Which country ranks top on adultery?

[P.J.]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I have been instructed by my mentor in this forum that online friends should be kept online and I should not attempt to meet them in person as I will get disappointed

if I meet them in person.

that person even said shahrukh khan is best on screen and we would feel disappointed if we meet him in person.


Very thoughtful advice.

 

[P.J.]

ladies are very safety and security minded .

they look for villains all over the world who are out to hunt and get them.lol

any of those related to political ideology or religion are not worth transacting with.

I instinctively withdraw from extra religeous or caste boasting types.

Guru types are really deadly.

where are the simple normal human beings one can converse with and one can be friends with and bond

that way TB forum is fairly safe .but along with safety comes boredom since there are only stereotypes where

conformity is admired and those with different thinking are hounded out.

It is indeed a difficult choice where to go online for a good simple relationship and friendship

 

[P.J.]

OK, You are fishing for a compliment.

You are a deadly Guru.lol

I know you are not Serious Krish Sir ?

 

[Raji Ram]

........... Very thoughtful advice.

Oh! Yeah! Saves your money to be spent on mysore bOndA and coffee!

 

[Raji Ram]

By the effort started by TVK Sir, I could meet fourteen of my forum friends

and some of their family members so far, excluding my dear Sis! :thumb:

 

[JR]

ladies are very safety and security minded .

they look for villains all over the world who are out to hunt and get them.lol

any of those related to political ideology or religion are not worth transacting with.

I instinctively withdraw from extra religeous or caste boasting types.

Guru types are really deadly.

Krish Sir,

I believe you made the above post in reply to my post to Renuka regarding my previous cyber experience in an astrology forum 12 yrs ago.

Actually nowhere in that post I assigned "motive" to the hostile person's behavior -- I only said he 'acted hostile' which is fairly easy to detect from 3 months of continued interaction, even if via cyber medium alone.

Would people not assign such 'motives' in others' posts? It would be so easy to share one's experiences in a friendly manner then! Sigh!

(And for the rest of your comments about those really religious ones, guru-type ones, etc, one cannot really judge other persons' merits and demerits by discriminating them upfront!).

 

[Vaagmi]

Is adultery really a sin?

It is a sin according to Bible.

It is a different matter as to what christians think about that. LOL.

 

[prasad1]

By the effort started by TVK Sir, I could meet fourteen of my forum friends

and some of their family members so far, excluding my dear Sis! :thumb:

You were a wonderful host, I am one of the lucky one to meet you.

 

[prasad1]

Is adultery really a sin?

Nah...I dont think so..its just an "offence" cos of social regulations.

What is sin?
Religions define sin that they think is pertinent to them.
Governments define crimes according to the prevalent conditions.
Society defines the acceptable behaviors.

Then human are confused and apply any permutation and combination of these things and fluidly move from one to another.

There is no sin for the Atma.

 

[JR]

A sin can be grossly defined as 'something that would hurt others' sentiments/their way of living/their comforts and their solace, since the act of the perpetrator has resulted in the betrayal of the beliefs of the affected'. That way, since adultery goes against promises made and destroys the belief system of the affected, it is a sin.

 

[prasad1]

A sin can be grossly defined as 'something that would hurt others' sentiments/their way of living/their comforts and their solace, since the act of the perpetrator has resulted in the betrayal of the beliefs of the affected'. That way, since adultery goes against promises made and destroys the belief system of the affected, it is a sin.

That definition is not complete.
Because then you saying that sin has be against another individual or human grouping.
What about killing of animals?
Human sentiments are very fragile.
For instance I invest in stock, i buy and sell. My gain is someone else loss. That is the nature of the world. A tiger has to kill a dear to survive.
There is nothing called absolute sin, that is universal.
My definition of sin is our association with certain action and the motive behind the action.

Most other religions or philosophies have lists of things that you shall not do. There seem to be such moral absolutes like gluttony, pride, adultery, lying, robbery, not worshiping 5 times a day etc. This has always seemed as a very rigid system to me. Because of this definition, we are constantly commiting sins. For example, we all seem to use what we call “white lies” to smoothen our daily interactions and tactfully deal with people. In such cases it even seems appropriate and “the right thing to do”.

Gita Chapter 18 verse 47

śreyān sva-dharmo viguṇaḥ
para-dharmāt sv-anuṣṭhitāt
svabhāva-niyataḿ karma
kurvan nāpnoti kilbiṣam

It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions.

Anything done for personal sense gratification is a cause of bondage. The conclusion is that everyone should be engaged according to the particular mode of nature he has acquired, and he should decide to work only to serve the supreme cause of the Supreme Lord.

Papa and punya are purely a stamp of religion on practices of the society at that time and place.
Hinduism unlike other religion does not proscribe a list of actions.

 

[JR]

Dear Prasad ji,

Your stated lines in quote interest me:

There seem to be such moral absolutes like gluttony, pride, adultery, lying, robbery, not worshiping 5 times a day etc. This has always seemed as a very rigid system to me. Because of this definition, we are constantly commiting sins. For example, we all seem to use what we call “white lies” to smoothen our daily interactions and tactfully deal with people. In such cases it even seems appropriate and “the right thing to do”.

Actually, the listed facts (in Bold) are indeed part and parcel of us, and motivate us to commit sins. In that sense, I do see us all perpetually sinning. If we do not sin perpetually, where do you say our karmas and our rebirth originated from?

And regarding swadharma, you have stated it very well. I agree with you 100% on this -- that someone born with instincts to rule would better serve the Lord's purpose by pursuing actions that will reward him with rulership than reading religious texts each day. Having said that, I think the problem with people is understanding where they stand spiritually then, what is their role in spirituality? Is no spirituality expected of them? I think not. I think that 'being desireless' is the ultimate goal for anyone, regardless of their mental makeup and their 'swadharma', and that each one of us should strive to counter those negative influences in us, out of which desires manifest. When left unchecked, even when practicing 'swadharma', one can still sin out of his unchecked desires...

(I'm looking for an all-comprehensive description of 'sinning' then... will update when I think I have the right answer).

 

[JR]

BTW, you were spot-on in your description of cause of bondage being the performance of duties for personal sense gratification. I agree with this.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

Which country ranks top on adultery?

Which country ranks top on adultery?


Could be South Korea soon!


Court rules: Adultery no longer a crime in South Korea - CNN.com

 

[renuka]

Which country ranks top on adultery?

Which country ranks top on adultery?


Could be South Korea soon!


Court rules: Adultery no longer a crime in South Korea - CNN.com

Wow! Great.

 

[psnarasimhan]

Wow! Great.

Who knows some persons like posters may look forward for such court ruling in India also. May God save us all who are against such ruling.

 

[Janaki Jambunathan]

This is how Shaw sees the istitution of Marriage! How will you react for these observations?

George Bernard Shaw on Marriage, the Oppression of Women, and the Hypocrisies of Monogamy | Brain Pickings



But most poignant of all are Shaw’s insights in a section titled “The Economic Slavery of Women,” where he addresses the fundamental inequality upon which the institution, as originally designed, is built and the transactional trickeries and charades they engender:

One of the consequences of basing marriage on the considerations stated with cold abhorrence by Saint Paul in the seventh chapter of his epistle to the Corinthians, as being made necessary by the unlikeness of most men to himself, is that the sex slavery involved has become complicated by economic slavery; so that whilst the man defends marriage because he is really defending his pleasures, the woman is even more vehement on the same side because she is defending her only means of livelihood. To a woman without property or marketable talent a husband is more necessary than a master to a dog. There is nothing more wounding to our sense of human dignity than the husband hunting that begins in every family when the daughters become marriageable; but it is inevitable under existing circumstances; and the parents who refuse to engage in it are bad parents, though they may be superior individuals. The cubs of a humane tigress would starve; and the daughters of women who cannot bring themselves to devote several years of their lives to the pursuit of sons-in-law often have to expatiate their mother’s squeamishness by life-long celibacy and indigence. To ask a young man his intentions when you know he has no intentions, but is unable to deny that he has paid attentions; to threaten an action for breach of promise of marriage; to pretend that your daughter is a musician when she has with the greatest difficulty been coached into playing three piano-forte pieces which she loathes; to use your own mature charms to attract men to the house when your daughters have no aptitude for that department of sport; to coach them, when they have, in the arts by which men can be led to compromise themselves; and to keep all the skeletons carefully locked up in the family cupboard until the prey is duly hunted down and bagged: all this is a mother’s duty today; and a very revolting duty it is: one that disposes of the conventional assumption that it is in the faithful discharge of her home duties that a woman finds her self-respect. The truth is that family life will never be decent, much less ennobling, until this central horror of the dependence of women on men is done away with. At present it reduces the difference between marriage and prostitution to the difference between Trade Unionism and unorganized casual labor: a huge difference, no doubt, as to order and comfort, but not a difference in kind.

​

 

[renuka]

Who knows some persons like posters may look forward for such court ruling in India also. May God save us all who are against such ruling.

Well we can all take a flight to South Korea.

 

[krish44]

This is how Shaw sees the istitution of Marriage! How will you react for these observations?

George Bernard Shaw on Marriage, the Oppression of Women, and the Hypocrisies of Monogamy | Brain Pickings



But most poignant of all are Shaw’s insights in a section titled “The Economic Slavery of Women,” where he addresses the fundamental inequality upon which the institution, as originally designed, is built and the transactional trickeries and charades they engender:

One of the consequences of basing marriage on the considerations stated with cold abhorrence by Saint Paul in the seventh chapter of his epistle to the Corinthians, as being made necessary by the unlikeness of most men to himself, is that the sex slavery involved has become complicated by economic slavery; so that whilst the man defends marriage because he is really defending his pleasures, the woman is even more vehement on the same side because she is defending her only means of livelihood. To a woman without property or marketable talent a husband is more necessary than a master to a dog. There is nothing more wounding to our sense of human dignity than the husband hunting that begins in every family when the daughters become marriageable; but it is inevitable under existing circumstances; and the parents who refuse to engage in it are bad parents, though they may be superior individuals. The cubs of a humane tigress would starve; and the daughters of women who cannot bring themselves to devote several years of their lives to the pursuit of sons-in-law often have to expatiate their mother’s squeamishness by life-long celibacy and indigence. To ask a young man his intentions when you know he has no intentions, but is unable to deny that he has paid attentions; to threaten an action for breach of promise of marriage; to pretend that your daughter is a musician when she has with the greatest difficulty been coached into playing three piano-forte pieces which she loathes; to use your own mature charms to attract men to the house when your daughters have no aptitude for that department of sport; to coach them, when they have, in the arts by which men can be led to compromise themselves; and to keep all the skeletons carefully locked up in the family cupboard until the prey is duly hunted down and bagged: all this is a mother’s duty today; and a very revolting duty it is: one that disposes of the conventional assumption that it is in the faithful discharge of her home duties that a woman finds her self-respect. The truth is that family life will never be decent, much less ennobling, until this central horror of the dependence of women on men is done away with. At present it reduces the difference between marriage and prostitution to the difference between Trade Unionism and unorganized casual labor: a huge difference, no doubt, as to order and comfort, but not a difference in kind.

​

A very thoughtful post from bernard shaw

what would marriage be if the girls are not economically dependant on men have property and education and skills to be wage earners .

the value of marriage as an institution gets reduced and economic inequalities are brought to near zero in some cases between men and women.

in such cases would women reject marriage as an institution and go for friendship and easy relationship with men who are their equal ?

in india the trend of women with careers rejecting marriage to be on their own is increasing.

such women would value friendship and temporary liason with different men depending on requirement and easy discarding after the need is over.

this appears to be a far better of way of living than being an economic slave of many times useless men who happen to earn a little.

parents who hawk the girls attributing non existent qualities of girls to make them slaves wounding their personal dignity and respect are considered to be good parents who have done their duty towards girl child and are honoured by society at large

in times to come , we should hope these will change for a better order for cohabitation of men and women.

 

[renuka]

A very thoughtful post from bernard shaw

what would marriage be if the girls are not economically dependant on men have property and education and skills to be wage earners .

the value of marriage as an institution gets reduced and economic inequalities are brought to near zero in some cases between men and women.

in such cases would women reject marriage as an institution and go for friendship and easy relationship with men who are their equal ?

in india the trend of women with careers rejecting marriage to be on their own is increasing.

such women would value friendship and temporary liason with different men depending on requirement and easy discarding after the need is over.

this appears to be a far better of way of living than being an economic slave of many times useless men who happen to earn a little.

parents who hawk the girls attributing non existent qualities of girls to make them slaves wounding their personal dignity and respect are considered to be good parents who have done their duty towards girl child and are honoured by society at large

in times to come , we should hope these will change for a better order for cohabitation of men and women.

dear Krish ji,

It actually fine being married especially for me cos I am afraid of cockroaches and by being married my husband can help me out if a cockroach "attacks".

Also by being married we can dress up even more stylish or even slightly revealing cos as long we are going anywhere with husband no one will dare comment anything.

If a single women who dresses up stylishly or even a bit revealing she might be labelled attention seeker or worse still be called a Bi*ch.

Then when car needs servicing or repair having a husband becomes handy.

While shopping for groceries a husband helps us load the stuff in the car and we only carry the light stuff.

So being married still has many advantages.