Is "Conservativeness" Camouflaged Sexuality?

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Dr Renuka, I really thank you for the positive comments from the leading lady Veteran of this Forum. Brahmin women to be married.. & already married have one thing in common , that is Shyness . Is it not a fact that only the Male , whether he is in love or in the process of getting married, or even happen to meet umpteen times in U.S. before marriage will not dare talk Sex ? No woman would allow & the man has to wait till _______ ?
There is no comparison on this aspect of shyness of our generation & what is reality now a days. Do you dare conclude that, if the 2 lovers , waiting to be Married & dates fixed would DARE to have Sex ? I am sure they will not women will resist because she would
think of consequences & the future. The women is dormant, & she has to be prepared for sex , even if it is her hubby of long years .
I am still analysing the aspect of sex as to the knowledge the cou[ple married , to be married ? perhaps there are avenues to learn & discuss between themselves ?
Since the respective parents some how feel helpless & choose the path of least resistance / meaning Let them Enjoy .
The lead for Sex if taken by the female it will not be Natural . will it be ? So the man has to ensure lot of Coxing/ fore-play & what not-- to arouse the feelings, it would be the same anyday, with more clarity of open discussion in their honey moon intimacy ?
Rishikesan

Dear Rishikeshan ji,


Technically there is no dormant/dominant party when it comes to the act of coitus.

Frankly speaking mostly its only the beginning of the chase that is initiated by the male of any species.

Later on its the female that makes the rules..hence men are always one time Lions and lifelong mice after marriage.

This transformation is perfectly normal.

Then male has to be led to believe that he is in control...then when a sense of security ensure the females snares him and knowing that by nature the male is less likely monogamous the females has to make sure the male "ego" is always fed.

So these act of coyness,shyness is part of the game of nature. It deludes the male.

But why do we see a total different picture these days?

The reason is human behavior is governed by the innate drive of continuation of species and self.

For continuation of self..we need food and money.

For continuation of species..sex is needed.

Now when food and money is hard to come by we see that human behavior tends to be rather aggressive and we see crime rates going up.

When food and money is readily available then we see that humans are rather liberal with some aspects of the behavior.

Its a well known fact that moral values are relatively "higher" in a middle class scenario.

Why?

The reason is ..the middle class scenario individual is neither here nor there.

He has just minimum money and food so he dare not risk it by being too aggressive or too liberal in his dealings or behavior.

So what we assume as "morals" is not actually morals in the real sense.Its just momentary reactions.

That is why now when you see young adults these days more bold than their ancestors we think its "moral' decay but its not!

Its just that the mental status of the young adult is secure with better financial status and security that his/her mind dare take the step of exploring other zones.

So I can conclude that its evolution of thought that decides our code of conduct and finally nothing is a virtue nor a sin in the real sense.

 

[krish44]

Renukaji
financial/economic status indicates whether a person is poor ,rich or inbetween and this has a correlation with stance regarding sexual behaviour of both males and females



the need for the latter is in all human beings and fulfilling it is part of human behaviour.

some are more aggressive than the others in trying for fulfillment.

it is societys norm that male has to make the first move.

in case it is not for rules imposed by society or religion, the hunt for sex would be a free for all , male or female taking the initiative depending on body hunger and

physical strength.

.the poor and super rich can behave similarly for fulfilment of sex and are more free from rigid rules of society and religion and are many times unmindful of consequences of defiance of rules imposed on them by society /religion

the middle class is more stringent in observing the rules set by religion and society as they find they have to bear the wrath of these sections for defiance and being non

conformist in following of rules set.as they do not belong to the poor or rich class, it is their sense of security and well being dictating their behaviour. in that sense

,the class/strata of society/religion they belong plays a role in their behaviour

if they change their status to rich or poor , they will be freer in their hunt for sex and fulfillment

 

[biswa]

Looks like rishikesan has forgotten his role as a self-appointed forum censor and is dragging this thread in an unwise direction for a family-friendly forum. How come no petitions asking for this thread to be closed?

 

[rishikesan]

Dear Mr Biswa, Thanks for the comments. Whatever is written in the last 2/3 days are more lengthy & could be brief. In my write-up I have come up with some valid points comparing the Past & present attitudes. You can not say these are irrelevant because we are elders & understand the Topic well. I fully agree with you that , Dr. Renuka as usual has taken the liberty to reply elaborately ( could have been shorter, even to convey her views ) to my points posed.
Let all of us agree to close this particular topic . Thanks
Rishikesan

 

[krish44]

It seems Rishikesanji, You have not taken responsibility for your post though short was offensive to biswaji.

Why bring the name of a good lady who is a doctor into it who clinically analysed the issue.

you are in a different class by yourself .

we can close the thread as you have damaged the thread by your unwise comments offending some member