGGSJ for this topic, in many places where it warns about being engrossed in sexual desire, it also talks about hunger and pleasures of the 'mouth'. I think is a good comparison, because it would be impossible to cut out food altogether. But if you interpret the lines in the way you have, you would have to also cut out all food. It doesn't make sense. I think the message is more about control, and moderation. Eat but don't overindulge... relations with your own spouse are ok, but not to the point of sexual addiction or lust... Page 224, Line 4 ਕਾਮ ਕ੍ਰੋਧ ਬਿਖੁ ਭੂਖ ਪਿਆਸਾ ॥ काम क्रोध बिखु भूख पिआसा ॥ Kām karoḏẖ bikẖ bẖūkẖ pi▫āsā. by sexual desire, anger, corruption, hunger and thirst. --- Further, I have found on several sikh sources online that kaam is defined as 'uncontrolled sexual desire' not ALL sexual desire. And what about when Guru Ji says: Bind Raakh jo Tariho Bhai, khusrey kion na paramghat payee ??? Also: Raag Aasaa, Pannaa 418 Some control their sexual energy and are known as celibates, but without the Guru's word, they are not saved and they wander in reincarnation II6II This seems to suggest that merely by avoiding sex, will not get you to God... seems to support sex with ones own spouse is fine, but do not let it control you.

So sex is forbidden for any married couple past child bearing age? Or if the wife due to medical reasons has had a hysterectomy? Should they only then remain friends and never get married? If someone is past childbearing age, are they doomed to follow rest of this journey of life alone? I thought I read in dasam granth that sex with one's own spouse is fine... even if its for bonding (there is proof that emotional bonding occurs during sex, even if not for procreation) bringing spouses closer together. But then Guru Ji goes on to say do not even in your dreams go to the bed of another... so to me its saying with spouse is fine (within reason outside of lust and attachment) to be close to each other and bond. It is said that during sex, even spiritual energy merges between the two... which kind of follows suit with anand karaj... blissful union. But that it is wrong to even dream of going into the bed of another.

Except that Chaupa Singh was of Brahmin background... In his rhetnama as I have showed also says for women to view their husbands as God and also fast for them. That is the top of her religious duty according to him. Not only is this anti gurmat when we look to SGGSJ for support, but both those statements are almost word for word from Hindu scriptures. That can't be mere coincidence. There are other clues in his rhetnama as well... For example he instructs to awaken and salute the sun with Namaste, and then Fateh to the singhs. First of all, Sikhs awaken before dawn, and second Sikhs do not 'salute' the sun with Namaste. This is not hatred... I do not hate Hindus. I was merely stating the obvious, that Chaupa Singhs rhetnama contains very Hindu ideology especially his views of women. The reason I get wound up is because it seems like everyone on here actively look for reasons to support restricting Bibian instead of looking for evidence to support equal inclusion. For example, absence of proof is NOT proof of absence but everyone jumps automatically to that conclusion which shows where their thinking is, even if it's subconscious. If they were truly supportive of Sikh women then they would instead go looking for proof that they WERE treated equally and given the same opportunities, rather than ACTIVELY looking for any shred of proof to exclude them. Proof of this was in your statement of 'we should ask why women would have been excluded' instead of suggesting that we should dig deeper to find proof that they WERE included (in Gurbani, in history sources outside of Sikh like the Mughal spy I posted above who was present on that first day and gave an eye witness account) instead you chose to think it more likely that women were excluded and that we should just accept it and ask why. This is because everyone on here so far chose to dig for proof that women were excluded (all of which has been circumstantial) rather than actually looking for any proof (which does exist) that they were treated equally.

Also: Was Chaupa Singh the "culprit" as stated in this book? Did he revert back to the Hindu way of thinking regarding women? His rehetnama also apparently states that women should view their husbands as "God" - I seem to remember this statement somewhere in the smritis as well??? In any case, Gurbani actually says there is only ONE we are to see as God... and that's Waheguru... so doesn't that statement of telling women to view their husbands as God, actually go against what's in SGGSJ? Who is higher authority? SGGSJ or Chaupa Singh's Rhetnama?

Also:

The quote above it though, was from a book... not written by AKJ.... but was written from a DIRECT observer of the first amrit sanchar 1699. And he directly states man AND women both took amrit that day! 20,000 men AND women... Being of Islam background where gender is very much differentiated, I can not see why he would specifically mention "and women"

Aha the link I was trying to find... "From the scholar Ghulam Mohyiuddin, an emissary to the mughal emperor, who observed the first amrit sanchar, vaisakhi 1699, "Though orthodox men have opposed him, about twenty thousand men and women have taken baptism of steel at his hand on the first day.The Guru has also told the gathering: I'll call myself Gobind Singh only if I can make the eek sparrows pounce upon the hawks and tear them; only if one combatant of my force equals a lakh and a quarter of the enemy." 20,000 men AND women. no restrictions on who is a combatant. in my research, persian and mughal sources are more reliable than sikh sources, who often wrote about events 50 years after they happened, and then those documents were clearly edited to favor hindus..."

Its in Guru Ji's 52 Hukams that ALL Sikhs are to tie turbans. Also, SGGSJ says " Let the total awareness be the turban on your head" and it does not state that is for men only. I believe there is another spot that says to comb hair and tie turban twice a day.... but I am not sure on that one. And why would Maryada not be the same? There is no restriction on jewelry etc. Just piercings for ears and nose for 'hanging ornaments' other than that jewelry is allowed. And.... how would wearing a dastar take away from beauty???? WHat are you trying to say? That we are not as beautiful because we chose to tie a dastar? Good thing I am not wearing it to be 'beautiful' then....

So I guess Sikhi was only meant for men then? All the seva, the leadership roles, and even baptism were meant for only men? So what does that say about the position of women? Not even good enough to receive amrit... yet they also say that those who don't receive amrit are lower than low. So read between the lines, its apparent what was being said about women. I find it very very difficult to believe that Guru Ji would put women so far beneath men, when Gurbani says that everyone are spiritually FEMALE and the only male is Waheguru Ji. And all the Gurus worked so hard to elevate ALL humans to being equal. And that these bodies are illusion and temporary. When Amrit is taken for SPIRITUAL reasons, then according to that rehit above, nobody should receive khandi de pahul then, since we are all female spiritually. Sri Hazoor Sahib has also other practices which go against gurmat...

Ummm this is bright dark pink... like a dark magenta. With gold coloured embroidery and some dark pink velvet patchwork and clear stones. It's not over the top though like some lehengas I have seen. It's more minimal like at the bottom and just a few designs upward from the base. The dupatta is also only about 2" border and it's not heavy but there are dangles on all 4 corners and dangles on the tie for the lehenga. The choli is long, so it comes to hips length, meaning everything is covered. And she will add sleeves since it was originally sleeveless so I asked for half sleeves. The material though is pure silk so it's shiny material (not cheap synthetic net stuff). The shape and flow are exactly like a floor length anarkali, just the top is separate. I can pin it to the lehenga bottom though if it's an issue. And as I said she is sending me a churidhar bottom to wear under so essentially it's covering even more than my regular salwar suits! So I hope from an Amritdhari standpoint that is ok. And it's not red... LOL It's very dark reddish pink hahaha. But I have seen plenty of Amritdhari Bibis wearing pink suits (like the pink suit I have in my profile pic). Not everyone wears bana... and hardly any in the west. Though this is not the suit....It's basically this colour scheme: http://www.samyakk.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/small_image/252x354/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/l/sl2820-a.jpg Should it be ok? I don't want to look like a frump or have people think I am not having morals haha. Or should I stick to subdued colours only? (I do like brighter colours on me because I am so pale skinned they make me look a little more healthy).

Actually, I had a nice blue heavy embrodidered anarkali chosen, but the shop continually keeps avoiding me, and occasionally I get emails saying its been delayed more and more. I ordered it Nov 28 and still have not gotten it! Not sure what to do, but I have a friend who stitches suits and offered to give me a lehenga. It's half sleeves (elbow length), long choli so nothing shows, and it's A-Line so structurally its the same shape as a long anarkali. And she said if it makes me feel better she can include pyjami to wear underneath in same colour. It's actually an 800 CDN suit (39000 rupees) and pure silk. The colour is rani pink which is stepping very close to red, but it's more like a dark magenta pink with red undertones. So my dilemma now is will a lehenga be inappropriate (if everything is covered and shape wise the silhouette is very similar to a floor length anarkali)? Is the colour too close to red? Will people think I am evil??? The embroidery on it is really very nice, it's not over the top like some bridal lehengas and the dupatta has a few inches border but is not overly heavy which is also good. The embroidery instead of being all kinds of bright colour is just gold and silver stonework. The reason she will give it to me free is that someone ordered it but backed out after production started (obviously they lost their deposit) and she is a good friend and this lehenga is close to my size. She is really trying to convince me this is a special day and I should make it memorable. The anarkali I had ordered was in shades of blue and would have looked great with white dhamalla... but I have seen plenty of pics online of Amritdhari brides wearing even red with a white dastar and it looks fine. Not are what to do. That shop is in Mumbai and its not even really a shop (I even had someone check it out who lives there) They work out of their home, do everything online and farm out the orders elsewhere.

Well, the idea of doing anand karaj twice would not have been "to make a mockery" in any sense whatsoever, at least in intent..... but only because our families can't both be at the same place and so that "from a strict Sikh standpoint" (as you put) nothing would be considered "wrong". But, I would not want the anand karaj in India to seem less important if we already did it here too. So we decided to do civil ceremony here for my family and for the lgeal purposes (since I cant stay in India long enough), and anand karaj for his family in India. I am not suggesting we become intimate in that 12 week period in between... but I also don't plan on avoding him, as we do not have much time together. I still have 2 years in military and during that time we can only see each other a few times a year. So I don't plan on spending his time here in Canada, avoiding him. As I said, we spent 3 weeks travelling together in India - and we never did anything inappropriate (unless you count holding hands as inappropriate). It was just a question that came up because someone asked me how I will explain to my family etc. if we were going to avoid each other. Easy, we won't be avoiding each other because we can be in each others company, and still hold off, if from a religious standpoint, being legally married is not enough. With my being 39 though, every day counts, if children are at all in the equation. Waiting any time at all now, may mean the difference between having a child or not. Time in this case, is not on our side. Maybe that is destiny though... I never did have the mothering gene anyway.

For the sake of making it okay, I could have anand karaj done here too... but then, his family would feel like they were jipped because the anand karaj there is seen as the 'big day' so would it be wrong for us to do anand karaj twice, one here and one there... when the second one would seem less special and that was supposed to be the 'big day' (at least for his family). The reason we have to do civil ceremony here is I can not stay in India long enough for it to be legaliuzed there. I only have 3 weeks total because of work. He can come here however and there is no time limit. We can just have civil ceremony planned, and I can get the marriage license prior to his arrival with copies of his paperwork. The issue is also that my Mom can not come to India due to her health. So for her (and the rest of MY family) the civil ceremony is the big day. And everyone would think it would be kind of odd with no 'kiss the bride' at the civil ceremony, and explanation of us having to stay apart even though we are married. If it's just 'sex' we can abstain... but if we are married legally.... in the eyes of Canada we are husband and wife, I can't see us staying separately and avoiding each other. (Truth be told: we didn't even do that in India... we travelled all over Kashmir together alone, but stayed in separate hotel rooms...and there was plenty of alone time and we still behaved... we did nothing inaproproate, but honestly, we held hands, and I did kiss him goodbye when I left India, and I don't feel that we did anything wrong.) I mean there has to be SOME indication if there is a bond at all to know if there is 'something' there to build a life upon. I could not just agree to marry a strange... and just hope for the best. Because marriage is for life in Sikhi, and I would not want to be trapped in a marriage without any mutual bond beyond some sort of agreement that feels more like a business arrangement than a marriage. Otherwise why even be married... After all, I can be anyone's friend at any time... I don't think the Gurus did not want us to live a life of solitude though, so I believe this is not what they were going for - all this rigid avoiding of everything (just ask on sikh sangat forum and they would have you believe that marriage / love / sex are all wrong). I believe love and commitment to one's own spouse and no other, where that mutual love and trust you both help each other along the path of Sikhi for the same spiritual goals. In this capacity, love and affection for your spouse is perfectly fine and normal. As long as it never interferes with each other's spiritual goals (help each other not hinder) and as long as it never turns to attachment (realize you are both individuals still on spiritual paths... and that spiritual path is higher than both of you). And already having done legal marriage, we have already made that commitment (still under the eyes of Waheguru Ji, as nothing happens without his knowledge, and in fact everything is predestined as per his hukam), even though the anand karaj ceremony has not happened yet, I think its ok to at least be close and start to build our relationship, even if we don't 'go all the way' per say. But personally, deep within, I feel that there is nothing wrong with being close and spending time together. We have already spent time together alone in India, without doing anything innapropriate. I think if we did anand karaj here too, it would take away from anand karaj that we are doing there... which is supposed to be the 'big day' in his family's eyes. I think it would be wrong to do it twice just so it would be okay for us to be alone together... There's also the fact that I have not taken Amrit yet I am not doing it till the week of the anand karaj, and he is also doing it again with me (even though he has done it already)...

This is a bit awkward question but... If two Amritdhari marry, and because of having family in two different countries, decide to do legal civil ceremony first and then anand karaj in India later... I think I already know the answer. We have to wait until anand karaj don't we? That's going to be a bit awkward to explain to people here why we won't have a 'wedding night' lol. But after the civil ceremony, we are legally married at that point, is cuddling at least ok? I mean we will be husband and wife at that point legally. There's about 12 weeks between the civil ceremony in Canada and anand karaj in India.

ChzS1ngh Ji, WJKK WJKF, You always amaze me. You and I think absolutely alike with regards to reality, our existence and our true identity! SGGSJ Ang 60 ਸੋਹੰ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਸਬਦਿ ਭੇਦਿ ਪਤੀਆਇ ॥ Sohaʼn āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai sabaḏ bẖeḏ paṯī▫ā▫e. One who recognizes within himself that, "He is me", and who is pierced through by the Shabad, is satisfied. ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਆਪੁ ਪਛਾਣੀਐ ਅਵਰ ਕਿ ਕਰੇ ਕਰਾਇ ॥੯॥ Gurmukẖ āp pacẖẖāṇī▫ai avar kė kare karā▫e. ||9|| When one becomes Gurmukh and realizes his own self, what more is there left to do or have done? ||9||

Exactly! Their gender did not matter. By trying to say that they were male because..... or they couldn't possibly ever be female because.... we are missing the point. Their gender was inconsequential. Soul is genderless! The light within them is genderless!

harsharan ji, beautifully put!

Oh, I agree there is an overlap in the old paradigm... there are men who would prefer passive roles with no decision making and they had struggles too, just as much as the women who prefer more leadership roles with authority. All that shows us, is that there should not be gender based roles to begin with. We should just let people pursue what they want to without trying to dictate what they can and can't do based on what's between their legs. There are Fathers now who are happy staying at home with their kids while the Mothers are out working in CEO and exec positions. The decision was made because she was making more, and financially it made more sense for him to stay home. I don't see anything wrong with it. And neither do the men who do that. I think it's a personal decision and choice.... and should be left to the individuals to decide. As it pertained to the original post however, I still think that the Gurus being men had nothing to do with men being more spiritual or anything, I think it was because at that time, women were dictated into more subordinate roles, and they would not have been taken as seriously. And also, coming from a man, the statement that women and men deserve equal treatment, meant much more than if it had been a woman claiming it.

You are also missing the point in that... feminism does not aim to put women in a superior position to men, they only seek to have equal opportunity and equal say in society. Men on the other hand are actually asking for superiority and authority over women...(masculinism I guess would be the opposite) There is a huge difference. Strict Patriarchy operates in a system whereby the men have all the authority in society, women have no say. Same in the family... the husband gets his way all the time, while the wife has no decision making power. To not have a voice in society is a bad position to be in with regards to your well being... Guru Nanak was actually a feminist, by declaring that men and women were equal and deserved equal treatment. I can understand that men would not want to give up all that power over women, but the only reason that in the last few centuries we have been given rights equal to men, was because of 'feminists' who fought for it. And again, I have nothing against men...I believe I stated everyone should receive equal opportunity and say in society... women AND men alike. Wanting the same opportunities, is not the same as hating men. Far from it! Yet, you are trying to say that restricting women to the home into traditional roles and out of society and men being in authority positions over women, that does not equal discrimination to women?? That somehow men 'lording it' over women = harmony. I am about to get married... he is not and never will be my 'superior'. I don't take commands from him and never will. And I WILL have equal say in the family, he won't have all decision authority, we will share it equally and talk things out. I WILL work side by side with him, to achieve the same goals. And I will make compromises, under the understanding that he will too. That's different. And he actually has worked on projects to empower women, so I guess I am lucky to have found him. He lives in India btw and is an Amritdhari Sikh!

Hmmm like these.... the idea is that women's sole purpose is to serve men... for example by making them sandwiches whenever they ask. There are variations, but all basically stating a woman's place is only in the kitchen making food for the man at his every whim. Can you really blame us for being upset at this??? b2ap3_thumbnail_Sandwiches2-610x450.jpg Sandwiches_6bda81_450710.jpg 8d58f901df81e70315bbacba775a73cf876a29488903b681ae704af0abc97b5f.jpg

Actually, I am colour blind (at least when it comes to skin). I only see a person, a potential friend. I consider everyone equal no matter what. And yes, I am very aware of discrimination... in all forms. You know if men wanted women to remain submissive and 'in their place' they certainly didn't help over the years with all the 'shut up and make me a sandwich' jokes.

You make it sound like a career is horrible! I have spent 18 years in the Navy now. That is a pretty high stressful and dangerous career! I wouldn't trade a minute of it! I love the challenge fighting fires, floods on board (which I have been through for real), sea survival, the thrill of standing as watch leader controlling the entire team of sonar operators, making decisions on the fly to advise command etc. Stressful at times? you bet! But I would never have it differently. I feel like I have accomplished something! I gravitate towards these things that you say are male things... Ask me to change a dirty diaper, or wipe a snotty nose, or slave over a stove all day... nope just not into it and as such I never had that Mothering instinct ever.... So if you segregate entirely by gender only.... you assign roles because of gender and not by people's merits, then what do you do with women like me? Anyway let me ask you one direct question: Do you believe men should have authority over women in (A) society and ( marriage? By authority I mean, all the major family decisions he gets to make, and she has to just follow even if she doesn't like it. And in society, should men have privilege over women (we can already see this in the Panj Pyare argument)...

that was my point.... in India where the old dynamic persists, the rate of rapes, sexual harassment, etc are higher. Certainly rape happens everywhere, but the rate is highest when women are valued less and seen as less than equal contributors in society. I was countering Dalsingh Ji's comments about the rape rate in the UK.