Kolkata hosts world sex workers' meet

[Bhairava]

The trend was started by mughal rulers, who used to have a harem of hundreds.

hehe not true entirely...Dasarath maharaj reportedly boasted of a "andhapuram"(harem) of 60,000 wives...

 

[ashokdeiva]

hehe not true entirely...Dasarath maharaj reportedly boasted of a "andhapuram"(harem) of 60,000 wives...

your understanding is wrong, Dasarath never had 60000 wives as claimed, he was a wonderful ruler that the women of the country married him with out his consent so that the God yama will not take Dasaraths life fearing that this might result in 60000 widows.
I hope you get the story

 

[seethru]

Proud that Kolkata hosted World sex workers Meet. is it an annual meeting? when did such convention start?

 

[IndoUS]

^^^^The question is, what if Dasarath had 60000 wives....do we STILL practice the culture....NO!

Do you know how many wives OSAMA BIN LADEN had...
The matter of concern is, Multiple marriages are still practiced in Islam.....
21 century Muslims still practice all those medieval philosophies......

As I said earlier(post #32), these medieval/pre-medieval rules are no longer accepted by modern people except followers of Islam.....and they are the ones vocal against prostitution.....FUNNY isn't it....

Bangladeshis are sending prostitutes to India and blaming India....Pakistanis are practicing prostitution in the name of Islam and blaming Hinduism.....I think, there is no end to hypocrisy here....

People just use religion to justify their cause, and they most of the time change what is written their holy books. If I have to say as a christian when I see the cases of polygamy in US and how these people use the Bible and make up some claim that Christ appeared to them and told them to marry young kids. Its just pisses me off, what happened in the past is not the norm of today's society.

People will do anything they want its human nature, prostitution is a bad thing and everyone knows it, yet it exists because we allow it to exist, people are no saints.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

...
and for the Pakistani side, its their religious book they strictly follow, though its out dated as far as marriage is concerned. Now its to the women of PAKISTAN or other Muslim nations to voice against this injustice of MEN having 4 wivies when a women can only have one Husband at a given time, and its the obligation of MUSLIM men to realize that its unjust to marry 4 though they can satisfy all four at a given time.

My child it isn't you or me who decides what's just and what's unjust. It is unjust for the older widow to sit out of marriage, wanting it all the while till her death (and you know how prevelant is that in india and i in Pakistan), when you a younger man can give her marriage. The 'polyvalency' in man is designed for women's benefit, although the few men that chose to employ it often misuse it.

As for women having more than one husband: let's see you practice it and keep doubting till death whether those children were yours.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

People just use religion to justify their cause, and they most of the time change what is written their holy books. If I have to say as a christian when I see the cases of polygamy in US and how these people use the Bible and make up some claim that Christ appeared to them and told them to marry young kids. Its just pisses me off, what happened in the past is not the norm of today's society. ...

Would it whaterver-you-off if you were one of those Christians, say a Mormon? If not then don't you think you're a victim of provincial or us-vs-them thinking?

that doesn't mean there aren't any absolute rights and wrongs, just that we have to check oursselves whether we're arguing against a concept or a people, and would flip the argument over if the people were ourselves.

T
hanks.

 

[ashokdeiva]

My child it isn't you or me who decides what's just and what's unjust. It is unjust for the older widow to sit out of marriage, wanting it all the while till her death (and you know how prevelant is that in india and i in Pakistan), when you a younger man can give her marriage. The 'polyvalency' in man is designed for women's benefit, although the few men that chose to employ it often misuse it.

As for women having more than one husband: let's see you practice it and keep doubting till death whether those children were yours.

for the bold part, is the men to women ratio so bad that there are 4 women for each man? no its the other way arround. There are men who are young and are ready to give life to young widows and they are old single men who are ready to marry old widows. so your logic is flawed to modern time line and your holy books teaching need to take a hike today as far as marriage is considered.

For the last part, I am not saying women should marry more than one man at a given time.
We INDIAN darmic religion mostly live by the concept "One man for a woman and vise versa". we encourage the same to every one. Hope you get my point rather than asking me to get my wife married to another man when i am alive and well to support her

and please, unless you are in your 60s, don't call me your child as you dont want to be that old if your less than 60

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

for the bold part, is the men to women ratio so bad that there are 4 women for each man? no its the other way arround. There are men who are young and are ready to give life to young widows and they are old single men who are ready to marry old widows. so your logic is flawed to modern time line and your holy books teaching need to take a hike today as far as marriage is considered.
...

1. It's not 4-or-nothing!
2. The Book isn't mine. You don't chose to enrich yourself with it and that's not my problem.
3. The Book isn't holy afaik.
4. The teaching is modern. Modern times, I think in a sense, begin after Iisaa A.S, just before Muhammad A.S. Since, things have been recorded, and in this tradition, down to the day with trustable reference chains. Modern is current and classical is what used to be. The current sharii3ah is obviously current.
5. God doesn't take a hike, so can't his word!
6. I am totally unqualified to be discussing this. hence the superficiality. Else i'd be heavily sinning. Few people in this age are qualified, and you probably think you're one of them.

...

For the last part, I am not saying women should marry more than one man at a given time.
We INDIAN darmic religion mostly live by the concept "One man for a woman and vise versa". we encourage the same to every one. Hope you get my point rather than asking me to get my wife married to another man when i am alive and well to support her
...

1. Islam to encourages, and not by hints, not by less-than-universally-agreed-upon narrations of hadith, not by scholars' studied opinions, not by government pragmatism, but by God's word, a one husband, one wife relationship. You have just ASSUMED otherwise.
2. She doesn't need support. You both have eyes on a wealthy old bed-ridden man ready to pop out of this world anytime. or she needs a man who is ready to be a second dad while their dad is away on business. Or for a ménage à trois.

...and please, unless you are in your 60s, don't call me your child as you dont want to be that old if your less than 60...

I've been mentally 60 since I was about 7. Always sat with the retirees in any occasion instead of playing with the children.
Anyway, that was a term of endearment, not of condescension. You're dear to me like a son, and i woudn't like the less-than-best for you, in this case the unscientific, immoral etc way of thinking.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Ignore the purists who prefer hollow moralising instead of addressing the real issues. I''m glad if this conference is one step towards better health and rights for women without any organised support, than its +1 for humanity.

 

[ashokdeiva]

2. She doesn't need support. You both have eyes on a wealthy old bed-ridden man ready to pop out of this world anytime. or she needs a man who is ready to be a second dad while their dad is away on business. Or for a ménage à trois.

I did not understand, care to explain?
and be aware I am married, and if you say any thing that offends my wife, then be ready to take back the bad things that i am about to hurl back at you and women in your family.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Specific cases are not general rule. Marrying a widow and "Giving her a life" makes sense only if being window is stigmatised in the society and women aren't economically empowered. which used to be the case in India but silly in today's context because our reforms started right with the women's issues, like widows and Sati. windowed or divorced women find themselves suitable man depending on their situation and their previous experience today. ...?

1. Which was the case, among a few others, that this rule applies. How many Muslim men do you know that are married to multiple women? How much is the percentage globally?

Working women isn't women's empowerment. The king represents the historic most-powerful-of-men for most people. He had people work for him not the other way.

2. I'll say somehting at the risk of some immature Pakistanis jump on me, Islam changes society AND society changes Islam. Everything is there, but what applies in which coditions, time&age etc, is a carefully studies decision. Then there's eschatological metaphysics - what was meant to be in a certain time, what part of the Islamic tradition funneled the society till that condition, where do we go from here...

...The problem of Polygamy as allowed by Islam is different. "If Man feels he can do justice ......." BS doesn't cut it for women if you really think about even in the context of middle ages leave alone present times. Try talking to Your sister or mother about having to share their husbands (In fact, with time many women sort of become control freaks and over possessive) Your Prophet most probably thought he was saving widows and giving them respectable life, but he was only right for that society in that period of time(Perhaps Arabia still is in the middle ages) looked at in the context of Islamic wars with slave women of conquered people and women of dead Mujahideen?

1. Theres NO "If Man feels he can do justice". If Man proves he can do justice. Man doesn't marry to himself. The woman and the state authority or society's witnesses are there to see to that.
2. Lots of truth* but one big lie: "Your Prophet most probably thought...". "laa yantiqu 3an il hawaa" - he doesn't think of his own.
* Exactly, some conditions don't apply today. But some of them from that particular example do, e;g. marriage as a basis of strenghthening bonds or palliating grieviences.
We today have a crooked Hollywood definition of love and relationships. As an indian with culture and history that goes back millenia, you might be expected to know better.
3. My definition of slave is not your definition of slave. A slave is a (usually a)POW who finds themselves in a new society, and gets a repite period working under a member of that society untill they can pay themselves off, or are freed of their bond, or their freedom is bought by another member of the society, or they marry into that society etc. There's no slave market. There's no torture. they eat at the table with you and wear the same clothes as you. Or you're toast once you die!
4. Unrelated, but you know a very restricted meaning of mujahideen. But I'd be digressing.

I did not understand, care to explain?
and be aware I am married, and if you say any thing that offends my wife, then be ready to take back the bad things that i am about to hurl back at you and women in your family.

Explaining some things that motivate people in today's monoculture to have another legal or illegal partner. The 'you' is 'a person'.

 

[seethru]

Ignore the purists who prefer hollow moralising instead of addressing the real issues. I''m glad if this conference is one step towards better health and rights for women without any organised support, than its +1 for humanity.

I object using the word "purists" with such connotation. There's nothing Pure about a man's heart with filled with Puritanism. let's use the word obscurantists.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

1. you are still in "Man proves.." BS. Without getting to methods of proving virility, worthiness of marrying more than one women as per Islam, let me tell you, We CANNOT accept that Man's Proof = Woman's ascent (especially in the case of 2 or more women) Imagine if Your sister's husband were to prove his "worthiness" and marry some widow(because you are in to "giving" widow's a life, get over it man! seriously this isn't dark ages) should your sister be obligated to share the man? And why isn't is not the other way around by sharing a women, you know an adult women can have up to 15 kids and we have genetic test today or we can uses month-wise sleeping(like Mohammed's week-wise system) to ensure that we know who's the father (if do not prefer scientific methods)
...

1. Not virility, responsibility. And many other things, like the ability maintain the social and economic status of the first wife after taking a second.
2. That's my sister's choice. If i were my sister's sister, I might be very open to my husband's second marriage.
3. Genetic diagnostics don't work in sharially-significant amounts. Even 99.9999999999% isn't good enough. Most people in their time&age, consumer-power and place don't have access.

2. You are Muslim, not I. remember we don't believe that Mohammed is Prophet. So do the Jews and Christians.

1. you missed the point. Muhammad S.A.W doesn't say or opine out of his volition was the point.
2. I as a Muslim do not believe his job qualifies as a prophet. He(S.A.W)'s God's ambassador chosen from ourselves.

...
3. definition of slave regardless of it being yours of mine is that one who is NOT free but owned by some other Human being like Himself or herself. Which part of your treating her equal makes him or her Free? Use brain, please.
...

1. I read something while going through the codex of the Qur'an that shook me so bad I almost for a moment lost it. In my broken Arabic I read "And We have subjugated one of you to the other...". Now who likes being subjugated? Still, the context on the ayat(sign) is also seen in terms of the economy. You do work for the one above you, and you do as the work is, let's say, prescribed. Otherwise you know the ritual. But it is an understnading of subjugation, and the same applies to slavery.
wallaahu a3lam, and my interpretation is wrong even if it is right.

2. I am to a certain degree 'owned' by my parents, in my understanding of Islam. My mum can still say 'I'm prohibiting you to buy that certain property or do that ot this thing' and even when i'm 80yo I'm supposed to align my will to hers. The only way to get out of this bondage is for the parents to die. But would I want that?

...
4. Doesn't matter. Hair-splitting.

yeas, and I said as much. Still, a little phrase to broaden your horizons could be forgivable.

Thanks.

 

[Kompromat]

Good Work India - Jai Hind - Thread closed !