SubscribeYou would think that the whole nation has gone bonkers. One just has to express an opinion on just, lets say, the shade of red in those pavements across the street and its all over the papers the next day with a few no-good loafers out on the streets right next to your door in their pajamas ("that's in keeping with our culture as well as our freedom of expression; those noble souls who took the time and pains to draft an absolutely impartial constitution must be kicking themselves assuming that they are allowed to do so wherever they are, God bless") protesting against what they call "a moral outrage and a deep stirring of the soul".
Just take the Khushboo episode for instance. As is only natural, the media has confounded itself and the well meaning and, of course, "better be worth what I pay" readers by merrily mixing two issues. One is compelled to ask, 'Hey dude, what's the ruckus about?' Is the whole brouhaha (one likes using such words) on
(i) whether Khushboo, being a celebrity and as is the wont with all celebrities, having to carry the burden of being a responsible one, is allowed to air her views in a public forum keeping in view the grand tradition of the 'freedom of expression' (take a wild guess on where my sympathies lie),
OR
(ii) whether the idea of 'pre marital sex' as floated by Khushboo is a tenable and reasonable idea especially with the advent of AIDS.
On (ii), I reserve my comments. Advocating safe sex is an option. But advocating safe pre-marital sex? But well, to each his own. I still do enjoy my early morning naps.
Just take the Khushboo episode for instance. As is only natural, the media has confounded itself and the well meaning and, of course, "better be worth what I pay" readers by merrily mixing two issues. One is compelled to ask, 'Hey dude, what's the ruckus about?' Is the whole brouhaha (one likes using such words) on
(i) whether Khushboo, being a celebrity and as is the wont with all celebrities, having to carry the burden of being a responsible one, is allowed to air her views in a public forum keeping in view the grand tradition of the 'freedom of expression' (take a wild guess on where my sympathies lie),
OR
(ii) whether the idea of 'pre marital sex' as floated by Khushboo is a tenable and reasonable idea especially with the advent of AIDS.
On (ii), I reserve my comments. Advocating safe sex is an option. But advocating safe pre-marital sex? But well, to each his own. I still do enjoy my early morning naps.
3 comments:
I don't think either you agree blanketly the pre-maritial sex or oppose /protest the way it was opposed in chennai.
in the changing times we cannot totally deny the the old tradition /practice .Same way we cannot agree or accept as it is The "NEW" tradition or practice.
rather than looking the issue synically we need to think rationaly and scientificaly.
Pre-martital sex may be be the reality .Who knows .If it so we have to Accept it.
:) havent seen the word BROUHAHA used anywhere in a long LONG TIME!!! :) ... as for the khusboo issue, it was just a bomb waiting to explode i guess, old world fighting against the new.. as long as i get to walk the streets hand in hand with my girlfriend without being stopped and lynched.. im happy.... maybe..
premarital, post marital, extramarital, or homosexual..i think sex is a personal matter.. and should be left to individual choice.. and our society should just concentrate on other things to throw chappals and chat slogans against.... and there they stand such lovely targets those politicians and noone cares a damn about them... sigh..
I fully endorse with andy here. cant agree with him more. Sex is a very personal issue and it shud be left to an individual's choice.
IMHO, Khushboo was pulled up bcos she happened to mention pre-marital sex in the same lines as sex post marriage. She wanted to create an awareness with regard to safe sex irrespective of whether it is before or after marriage. as thamankar mentioned, sex before marriage is a reality these days and we cant close our eyes to it in the name of tradition. Its individual opinion whether one approves of it or not, but the fact is that sex is no more restricted only for marriage.
also keeping in mind the fact that the number of "singles" increasing today, do you mean to say that a person who decides to remain unmarried has no right to have a physical relationship? the need for a physical relationship is also a natural phenomenon.
Post a Comment