Sania's pre-marital sex comments

[Lucifer]

Well said, CAD!

About the virginity issue... I remember once during my second year of graduation one of my wingies and I were having a discussion on this. I told him that I did not expect my wife to be a virgin. He said that he expected his to be because, and I quote, "If I can control my urges till marriage then I expect her to control hers too". That was blah! It was like saying, "If I am a loser why should my wife not be?"

so according to you one who doesn't have sex before marriage is a loser? May god bless you


Having sex before or after marriages should be left to one's decision, he or she has the right to do whatever they want to do or say, but when talking/expressing views publicly one should behave responsibly, saying things like "one should not expect his wife to be a virgin" or "nobody can stop people from having premartial sex" publicly wont help. It conveys a message that everyone is expected to have premartial sex.

Now I'm not supporting the things done by PMK and their supporters to khusboo, every one knows what these politicians are upto, they just want enough issues which they can exploit to win the next elections.

RK, please read posts in their entirety before jumping the gun. This is the complete post:

Well said, CAD!

About the virginity issue... I remember once during my second year of graduation one of my wingies and I were having a discussion on this. I told him that I did not expect my wife to be a virgin. He said that he expected his to be because, and I quote, "If I can control my urges till marriage then I expect her to control hers too". That was blah! It was like saying, "If I am a loser why should my wife not be?"

Make no mistake, I am not promoting pre-marital sex here. But there are events in one's life where such things happen. Sex is among the most beautiful ways of making a union of souls. Not just the physical gratification, it is the mental bliss that one gets out of it that is difficult to get any other way.

At the same time, I do believe that it is wrong to indulge in sex when you have to pay for it. You are not only cheating yourself but also the long time partner you may have sometime in the future. And I don't care if paid sex is pre-marital or extra-marital. It is just wrong. If you want physical gratification then there is such a thing as self-help.

I had stated that I am not promoting pre-marital sex. That loser statement was more to lighten things up. If you don't have the context, ask and I will clarify.

[CtrlAltDel]

so according to you one who doesn't have sex before marriage is a loser?

he never said that... that was only an example...

...when talking/expressing views publicly one should behave responsibly, saying things like "one should not expect his wife to be a virgin" or "nobody can stop people from having premartial sex" publicly wont help. It conveys a message that everyone is expected to have premartial sex....

[bw]eh, kya? [/bw]



dirty minds read dirty meanings where none exist...

[RK]

oh, ok.

Good to know that you didn't mean that



may be you could have used a less intense statement like say "if I don't like skating, my wife should also not like skating", that wouldn't have resulted in the misunderstanding.



cheers

[RK]

so according to you one who doesn't have sex before marriage is a loser?

he never said that... that was only an example...

...when talking/expressing views publicly one should behave responsibly, saying things like "one should not expect his wife to be a virgin" or "nobody can stop people from having premartial sex" publicly wont help. It conveys a message that everyone is expected to have premartial sex....

[bw]eh, kya? [/bw]

dirty minds read dirty meanings where none exist...

may be CAD bhai, that might be the reason

[You'll agree I'm right HP]

I guess we are mixing up two very distinct things here - Pre-marital sex and underage sex. Pre-marital sex is a person's prerogative and nobody should preach anything regarding it whereas underage sex is completely wrong and should be curbed at all costs.



Coming to the statements that sparked up the controversy, I still feel the comments were wrong. When Sania was talking about pre-marital sex being something we cannot stop, though people should take care to play it safe, did she mean that married couples can have unsafe sex? And if she was talking about underage sex, it is wrong, with or without a condom. Bottomline - the term "pre-marital" should not have been in the statement at all. Would have been great had she been promoting safe sex, but this statement had a rider attached to it (pre-marital) that made the statement open to misunderstanding.



The media and vested political interests made it even more obnoxious with their handling of the issue. They turned the focus away from the core of the matter - safe sex and sex education.



P.S. for Betty : IMO, a parent who tells his 16 yr old child to have safe sex should be publicly lynched and hanged. And why should an uncle who teaches his nephew/neice about sex be called a pervert? Is guiding children the sole duty of parents? I don't see any perverseness in an uncle teaching his nephew/neice about sex.

[Clarifying Betty]

P.S. for Betty : IMO, a parent who tells his 16 yr old child to have safe sex should be publicly lynched and hanged. And why should an uncle who teaches his nephew/niece about sex be called a pervert? Is guiding children the sole duty of parents? I don't see any perverseness in an uncle teaching his nephew/neice about sex.

Well, if according to you: an uncle can teach his nephews/niece about sex and not his own children, then that is ridiculous. But then, I won't take up a debate on that issue just for the heck of playing with words, because that would dilute the actual meaning of what I said.

What I said, or rather, what I meant was, when B4S said that parents should not teach their children about sex, becuase they come to know about it from their uncle, it was ridiculous. Why shd my or my husband's brother be telling my kids about sex? Except if he is a psychiatrist, or student counsellor or their school teacher. If he is not any of these, I strongly believe that it is the prerogative of the parents and not any other relative to talk to their kids about an issue which is not only sensitive, but pretty delicate and might lead to serious consequences if the kids have incomplete and erroneous knowledge. And you can be sure that a 16-year old already tries to find out as much about sex as possible, and often their conclusions and knowledge are errorneous as the sources are dubious.

Along the same lines, I am surprised that you said that a parents who preaches safe sex to his/her 16-year old should be publicly lynched/hanged. Let's face it, if I have a daughter and if she is going around with someone when she is 16, i.e. at least another 16-17 years from now, we can almost be sure that there is a high chance of premarital sex, whether you tell her to go for it (which no parent does anyway) or sternly forbid her from going for it. So, at that age, either I keep my daughter locked or discuss it all with her. I'd prefer to have a precocious 16-year old daughter than a pregnant one.

When Sania was talking about pre-marital sex being something we cannot stop, though people should take care to play it safe, did she mean that married couples can have unsafe sex? .

As per B4S (I have not read the paper myself): sania also said,"Look, whether it's before or after marriage, people should have safe sex. "

Hope that answers your question.

Don't counter a 19-year old jsut because you personally don't like her. The point here is, will anyone, who make this statement be wrong in making it? And should that person be made to aplogize and retract his/her statement?

[WTF??? HP]

Well, if according to you: an uncle can teach his nephews/niece about sex and not his own children, then that is ridiculous.

The part of that quote in bold was something I never said.

What I said, or rather, what I meant was, when B4S said that parents should not teach their children about sex, becuase they come to know about it from their uncle, it was ridiculous.

I'd rather blame B4s' lack of articulation here. He meant something altogether different from what you understood. If you read his post a little more carefully, maybe you'll understand him better.

Why shd my or my husband's brother be telling my kids about sex? Except if he is a psychiatrist, or student counsellor or their school teacher. If he is not any of these, I strongly believe that it is the prerogative of the parents and not any other relative to talk to their kids about an issue which is not only sensitive, but pretty delicate and might lead to serious consequences if the kids have incomplete and erroneous knowledge.

How about an uncle who is very close to his nephew/neice? What if the parents are not close enough or are pretty conservative about sharing views on sex with their children? And how can you be sure that what comes from a parent is not going to be incomplete or erroneous? We should not be judgemental about things that are as subjective as this issue.

Along the same lines, I am surprised that you said that a parents who preaches safe sex to his/her 16-year old should be publicly lynched/hanged. Let's face it, if I have a daughter and if she is going around with someone when she is 16, i.e. at least another 16-17 years from now, we can almost be sure that there is a high chance of premarital sex, whether you tell her to go for it (which no parent does anyway) or sternly forbid her from going for it. So, at that age, either I keep my daughter locked or discuss it all with her. I'd prefer to have a precocious 16-year old daughter than a pregnant one.

I myself am a father to a daughter. I would rather teach my daughter to wait for the right age before going in for sex instead of telling her to make sure that her boyfriend has a condom on him when they go out. And if she does go for sex, safe or unsafe, inspite of me having counselled her on it, then there's seriously something wrong with my parenting. Let's face it - a 16 year old is not ready for sex at all, safe or unsafe. And the way you put it, if a child is going to go for sex whatever the case may be, how can you be sure he/she'll be having safe sex at all? Are you saying that a parent should snoop on his/her children? I hope you get my point.

As per B4S (I have not read the paper myself): sania also said,"Look, whether it's before or after marriage, people should have safe sex. "
Don't counter a 19-year old jsut because you personally don't like her. The point here is, will anyone, who make this statement be wrong in making it? And should that person be made to aplogize and retract his/her statement?

My advice to you would be to read the full post and not skim through it before jumping to conclusions. Nowhere in my post have I said anything against Sania personally. My objection was to the term "pre-marital" or "before marriage" in that statement. That inclusion is absolutely unnecessary. Would it have meant anything different if she had just said, "People should have safe sex."? Rather, the statement would have never been misinterpreted, nor would anyone have had to opportunity to create the furore that followed.



As far as apologising or retracting is concerned, that's not required. The damage is already done. But in future, celebrities should weigh their words properly before uttering them.

[CtrlAltDel]

...I would rather teach my daughter .........
................
................... me having counselled her on it...

AFAIK, the 'teaching' is the most important thing...andIMO, the parents are the best teachers. it can also be any trusted relative (an Uncle for example), but the person doing the 'teaching' should not spread disinformation and misconception.

[RK]

As far as apologising or retracting is concerned, that's not required. The damage is already done. But in future, celebrities should weigh their words properly before uttering them.

Rightly said, influential people when speaking in public should think twice when they are commenting on sensitive issues. Arguing that freedom of speech is a fundamental right and one can speak anything in public is meaningless.

[betty]

Well, if according to you: an uncle can teach his nephews/niece about sex and not his own children, then that is ridiculous.

The part of that quote in bold was something I never said..

And I said just after that that I am not going to debate just to play with words...maybe you didn't read that part.

[ I'd rather blame B4s' lack of articulation here. He meant something altogether different from what you understood. If you read his post a little more carefully, maybe you'll understand him better...

If you read his whole post about 100% Indian and 100% indian woman, maybe you would understand him better.

How about an uncle who is very close to his nephew/neice? What if the parents are not close enough or are pretty conservative about sharing views on sex with their children? ...

The question is not about what can be done, the statement, the original one (feeling like a character in a douglas adams book) made by B4S was: 'parents need not teach about sex to their children because they know about it from other sources' and he mentioned 'uncle' as one of the sources.

I disagreed with it, so would you, if you read that whole statement carefully.

As for your question: if my kid is closer to his/her uncle than with me, there is something wrong with me. And in that case, it is absolutely right for an uncle to tell his niece/nephews about delicate issues.

And how can you be sure that what comes from a parent is not going to be incomplete or erroneous? We should not be judgemental about things that are as subjective as this issue. ...

To answer it in one line, I am sure simply because I know I am correct and I'll doublechcek to make sure that I am correct when it comes to imparting information to my kid.
To be more precise, when I talked about errroneous information, I meant information from half-baked sources like movies, magazines, friends, etc. So, to re-iterate, this mis-information can be dangerous and parents need to set it right, after being sure themselves about their source of information.

I myself am a father to a daughter. I would rather teach my daughter to wait for the right age before going in for sex instead of telling her to make sure that her boyfriend has a condom on him when they go out. .

So, what according to you is the 'right' age?
And why will your daughter agree with you that her age is not the 'right' age? People specifically do what they are warned against, and 16 is a dangerous, rebellious time, when you think you can take on the world and ur parents dont know anything. So, you cannot 'teach' your daughter, you can only 'discuss' with her, by which it means, you give a due weightage to her opinion.
In my case, I'd give her 'information', and back it up with the source of information, in your case, you will give her your 'opinion'. My job is easier or maybe it is just the difference between a mother and a father's view of how to deal with a 16-year old.

And if she does go for sex, safe or unsafe, inspite of me having counselled her on it, then there's seriously something wrong with my parenting. .

There might be - you have been too controlling and judgemental.
And then again, I wouldn't even judge her behaviour, I would assume it to be an impulse or something natural...because even now, I have known 16-year olds and their behaviour, so can actually anticipate it to happen 16-17 years from now anyway.

Let's face it - a 16 year old is not ready for sex at all, safe or unsafe. .

'Ready' is a very relative term, and it is easy to speak that way when you are double that age.

And the way you put it, if a child is going to go for sex whatever the case may be, .

You have to face it....a 16-year old is not a child anymore, try calling anyone a 'kid' when he/she is 16-year old.

how can you be sure he/she'll be having safe sex at all? .

I can never be sure, but I can be sure she has the right information. After that, it's her call. But at least, I would not close my eyes and believe that I have brought up my daughter the 'right' way and she will never indulge in pre-marital sex....

Are you saying that a parent should snoop on his/her children? I hope you get my point..

I never said that....can't even understand how you got that idea. My idea of parenting, is not that of controllling, but that of understanding.

My objection was to the term "pre-marital" or "before marriage" in that statement. That inclusion is absolutely unnecessary. Would it have meant anything different if she had just said, "People should have safe sex."? .

You quoted my words, you did not quote your question along with it, I copied and pasted those words to answer your question jsut before that

To answer this question which you have raised, no, it would not have been different. But the words seem like an answer to a question. It must have been that the reporter was asking her about her reactions to khushboo's words, or her opinion about safe pre-marital sex, so the words 'before and after marriage' crawled in.

If they did not have those words, the reporter would not have printed them anyway, right?

As far as apologising or retracting is concerned, that's not required. The damage is already done. But in future, celebrities should weigh their words properly before uttering them.

The difference being, I don't think there was any damage done.

[The Parent HP]

Well, if according to you: an uncle can teach his nephews/niece about sex and not his own children, then that is ridiculous.

The part of that quote in bold was something I never said..

And I said just after that that I am not going to debate just to play with words...maybe you didn't read that part.

Well...that's exactly what you did...play with words...your quote completely miscontrued (sp?) what I said.

[ I'd rather blame B4s' lack of articulation here. He meant something altogether different from what you understood. If you read his post a little more carefully, maybe you'll understand him better...

If you read his whole post about 100% Indian and 100% indian woman, maybe you would understand him better.

The question is not about what can be done, the statement, the original one (feeling like a character in a douglas adams book) made by B4S was: 'parents need not teach about sex to their children because they know about it from other sources' and he mentioned 'uncle' as one of the sources.

I disagreed with it, so would you, if you read that whole statement carefully.

Exactly what I meant by lack of articulation. What he really meant was that kids will learn about sex from various sources even if their parents don't talk to them about it.

As for your question: if my kid is closer to his/her uncle than with me, there is something wrong with me. And in that case, it is absolutely right for an uncle to tell his niece/nephews about delicate issues.

And how can you be sure that what comes from a parent is not going to be incomplete or erroneous? We should not be judgemental about things that are as subjective as this issue. ...

To answer it in one line, I am sure simply because I know I am correct and I'll doublechcek to make sure that I am correct when it comes to imparting information to my kid.
To be more precise, when I talked about errroneous information, I meant information from half-baked sources like movies, magazines, friends, etc. So, to re-iterate, this mis-information can be dangerous and parents need to set it right, after being sure themselves about their source of information.

Please note that I said you shouldn't be judgemental with such subjective issues. Maybe you'll be a good parent, but then how can you vouch for the millions of other parents walking this earth? Just because you do something in a particular manner, doesn't mean that it'll be uniform for the rest of humankind. And this discussion wasn't about how you deal with your kids. It was something very generic, and hence, subjective.

I myself am a father to a daughter. I would rather teach my daughter to wait for the right age before going in for sex instead of telling her to make sure that her boyfriend has a condom on him when they go out. .

So, what according to you is the 'right' age?

According to me, the right age is after one turns 18. And this is the universal medical view too. Now don't bring in the argument about the age of puberty etc. varying from person to person. A 16 yr old is not yet ready for sex because of several reasons a doctor would be more suited to deliberate. Is there one around who can remove Betty's erroneous views about the right age for sex?

And why will your daughter agree with you that her age is not the 'right' age? People specifically do what they are warned against, and 16 is a dangerous, rebellious time, when you think you can take on the world and ur parents dont know anything. So, you cannot 'teach' your daughter, you can only 'discuss' with her, by which it means, you give a due weightage to her opinion.

My daughter will agree with me about the right age thing because of the way I'll be bringing her up. In my case, I'll always be a friend and never a parent. A true friend that is. I know that 16 is a rebellious age. I've passed through it myself. But a 16 yr old gets rebellious only if parents try to impose their views on him/her. And that's something I'll never do. As far as giving a due weightage to her opinion is concerned, yes, I will give it the due weightage. Which in no way means agreeing to everything she says for the fear of rebellion.

Be it any relation, effective communication involves understanding. And when you discuss something, you understand the other person's point of view and then present yours in relation with that. The modus operandus is pretty simple. You understand what the other person has to say. And if you agree with it, its the end of discussion. If you don't you present your viewpoint and also explain why you feel so. And the chain continues.

In my case, I'd give her 'information', and back it up with the source of information, in your case, you will give her your 'opinion'. My job is easier or maybe it is just the difference between a mother and a father's view of how to deal with a 16-year old.

Again you're being judgemental. How did you come to the conclusion that I'll be giving my daughter my "opinion" (read imposing my views)?

And if she does go for sex, safe or unsafe, inspite of me having counselled her on it, then there's seriously something wrong with my parenting. .

There might be - you have been too controlling and judgemental.
And then again, I wouldn't even judge her behaviour, I would assume it to be an impulse or something natural...because even now, I have known 16-year olds and their behaviour, so can actually anticipate it to happen 16-17 years from now anyway.

Well....me being controlling and judgemental vis-a-vis my daughter is not the only reason why she could go in for sex at the age of 16-17. There can be many other reasons for it. But they're beyond the scope of the topic here. So, I'd rather not get into them. But the bottomline for any of those reasons would be some flaw in my parenting.

And then again, where did I talk about judging my daughter's behaviour here? I was judging my parenting...and that too with an IF. and by saying that you would anticipate something like that happening, do you mean to say that every 16-17 yr old has sex? And do you really find it natural?

Let's face it - a 16 year old is not ready for sex at all, safe or unsafe. .

'Ready' is a very relative term, and it is easy to speak that way when you are double that age.

I've already answered that above.

And the way you put it, if a child is going to go for sex whatever the case may be, .

You have to face it....a 16-year old is not a child anymore, try calling anyone a 'kid' when he/she is 16-year old.

My mother still calls me beta. And I've never felt anything odd about it. Do you feel it abnormal when your parents call you so?

Anyways, I concede that it was a wrong choice of words there. Maybe the words boy or girl would have been more appropriate. But that happens when you're typing long posts. And it was you who said you're not going to debate just to play with words.

how can you be sure he/she'll be having safe sex at all? .

I can never be sure, but I can be sure she has the right information. After that, it's her call. But at least, I would not close my eyes and believe that I have brought up my daughter the 'right' way and she will never indulge in pre-marital sex....

Do you think a parent's responsibility ends with giving the boy or girl the right information? I'll go that extra step and make sure that my daughter appreciates and understands the right information I've given her. I'm not one to say that I'd given my daughter the right information and if she still went ahead with doing something wrong, that's her problem. And no, looking at the way you see parenting, I'll keep my eyes open longer than you.

Are you saying that a parent should snoop on his/her children? I hope you get my point..

I never said that....can't even understand how you got that idea. My idea of parenting, is not that of controllling, but that of understanding.

If you think again, you'll notice that your idea of parenting stops at giving the kids the right information and understanding their natural impulses if they end up doing something wrong.

As far as my idea of parenting is concerned, its not at all about controlling, but bringing up kids in a way that their sense of judgement is not impaired by natural impulses.

My objection was to the term "pre-marital" or "before marriage" in that statement. That inclusion is absolutely unnecessary. Would it have meant anything different if she had just said, "People should have safe sex."? .

You quoted my words, you did not quote your question along with it, I copied and pasted those words to answer your question jsut before that

To answer this question which you have raised, no, it would not have been different. But the words seem like an answer to a question. It must have been that the reporter was asking her about her reactions to khushboo's words, or her opinion about safe pre-marital sex, so the words 'before and after marriage' crawled in.

If they did not have those words, the reporter would not have printed them anyway, right? [/quote]

I've said earlier that the media is equally to blame in the entire episode. And if you keep defending her comments on the lines of "ohh! leave her alone. She's just 19.", I'll show you umpteen 19 year olds and even younger people who have a much saner head on their shoulders. Why go far? Take our own Rocky for instance.

As far as apologising or retracting is concerned, that's not required. The damage is already done. But in future, celebrities should weigh their words properly before uttering them.

The difference being, I don't think there was any damage done.

Do you think that this huge albeit unnecessary controversy wasn't any damage at all?

[RK]

Yeah, what were Sania's comments ?

Khushboo's comment was 'Men should not expect their wives to be virgins'.

The way some lunatics in TN have reacted to that statement makes me wonder whether we are living in the 21st century.

Just wanted to get this 21st century thing right.

Do you mean that pre martial sex in India in the 21st century is a common thing?

Me and my friends are all in their early twenties and according to my knowledge nobody has ever had sex till date. Is it that we were living in caves all these years or are you over estimating the figures?

[ef]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Bapre!!!!!!!!!!..... almost 99.99% of ppl are sania fan's or supporters here!!!!!



thank god! now i can answer all those fools about the questions they raised..!!!!!!!





well guys...........

its me 19 years guy doing my grad..in one of the best college in hyd..

am a great fan of sania...i blindly support for her in what ever she do....but most of my friends....are against sania....they say that sania is black mark to islam..shhe should be kicked out of islam n india....

i donno how to defend her all these dayz...

i think, now i can well defend ..............







thankz... a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . specially for CAD

[CtrlAltDel]

was this discussion abt sania or what she n others commented?

[Aquarian81]

What are perfect example of a comment made by a public figure being blown WAY out of proportion. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. What was so bad about her comments that people reacted so bitterly? From what I saw in the Hindi Zee News, it wasnt at all such a big huge deal, it was her opinion, she made it and thats it. Why are her statements being over analyzed, and why is she being taunted?

[Clarifying HP]

What are perfect example of a comment made by a public figure being blown WAY out of proportion. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. What was so bad about her comments that people reacted so bitterly? From what I saw in the Hindi Zee News, it wasnt at all such a big huge deal, it was her opinion, she made it and thats it. Why are her statements being over analyzed, and why is she being taunted?

Well...she made a statement in front of camera. And it was on a controversial topic. So reactions were bound to be there. And she too should have known beforehand that not all of them would be complimentary.



What was wrong about her comment? I've already mentioned above that the inclusion of the phrase "before or after marriage" was irresponsible, if not wrong.

[DQ]

What was wrong about her comment?
I've already mentioned above that the inclusion of the phrase "before or after marriage" was irresponsible, if not wrong.

Is this not what everybody is trying to explain.



Let me recap.



Sanias Comment

"“You don’t want me to tell you that you have safe sex, whether it is before or after marriage. Everyone must know what he or she is doing.”"



1. the phrase "before or after" aha.

Why then do you also not read the phrase "every one must know what he or she is doing". and if that every one strongly beleives (through mum- dad - uncle ). Then he / she should refrain from it simple.



2. Its about awareness dude.

Mum - Dad - Uncle should educate their children about sex, and if religion - society - morals do not allow pre martial sex then they should educate children on that too.



3. What do the Fanatical ABVP and Jamat (whatever) activists want to prove, that their scriptures are so weak that as soon as a Sania or Kushboo makes a public statement every unmarried person will adhere to it and have pre martial sex?



Irresponsible who are you to deem it irresponsible ?

Why dont you peep within yourself first, look at the overdose (of illicit relationships etc) that is being screened into everyhome, you should consider yourself lucky that immature people like Sania and Kushboo have the guts to speak about something that needs more education then what is being imparted.



Leave it on Uncles to sort it out and you will be reeling with perverted Uncles (in cases they could be paedophilic too) abusing your kids.



Think again before you support a tirade.....

[CtrlAltDel]

i agree with DQ!!!!!!!

[Alexis]

I agree with DQ as well.

[betty]

Right DQ, absolutely true!!!

[CtrlAltDel]

DQ must be really thrilled today! all of us agreeing with him!!!!!

[WTF??? HP]

I'm replying to everyone who said they are agreeing with this paki in Indian garb. Had no one agreed, I would not have replied to his comments.

What was wrong about her comment?
I've already mentioned above that the inclusion of the phrase "before or after marriage" was irresponsible, if not wrong.

Is this not what everybody is trying to explain.

Everyone is saying what she said is correct and interpreting my posts as what she said was wrong. All I have to say is that the inclusion of the said phrase makes it open to misinterpretations and that's exactly what has happened.

I'm not saying she had any ulterior motive in mind while saying what she said. Its just that sometimes, certain innocous looking things end up being very damaging. This is a nice case in point.

Sanias Comment
"“You don’t want me to tell you that you have safe sex, whether it is before or after marriage. Everyone must know what he or she is doing.”"

UNI reported it as ''Look, whether it's before or after marriage, people should have safe sex. And about pre-marriage sex, you can't stop people and hence the best way is to play it safe''

Now there is a lot of difference between what you quoted and what UNI quoted officially.

1. the phrase "before or after" aha.
Why then do you also not read the phrase "every one must know what he or she is doing". and if that every one strongly beleives (through mum- dad - uncle ). Then he / she should refrain from it simple.

I have no problem with anything in the comment except for the phrase "before or after marriage" which I feel should not have been there for reasons I've explained umpteen times in this thread. The rest of the statement was fine...absolutely no problems.

And for one last time, let me explain why I feel the phrase changed the entire connotation of her comment.

When you use the phrase "before or after marriage", you are inadverently bringing in the issue of pre-marital sex, which is not the issue under focus here. Sania, Karthikeyan and the russian beauty queen were there for an anti-AIDS awareness campaign and the stress should have been on safe sex rather than pre-marital sex. The irresponsible wording of the comment left it open to misinterpreation by trouble-makers. And thats what happened, didn't it?

My point here is not to put down Sania; but to say that celebrities should make sure to weigh their words before they speak.

2. Its about awareness dude.
Mum - Dad - Uncle should educate their children about sex, and if religion - society - morals do not allow pre martial sex then they should educate children on that too.

Why do you have those smileys around uncle? Why do people consider it the sole prerogative of parents to educate their children about sex and other issues? Had "uncle" been so funny had it been a physics or sanskrit lesson? Another example of how innocous looking things shift focus from the main issue in question, which in this case was elders educating children on matters of sex. By the way, I agree with the comment in spirit. Elders should educate children about all matters related to sex.

3. What do the Fanatical ABVP and Jamat (whatever) activists want to prove, that their scriptures are so weak that as soon as a Sania or Kushboo makes a public statement every unmarried person will adhere to it and have pre martial sex?

That's their viewpoint and I never condoned it. I've been calling them all troublemakers since the beginning.

Irresponsible who are you to deem it irresponsible ?
Why dont you peep within yourself first, look at the overdose (of illicit relationships etc) that is being screened into everyhome, you should consider yourself lucky that immature people like Sania and Kushboo have the guts to speak about something that needs more education then what is being imparted.

When an adult has sex, whether before or after marriage is his own prerogative and nobody should comment on pre-marital sex being right or wrong. This is what Khushboo did.

When you are talking about safe sex, you don't bring in the rider of "before or after marriage" into the scope of discussion. This is what Sania did.

And due to these reasons, I've called them irresponsible.

Leave it on Uncles to sort it out and you will be reeling with perverted Uncles (in cases they could be paedophilic too) abusing your kids.

Haven't you heard of parents also abusing their children? Going by your logic, nobody should educate them about sex cuz. there's an inherent risk everywhere.

Think again before you support a tirade.....

My views were not supporting any tirade. If you see carefully and try to understand what I'm saying, you'll see that I've looked at the issue from an entirely different perspective. I'm neither supporting the popular fundamentalist view, which I feel is regressive to say the least; nor am I supporting those who feel there's nothing wrong with the comments, which I feel is psuedo-cool in the name of 21st Century thought.



Do you all still agree with the traitor?

[CtrlAltDel]

arre...HP, u are raining on his parade...

[DQ]

DQ must be really thrilled today! all of us agreeing with him!!!!!

WTF...if everybody starts agreeing its doomsday at these threads (for me).

[DQ]

I'm replying to everyone who said they are agreeing with this paki in Indian garb. Had no one agreed, I would not have replied to his comments.

Do you all still agree with the traitor?

Now thers is no cure to your self proclaimed status of a nationlist.

"Traitor", something that I have learnt to ignore from Grade 1. Its your types, who will continue to ride the wave of hatered, and forment it.

Well this was highligted so that others who are following this thread do not come back at a later stage blaming me for trying to sway this thread.

It also clearly shows that a logical discussion cannot be had with your types, you will continue to dwell in your baja.

Everyone is saying what she said is correct and interpreting my posts as what she said was wrong. All I have to say is that the inclusion of the said phrase makes it open to misinterpretations and that's exactly what has happened.

Is this not what exactly what Aqua81 said

What are perfect example of a comment made by a public figure being blown WAY out of proportion. Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. What was so bad about her comments that people reacted so bitterly? From what I saw in the Hindi Zee News, it wasnt at all such a big huge deal, it was her opinion, she made it and thats it. Why are her statements being over analyzed, and why is she being taunted?

To which you replied.

Well...she made a statement in front of camera. And it was on a controversial topic. So reactions were bound to be there. And she too should have known beforehand that not all of them would be complimentary.

What was wrong about her comment? I've already mentioned above that the inclusion of the phrase "before or after marriage" was irresponsible, if not wrong.

Which implies that
1. You do not concur with her views.
2. You also consider her comments irresponsible if not wrong (which you would prefer to consider0

To that a simple query why the hullaboo.
Its made its gone, lot of people consider it logical some may not end of matter.

Now whats so anti-national, unindian about it, many of us fail to understand.
The actons of ABVP and Jamaats are more of a threat and anti national to secular India then those comments.

I have no problem with anything in the comment except for the phrase "before or after marriage" which I feel should not have been there for reasons I've explained umpteen times in this thread. The rest of the statement was fine...absolutely no problems.

And for one last time, let me explain why I feel the phrase changed the entire connotation of her comment.

When you use the phrase "before or after marriage", you are inadverently bringing in the issue of pre-marital sex, which is not the issue under focus here. Sania, Karthikeyan and the russian beauty queen were there for an anti-AIDS awareness campaign and the stress should have been on safe sex rather than pre-marital sex. The irresponsible wording of the comment left it open to misinterpreation by trouble-makers. And thats what happened, didn't it?

My point here is not to put down Sania; but to say that celebrities should make sure to weigh their words before they speak.

Now one way you say you accept what she said is ok, then you start walking the talk of the demonstrators.

Come out with your stand ?

On Pre martial sex, it does exist all around the world and the hushing away of such topics in the name of culture, stigma etc is just a fars if we do not discuss this in the open we risk inviting untold miseries on the masses.

Hushing away may have been ok a 100 years back, but today if forward looking steps are not taken we are inviting AIDS to rise in epidemic propotions.

Why do you have those smileys around uncle? Why do people consider it the sole prerogative of parents to educate their children about sex and other issues? Had "uncle" been so funny had it been a physics or sanskrit lesson? Another example of how innocous looking things shift focus from the main issue in question, which in this case was elders educating children on matters of sex. By the way, I agree with the comment in spirit. Elders should educate children about all matters related to sex.

If you were a wee bit aware of the realities that exist in our "Indian" society you wouldn't have made this comment.



The innocous looking comment on "Uncle" here does not refer to elders in any way.

Elders talking about sex and safe sex, huh.

Pick at random a 100 men and try to discuss just the word "condom' with them, will help throw some light on education here.



I am not sure if our resident expert CAD will agree but here is what happens in the name of sex education in our society.



Most women before marriage have very little or no clue about love making or Sex or Safe Sex.



Men, and their uncleted education. The uncle is usually the local goonda, the outspoken member of the community or in very rare cases of the family.



How does he educate?

Among the ways he educates.

1. Discusses or taunts the boy about the size of the Penis.

2. Tells him in what quantity dry fruits need to be eaten to increase the size.

3. Some one whose marriage is approaching in counselled in the following ways

- some cases taken to a prostitute to teach him how to screw.

- Palang tod pan is given

- various stories of what happened on peoples first nights are told, and none of them have had less then 6 rounds.



With all this in mind what happens invariably is nothing less then rape. Making women bleed - scream are considered acts of valor.



talk about elders and education. if you have the guts run a survey, enter every marriage hall and ask the groom if he has purchased condoms.



Grooms in their mid 30s expect one of their married friend to gift them a condom as they are too shy to buy one of their own.



Aplogies if this description has gone graphic but this is the sad reality.

No wonder we have these youth burning effigies of Women who dared to speak.

And it gets more appaling when even this is given a nationlistic flavor and these women are termed a shame on "Tamilism" Hinduism" "Islam' "Indianness"



And the following News clippet illustrates that neither is the Judicary amused at these demonstrations.



"Kushboo case: HC directs DGP to file action taken report

- -

Chennai: The Madras High Court on Thursday directed the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) to file a report on the action taken by the state police, against those who staged agitation against actress Kushboo for her controversial remarks on pre-marital sex"