Growing live-in relationships - is it threat to india?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

sangom,

in this day and age, even parents do not have an idea of their kids' activities.

so, it is difficult to get any type of valid info about a person's morality sexual habits food habits or spendings/savings.

Dear Shri Kunjuppu,

From the above, if you allow me to presume that it applies to parents here in India as well as parents in the west like yourself, then there need not be any argument at all.

But what happened here in this thread was that when I said there is a general mistrust about tabra girls born and brought up in the west, many people took it as an affront to the entire tabras of the IA category and were not amused. When I say that here there is mistrust, I did not at all write anything about girls born and brought up here. But this point was overlooked.

One thing I think all this proves is that even the IA tabras attach very great importance to their girls being considered as "chaste virgins" as much as the tabras back home emphasize it. While the expectations are alike and equally dominant, we do not know the 'ground realities' - on either side !!

 

[palindrome]

I actually agree that guys and girls in India are "secretly" doing this a lot these days and even after going to US to study for the MS. But, I don't think one should readily judge someone based on past relationships. The present matters, past is past.....people do change, you know and people make mistakes. That shouldn't really be a factor if the personalities match.

Yes, i agree, past should not be a barrier in deciding present and future.

 

[palindrome]

Palindrome,

By saying that Indian girls sleep around with as many men as possible, the moment they get a chance to be free and away from the watchful parental eyes, are you trying to say that there are no exceptions to this rule? Did you yourself not stay in hostels and is it your case that all this fall in morality has taken place only after your time?

Sir, I stayed in hostels but do not come from a conservative home. My parents trusted me and am glad i did not abuse my freedom. For me, if there is commitment, if the first time has to be special, why not after marriage. Was a firm believer in marriage, and the sanctity of it. All am saying is teens from conservative homes need not be what people assume them to be. In India the general idea is "if a girl dresses like this she must be like this (easy on morals)". This is what am opposing. Just bcoz a female swims in a swimsuit does not mean she is low on morals. All am saying is females conservatively clothed from conservative families have gone astray in my observation. So clothing, and being from a conservative family is no guarantee to morals.

Be that as it may, will throwing mud on Indian girls help one to logically prove that IA girls will, therefore, have to be completely free from the "sleeping around" syndrome? No, both indian and IA girls can jolly well do it. The point I am making is that in the case of an indian girl, the boy's parents are in a position to visit the girl's place of living, make such enquiries as are normally possible and get some feedback even through the nuances in the opinions given by different people. For example, in a recent case, one girl was suggested (and horoscope copy given) by a person to a co-passenger (total stranger) in a train journey when the boy's mother started recounting the difficulties faced by her in getting a suitable tabra girl for her son. But the proposer also added, you make further enquiries about the girl and the family before taking a final decision; please don't go by a stranger's words. These words were superfluous but because of the present difficulty in getting tabra girls, the boy's side made enquiries and found that good opinion about the girl or her family were not forthcoming, though no one said anything explicitly negative about them. The case was dropped.

Such a situation is not possible in the case of IA girls. Plus there is a general mistrust of IA girls as I said before.

Sir, you may have misgivings about Indian American (IA) or TB girls in the US. IMO, young adults in India are much worse these days. Just my opinion.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Discussion in this thread is interesting and educative. I have also pondered over the subject and had gone through a few books and articles related to Hindu marriages. I wish to share my views on this subject purely
from my understanding of the subject.

In my view Growing live-in relationship is not/will not be a threat to our culture. It is just a short term aberration in the evolution of our Society, which has withstood much more serious threats before from outside and inside.

“We’re built to love, but not to live together,” says a clinical psychologist and marriage counselor.
"People who live together prior to engagement or marriage are the people who like the partner, but don’t like/love them enough to want to share his/her life with other person legally. They are ready to move in together,but don’t like/value enough to marry , but these people think sharing a place with other would be fun, economical, and less stressful. (there are many reasons other than commitment to cohabitate)".

Live in relationship is the mischief of nature.

Organisms of all sorts seem to have the primary urge to reproduce, to genetically propagate and preserve. Humans are in no way different from any other living organism in this regard.

"Man is no different from animals," says Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada in his
Sutrabhasya. "Pasvadibhiscavisesat".

Text says:
"Ahara nidra bhaya maithunam cha, samanyam etat pashubhir naranam
Dharmo hi tesamadhiko visesah dharmena hina pasubhissamanah"

"Human beings and animals have the same urges. They eat and sleep and copulate and besides,
the feelings of fear are common to both."
"What, then, is the difference between the two? It is adherence to
Dharma that distinguishes human beings from animals. Without Dharma
to guide him man would be no better than an animal."


Marriage according to the Hindu Dharma is to fulfill the four fold purusharthas (four aims of life). Dharma (here it is adherence to natural law), Artha (pursuit of economic well-being), Kama (fulfillment of desire) and Moksha (to liberate oneself). I feel that Individuals who are driven by the primal urge of propagation, fear any one of the purusharthas except Kama, prefer not to enter the Social and Legal commitment of Marriage.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[sangom]

Discussion in this thread is interesting and educative. I have also pondered over the subject and had gone through a few books and articles related to Hindu marriages. I wish to share my views on this subject purely
from my understanding of the subject.

In my view Growing live-in relationship is not/will not be a threat to our culture. It is just a short term aberration in the evolution of our Society, which has withstood much more serious threats before from outside and inside.

“We’re built to love, but not to live together,” says a clinical psychologist and marriage counselor.
"People who live together prior to engagement or marriage are the people who like the partner, but don’t like/love them enough to want to share his/her life with other person legally. They are ready to move in together,but don’t like/value enough to marry , but these people think sharing a place with other would be fun, economical, and less stressful. (there are many reasons other than commitment to cohabitate)".

Live in relationship is the mischief of nature.

Organisms of all sorts seem to have the primary urge to reproduce, to genetically propagate and preserve. Humans are in no way different from any other living organism in this regard.

"Man is no different from animals," says Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada in his
Sutrabhasya. "Pasvadibhiscavisesat".

Text says:
"Ahara nidra bhaya maithunam cha, samanyam etat pashubhir naranam
Dharmo hi tesamadhiko visesah dharmena hina pasubhissamanah"

"Human beings and animals have the same urges. They eat and sleep and copulate and besides,
the feelings of fear are common to both."
"What, then, is the difference between the two? It is adherence to
Dharma that distinguishes human beings from animals. Without Dharma
to guide him man would be no better than an animal."


Marriage according to the Hindu Dharma is to fulfill the four fold purusharthas (four aims of life). Dharma (here it is adherence to natural law), Artha (pursuit of economic well-being), Kama (fulfillment of desire) and Moksha (to liberate oneself). I feel that Individuals who are driven by the primal urge of propagation, fear any one of the purusharthas except Kama, prefer not to enter the Social and Legal commitment of Marriage.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Dear Shri Brahmanyan,

Namaskaram. Your post, above, is very educative and valuable to me. I have also tried to find out the reasons for the increasing preference for this living-in arrangements, especially among the high-earning youngsters in metros. I would say it is not the "fear of any of the three purusharthas - other than Kama" which is at the base of this (living-in) phenomenon, but the overriding importance to sex, sexual allurements and the irrepressible urge for sexual experiences which has caused the growing prevalence for this.

Besides, this arrangement also enables both parties to have enjoyment with many partners if either of them so wish. There was a remark in some post that most such living-in arrangements end up in marriages. But I am not sure about the relative success rate of such post-living-in marriages, the incidence of divorce therein, etc.

I agree that Indian society will survive even with/after this living-in era, but I am not very sure whether the society will then have the same values as in the past. To me it appears that as a country, India is moving - and moving fast, to take upon/into itself whatever it finds attractive, from the life styles of the western people. This is done without any discretion and hence whatever is immediately attractive, gets copied and fast. This tendency may lead us into a completely decadent state of affairs which may hasten a fresh bout of alien colonization in a form different from that of the past.

 

[renuka]

"Man is no different from animals," says Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada in his
Sutrabhasya. "Pasvadibhiscavisesat".

Text says:
"Ahara nidra bhaya maithunam cha, samanyam etat pashubhir naranam
Dharmo hi tesamadhiko visesah dharmena hina pasubhissamanah"

"Human beings and animals have the same urges. They eat and sleep and copulate and besides,
the feelings of fear are common to both."
"What, then, is the difference between the two? It is adherence to
Dharma that distinguishes human beings from animals. Without Dharma
to guide him man would be no better than an animal."

Dear Sir,

I agree with what you wrote.. a totally balanced view.

But you know sir..I don't know if you agree with me by I feel to a certain extent our religious text is not Blue Cross Friendly(Animal Friendly).

Many a times we read that men should get rid of animal qualities and even the stanza above says without Dharma man would be no better than an animal.

I feel very sad when I read such text even though it might be a Jagatguru who wrote it.

Animals always adhere to their Dharma..it us humans that do not follow our Dharma and come with Kama,Kroda,Loba,Mada,Moha and Matsarya.

I feel we Hindus still play the blame game and blame animal qualities for our short comings.

We should be brave enough to admit that the Arishad Vargas of Kama,Kroda,Loba.Mada,Moha and Matsarya are Human qualities and NOT animal qualities.

By playing the blame game we never admit our mistakes..sometimes I wonder why not many people object to slander of animals in our religious text...I somehow I get the feeling I could be a first birth human being and been an animal in my immediate previous life and that is why I still feel sad to read about animal slander in religion.


So we should all get Blue Cross friendly religious text...As far as I know only Bhagavad Geeta is Blue Cross friendly with the famous stanza below that give every living being be its due respect.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]TEXT 18​

[/FONT]​

​

vidya-vinaya-sampanne
brahmane gavi hastini
suni caiva sva-pake ca
panditah sama-darsinah

​

​

​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]TRANSLATION​

[/FONT]​

​

The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].

 

[Brahmanyan]

Dear Shri Brahmanyan,

Namaskaram. Your post, above, is very educative and valuable to me. I have also tried to find out the reasons for the increasing preference for this living-in arrangements, especially among the high-earning youngsters in metros. I would say it is not the "fear of any of the three purusharthas - other than Kama" which is at the base of this (living-in) phenomenon, but the overriding importance to sex, sexual allurements and the irrepressible urge for sexual experiences which has caused the growing prevalence for this.
Besides, this arrangement also enables both parties to have enjoyment with many partners if either of them so wish. There was a remark in some post that most such living-in arrangements end up in marriages. But I am not sure about the relative success rate of such post-living-in marriages, the incidence of divorce therein, etc.
I agree that Indian society will survive even with/after this living-in era, but I am not very sure whether the society will then have the same values as in the past. To me it appears that as a country, India is moving - and moving fast, to take upon/into itself whatever it finds attractive, from the life styles of the western people. This is done without any discretion and hence whatever is immediately attractive, gets copied and fast. This tendency may lead us into a completely decadent state of affairs which may hasten a fresh bout of alien colonization in a form different from that of the past.

Dear Sri "Sangom",

Namaskaram,

I value your comments.

Lust will kill Love, Live-in arrangements are of temporary nature. People who join to live-in for the only reason of satisfying their Carnal appetite, without caring for the end result of propagating the species in an organised family life, endup soon in breakup of such relationship easily. Marriage is a binding factor imposed by the Society wherein we live and the Religions that we follow. Otherwise the primal urge of the species to propagate and protect its own race will defy organised living.

I agree with you that values do change due to impact of alien cultures, but in the end,the fundamentals, if they ,are strong, will shape up with out changing the foundation. History of our Country has shown the entrance of many alien religions and cultures continuously, but they have not changed the core value of our Culture and beliefs. On the other hand the invaders have adopted many of our practices and philosophical views.

The subject what is being discussed is wide and deep, it involves many subjects affecting human nature. I have nibbled a few morsels and I cannot claim erudition in the same.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[prasad1]

Values come and go. Never say never.
A society does not die because of social norms. Look at ourselves, majority of people here are OLD. Or have rigid old fashioned value system. So we lament that our values are becoming obsolete. Society marches on, our values will be distant mile post in the passage of time.

 

[kunjuppu]

as one has had first hand experience of having many many friends and quite a few close family members in 'live in' relationship, let me give my 2 cents worth here.

first of all, i think it is a mind set. of two people, in love, and to move to the next stage of relationship. in this framework, no one else matters ie not the relatives. not the society. not the norms. not the morals. these are not taken into consideration, or are considered irrelevant.

btw there is no having multiple partners and such. it only reveals a level of ignorance. if you are having multiple partners, you live alone, so that you have the privacy and convenience to have such a lifestyle..

a living together is an arrangement. everything about running a household - starting from paying the rent, food - purchase, cooking cleanup, maintaing the household, laundry, paying all the utility bills and yes, sharing the bedroom. i mentioned the bedroom, as last in sequence, because, had the lovers interested in sex only, it is easier for them to meet in each other's place, do their thing, and part.

but 'living together' is a commitment, to a relationship, with the hope of forming a nuclear family. it is not quite marriage, as it is devoid of rituals and legalities (though in canada, if you live together for 3 years, you are considered 'married' in the eyes of the law).

'living together' takes the glamour away from the romance, and infuses in it, a strong dose of reality. the dolled up female who attracts you, in the morning, sans makeup, and in her moods, is a different person to get used to. the man comes to know the woman, on a more intimate level, ie her personal cycles, moods, preferences and above all, the REAL her. there are not many warts that you can hide when you are exposed to a person day in and day out.

the same goes for the man. the girls gets to see the guy's stubble in the morning, the bad morning breath, the smelly farts, the mess he leaves behind after he takes a shower, and umpteen other aspects of young men, which disgusts women.

so, dear sangom, Brahmanyan, et al, 'living together' is no bed of roses. it is a preclude to marriage, but more, it is a rehearsal for life together. it is done, normally, after much thought and evaluation, particularly from the girl, because usually she has most to lose, from way of mental heartbreak, if things dont work out good.

it is also a sobering lesson to the guy. what real life and marriage is all about, enough to scare some boys, to call it quits. and that happens. but most work it through, and nowadays, formal marriage in many many instances in the west, take place only after a somewhat extended period of 'living together'.

i repeat once again, there is no extra indulge in carnality or immorality here, unless you consider the concept of setting up a household between a man & woman, without the marriage papers itself is a immoral.

ok let us all, get off our rocking horses of wild imaginations, and look upon this as an urban phenomenon, world wide. whether we like it or not, is another story.

a colleague of mine, lady, when she was now in her 40s, in early twenties, wanted to move in with her boyfriend. both whites. the girl's mother said NO. a few years ago, the mother was widowed, and a year ago, she found a man. they wanted to move together, and the girl, had her sweet revenge. she told her mother NO. get married first if you want to shack up with this guy

usually here no parent objects. they after all know the girl, or the boy concerned, and it would have been a few years, if not months, before these decide on setting up a household together. usually, before marriage, and sometimes, the marriage itself is dispensed with - due to finance or 'cannot be bothered with it' attitude. legally, these are man and wife after 3 years of cohabitation - for legal, pension, divorce, child support and all such purposes.

questions?

 

[auh]

as one has had first hand experience of having many many friends and quite a few close family members in 'live in' relationship, let me give my 2 cents worth here.

first of all, i think it is a mind set. of two people, in love, and to move to the next stage of relationship. in this framework, no one else matters ie not the relatives. not the society. not the norms. not the morals. these are not taken into consideration, or are considered irrelevant.

btw there is no having multiple partners and such. it only reveals a level of ignorance. if you are having multiple partners, you live alone, so that you have the privacy and convenience to have such a lifestyle..

a living together is an arrangement. everything about running a household - starting from paying the rent, food - purchase, cooking cleanup, maintaing the household, laundry, paying all the utility bills and yes, sharing the bedroom. i mentioned the bedroom, as last in sequence, because, had the lovers interested in sex only, it is easier for them to meet in each other's place, do their thing, and part.

but 'living together' is a commitment, to a relationship, with the hope of forming a nuclear family. it is not quite marriage, as it is devoid of rituals and legalities (though in canada, if you live together for 3 years, you are considered 'married' in the eyes of the law).

'living together' takes the glamour away from the romance, and infuses in it, a strong dose of reality. the dolled up female who attracts you, in the morning, sans makeup, and in her moods, is a different person to get used to. the man comes to know the woman, on a more intimate level, ie her personal cycles, moods, preferences and above all, the REAL her. there are not many warts that you can hide when you are exposed to a person day in and day out.

the same goes for the man. the girls gets to see the guy's stubble in the morning, the bad morning breath, the smelly farts, the mess he leaves behind after he takes a shower, and umpteen other aspects of young men, which disgusts women.

so, dear sangom, Brahmanyan, et al, 'living together' is no bed of roses. it is a preclude to marriage, but more, it is a rehearsal for life together. it is done, normally, after much thought and evaluation, particularly from the girl, because usually she has most to lose, from way of mental heartbreak, if things dont work out good.

it is also a sobering lesson to the guy. what real life and marriage is all about, enough to scare some boys, to call it quits. and that happens. but most work it through, and nowadays, formal marriage in many many instances in the west, take place only after a somewhat extended period of 'living together'.

i repeat once again, there is no extra indulge in carnality or immorality here, unless you consider the concept of setting up a household between a man & woman, without the marriage papers itself is a immoral.

ok let us all, get off our rocking horses of wild imaginations, and look upon this as an urban phenomenon, world wide. whether we like it or not, is another story.

a colleague of mine, lady, when she was now in her 40s, in early twenties, wanted to move in with her boyfriend. both whites. the girl's mother said NO. a few years ago, the mother was widowed, and a year ago, she found a man. they wanted to move together, and the girl, had her sweet revenge. she told her mother NO. get married first if you want to shack up with this guy

usually here no parent objects. they after all know the girl, or the boy concerned, and it would have been a few years, if not months, before these decide on setting up a household together. usually, before marriage, and sometimes, the marriage itself is dispensed with - due to finance or 'cannot be bothered with it' attitude. legally, these are man and wife after 3 years of cohabitation - for legal, pension, divorce, child support and all such purposes.

questions?

Well written detailed info on what a live-in relationship is all about. In short it includes all the things people do after marriage, but without the legal commitment that marriage requires? In one way, it is a mockery of marriage.

But why do live-in relationships progress to marriage after all? Only to bind the other? Ludicrous, it seems.

 

[amala]

I like how you wrote questions? at the end as if it was a lecture of some sort . The quaint English phrase "to make an honest women or man ( its nearly always women when I've seen it used) of her/him" implies that living in is somewhat dishonest? Its really a rhetorical question...

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Brahmanyam and Shri Sangom,


Well said the truth!!


Shri Kunjuppu,


You say this - "so, dear sangom, Brahmanyan, et al, 'living together' is no bed of roses. it is a preclude to marriage, but more, it is a rehearsal for life together. it is done, normally, after much thought and evaluation, particularly from the girl, because usually she has most to lose, from way of mental heartbreak, if things dont work out good."

If you say live-in-relationship is not an easy task and is no bed of roses then why to opt such a relationship. If you say that live-in-relationship is a rehearsal like and may fail too without turning out into marriage, then why to go for such a relationship?

Instead why don't they go for a legal marriage as per the existing social norms. Why ladies cant take such a chance in a marriage with possibilities of mental heartbreak if it fails?

If there is uncertainty in live-in-relationship to turn out to be a life time relationship, what way does it make it superior to marriage?

If it is not to enjoy Sex as mutual residential sex partner, than whats the need to establish a household together under one roof and live together?


Your example of your lady colleague who's mother said no to her daughter to move to a household under one roof with her boy friend with out marriage and the revenge of the daughter towards her mother who later wanted the same does not substantiates the validity or truthfulness or guaranteed success in such a relationship.

Whether men and women chose not to marry and have physical relationship with a partner of their choice "without moving" into a household under one roof in a live-in-relationship setup or continuing the physical relationship under live-in-relationship, all only shows that they are not inclined towards taking commitment and responsibilities of a family life and want to have only Sexual Satisfaction with a dedicated partner. And only to move out if one of the other maintains a sexual relationship with other person while being in a live-in-relationship with one person. These are the people who don't value the institution of marriage and don't have the tendency to live a life of adjustment and compromises. Thus, they opt for such a live-in-relationship and keep changing their partner under different house hold from time to time, if it fails to continue with one partner.

 

[kunjuppu]

I like how you wrote questions? at the end as if it was a lecture of some sort . The quaint English phrase "to make an honest women or man ( its nearly always women when I've seen it used) of her/him" implies that living in is somewhat dishonest? Its really a rhetorical question...

dear amala,

havent heard that one, 'making an honest...' for a looooong time. wonder if that means, that everyone is honest now, or nobody cares!

i read so much about this 'living together' in this thread, and somehow it felt to me, none of these had seen an example of cohabiting unmarried couples (if they see two guys living together, how many of them would accept a reality where the two are sharing a bed ). there is wild imagination running at play, for group orgies, mass drinking and whatever other debauchery they can imagine.

i just wanted to dispel their lofty ride, and at least introduce to these folks, a phenomenon, which itself has been considered 'acceptable' in the west, only the past 10 years or so. previously, such things were 'whispered' as 'living in sin' or 'shacked up together' or even worse epithets.

foremost is that the couple involved are nonreligious. not necessarily anti religious, for anyone actively doing sandhyavandhanam or attending mass regularly, 'living in' arrangement' does not appear to be in their agenda. even in toronto, though i do not know about sandhy, i do know a few (still they are there) active white christians. these would not indulge in such lifestyles.

tambram daughters from chennai i know. who went to visit/spend their summers, while in the usa studying masters, to a distant city to work/visit male friend. the mother used to say, the daughter has a summer job in L.A. (she is studying in the east coast) and soandso (male school mate) helped her find it.

not said, that the daughter stayed with the male friend throughout the summer, and there was only one bedroom we dont ask and she dont tell what happens.

i have relatives (not saying where), engaged, both tambrams, go away on out of town vacations together. 'oh they are going in a big gang' says the mother. verified by pix in the facebook . but the fact that these two shared a room, same as the other friend couples, is not mentioned. is not asked.

i find many tambram families i know, dont live in lies. but they live a life, where they do not prefer to hear/say the truth. or talk about it. which is ok, for this is how they deal with incidents, happenings of their own children, which piece by piece, chip away some of their long held values or beliefs. till then, to the outside world atleast, they live in a string of euphemisms.

but for a relative or friend or hearsay, there is no personal involvement, and as is seen here in this forum, any topic pertaining to female morality or attire, unless their own children are involved, out comes the loudest of prejudices, bombastic pronouncements of the danger to our 'culture', the decay of 'morals' and a whole slew of forthcoming doom and gloom.

many a times, i have been amused, by our traditional bachelors here, propound about theoretical morality. in my teens and pre marriage twenties, i too used to be like that. scientists dishing out theorems, and corollaries. absolutely done on some fondly imagined hypothesis. it took me a lifetime experience, to dispel, slowly though willingly,one by one, many of the fallacies and fantasies, that come part and parcel of our tambram baggage.

it is upto each one, whether to continue to accept it in toto or look at the world around you, and make an effort to understand it, even though many of what you find, may go dead against what we believe as our traditions. whatever our way of coping may be, it is important, that we remain at peace with ourselves. otherwise we tend to damage ourselves with a lot of self inflicted wounds - and ultimately destroy us.

part 2 over

 

[kunjuppu]

Shri Brahmanyam and Shri Sangom,


Well said the truth!!


Shri Kunjuppu,


You say this - "so, dear sangom, Brahmanyan, et al, 'living together' is no bed of roses. it is a preclude to marriage, but more, it is a rehearsal for life together. it is done, normally, after much thought and evaluation, particularly from the girl, because usually she has most to lose, from way of mental heartbreak, if things dont work out good."

If you say live-in-relationship is not an easy task and is no bed of roses then why to opt such a relationship. If you say that live-in-relationship is a rehearsal like and may fail too without turning out into marriage, then why to go for such a relationship?

Instead why don't they go for a legal marriage as per the existing social norms. Why ladies cant take such a chance in a marriage with possibilities of mental heartbreak if it fails?

If there is uncertainty in live-in-relationship to turn out to be a life time relationship, what way does it make it superior to marriage?

If it is not to enjoy Sex as mutual residential sex partner, than whats the need to establish a household together under one roof and live together?


Your example of your lady colleague who's mother said no to her daughter to move to a household under one roof with her boy friend with out marriage and the revenge of the daughter towards her mother who later wanted the same does not substantiates the validity or truthfulness or guaranteed success in such a relationship.

Whether men and women chose not to marry and have physical relationship with a partner of their choice "without moving" into a household under one roof in a live-in-relationship setup or continuing the physical relationship under live-in-relationship, all only shows that they are not inclined towards taking commitment and responsibilities of a family life and want to have only Sexual Satisfaction with a dedicated partner. And only to move out if one of the other maintains a sexual relationship with other person while being in a live-in-relationship with one person. These are the people who don't value the institution of marriage and don't have the tendency to live a life of adjustment and compromises. Thus, they opt for such a live-in-relationship and keep changing their partner under different house hold from time to time, if it fails to continue with one partner.

dear ravi,

i presume from your post here, that you are among the bachelors, who have had no experience with women. if what i say do not make sense to you, all i can say, 'you dont know the subject and dont know what you are talking about'.

you need to get into relationships, you need to know women intimately - mentally emotionally physically in that order and above all, a little empathy for those who do things different lifestyle than what you would do.

i do not think, you can comprehend a lifestyle which, thanks to your upholding your upbringing and faith, would be a violation in terms of morals. since you have this big wall to breach, i would recommend that you treat 'live in relationships' as something 'not for you' and something 'you do not understand'. but i dont think you should moralize it or condemn anyone who indulges in it.

thank you.

 

[KRS]

Sri Kunjuppu Ji,

A detailed look at the Indian scene, from someone who has done research in this area. A bit dated, but I still think this applies:

Busting the myth of the Great Indian Sexual Revolution | Sexual rights in India | Agenda

Regards,
KRS

 

[amala]

I quite striking to see how there is no outright condemnation for rape by some members and yet indignant condemnation for consensual cohabitation.

 

[sangom]

I quite striking to see how there is no outright condemnation for rape by some members and yet indignant condemnation for consensual cohabitation.

Kum. amala,

I am sure you know that our topic is not whether rape has to be condemned outright or otherwise, but indecent dressing by women (in the other thread, if that is what you have in mind). Consensual co-habitation is against the spirit of an orderly society; sooner or later, it is bound to lead to questions like custody and care of children born out of such consensus, the role of the state/society in regard to such kids and so on. What if one of these consensuals has HIV and transmits it to the offspring and leaves the child in a public waste bin, therefore? (such incidents have been reported from existing, married, society and so the probability is high in the consensual thing.)

I hope you will see that the society at large has some concerns about such developments and the concept of "individual liberty" cannot be carried too far. And, when you prefer to designate the matter as consensual cohabitation, don't you think that its foremost objective is cohabitation only? What advantage does this system give to the society?

 

[kunjuppu]

Kum. amala,

I am sure you know that our topic is not whether rape has to be condemned outright or otherwise, but indecent dressing by women (in the other thread, if that is what you have in mind). Consensual co-habitation is against the spirit of an orderly society; sooner or later, it is bound to lead to questions like custody and care of children born out of such consensus, the role of the state/society in regard to such kids and so on. What if one of these consensuals has HIV and transmits it to the offspring and leaves the child in a public waste bin, therefore? (such incidents have been reported from existing, married, society and so the probability is high in the consensual thing.)

dear sangom, if you dont mind me addressing some of your concerns, which i think, are born more out of misconception of what 'consensual cohabitation (CCH) is. let us leave sexual assault to other threads and talk about good feelings only here.

please read my two emails below #162, #163.

CCH is not a random boy meets girl, boy shacks up with girl for sex, boy abandons girl. there is a level of familiarity, that is more intimate BEFORE CCH happens. there is also lot of logistics involved - right from agreeing on a place to live, to the paraphernalia that goes into it, financing on an going basis, share of labour and in all willingness to hack it through the steep learning curve.

your scenario of AIDS/abandonment, while theoretically can happen in any household with a wayward spouse of either gender, such an instance is no more no less in a CCH household. may not be in india, yet, though i think it is coming, in the west, after 3 years, either spouse is protected by law, with all the rights & obligations, as a couple with marriage papers. ok?

i will go with on one sole arguement - that you do not like it. there is no further arguement or justification needed. but i think it is not correct, to say that CCH is an unstable arrangement. it is no more or no less than any other home building exercise. the bonds here are self inflicted, unlike marriage where the signatures bind the couple legally to some obligations.

two strangers, arranged marriage, first night openly show each other up naked and whether one likes or not, society expects them to copulate. the other, in CCH, there is a level of familiarity, love and an eagerness to set up shop together, with a view, to build a home. if the first appeals to you, go ahead.

but there should be no fear of a wounded woman and abandonment in a CCH. a break up in any relationship can happen, and that too i have explained in my post below. except maybe for a couple in a traditional marriage in india, with gouravam involved, the ease of breakup may be more difficult. but if there really a desire to break up by either party these days, it happens, no matter what.

I hope you will see that the society at large has some concerns about such developments and the concept of "individual liberty" cannot be carried too far. And, when you prefer to designate the matter as consensual cohabitation, don't you think that its foremost objective is cohabitation only? What advantage does this system give to the society?

there is not a question of individual liberty here, for i think, you cannot legislate someone not to cohabit. it is a different term of relationship between a couple, and while culturally may jar someone's sensibilities, for those who indulge in it, it is a eagerly sought out progression of their relationship to each other. if that does not makes sense, all it means, is this type of 'thing' is beyond your comprehension. that does not mean it is wrong. it means only that it is different.

30 years ago, my relative in singapore told me, that the chinese women there do not marry till they get pregnant. it was wild statement, apparently mostly true, and on hearing it, disgusted me. later i came to know such type of couples here in toronto. these were my friends and there was nothing much to it. these were not demons or aberrations. just normal humans, in love, finding their way in life, a little differently, than most other folks. that was 25 years ago. nowadays, for me, anywhere in the world, news of consensual cohabitation of a youngster - relative or otherwise - is no news at all.

incidentally, i have found, well adjusted compatible couples more among CCH than brand new arranged marriage tambram couples - where the young bride has to learn from scratch as to even how much sugar the hubby takes in his coffee. not right or wrong, but one is starting here from scratch. in a CCH situation, either of the couple, would be familiar with the other, as they know the palm of their hand. enough said. for now anyways.

thank you.

end of part 3

 

[C RAVI]

Ref post no.166,

It am astonished to note such a complaint!!

How could you conclude that there is no condemnation for Rape?

Your question reveals that you don't read the posts of the people who are registering their ways against live-in-relationship (in social aspects) and women wearing exposing sexy dress everywhere. And read only those posts that are against these expressions and assuming on your own that members are opposing us only because we are supporting Rape.

I am talking this effort to post this post because your post is making an unsubstantial accusation, knowingly or unknowingly.

 

[biswa]

Live-in relationships are not as easy as they seem, and not that many survive. Having a live-in gf/bf may not be as attractive as it initially sounded after you have to cook and clean and pay for them.

 

[C RAVI]

dear ravi,

i presume from your post here, that you are among the bachelors, who have had no experience with women. if what i say do not make sense to you, all i can say, 'you dont know the subject and dont know what you are talking about'.

you need to get into relationships, you need to know women intimately - mentally emotionally physically in that order and above all, a little empathy for those who do things different lifestyle than what you would do.

i do not think, you can comprehend a lifestyle which, thanks to your upholding your upbringing and faith, would be a violation in terms of morals. since you have this big wall to breach, i would recommend that you treat 'live in relationships' as something 'not for you' and something 'you do not understand'. but i dont think you should moralize it or condemn anyone who indulges in it.

thank you.

Shri.Kunjuppu,

You and your like minded people can consider me a Dumb, just because I am not intimately close to any girl as her boyfriend.

And you and your like minded member can reject my sensible post, stating that, I don't know the subject and don't know what I am talking about.

These are the easy ways to devalue my post that I won't appreciate.

When I am talking against Live-in-Relationship, I talk considering the betterment of the whole society. A structured society where individual rights and social responsibilities should go hand in hand and leads to the existence of a healthy society.

I hope you and your like minded people at least can accept that bachelors like me or Me only for that matter can understand what a Society is, what are good for the society, what is social responsibility and what is reliability, security & disciplined life style between Men and Women.

If your statement that Bachelors who have/had no experience with women are dumb to talk about men-women relationships, it means, all men who are selecting their future wife for their marriage, having no intimate relationship with any other girl in their life and with no live-in-relationships, rehearsing for a spouse relationship are all dumb, making a wrong choice by marrying a wrong girl OR making the life of the girls a hell by marrying them. LOL!!

My upbringing and hell lots of other bachelor's upbringing, instilling relationship and family values, sincere love-commitment-responsibilities towards a women who share our life emotionally and physically etc..etc have secured the walls of morals and values and are happy and proud to retain it. We don't have a single need to breach this wall to get into hell personally and ditching the future society into hell.

And, YES, such live-in-relationship is not our cup of tea. When we don't want the wrong way it does not mean that we don't know what for and where that wrong way is leading to.

Whoever it may be, need not to think what I should condemn and what not. In a society and in this cyber society too I have the responsibility along with many like minded people/members to express my objection to such live-in-relationship practices in the society.

I am not here to meet a lady and a Man personally, who are into live-in-relationship or going to get into that, to condemn them and express my objection to them on their face. Nor any one can do that.

I am talking considering the society as a whole, weighing what is good and what is not good for the overall betterment of Human Species.

Life is to face challenges or to get away from challenges and live alone. It is not right to resort to more mess up by running away from the senses of commitment, responsibilities, compromises & adjustments. These people who opt for live-in-relationship are in a way cowards!

You are advising me to think in terms of Females what could comfort them AND you would prefer to support such practices and would directly or indirectly would encourage women to get into such a relationship?

A true, confident, honest, sincere, loving, caring and emotionally comforting Man who values women's need of intimacy, her mental status with lots of anxiety/fear/uncertainties about relationships, and her physical body would not take her just into live-in-relationship with an open option to get her out of his life, giving his own intellectual reasons, convincingly to the lady with his sugar coated tongue and manipulative brain.

Sir, if your care to understand the thread topic, it's all about linking individual's choice of opting a live-in-relationship with the society at large.

When we evaluate things in terms of the society, its our collective responsibility to think what is good for the society which would certainly benefit each individual in the society and any child that gonna born and become a part of our society.

 

[amala]

Sangom Sir while I take your points on board I'd just like to say that realistically nowadays the world and people have become individualistic and no one can stop that, I don't think.

Ravi while your ideals are noble and no one, i repeat no one can fault you for having such ideals, please try not to judge others who choose different lifestyles from your good self. Also Sangom Sir's calm measured post makes one want to read it. Prima facie you start ranting and coming across as antagonistic then can't blame one for not even wanting to read the sagas.

 

[C RAVI]

Amala,

People who read my post without bias and sharing my views are happy to read my sagas with clear understanding. The same way as you could read Sagas over Sagas from your like mended members, understanding it, appreciating it and supporting it.

If you and your like mended people find fault in my way of posting, its obvious.

Only because I am younger to Shri Sangom, a Male and a Bachelor you and your like minded people are expressing bitterness and faults in what I am stating in my post in a straight forward manner.


I am not expecting any one to appreciate my ideals and give me certificate. All I want, with all my honesty and sincerity is, to talk in terms of what is good for the society as a whole at present and for the future generation, leaving aside Individual preferences and choices that has its own specialities.

It is upto you and your like minded people to see what I am stating or to consider it as antagonistic.


Would appreciate IF you better participate in debate and express your views in a detailed manner as much as possible, with confidence, with honesty and sincerely, Instead of being a self appointed Judge/Critique and giving your unsolicited remarks, suggestions, advices.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Dear Sir,

I agree with what you wrote.. a totally balanced view.

But you know sir..I don't know if you agree with me by I feel to a certain extent our religious text is not Blue Cross Friendly(Animal Friendly).

Many a times we read that men should get rid of animal qualities and even the stanza above says without Dharma man would be no better than an animal.

I feel very sad when I read such text even though it might be a Jagatguru who wrote it.
Animals always adhere to their Dharma..it us humans that do not follow our Dharma and come with Kama,Kroda,Loba,Mada,Moha and Matsarya.

I feel we Hindus still play the blame game and blame animal qualities for our short comings.
We should be brave enough to admit that the Arishad Vargas of Kama,Kroda,Loba.Mada,Moha and Matsarya are Human qualities and NOT animal qualities.

By playing the blame game we never admit our mistakes..sometimes I wonder why not many people object to slander of animals in our religious text...I somehow I get the feeling I could be a first birth human being and been an animal in my immediate previous life and that is why I still feel sad to read about animal slander in religion.

So we should all get Blue Cross friendly religious text...As far as I know only Bhagavad Geeta is Blue Cross friendly with the famous stanza below that give every living being be its due respect.

TEXT 18

vidya-vinaya-sampanne
brahmane gavi hastini
suni caiva sva-pake ca
panditah sama-darsinah

​

TRANSLATION​

The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].

Dear Doctor,

As you know our religious texts are vast and varied, composed in different times and ages. We have come a long way from Animal sacrifice in Vedic age to nonviolence and "Bluecross" of present time. However, in general all our Sages have stressed on the positive side of character building of human life, truth, compassion and love.

In creation each specie is different in their inborn qualities from other. This is the law of nature, that cannot be changed. You cannot change the tiger to be a vegetarian, or a lamb to eat a dead carcass. Since I do not want to digress from the main theme of this thread I prefer to conclude this message with the words of french philosopher René Descartes,Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) which sum up probably the most important reason we differ from animals.

In the text quoted by me Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada has only stressed the importance of man to adhere to his dharma.

Best Wishes,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[sarang]

Where to put the punctuation?

... condemnation for 'rape by some members' or 'condemnation for rape' by some members! 'Of rape' would have helped.

There are many cases landing in court today (here in bharat), in which partners living in consensual sex for several years, the woman (she was a lass when cohabitation started) has filed rape charges against the man (who was a dashing boy when the process started) for refusing to marry. The courts are still debating the law.

Rape has several shades. Violent, forced, and under threat/ blackmail invasions are strongly condemnable and punishable.

Union under pretext of money, position, power is also a crime and unfair means is also condemnable and punishable. BBC is now faced with close to 200 such sexual assault disclosures, some from under 18 girls when it happened. Jimmy saville's exposure is bringing out all the buried muck. Many a time molestation and rape are difficult to differentiate. Recent high profile arrest of Kahn of IMF at the newyork airport, based on a complaint by the hotel room service maid.

What is to be done for the couples (under aged or major) who happily live in with a silver cloud, share, blow or save their earnings or spend all on luxuries, gadgets or travel, and find one day the other is abominable.

It is right on the part of parents to worry (they have little control anyway) what this kind of livingin will lead to.

Consensual cohabitation brought problems in the past; already many problems are surfacing. One sane advice that is definitely applicable for these couples - keep your money with you.

I quite striking to see how there is no outright condemnation for rape by some members and yet indignant condemnation for consensual cohabitation.