Respect for SGPC maryada

[CdnSikhGirl]

A girl gets drunk and drives home in her car. A guy gets drunk and drives home in his car. They crash their cars into each other. Is the guy at fault? 

 

A girl and guy get drunk and have consensual sex. Afterwards, the girl regrets it. What logical conclusions can a gynocentric society like pretty much all western countries (and soon India) draw from this?

1. The guy raped the girl
2. The guy is responsible for his actions despite being drunk but the girl is not responsible for her actions. 
3. The girl is still a person who has the same degree of agency / free will as a guy, but she doesn’t have to face the consequences of her actions b/c that would be unfair to her. Even sexist.

 

 

 

So what you are suggesting is that any time a girl is drunk and has sex it's consensual.  In other words you are suggesting that with the intake of alcohol her right to say no is taken away? 

In the case of the young girl here who killed herself... she was so drunk she was puking out a window. (that itself is wrong yes) But did she deserve this??  The guys came up behind her and pulled down her pants and went to it... high fiving each other while taking photos while they were 'hitting that bit**' and then sent the photos around the entire school. 

So in your view:

1)  It's "nasty feminism" to think she did not want sex and to prosecute the guys... (btw your wish is what came true, as in the end they were only charged with distribution of child pornography due to lack of evidence) 
2) Because she was drunk and the boys also had alcohol, it was automatically consensual??? 

By the way after she killed herself, the police reopened the case, and thats the only reason the boys were even charged with child pornography.  Initially for 3 years they weren't even punished at all which is what led to her killing herself. 

The boys were glorified for having sex with her
She did not ask for, nor even consent to it
They tag teamed her, and took video proving through the video they were not *that* drunk

IN this case the police did not investigate because like you they think that if someone drinks any alcohol anyone who pulls off your clothes is automatically consensual. Btw I am SO GLAD I don't drink at all!  I wouldn't want to give every guy around me free ticket to have sex with me!  

 

[Koi]

Wow....this topic degraded very quickly....

[Singh123456777]

Wow....this topic degraded very quickly....

Ya think?

[Ragmaala]

lol @ ya think ?

[Ragmaala]

 

 

poor yang... or yin ?

[Xylitol]

 

So what you are suggesting is that any time a girl is drunk and has sex it's consensual.  In other words you are suggesting that with the intake of alcohol her right to say no is taken away? 

 

I never said the above. Feminists claim that even if a girl says yes while drunk that means no. However, that is not the case for a man.

You use strawman arguments. shameful.

You are rarely able to discuss as an adult by responding to what another person says. Instead you create an exaggerated twisted version of their argument to try to knock down.

 

[Singh123456777]

I never said the above. Feminists claim that even if a girl says yes while drunk that means no. However, that is not the case for a man.

You use strawman arguments. shameful.

You are rarely able to discuss as an adult by responding to what another person says. Instead you create an exaggerated twisted version of their argument to try to knock down.

 

I think she does not read fully the thing that is written. I think she only reads the first few lines and thinks she knows what's written lol.

[Ragmaala]

 

You are rarely able to discuss as an adult by responding to what another person says. Instead you create an exaggerated twisted version of their argument to try to knock down.

 

I am glad I am not the only one who felt this

man shes a hamster on full throttleee..when she talk you can smell the smoke coming off the wheels lol

[chatanga1]

you took amrit? did the 5 pyare read part of the CharitroPakhyan Granth required for you to take amrit?

I wonder how that must have felt.

You never told us how that felt.

[CdnSikhGirl]

You never told us how that felt.

Since Benti Chaupai does not denigrate women as beneath men, it's fine.  In fact it actually refers to God as both Lord and Mother.  
And I never said every single bit of DG is fake... what I stated was that since DG was compiled after the death of our tenth Guru, there is possibility that things could be added (or adulterated - changed over time) which were not actually attributed to Guru Gobind Singh Ji.  If it turns out he wrote everything, then fine... but I still don't think it's an excuse for Singhs to make statements denigrating women using it as some sort of proof that women are deceitful lustful etc.  They are stories which were told prior... fiction.  Because majority of females are NOT like that!  In fact, it's high levels of testosterone which cause heightened sexual desire and anger, and men are more likely to be the instigators in sexual encounters, than are women - if for nothing else - the threat of unwanted pregnancy, which at that time could be fatal rom hemorrhage or at the very least cause pain so intense that some women died of just the shock from the pain itself.  That's a high price to pay for a quick roll in the hay don't you think? Men however could walk away without looking back, and since no DNA tests existed then, it was far easier to get away with denial.  So my problem with Charitropakhyan is not necessarily that some women might do these things (which would be in a very small minority especially back then) but the fact that majority of the stories are painting women in this way, while painting majority of men as hapless victims.  Which is seriously skewed.  And if our Guru had wanted to warn Sikhs about immoral behaviour, why did he just seem to want to warn men?  It shows he cared more about males than females, painting females in more of a bad light than males?  You said before quantity doesn't matter... but indeed it does.  When you read over and over and over about wiles of women, but no wiles of men, psychologically it programs your mind to think women are more like this than are men.  This has been stated by a psychologist (who happens to be Sikh and male) that Charitropakhyan, causes men to insidiously and subconsciously acquire contempt and hatred towards women while gaining empathy for their own gender as being only hapless victims. 
This is seriously damaging to relationship between male and female as we can easily see even on this forum how most of you believe men are Gods above women and deserve to be respected as if in a position of authority over women. To have Singhs refer to this - as some sort of proof - to say that women are more lustful than men, more deceitful than men, etc. It's wrong. And I can't see how our Guru would want that... and many of these Singhs don't even realize they harbour contempt for women.  They think its so normal to just control women and that women should be in a position of obedience and submission them, they don't even realize they have been psychologically programmed to think so! 

Anyway the contents of Benti Chaupai don't seem to have any direct link to the wiles of women anyway.... If wiles of women was used in Amrit Sanchar, let me tell you I would not be following Sikhi right now at all.  I would have walked away as no true religion of God would deliberately want to do so much damage to one half the human race.  

 

[Koi]

If you look symbolically  (which a lot of us aren't doing ) , the charitar being done by the "Triya" is actually being done by the mind.

The body doesn't do the charitar, the mind does the charitar. 

[Ragmaala]

If you look symbolically  (which a lot of us aren't doing ) , the charitar being done by the "Triya" is actually being done by the mind.

The body doesn't do the charitar, the mind does the charitar. 

TRUE

AND THE MIND IS GENDERLESS

so its really the viles of minds in a female or male form.

[SAadmin]

We are locking this thread either tom or day after. Both parties please present your closing statements so we can wrap this up.

[Ragmaala]

My final thoughts:

Certain Sikh traditions, customs , maryadas and ancient sampardas which historically go back should always be respected.  If we do not accept something that is fine, but we should not ridicule it.  Follow that which helps you progress in Sikhi, ignore the rest.

 

 

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

My final thoughts:

Certain Sikh traditions, customs , maryadas and ancient sampardas which historically go back should always be respected.  If we do not accept something that is fine, but we should not ridicule it.  Follow that which helps you progress in Sikhi, ignore the rest.

 

 

 

Agreed, so SRM should also be respected.  

So no more calling it "So-called" Sikh Rehet Maryada???  It deserves same respect.  Especially since it's the only RM accepted by Akal Takht as the Panthic RM.  Though SRM was written in it's current form, between 1927-1945 it was based on all the historical documents and on SGGSJ.  Though some say DDT's RM is historical, the fact is its current version also was only written in late 1980s.  And there were things in there which were not there prior... including the controversial statement for women to view husband as God (while not also telling husband to view wife as God).  It was verified earlier on this site that statement was not there prior in the Punjabi version.  So the current version, is not the exact RM which could be considered historical.  No matter what, they should all be respected... I personally will never follow DDTs RM... but I know there are those who do.  Whatever works for them.  And I have never called DDTs RM "so called"  (except in one case in direct reply to Paapiman's statement of "so called SRM") As long as they don't go disrespecting Sikh Rehet Maryada... we can just agree to disagree and focus on being Sikhs.

 

[chatanga1]

Since Benti Chaupai does not denigrate women as beneath men, it's fine.

No words of  my Guru denigrate women as beneath men.

And if our Guru had wanted to warn Sikhs about immoral behaviour, why did he just seem to want to warn men?  It shows he cared more about males than females, painting females in more of a bad light than males? 

No, Guru Ji knew that men have more testosterone and are weaker and more prone to indulge in reckless sexual activity. But you are wrong if you think that Guru Ji wanted to warn men only. No gender is being painted in a bad light.

If you (and God forbid you do ) have any children, will you not do more to protect the more vulnerable one|(s).

Try reading the whole text before you post on this subject again. Otherwise you are just making a fool of yourself here again, and wasting our time in replying to you.

Anyway the contents of Benti Chaupai don't seem to have any direct link to the wiles of women anyway....

The CharitroPakhyan is NOT the wiles of women. This just tells me that you have never read it, let alone have any chance of understanding it. Neither do you know what Benti Chaupai actually represents. You're just talking out your fat arse again.

 If wiles of women was used in Amrit Sanchar, let me tell you I would not be following Sikhi right now at all.  I would have walked away as no true religion of God would deliberately want to do so much damage to one half the human race.  

I personally, truthfully, without malice, do not believe you to be a Sikh anyway, as you have not laid your own false intellect at the Guru's feet, but have sought to redefine Sikhi to fit within your own warped borders. The Sikh Panth would suffer your loss gladly. I definitely would.

Edited October 18, 2015 by chatanga1

[CdnSikhGirl]

No words of  my Guru denigrate women as beneath men.

No, Guru Ji knew that men have more testosterone and are weaker and more prone to indulge in reckless sexual activity. But you are wrong if you think that Guru Ji wanted to warn men only. No gender is being painted in a bad light.

If you (and God forbid you do ) have any children, will you not do more to protect the more vulnerable one|(s).

Try reading the whole text before you post on this subject again. Otherwise you are just making a fool of yourself here again, and wasting our time in replying to you.

The CharitroPakhyan is NOT the wiles of women. This just tells me that you have never read it, let alone have any chance of understanding it. Neither do you know what Benti Chaupai actually represents. You're just talking out your fat arse again.

I personally, truthfully, without malice, do not believe you to be a Sikh anyway, as you have not laid your own false intellect at the Guru's feet, but have sought to redefine Sikhi to fit within your own warped borders. The Sikh Panth would suffer your loss gladly. I definitely would.

So let me guess anyone who follows Sikh Missionary College teachings is considered not Sikh to you?  I really hope you did not mean what you said... I would never say that to you.  Only that we have to agree to disagree.

[chatanga1]

If you look symbolically  (which a lot of us aren't doing ) , the charitar being done by the "Triya" is actually being done by the mind.

The body doesn't do the charitar, the mind does the charitar. 

The Charitrar is the mind and the wise counsel is the soul.

 

[chatanga1]

So let me guess anyone who follows Sikh Missionary College teachings is considered not Sikh to you?  I really hope you did not mean what you said... I would never say that to you.  Only that we have to agree to disagree.

the missionaries are atheists in the garb of sikhs. nothing in Sikhi pleases them. I do really mean what i said.

I consider a Sikh him/her who lays their mind, body and wealth at the Guru's feet, not someone who doubts, twists and insults my Guru's intellect.

[chatanga1]

. we can just agree to disagree and focus on being Sikhs.

you can only focus on being a Sikh if you have accepted your Guru. By your despicable words here, oft repeated, you have not. Work on it, or walk away.

[CdnSikhGirl]

the missionaries are atheists in the garb of sikhs. nothing in Sikhi pleases them. I do really mean what i said.

I consider a Sikh him/her who lays their mind, body and wealth at the Guru's feet, not someone who doubts, twists and insults my Guru's intellect.

Except I am not doubting our Guru's Intellect, I am doubting some Sikh's interpretations of our Gurus writing. Big difference.  

No I didn't feel degraded during Amrit Sanchar... but I am looking at it from Sikh Rehet Maryada standpoint and not that of other sects... If I took amrit from DDT I would likely have felt degraded because of the gender specific restrictions placed only on women and how they interpret things to paint women in inferior light.  (just look at Paapiman's interpretation of things and he openly admits where he learned it from)  I am not saying Guru Ji painted women in bad light... not at all... I am saying some Sikhs interpret it as such and that's what I disagree with.  Because I can't think that Guru Ji would ever WISH for Sikhs to interpret things as such, and thus causing women to feel this way.  You keep saying that I am insulting Guru Ji.... no I am speaking against those sects which I feel are twisting Guru Jis words to make women in inferior position. That is a huge difference.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[chatanga1]

Except I am not doubting our Guru's Intellect, I am doubting some Sikh's interpretations of our Gurus writing.   

God, listen to yourself. You doubted Guru's words openly, sided with those that doubted them openly, and got shot down, but still so shameless?

No true Sikh will interpret Guru's words the wrong way.

[chatanga1]

Anyway the contents of Benti Chaupai don't seem to have any direct link to the wiles of women anyway....  

Do not refer to CharirtroPakhyan as "wiles of women", it has never been called that. Call it by its proper name.

As I thought, you don't know what Benti Chaupai is. After the 404 parables were completed, Guru Sahib wrote Benti Chaupai as the 405th parable, asking Sri Akal Purakh for protection from the 5 chor, which were told in the 404 previous stories, starting with "Hamri karo hath de raccha..."

Benti Chaupai is not separate from CharitroPakhyan.  It is not a separate text from CharitroPakhyan.

[CdnSikhGirl]

God, listen to yourself. You doubted Guru's words openly, sided with those that doubted them openly, and got shot down, but still so shameless?

No true Sikh will interpret Guru's words the wrong way.

Exaplin this then: 

1) DDT says Wives are to view their husband AS God, but does not tell husbands to view their wives as God
2) Gurbani says as Gurmukh see ALL with single eye of equality, for in each and every heart, the divine light is contained - This instruction is for ALL SIKHS
3) ANY TRUE Gurmukh would see the divine light in everyone, and would thus also see it in his wife and vice versa... so it's redundant to tell only wives to see God in their husbands and not the other way around.
4) Deliberately only telling the wife to see her husband as God suggests that this instruction is unilateral... and not bilateral or both ways.  Which contradicts Gurbani, and makes it seem like women are in inferior position, to be under control of their husband. Further compounded by the fact that it says husbands are to see their wives as faithful 'followers'
5) YOU yourself interpreted this to men obedience.  But seeing God in ALL does not at all mean obedience.  I see God in my neighbour because they are a good person, but does not mean I obey her.  Seeing God in someone, does not mean you are subjugated to them or have to 'obey' them.  In reality, both husband and wife should obey each other (or more fittingly, should respect each other and ASK each other, and try to make each other happy. Neither one is in authority over the other).  
Marriage does not exist for the only the husband, while the wife is his bonded servant. 

This is a contradiction - IN DDT's RM!!!!
A TRUE Gurmukh husband would also look upon his wife as God as well.. because he would be seeing God in all, as Gurbani instructs... and so, back to the REDUNDANT line of wives seeing their husbands as God.  It's fine if she sees her husband as God.  It doesn't mean she must obey him, or serve him, or wait on him hand and foot.  And it doesnt mean she is any less embodiment of God than he is!  It doesn't mean he is in any authority over her.  Because he as a GURMUKH should also be looking upon his wife as Parmeshwari as well!  

So are DDT members who preach this one way instruction for only wives, are they TRUE Sikhs or not??? If they were TRUE Sikhs, they would be preaching the seeing of God in ALL right?? Meaning BOTH husband and wife should see and serve God in each other.  Because that's what Gurbani INSTRUCTS of GURMUKHS.  

So why is it written to look like wives are in a position lower than their husbands and must see their husband as higher than them... or as God over them? (and yes I know it can be interpreted as obeying) When both should in actuality see each other in this way!  

So how can there be contradiction??? There can not be contradiction in Gurbani!  So I am perfectly RIGHT in challenging it!!! 

No shamelessness at all!!!!  Until the above contradiction is resolved, my point stands.

And Lucky posted the SAME thing earlier... so I am not alone in noticing this contradiction.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Satkirin_Kaur

[chatanga1]

Exaplin this then:

I was refering to your slander of Dasam Granth. Don't keep producing the same oral diarrhea when you have already had answers.