oct 5th, 2009
nehru had one goal in life: he wanted white guys to approve of him. this is possibly because he was buggered like mad when he was a little brown boy in a white public school.
he thought the way to get white guys to think well of him was to bonk some white women. at least he could have gone out with a decent woman. didn't know this mountbatten woman was such a slut, pardon my french, spreading her legs for all and sundry. she probably gave him the syphilis he is rumored to have died of. yes, tertiary syphilis -- this eats at one's brains and makes one crazy, and he was the absolute master of this country during the years he was rumored to have syphilis.
and oh, this one is new: kamala nehru possibly sleeping with her future son-in-law.
is there no end to the perversions of this family, which 'sacrified' so much?
and what is with these jewish heiresses? death wish, or what? remember jemima goldsmith, who married imran khan?
31 comments:
The duplicitous creature that wrote that article couldn't resist this hit below the belt-
"Mass migration and massacres followed as Indians fought for territory with the new Pakistan.
At one Muslim refugee camp, she found a gang of Hindus and Sikhs trying to set it on fire and kill the inmates."
Yoddha, just because america fights taliban does not necessarily mean that america is benign. Similarly just because some white trash trashes chamcha nehru doesn't mean it is worthwhile popularising.
regards
Kamala Nehru and Feroz Ghandhi(dy?) angle is certainly unheard of. Interesting...
This is not really unheard of. Google for Kamala Nehru and Feroze and you will see what I mean!
I hope you also know that Nehru's affair was not with Edwina but with LOUIS Mountbatten.
/** And the love affair was not over yet. As her body was taken by the Royal Navy to its sea burial off Britain's south coast, Prime Minister Nehru made his last and most public declaration of his devotion, sending his own Indian Navy frigate to cast a wreath into the waters on his behalf.
***/
Another interesting but furious one..
Interesting article :) I am glad that truth is finally trickling in. It is high time that India learns of this pervert politics which might be the reason for the state of affairs today.
Rajeev, this is below the belt, pun unintended. Judging people's character by their sexual mores is so archaic, in my view.
A liberal is one who says that it's all right for an 18-year-old girl to perform in a pornographic movie as long as she gets paid the minimum wage. - Irving Kristol
Kristol is referring to people like "Old" who commented that
"Rajeev, this is below the belt, pun unintended. Judging people's character by their sexual mores is so archaic, in my view."
Isn't "Old" being snobbish in calling Rajeev archaic for criticising Nehru for his sexual licentiousness?
Here is another article in the context: Mark Steyn exposes the hypocrisy of hollywood celebs who are defending the child rapist Roman Polanski.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/polanski-rape-world-2591230-one-roman
/** Rajeev, this is below the belt, pun unintended. Judging people's character by their sexual mores is so archaic, in my view.
**/
In india, sex is an important factor, that would reflect the character of a person.. the society treats it very seriously.. Because, if one had overcome this urge and led a disciplined life, he can overcome everything else..
And why is the congresswallas and particularly the nehru dynasty, so allergic about such news reaching indian public?
and going by your stance, can we allow a womaniser, a loafer to become the PM of india, if we were to ignore his private life? Ofcourse, there are such persons aspiring for that post, and is a different matter..
Or else, how come you justify the fact that the chamcha nehru, mortgaged the welfare of india, for his illicit love, where he compromised on Kashmir, which is still costing us a lot.. or else, what about his daughter who compromised india's victory during 1971 war, because she was outsmarted by the then Bhutto..
A sexually vulnerable man is ineligible for the top post, and this fact is to be understood crystal clear..
(I also go by the handle of "Oldtimer"; blogspot is displaying only the first name in "Old Timer")
>>Isn't "Old" being snobbish in calling Rajeev archaic for criticising Nehru for his sexual licentiousness?
I happen to think consensual sex between two adults is their personal matter, not for others to judge, unless there is a breach of trust (eg: cheating on the spouse) involved.
>>Because, if one had overcome this urge and led a disciplined life, he can overcome everything else..
Good for religious people wanting to overcome the senses, but why should ordinary folks overcome the "urge"?
I mean: what do you base sexual morality on, except religious convention? It is self-evident why one shouldn't kill or rape or loot, but what's the objection to having sex if nobody's getting hurt?
>>and going by your stance, can we allow a womaniser, a loafer to become the PM of india, if we were to ignore his private life?
I wouldn't call Vajpayee a "womaniser" but he is rumored to have had his series of women. Wasn't he the best PM we've had in a long time?
There is no point having argument with far-left radicals like "Old Timer".
Winston Churchill said: While the Hindu elaborates his argument, the Moslem sharpens his sword.
Communists and Far-Left radicals also act like muslims in this regard.
Anyway isn't it the far-left radicals who altered the meaning of words by their takeover of academic institutions.
Isn't it the left radicals who developed the Orwellian newspeak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Here are some examples why arguing with far-left radicals is pointless.
1. Asking for uniform civil code is labelled "communal" in India, whereas it is labelled racist in UK and other European countries.
2. They equated Zionism with Racism.
3. Last week Iranian President Ahmadinejad denied Holocaust at UN. Aren't leftist radicals acting like cheerleaders for him?
Anyway my point is that there is no point in arguing with Lib-Left people.
"Old" your hippy ideas of free love are not practical & once widespread will lead to the situation in the Ghettos of America.
Sorry buddy but you are very naive & don't seem to understand the connection between your kind of hedonistic thinking & whats happening today in Europe where its witnessing its transformation into Eurabia.
Are you a bit dense that you don't understand what was wrong with what Nehru & Edwina did.
Edwina was married, now I don't know how things work in your hippy world but in the real world married women who screw around are no good tramps and when someone does that it puts a tremendous strain on the relationship especially if they have kids, the same thing applies to Nehru who was a married man.
Contrary to your idea that these prohibitions have something to do with religion completely they are a result of human evolution, if sex was all a man needed he would be much better off visiting the local prostitute, its cheaper & more secure in many ways in the West. The reason for sexual jealousy & condemnation of adultery (especially by women) lies in evolution not religion, a man needs to be 100% sure that the kids his wife bears are his so that he can work to support them, this is what a prostitute cannot provide, fidelity and as a product of that kids that you can be sure are biologically yours.
Nehru gambled with the country's future in his infatuation with Edwina who was nothing more than a pawn used by her husband for this, you don't see anything wrong with the PM doing that?
FYI I am an atheist & have the brain capacity to understand why free love and other such nonsense won't work, every society that has degenerated into the kind of behavior you advocate crumbled to the dust, in late Rome where pleasure seeking & orgies became the norm they actually had a bachelor tax to try & force men to marry because without kids there was rapid depopulation weakening the state.
Anyone who read some basic evolutionary psych would know these things.
Noam Chomsky on Pornography
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE
Perhaps OldTimer will change his views on Sexual Licentiousness (even if it is totally personal) after watching Noam Chomsky views on Pornography.
So here it is straight from the GOD of Lib-Left Subversives/Racicals.
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/column_edwina-nehru-more-than-a-love-story_1296585
Here is Madhu Jain's article on this story. She is not only acting as an apologist but acting as a cheerleader for Nehru's pervert sexual escapades.
I also suspect she was also indulging in Historical Revisionism by fabricating stories (eg: Nehru's disappointment with Krishna Menon) in the form of leaks from Edwina's daughter. Being aware of Nehru's stalinist attitude, he would never tolerate an idiot like Krishna Menon when he was acting like a thorn in flesh.
PS: follow me on twitter at http://twitter.com/varun_vijay
Administering the country is best done by a person who realises Dharma, Righteousness. And seeks to uphold it.
Such a person is not licentious. He does not seek personal fulfilment.
Eg. Raja Harischandra who gave up his kingdom, his child, his wife and even himself to uphold Dharma.
Sri Rama, who went to forest, who fought the mighty Ravana and he later gave up his family life in the service of his higher duty- of administering the society, thus upheld Dharma.
Person who indulges himself, aims to satiate himself is best suited to merely help true Khsatriyas in administering the country, helping true Vyshyas in producing wealth and true Brahmanas by giving them alms.
Administering of country, producing wealth and seeking spiritual truths are paths correctly traversed when done purely for the good of the society, not for personal advantage or indugence.
Thank you
Old timer,
/**I happen to think consensual sex between two adults is their personal matter, not for others to judge, unless there is a breach of trust (eg: cheating on the spouse) involved.
**/
Then why the hell is the law punishing extra-marital affair?
Also, do you feel that there is no breach of trust, in the love b/w nehru and edwina? Does mountbattern voluntarily allowed edwina to elope with so many?
Also, its not just the life partner, a man is answerable.. rather the role he plays in a family and in the society is also an important factor..
In a company, the manager simply cannot go weird over women and claim that its his personal interest. The company knows, that the manager could be easily hoodwinked by its rivals using women..
The same way, a leader is answerable to the whole nation for every action of his..
The fact, that Nehru compromised on india's interest, because of his illicit love with another man's wife, is both morally wrong, ethically sin, and national betrayal
WHen a man assumes topmost post of a country, he is no longer an individual.. if he could not give away his temptations, he can resign from his post, and enjoy what he wanted as ordinary man..
/** Good for religious people wanting to overcome the senses, but why should ordinary folks overcome the "urge"?
**/
There two kinds of religious people.. the sanyasis and the priest hood (am talking about hinduism).. for the sanyasis, its must that they overcome the very desire itself..
But for the priest, they can pursue their desire in an ethical manner, through his wife only..
Its the same for ordinary man.. he can fulfill his desires through ethical and moral means, through his wife/wives..
If every one becomes stray, then the whole society will be full of bastards..
/** I wouldn't call Vajpayee a "womaniser" but he is rumored to have had his series of women. Wasn't he the best PM we've had in a long time?
**/
I have not heard this.. but had vajpayee done this when he was PM, then its a blunder, no matter he may be the best PM..
>>There is no point having argument with far-left radicals like "Old Timer".
Me a far-left radical? You would be comic if you aren't so tragic. Taking a "contrarian" position on a rightwing blog that one actually agrees with seems to be an educational experience. :-)
>>Anyone who read some basic evolutionary psych would know these things.
Anybody who invokes "evolutionary psych" ought to know that human beings are not monogamous by nature. Mankind owes its survival and fitness to gene mixing, and gene mixing is at its most efficient with multiple partners. (Hark! Don't start yelling "you damned far-left radical hedonist!" I'm just explaining science only, not pushing for orgies). Dawkins notes that there is astonishing variety in the mating habits of human societies, ranging from strict monogamy to promiscuity, and he says that this variety is determined by culture rather than genes. I suggest you invest in a copy of his seminal ;) work "The Selfish Gene".
>>"Old" your hippy ideas of free love are not practical
Conflating the stand that a person's love life is not necessarily a reflection of his moral calibre with a presumed advocacy of hippie lifestyle is quite a logical leap. If I were to perform a similar stunt, I'd have to ask you, given your strong advocacy of sexual fidelity: do you suggest that adulterers be stoned to death or would you rather be kind and just put them to the electric chair?
Nizhal Yoddha, you say: "...at least he could have gone out with a decent woman." Does this remark not apply to one of his grandsons also?
I think we are allowing too much dissent & debate just to indulge few people who want to look "cool" unlike the rest of us grumpy/ conservative/philistine simpletons.
I don't know about others' experience but whenever I post any comment on lib-left blogs, those scoundrels don't even approve comments which contradict their agenda. And even when those comments are approved, mysteriously flood of cyber-bullies followup with comments full of unreasonable illogical ridicule hitting below the belt.
>>unlike the rest of us grumpy/ conservative/philistine simpletons.
I'm not one to dispute your description of yourself, but can you replace "philistine" with "illogical"? Philistine is supposed to be me.
>>those scoundrels don't even approve comments which contradict their agenda.
Yes, that's why leftwing dipweeds are a joke. Here's a joke I wrote specially for you. Relax and enjoy.
----
There was a loud knock on bedroom door. The viceroy, in his underwear,
opened it. Ashok and Harish barged in.
"Look! We knew it! He's sleeping with your wife!" they said, pointing
to another guy on the bed, also in his undies.
"Jawaharlal, are you sleeping with my wife?" the viceroy asked solemnly.
"I am not, I swear", the man said weakly.
Satisfied, Harish and Ashok left.
Edwina crawled from under the bed, naked and all flustered.
"Why didn't you ask _him_ to get under the bed instead?", she
demanded angrily, dusting herself.
"Because, honey", the viceroy said, "they don't mind if he screwed _me_".
Old Timer >>>> "human beings are not monogamous by nature."
Is it so ?
Would Old Timer include Adi Sankaracharya, Ramana Maharshi, Vivekananda, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Dayananda Saraswati, Mata Amritanandamayi etc., among human beings ?
>>>"Dawkins notes that there is astonishing variety in the mating habits of human societies, ranging from strict monogamy to promiscuity, and he says that this variety is determined by culture rather than genes."
Individual wisdom has no role to play in it ?
Perhaps its time indians started reading less of the trash produced by westerners and more of the worthwhile material produced by their anscestors.
Old Timers' comments seen on various blogs, btw, are generally very witty, often throught provoking and enjoyable.
Thank you.
/** Anybody who invokes "evolutionary psych" ought to know that human beings are not monogamous by nature. Mankind owes its survival and fitness to gene mixing, and gene mixing is at its most efficient with multiple partners. (Hark! Don't start yelling "you damned far-left radical hedonist!" I'm just explaining science only, not pushing for orgies). Dawkins notes that there is astonishing variety in the mating habits of human societies, ranging from strict monogamy to promiscuity, and he says that this variety is determined by culture rather than genes. I suggest you invest in a copy of his seminal ;) work "The Selfish Gene".
**/
Old Timer.. what you have said may be true.. and particularly in case of india.. We also had devadasi system where women are free to chose their partner, but their main role in practicisng temple arts..
Also, we had the family system, with so many women being pathi vratha..
but those are different case, and part of a culture and society..
But, in what category can we place the case of Nehru, eloping with Edwina (and as some one says, with mountbatten himself).. Is it part of any culture, except that its part of a man's awkward sexual weakness?
the problem with the 'selfish gene' and 'sociobiology' and all that is that it describes macro behavior (btw, i have no quarrel with dawkins, and i find him quite entertaining, because almost all the stuff he says applies only to the semitic death-cults). indeed, i posted some stuff here a while ago about how ethics and morality can come about as the result of enlightened self-interest without the intervention of a 'blind watchmaker'.
so your arguments, old, are flawed because they apply at the macro level to the mass of humans. if you or i (who don't matter) screw around with any number of partners, it is not an issue. but when a person in a position of power makes himself vulnerable to blackmail that's a cause for concern. as the saying goes, "ceasar's wife must be above suspicion". it is also true that many leaders were womanizers. for instance mao never brushed his teeth, but he had a few 13 year old girls available to him daily for um... refreshment.
where the nehru fellow fails is not in being a womanizer, but in showing utterly poor judgment in salivating after this tramp -- someone who was apparently bonking three guys simultaneously. so she was a woman one couldn't trust. who is to say she was not in the pay of some enemy group? who is to say she was not an early 'love jihadi'?
that's my point. i don't care if nehru was humping women left and right, so long as he did it discreetly and didn't endanger the country. but he was not discreet -- just look at the photo in the article (he looks like a servant laughing uproariously at the memsahib's not so funny jokes). and he sent the bloody indian navy frigate -- at whose expense, may i ask? -- to her goddamn funeral.
what nehru's screwing around with edwina shows is evidence -- if in fact we needed any -- that the guy had no judgement, no sense, no taste. he was a fool above all else.
i took another look at the pictures, and this woman is one plug-ugly broad. bony-assed, horse-faced, plain. why, the mountbatten fellow (and god knows the limey royals are no beauty queens) actually looks better than her, which takes some doing. so what was it, her personality, that nehru dug? (yeah, right, like i read playboy for the articles.)
Here is David Brooks' critique of using Evolutionary Psychology in trying to explain all aspects of human behavior.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/opinion/26brooks.html
===========================
According to Geoffrey Miller, driving an Acura, Infiniti, Subaru or Volkswagen is a sign of high intelligence. Driving a Cadillac, Chrysler, Ford or Hummer is a sign of low intelligence. Listening to Bjork is a sign of high intelligence, while listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd is a sign of low intelligence. Watching Quentin Tarantino movies is a sign of high openness. He theorizes that teenage girls may cut themselves as a way to demonstrate their ability to withstand infections.
Evolutionary psychology has had a good run. But now there is growing pushback. Sharon Begley has a rollicking, if slightly overdrawn, takedown in the current Newsweek. And “Spent” is a sign that the theory is being used to try to explain more than it can bear.
The first problem is that far from being preprogrammed with a series of hardwired mental modules, as the E.P. types assert, our brains are fluid and plastic. We’re learning that evolution can be a more rapid process than we thought. It doesn’t take hundreds of thousands of years to produce genetic alterations.
Moreover, we’ve evolved to adapt to diverse environments. Different circumstances can selectively activate different genetic potentials. Individual behavior can vary wildly from one context to another. An arrogant bully on the playground may be meek in math class. People have kaleidoscopic thinking styles and use different cognitive strategies to solve the same sorts of problems.
Evolutionary psychology leaves the impression that human nature was carved a hundred thousand years ago, and then history sort of stopped. But human nature adapts to the continual flow of information—adjusting to the ancient information contained in genes and the current information contained in today’s news in a continuous, idiosyncratic blend.
The second problem is one evolutionary psychology shares with economics. It’s too individualistic: individuals are born with certain traits, which they seek to maximize in the struggle for survival.
But individuals aren’t formed before they enter society. Individuals are created by social interaction. Our identities are formed by the particular rhythms of maternal attunement, by the shared webs of ideas, symbols and actions that vibrate through us second by second. Shopping isn’t merely a way to broadcast permanent, inborn traits. For some people, it’s also an activity of trying things on in the never-ending process of creating and discovering who they are.
The allure of evolutionary psychology is that it organizes all behavior into one eternal theory, impervious to the serendipity of time and place. But there’s no escaping context. That’s worth remembering next time somebody tells you we are hardwired to do this or that.
===============================
More here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_controversy
>>so your arguments, old, are flawed because they apply at the macro level to the mass of humans
I am not sure what argument of mine you say is flawed. I advanced the darwinian argument in a certain context: when our friend Harish claimed an evolutionary basis for sexual morality. I had to tell him that if he was looking for "scientific" justifications for monogamy, there aren't many.
I agree with much of what you say about Nehru but here's what I want to emphasize. Two separate issues are getting mixed up here:
1. Nehru's affair with Edwina
2. His subserving of India's interests to advance his love interests
#1 is irrelavent to judging whether he was a good guy or not.
By the same token, Edwina's sexual peccadillos are irrelevant to the larger question of her moral outlook. I'd like an argument built up from first principles, without invoking religion or social convention, showing that having multiple sexual partners within a consensual arrangement is "immoral". There's also the issue of fairness. Most languages don't seem to have a word for "oversexed male tramp". But women get called sluts. Feminists have a valid point when they say that conservative sexual mores are all about controlling female sexuality.
>> Old Timer -> "human beings are not monogamous by nature."
> Is it so ?
Scientific evidence indicates so.
>>Would Old Timer include Adi Sankaracharya .. among human beings?
I don't get the point. If I said that human beings are herbivores by nature (there are strong arguments that they are), would I have said that meat-eating people are not humans?
Can we assume that the makers of the upcoming movie "Indian Summer" do not have any political motivations?
Can we rule out any foreign forces kind of blackmailing Congress dynasty into making some concessions, otherwise face the consequences of highly damaging commercial film detailing Nehru's sexual escapades which would result in considerable hurt for Congress brand-value.
To all of those to whom this idea seems too far-fetched, let me remind you that Gandhi(1982) film by Richard Attenborough had received an overwhelming of assistance from Indian govt in it's making that some criticised that the movie is almost a public relations exercise to boost the brand value of Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.
your argument is flawed because you are not consistent. on the one hand you suggest that consenting adults can do whatever they want, yet in another post you said something like "provided they are not cheating". yes, here's the exact quote from you:
----- begin quote ----
I happen to think consensual sex between two adults is their personal matter, not for others to judge, unless there is a breach of trust (eg: cheating on the spouse) involved.
----- end quote ----
you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. if your argument is that the more the mixing of genes, the better, then why are you worried about such legal niceties as cheating on a spouse? you should be congratulating the gene-mixers.
besides, your perspective is a male-chauvinist perspective, because it is only the male who has the incentive to have multiple sexual partners, according to socio-biology. the male wants to ensure the survival of his genes, and the right way to do this is to impregnate as many females as possible (a la genghiz khan, who impregnated thousands -- there was an article about this a while ago which someone posted here).
from the female point of view, the best chance for the survival of *her* genes is that she find a loyal mate who will ensure that her *very large* investment of effort in her few offspring is not wasted: that is, she wants a mate who will ensure that her children (even if she has cheated him and they are not his) survive.
this is one of the reasons even scientifically that female infidelity is considered far more pernicious than male infidelity: apparently the societal rules about marriage etc were created by females to ensure males would not stray.
an interesting side theory of mine is that white limey women invented racism against indians because they were terrified that their limey guys in india would be attracted to the much more lovely and sexy indian women (which of course they were in large numbers) thus leaving no pickings for their "fishing fleet" of limey girls who took the boat to india in the hope of marrying some colonial.
thus women have always had a greater stake in fidelity. to oppose that does not make you a feminist. (and incidentally, that is probably the reason why there are far more words to describe a loose woman than a loose man -- the *feminists* invented them to ensure that rogue females wouldn't mess with their gene-survival plans.)
second, your argument is flawed because edwina was definitely cheating. she was married, so was the nehru fellow. so you are violating your own high moral principles when you accept their liaison.
and edwina was not just cheating on mountbatten. when she had 3 simultaneous boyfriends, she was cheating on each of them as well. sociobiologically, that is very undesirable as far as men are concerned too because at least 2 of them are always going to be cuckolds, raising a hypothetical child who didn't carry their genes. thus edwina was a total rogue female.
your sociobiology argument can, at best, support serial monogamy. i have no objection to that personally.
also, i agree with you that the bigger issue is whether nehru allowed his hormones to dictate what the country would do. i think he did, which makes him completely unfit to be a leader. compare him to, say, clinton. whatever you say about clinton, i doubt if he allowed that girl monica lewinsky or his dalliance with her affect the way he conducted foreign policy. for instance, he didn't give away half of texas to the mexicans just to please monica.
to summarize, it is hard to justify large-scale infidelity and screwing around, even sociobiologically.
and what the nehru fellow did was completely unpardonable because he allowed parts of his anatomy (other than his brain) to direct his policy making.
>>you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. if your argument is that the more the mixing of genes, the better, then why are you worried about such legal niceties as cheating on a spouse?
Fixated with this gene-mixing argument, aren't we? You are exhibiting the classic symptoms of a debater who enters in the middle of the argument. You will have a hard time piecing my exact quotes together showing that I placed my disagreement with conventional sexual morality in the context of evolutionary biology. Fact is, it is not I who introduced evolution into the argument; it is the atheistic Harish who shares _your_ sentiments on this subject. I had to disabuse him of the notion that monogamy is a darwinian response hardwired into our DNA. It is in this context I quote Dawkins. Except for use in that little diversion, the evolution argument holds no interest for me. In fact -- surprise -- I, like you, believe morality may have something to do with humans figuring out what's in their interest.
Once you sort out that debater-in-the-middle confusion, you'll see no contradiction in my stand. No, I do NOT advocate that it is moral for two consenting adults to screw under ANY circumstances. If a third party has a stake in the relationship, then 'consent' involves that party as well. I think this is self-evident, but if you insist I'll try and explain.
>>besides, your perspective is a male-chauvinist perspective, because it is only the male who has the incentive to have multiple sexual partners,
Well, I read contradictory theories. A woman's chance of reproductive success also, much like the male's, increases with mating with multiple partners. The parental investment theory suggests that humans trade off one opportunity to score reproductive success (multiple partners) with another (sharing in the nurturing of the offspring).
>>edwina was not just cheating on mountbatten. when she had 3 simultaneous boyfriends, she was cheating on each of them as well
Why, the poor sods. But seriously, did any of them expect commitment from her? When one is flirting with a "slut" one knows what one is getting into, right?
you asked for a scientific rationale for fidelity. i gave it to you, assuming sociobiology is right. it is enlightened self-interest, certainly for females. (see below).
as for your other assertion, it's a little much to claim that consensual sex between two adults is based on an agreement with all parties involved, including their spouses. that sounds pretty utopian and given our petty egos, most people are not in such wide-open relationships. (not to mention the fear of AIDS and other diseases).
99% of the time it's "consenting adults" who are doing it stealthily without their spouses knowing -- the consenting part clarifies it's not forced, ie. rape.
this, i believe the argument has been here, is immoral. you, obsessed with the wonders of gene-mixing, claim it is no such thing. i disagree.
i personally think it's a bad idea to have too much infidelity. i don't buy your argument that females benefit from multiple partners. if the objective of life, as per dawkins and sociobiology, is the propagation of one's genes, it isn't a very good mechanism. better to invest in one male who will protect you and your offspring.
this is what happens in nature and in history.
exhibit a: the city state of sparta. the men used to be attached to their military units, and formed intimate relationships there, and usually slept in the barracks and with their boyfriends. the women were allowed to mate with many men -- there was no proscription. result? women refused to have children, and in fact the spartans died out.
the opposite, of course, is the extreme oppression of female sexuality in mohammedanism, and guess what, these females produce offspring in droves, which is a successful sociobiological strategy for mohammedan males!
exhibit b: animal societies when the alpha male is displaced. i remember reading that with lions, and perhaps chimpanzee, when a new alpha male takes over, he usually murders all the infants, who are the progeny of the previous guy. and all the females go into receptive estrus simultaneously, so that they can have his offspring. this is an excellent example of investing in a male who can guarantee the females' genes will thrive. (the huge investment they made in the previous babies -- that they cold-bloodedly let go as "sunk cost").
Oldtimer >>> " >> Old Timer -> "human beings are not monogamous by nature."
> Is it so ?
Scientific evidence indicates so."
The "Is it so ?" was asked to stimulate independent thought, not seek the crutch of 'scientific evidence'. Western scientific evidence, like their fashion, keeps changing.
>>>> ">>Would Old Timer include Adi Sankaracharya .. among human beings?
I don't get the point. "
The point is this- if the statement 'human beings are not monogamous by nature' is accepted, which statement was meant to imply that humans are polygamous by nature, what does it mean for all those people who displayed neither monogamous, nor polygamous behaviour ?
Do you treat them as different from human beings ?
The point being, the definitions given by westerners are totally inadequate, restricted as they are to seeing the world through their distorted world view.
Even the so-called 'thinkers' among westerners like Dawkins and their 'scientists' are actually like terrestrial ants restricted to moving on material earth when compared to the ancient indian philosophers who like birds soared to heights of thought, intution and experience.
The point being, definitions given by westerners are always 'inadequate', too presumptuous, grossly one-sided and actually useless. It goes with their world view which is tinted with the color of self-interest, self-gratification and self-aggrandizement. A twisted worldview that prevents them from seeing world as it is.
Unfortunately that worldview is being increasingly accepted as 'the only world view' subconsciously by people world over due to sustained efforts by the west through military imperialism earlier followed by cultural imperialism now.
The TINA factor comes into play and people become processionary caterpillars (which is in the nature of the so-called 'religion' propagated by romans as part of their imperialistic design and which later shaped the western world view). Today the church shares western mind space with Dawkins and Hawkins. But the fundamentals that created the church shapes the thoughts and approach of dawkins and hawkins too. It is in the nature of selfish imperialistic apprach to have blinkers on, which prevents them from seeing or appreciating the whole picture.
The 'philosophies' and 'scientific evidences' of Dawkins and Hawkins therefore are as useful as what you would normally put in the trash can.
The whole point of the narrative being, the prevelant notion that humans are not monogamous or even that they are monogamous by nature needs to be reconsidered.
Indians have examples of many people who displayed neither monogamous nor polygamous tendencies. Their motivations were different. And such motivations are not obsolete. There are living persons who exemplify such life.
As to herbivorous or carnivorous, in India you may find people who are not any -vores at all (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q7pkfh1PN4&feature=PlayList&p=C79BD0A1CEFC68C7&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1).
Time to stop following the processionary caterpillars of materialistic flatworld. Time to realise ourselves to be birds of spiritual realm and to soar up on wings of intuition like our anscestors did.
Dhanyavaad.
Post a Comment