| By Russ on Saturday, September 04, 1999 - 10:06 pm: |
Hello,
Please forgive me for intruding if I have not succeeded in finding the most relevant forum for this message.
My partner and I are looking for someone who lives in India to act as a relationship scout or agent for us.
Many Canadians are now exploring non-traditional family/relationship models such as polyamory, which simply means plural love. Families are created in which more than two adults are bonded by love. My female partner and I are seeking this dynamic type of lifestyle and we believe India is a good place to look.
We have always been fascinated by the Indian culture and find the Indian women to be very alluring.
We seek a nice Indian girl who would like to become a Canadian citizen - by marriage and live a long happy life as a full partner in our loving relationship. She should enjoy children, be under twenty five years old, be drug and disease free, and be able to speak some English.
She should also be bisexual or at least open to this lifestyle, as she will be joining with myself (male) as well as my female partner - who is soon to have a baby.
We would like to exchange correspondence and photos - to get to know her and learn as much about her dreams and desires as possible.
We will give our Indian girl a very warm and loving home here in Canada, and she will be treated with kindness and deepest respect. We would also very much wish for her to birth a child of her own if she desires this, but either way, she will become a second mother to our child that is on the way.
If you know of a nice girl who would welcome the extraordinary life we offer, or if you would consider being our agent to help us find her, please send us email and introduce yourself. We know this idea may sound a little unusual, but we are very sincere and honest and believe strongly that love need not be limited to only one partner. It is boundless.
Thank you and be well.
Russ, Pamela, and the little spark
| By Joseph on Saturday, September 04, 1999 - 10:38 pm: |
To Russ,
Yours is a rather an intriguing post. Your belief that you may find a female partner in India for polyamory lifestayle may have something to do with mystic India holds in average westerner's mind, and also exposure to ashram lifestyle run by people like Rajanish.
On the contarary, Indian life style or for that matter eastern lifestyle do not support the polygamic or polyamoric relationships. Gone are the days of maharajas and sultans who had harems, and asharams like Rajnish's had overwhelmingly westereners as followers. The reason Rajnish had to establish his roots in oregon was the dislike by Indians of his preachings on such lifestyle.
Chances of finding female who believes in polyamory are as slim or worse in India than in Canada. You have better chance in Utah than in India. I would suggest that you do little more research on India, visit the country and that may give you first hand information and help you re-focus your efforts. Good luck.
| By Princess on Sunday, September 05, 1999 - 12:23 am: |
Russ,
I have a rather different type of question to ask you. Say in a perfect world you will find a woman to share your marriage. (I seriously doubt of finding anyone Indian but regardless)
What kind of morals and values are you going to raise your child in?
How are you going to deal with his conflicts and problems as he grows up in a "normal" society with only two parents?
How will you cope with simple issues like sleeping with two women as your child grows up?
How are you going to legalize such a marriage/partnership?
How will you survive the mockery and pointing of the society you live in?
I find it hard to believe that this type of arrangement is anything other then a sexual arrangement. Please prove me otherwise if I'm wrong.
| By Ramesh on Sunday, September 05, 1999 - 06:39 am: |
I agree with Jeseph in this issue of Polygamy. Chances of getting such a woman in India are slim. Its difficult to for the society and culture to accept such relationship. Personally I feel this would not be healthy relationship.
India has a long and rich history. As per my knowledge, there was a cult called Charvakas who believed in polygamic relationship. It became popular for some time but it did not last.
In modern India people do not accept such relationships readily. So its difficult to find a girl with good background and understanding agreeing to such relationship. As Joseph suggested, Why don't you go to India and find out for yourself about the country and traditions and culture.
For confuseddesi, just be more practical and give more thought visualizing yours and others future.
Thanks
| By confuseddesi on Sunday, September 05, 1999 - 06:44 am: |
Thanks Savarna, Ramesh for the guidance! The thought of children did not cross my mind.
| By Savarna on Sunday, September 05, 1999 - 10:21 pm: |
Russ,
I agree with the other posters. First of all, homosexuality or bisexuality is not really an open topic in India, from what I understand. The chances of finding a person with such sexual preferences, esp. in India, would be difficult. Second, as the others posted, India is a very conservative society when it comes to family values and traditional roles.
You might have better luck searching the gay/bisexual magazines and personal ads in large cities in the U.S. and Canada. New York and San Fransisco are good places to start, as they have large gay/bisexual communites and they also have large Indian populations.
Princess asks some good questions about child-rearing, but I have seen very happy non-traditional families, everywhere from single parent families to gay families that have two men or two women raising the children. Our own children will be bi-cultural, being raised as Amerians and as Indians. They will come to undestand that humans are unique and diverse. I have gay friends and straight friends and ones in-between, some with children and some without. The children I have seen are cherished, loved, and secure. In any case, I'm sure that you have already thought about how to raise your child/ren.
I am, however, concerned that you are choosing someone based on their race and culture, rather than their personality. Just as Canadians are a diverse group, so are Indians. Some are religious and some are not. Some are Hindu and some are Christian, and some are athiest. Value a person for their personality and character, not for their national origin. Most Indians do not fit the stereotype that the west has for some exotic-looking, almond-eyed, deva. They are just normal people.
Good luck,
Savarna
| By Anonymous on Monday, September 06, 1999 - 07:04 am: |
Nowadays on the internet (hotmail classified- personal columns) there are many Indian women (living in India) seeking lesbian partners. These include married and not married Indian women. Internet have made many people lives easier. Most of the ads are for lesibian relationships. India is becoming liberated very quickly. There are homosexual magazines also available.
| By Russ on Monday, September 06, 1999 - 06:06 pm: |
Hello Joseph, Savarna, Princess, and Ramesh.
Thank you for all your comments, I appreciate your taking an interest in my post, and I’ll try to offer a response that satisfies some of the points that you have raised. First to you Joseph: Your hypothesis regarding our motivation for seeking an Indian mate is a bit off the mark. We are by no means “average westerners” though admittedly it’s kind of nice, every now and then at least, to be labeled thusly.
Pam and I share little if any of the westerners mystic reverence of which you speak. I actually had to go look up the identity of your Rajinish Ashram character, but I began to lose interest when a lot of “hits” turned up which featured the word ‘yoga.’
No, our choice of India has little to do with ancient Hinduism, Raja Raja, or the like. Although India has as had a long and rich history, as Ramesh stated, our interest in its culture is more with respect to the past few years and, of course, its future. I suppose I ought to have known who Ashram was, but I confess that I really don’t find Utah very interesting at all. The Indians who inspire Pam and myself most are more of the Gora and Lavisham ilk and of course Mahatma Gandhi himself.
Sure, we’ve got a bit of a warm spot for the fabled almond eyed beauties, Savarna, - and who wouldn’t? Still, we know full well that not all Indian women look like that.
We still believe India is the perfect place to find our dream girl, and I’m surprised that you all are so confident that no such woman exists there. Of the roughly three hundred million women living in India, if not a one were capable of stepping outside of the “traditional” family mold, that would be sad tragedy indeed. You must be over-generalizing the matter based upon your own prejudices.
I’m honestly struck by the sheer volume of sweeping assumptions you all have made based on so little data. Our primary reasons for seeing India as a good choice are mainly as follows:
- India’s population is very dense, while the population here in Canada is not - this would surely appeal to some women who want to raise a family without feeling crowded.
- We have heard that Indian females are not always seen as equal to men. Princess’ repeated reference to our unborn child as “he” for example tends to support this view. Yet as strange as it may seem, I am actually hoping for a daughter – though I will completely love whatever I happen to get.
- We believe that a woman’s basic biological instinct to see her children raised in a caring home, that is both safe and pleasant, greatly supercedes all other concerns.
- India will soon be wrapped up in a cold war with Pakistan, one that has the very real potential of becoming hot. The US and Russia came far closer to nuclear war than most people realize – far closer indeed. The sad possibility that a flock of geese or whatever might be taken as an incoming missile strike by either India or Pakistan is very real and sobering. While it is not common knowledge, a black bear climbing over a fence at a military installation in North Dakota once brought the world very close to world war three - somewhat of an horrible embarrassment to the US.
As to what we will we tell our children about life - how bout some of these.
“Dad, why do I have two Mommies?” (age 2)
- Because you are very lucky and very special.
“But most other kids have just one” (age 4)
- Many different ideas about ‘family’ exist throughout the world. All the choices are good if they make the people involved happy. There will always be someone who disapprove of our choices, honey. If you choose to be a Christian, most Muslims will think you are wrong. If you choose to be a Muslim, then vice versa. The world is full of people who will disagree with you, but that is exactly what makes it so interesting.
“Daddy I think I want to be a poly girl too” (age 6)
- That’s fine dear, but just don’t be a lawyer, because life’s a lot easier when at least one other person likes you.
As to Princess’ other questions, we are already part of a poly network of families, so there is certainly plenty of support to go around. Most of our society doesn’t point fingers at those who choose a different path anymore - the majority, it seems, have moved well beyond that immature stage.
The morals that we will represent to our children are about respect and tolerance for others, a dedication to the environment, humane treatment of animals, the pursuit of truth and justice, acknowledgement of human rights and equality, and a deep reverence for the richness and diversity of love and sexuality.
As to the question of the legality of the relationship – Polyamory is legal in Canada and as I am not legally married to Pamela, I will be free to marry our Indian girl to gain citizenship for her. The marriage will merely be a paper one though as relationships in Canada are considered valid or 'marital' whenever people co-habitate for any length of time.
Lastly I will comment on Savarna’s concern that we are simply choosing a mate based upon race or culture. Have no fear - as stated above, demographics is our main motivation for looking to India – this is no different from looking in one’s own country for a mate since everyone picks from wherever they happen to be looking. I thought I had made it clear that we sought correspondence to get to know any potential candidates beforehand. A girl who does not seem a good match won’t be selected for any other superficial reason. It seems logical however that anyone who is interested will probably share many of our characteristics or they would not choose to respond in the first place.
Here are some resources on polyamory if anyone is interested and hasn’t yet grasped that poly is a valid and exciting alternative to living in denial of the dictates of our basic human sexuality.
http://www.star-navigator.com/evolutionary.html
http://www.jonsullivan.com/intranet/polyamory.html
http://polyamorysociety.org/localgroups.html
Best wishes to all.
Russ
| By Princess on Monday, September 06, 1999 - 06:52 pm: |
Russ,
We aren't basing our opinions about India or Indian based on our prejudices we are Indian and part of the culture which you are not. Knowing not much of the culture, gone there, seen what it's like, or what the women are like you should keep yourself open to what others who are part of that culture have to say to you.
What you are proposing is not only considered absurd and fantacized but immoral among the Indian culture but, no one from the culture will ever trust any outsider especially someone who isn't Indian to just leave what they have been raised with and been part of all their life. No one will just leave India and come be part of a polyamory. The general assumption will be that when you get bored with this arrangement tomorrow that person will be left out in the cold.
I still feel you are trying to find a person solely based on the facts that they are Indian and oppressed hence luring them with the opportunity of a better life. You will definitely have more luck finding someone who will agree to your arrangement in the west without a doubt. Perhaps you will have better luck with someone Muslim because that culture allows polygamy and women there have been raised with the notion that they may be married to someone who is already married. It's normal among Muslims but not Hindus.
If you are looking for someone from India based on the Indian philosophies then you are looking for someone who's very belief in those philosophies will not let them be part of your arrangement. Do you see what I'm saying. Your reason for attraction to Indian women is the exact reason why they will not go against their own culture to be part of your arrangement. It makes them look as if they are some sort of an exotic creature to be had for amusement/entertainment or bought.
I still fail to understand why you aren't seeking someone from the west where such an arrangement is prevelent as you say among your own society. I am curious to know about this custom of Polyamory and haven't heard of it till now and will definitely look it up further to understand it's legal standing. In all honesty regardless of what kind of opression, family background or poverty the person from India is coming out of that is the first thing they will look for if you ever have luck.
Your answers to your future children are a bit simplistic and not well thought out. It's easy to tell a child that s/he has two mothers because she is lucky but when that child goes out into the real world where society doesn't recognize this s/he might have problems. You have an answer for every problem that will supposedly arise but you cannot foresee what may be and you haven't left yourself open to any margin of error. In your world such an arrangement will go smoothly and everyone will live happily ever after. Perhaps in the gay community a child is raised in a certain way and told that his/her parents are gay but in the type of arrangement you are seeking a child will have to deal with something totally different. What will your child do and how will s/he cope growing up in a society where what you are seeking isn't considered the "norm"?
Also I would like to ask you a question that I thought of. I'm assuming that you are ok with your wife seeking and having two men including you. If that happens will you be ok to be part of a marriage/relationship that has two men and one woman? Do understand that I am by no means judging you or calling you immoral. I am not one to teach about ethics. I find your suggestion interesting and amusing at the same time and curiosu to know more about it.
PS: The reason I said it was a he wasn't as a presumption but a figure of speech. I'm not the kind of person who tries to be politically correct for the sake of it and didn't realize it. My issues stand regardless of whether it is a boy or girl.
| By Joseph on Tuesday, September 07, 1999 - 03:45 am: |
Hello Russ,
From your initial post, I for one could not understand why you and Pam are so convinced on Indian girl being more suitable for the lifestyle you both live. And the only rationale came to my mind I thought may have to do with Rajnish or knowledge of medieval Indian culture. You both being an average westerners was a pure assumption based on above theory on my part, and did not mean to offend you two.
So it was my assumption that your choice of Indian female was based on your knowledge of Indian culture, kamasutra, Rajnish or lifestyle in general. From reading your reasonings, it is not, and thanks for clearing that up.
You are right in your assumption that out of 300 million women, there will be one somewhere who supports bisexual lifestyle or wanting to get out of India at any cost, either based on fear of war with pakistan or just feeling suffocated. But don't you think it will be economically and stastically "looking for a needle in a haystack" process? What I mean is, you may eventually find someone, but the time and money you may wind up spending may still not gurentee a satisfactory results.
I know you did not ask about why I feel this way, but will try to explain anyway. Indian marriage system and relationship among men-women in general is very traditional. Just to marry outside of caste is not that common and to marry a foreigner is not done in frequency either. And your situation could fall under arranged marriage concept, but arranged marriage happens within a caste or religion only. At least I have not heard of marriage being arranged inter-racially.
You can always find someone by offering what that person needs or wants, but knowing the culture and the philosophy behind man-woman relationships, you will have hard time if you approach with honesty.
There are cases we hear about how women in Russia are deceived and promised a better life and than put on the plane/boat en-route to America, Israel and other european countries to put them at work as prostitutes. So you may find a broker who may try to extort money from you by deceiving a woman from India to come to canada, but how would you detect their dishonesty?
Anyway, you mentioned that you are inspired by Gora and Lavisham ilk. I do not know anything about them. Could please explain?
And Finally, a big question regarding a legal issue that may arise of your "Indian Wife". How secure and confidant you both are that once married, she will not drag you to court on the grounds of adultry on your part?
| By Russ on Tuesday, September 07, 1999 - 12:42 pm: |
Dear Princess and Joseph,
I don’t know about you two, but I’m beginning to enjoy this dialogue. I hadn’t counted on that when I first posted to this board.
But first I will state a worry I have. You both seem to be asking much of me, and I do not want to tax the others who use this board with my awfully long responses. They may not be interested at all. Therefore, I offer the rest of this community an invitation to send me email stating you preferences and, if necessary, I will send my subsequent messages via a more private email exchange with my questioners (if they’re willing). My address is rusty@seaside.net
Now, first to you Princess - I tried to answer your initial questions, even if you found some of my answers “simplistic” so perhaps you'll grace me with a ‘carefully thought out’ answer to my own question.
I have a strong idea (call it intuition) that most of your notions are somewhat compartmentalized. You probably see things as black and white, right and wrong, good and evil etc. Am I right? I sense that you would much rather ‘change my mind’ than actually understand it. But it’s quite all right though, don’t get me wrong. You are merely being part of the ‘great majority’ when it comes to that type of stand – very ‘normal’ indeed, which is clearly where you feel comfortable.
But the world is not black and white.
Hitler, though undoubtedly a total ••••-head, did make some generous donations to a few German orphanages. The smell of rotting meat, though unpleasant, does tend to prevent us from eating a substance that would otherwise make us sick. African ‘killer’ bees, though fierce, do tend to produce far more honey than European ones.
Here then is my question for you. In light of the fact that roughly thirty to forty thousand children starve to death every single day on our planet, why are you so concerned that one or two western children, living thousands of miles away, could one day get teased by someone for having two mothers? It seems that I must have hit some kind of ‘sore spot’ with you – perhaps I have described a family structure you find more offensive than the swollen bellies of impoverished children.
Some of your words indicate you want to know a little more, but then others pretty much scream – “go away westerner, you’ll not find what you’re looking for here.”
There is contradiction in what you say, for example:
First you say:
“no one will just leave India and come be part of a polyamory”
then you say:
“Perhaps you will have better luck with someone Muslim because that culture allows polygamy . . . It's normal among Muslims but not Hindus”
Correct me if I’m wrong, since as you’ve pointed out, I’ve never been to India, but I have always thought that at least a few Muslims resided there. Taken together, your statements above clearly indicate I am mistaken.
But if you would like to revise your first to say: ‘Most women would not just leave India and come be part of a polyamory,’ then I will bow in tacit agreement to that. The task of speaking for three hundred million individuals, on the other hand, is a daunting one, so I admire your courage.
The answer to your question as to why we are not seeking someone from the west has many layers. First and foremost, we ARE looking here as well. But polyamory is much more common here, and sadly, poly couples greatly outnumber single females. This stems from the fact that most polys are couples who have chosen to enhance their romance by making it larger. Females are always in much higher demand because many poly couples include bisexual females but not nearly so many have bisexual males.
This is undoubtedly cultural programming at its best/worst, depending where you stand. Men who are raised on Clint Eastwood or John Wayne films tend to discourage their little boys from holding hands with other little boys or ‘heaven forbid’ from ever kissing them. Not so with little girls apparently – a double standard for sure.
Next answer – if I were bisexual, we would surely be seeking another male or more likely a couple, which in fact is an option we have given quite a lot of thought to.
As far as jealousy we have learned to move beyond concepts such as the ownership of each other’s sexual organs. I have shared Pamela with an occasional other man in the past and we both found this erotic and satisfying. She has likewise shared me with a few of her girlfriends over the years and that was even better. Safe sex was, of course, always the rule (that in anticipation of your next volley). We do not make such far reaching decisions without careful analysis, discussion, and communication.
Your focus seems to be on what I'm getting out of having two women, but you overlook what Pamela and our ‘princess’ will get. As you are apparently not bisexual, it is doubtful that you or even I can understand this concept fully. Yet as we make love, I can feel Pamela move and glow with our heated whispers and thoughts of our mysterious as-yet-unknown female partner .After many years of this anticipation, neither of us would wish to change the other’s mind or inflict this loss and disappointment.
Now to Joseph – yours is a mind I think I understand a bit better – practical and logical.
I originally intended to write a lot to you, but I just looked up and realized that other Indians are sure to think Canadians are a pretty long winded lot. Great point about the broker deceiving us though, I do hope that very careful correspondence would avert this. If worse comes to worse, I suppose I could always send my insightful bud Joseph over to check out our lady for evidence of malicious brainwashing. I seriously doubt you’d have brought it up had such a thing been your own intentions – that would be diabolical indeed. So therefore I guess I now have one person in India that I feel I could trust.
We do not seek an arranged marriage - more of an arranged introduction really, and perhaps the kind use of a computer terminal for communication should our Indian girl not happen to own a computer of her own. We do not want a girl that has been deceived in any way whatsoever. We would expect photos, letters, documentation, and telephone exchanges long before any travel plans were made.
You may be right about the needle in the haystack, but then again people buy lottery tickets all the time right? The odds in India can’t be worse than that. Oh, and nobody said our agent was going to be paid handsomly –in other words, do you think that basic humanitarianism goodness and an offering of free room and board during a future vacation trip to Canada would not suffice?
Gora (Shri Goparaju Ramachandra Rao) and Lavisham are surely Indian national treasures. Gora who once met with Gandhi is now dead, but his writings and those of his son Lavisham are well worth studying. We believe they are priceless. If you cannot find information by doing a web search on those names, be worried that you do not have unfiltered, unfettered access to the Internet. In such a case I will forward some links.
And finally, your question: “. . . a legal issue that may arise of your "Indian Wife". How secure and confidant you both are that once married, she will not drag you to court on the grounds of adultry on your part?”
Adultery, though it once was, is no longer grounds for any kind of legal proceedings in Canada. As in France, where Francois Mitterrand’s funeral was attended by his wife, his daughter, and his mistress, such issues are now considered private matters between the partners. If that were not enough, copies of the exchanged correspondence and photos would clearly demonstrate the consent of all parties.
We will however draw up a contractual agreement beforehand to the satisfaction of all three of us to ensure fairness and relief should any unfortunate dissolution of the relationship ensue. Research indicates, however, that poly relationships are easily as stable and enduring as monogamous ones. Most who have not studied the concept tend to see only obstacles, while the primary reasons for divorce (namely dishonesty and adultery) are essentially eliminated if one really thinks about it.
Ok, I’d best shut up now.
Russ
| By Princess on Tuesday, September 07, 1999 - 03:19 pm: |
Russ,
My intention wasn't to offend you or put you down. Somehow I get the feeling that you are angry at me for questioning you. I'm just the kind of person that won't say something about a situation or comment on something unless I had all the facts. I wasn't going to give you my opinion without understanding your stand. But apparently you didn't like it that people are asking questions.
When you post something on this board you should be prepared to answer questions coming from all angles and not get upset when people don't agree with you. Did you really think that you'd come on here and get a straight answer and not find any resistance?
Before you make any presumptions about me, my sexuality or what my philosophy of life is and "compartmentalize" me think of what you are saying. You come across angry because I didn't agree with you. I'm not judging you, infact I'm trying to understand you. As an Indian woman I can give you my opinion about my culture which has more weight then your presumption about it.
On another note I did check out the sites you posted on here about the listing on polyamory. And I'll tell you my interesting finds. The first three sites in a row that I clicked on said the following consequetively:
"I have decided to take down this site due to lack of support from the polyamory society and recognition in mainstream"
"This site is no longer accessible"
"Sorry I had to take the site down. Polyamory has failed for me and caused a lot of problems and complications in my life and hence I am giving it up for a more conventional life"
The 4th site was some form of a Polyamory newsletter. The featured article was about a case in North America where children were removed from a Polyamory family because the parents were declared unfit for subjecting their children to such an arragement.
The 5th, 6th and 7th site wouldn't allow me to access it without being a member.
The 8th site was a kind of question and answer forum where people were writing in to this person I think who was answering questions or he was answering FAQ's.
A woman who had lived with two men for 5 years had failed in the arrangement and was having a lot of legal problems because they had bought a house together was writing in for advise.
In another case a man wrote in for advise about an arrangement with two women that had failed because one had had a child and there were jealousy issues and other complications.
The third case was someone saying that they thought this whole sort of arrangement wasn't about love but rather justifying sexual preferences and giving it the name of love. The answer to that comment was amusing and inadequate, I had a similar thought.
I moved onto the 9th site which was also a question answer type of site and some sort of a message board and there was a lot of mudslinging going on and through reading a few things there were a lot of issues of ethics, society and arrangements were raised. There were no satisfactory answers given and a lot of the answers were simplistic.
When I hit the 10th site it rejected my access. I gave up.
My point is that you may be part of a society where this is acceptable and ok and that's fine but you are exploring the option to extending your arrangement to a very close, conservative and religiously oriented society that avoids your kind of society. I wouldn't make such assumptions about India or Indians without ever even going there and learning much about it while there. You need to make a trip to India and give yourself a reality check. I truly wish you luck and I hope you find what you are looking for. Your theory about the lottery ticket makes sense.
You came on here remember to ask for our opinions we didn't come to you. So you can't possibly compare your situation to starving kids in the world. That's not just absurd but amusing cause it tells me that your simple way of looking at things on a more shallow level isn't allowing you to look at the big picture.
Remember you and your wife have reached this point of trust and honesty over a period of time and it's earned in time together. Do you honestly believe that this can be achieved over emails, letters and via pictures with someone thousands of miles away?
| By Joseph on Tuesday, September 07, 1999 - 05:01 pm: |
Hi Russ,
Although it is a human nature to generalize views based on one's identity as Canadian or Indian, I am not at all judging you as a representative of all Canadians. In fact, I am not judging you based on your preferences. So fear not, I am as well very much curious to know about this lifestyle you both are living.
I sense some level of paranoia in your last post. You are overreacting on my comments on importance of honesty in finding the potential partner/wife in India. And those comments are based on the incidences that occur periodically in India, where a ring of child traders gets busted trying to "sell" kids to people illegally in name of adoption, or "selling" out women deceivingly to middle east countries in name of house-keepers. I know this happens and I was trying to direct your attention to that.
The reason I say this process can be very expensive is if you look at the cost of "legal" adoption as an example, it will give you an idea about what to expect in your case. Knowing somewhat about immigration laws and its limited categories of types of immigration, I would suggest that you consult a lawyer before even looking for an agent. Also knowing enough of these laws, most likely you will have to marry a woman in order for her to come to canada, and that in turn will change the status of your relationship from polyamory to polygamy, which I am very sure is illigal both in USA and Canada.
Are you sure about adultery being no longer grounds for any kind of legal proceedings in Canada? You mean one can not file for divorce on grounds of adultery?
I did search on Gora and Lavisham, and that made me understand a bit about your reseasoning behind why an Indian woman may be suitable in your case. But you are looking into one aspect of it only, and that of freeing woman who has been under lot of pressure from culture and society. But what you are overlooking is that such woman, despite of dissatisfaction against culture and society for whatever reasons, will be a bisexual and believer of polygamy?
For those who do not know about Gora et al, he is the founder of Atheism center in India, since 1947. It's activities include (in their own words):
" Counselling: One of the main activities of Atheist Centre is to provide socio-psychological counselling to a large number of people who come to the Centre with various types of problems. A large number of women and men come to Atheist Centre every day to seek guidance in this regard. Women and youth are subject to intense pressure in a tradition-bound society. If any one wants to break the barriers of caste and religion or to marry intercaste, they are subjected to intense social pressure. Atheist Centre provides much needed support and encouragement to such people. In addition to this, many people come to Atheist Centre for guidance and counsel on many personal matters. The marital disorder, family problems, breaking down of cordial relations between parents and the children, problems of dowry, desertion, destitution, unwed motherhood, sex discrimination, stranglehold of superstitions and many other problems form part of the counseling.
Atheist Centre through its counselling programmes instills courage and confidence among the people, in particular women and youth, to face realities of life boldly and solve their problems. For the last five decades Atheist Centre rendered assistance through counselling to hundreds of people and turned a new leaf
in their lives…."
This makes me believe that you have rationalized about freeing an oppressed woman in exchange of free life. But what you have not figured in the equation is that how many of these woman are willing to adopt a lifestyle, even under their present state of oppression, that is not part of culture or traditions? I hope you understand my point. To live a lifestyle you are living, one has to believe in that. Furthermore, these women who are helped by atheist center are not necessarily atheist themselves. Makes sense?
Anyway, I was curious to find out what Gora's philosophy is regarding sex. This is what I found:
Sex Education and Family Planning :
In a traditional society like India, championing sex education is an uphill task. Undaunted by the hurdles, Atheist Centre is championing sex education. Dr. G.Samaram of Atheist Centre wrote on Sex Science in the most popular Telugu daily newspaper for five years and his five volumes, "Sex Science", became very
popular. So far, Dr. G. Samaram published a hundred books on health education and family planning, popularising medical science. Dr. G. Samaram is not only a medical science writer, but also a practicing doctor. …."
I could not find any references by Atheist center on their stance on different sexual lifestyles.
Well Russ, I am not trying to change your mind on anything, I also believe in freedom of choice of human rights. I am merely exchanging my thoughts with you on this issue. I do not mean to offend you or anybody, nor do I mean to judge any lifestyle. I hope some of these may be helpful to you.
| By Russ on Tuesday, September 07, 1999 - 09:02 pm: |
I do not have so much time to respond to your last messages, but I just wanted to make a couple of points. First, the fact that you, Princess had difficulty with the links I offered is unfortunate indeed.
You apparently have found far more negative aspects to polyamory in a single sitting than I have managed to uncover through several years of reading and research of the topic. Do you think I could not similarly list numerous examples of broken monogamy links, or failed traditional marriages that might be forwarded as reasons enough to avoid monogamy like the plague?
I'm not saying that you didn't find a few stale links of failed attempts at this lifestyle - I have found some as well. But it seems perfectly clear that you specifically went looking for every negative aspect you could find and then represented it in the worst light possible. You really ought to throw a token good point in now and then if a critique is to perceived as even remotely unbiased.
If our choice of lifestyle is as bad as you indicate, we had better check ourselves into a mental hospital for deliberately pursuing a notion of sorrow and misery. Do I really seem all that insane to you?
There have been many books written about highly successful poly relationships. We personally know several families that have been successful. The lifestyle is truly growing exponentially in its popularity despite what you have said.
Whenever you decide you disapprove of something before you begin to research it, you can usually find reason to invalidate it if you are truly inspired to do so.
As you know, if you have been following Joseph, Pam and I lean towards atheism as our philosophical outlook. Your review of poly reminds me of an atheist I once knew who characterized Christianity by first listing the crusades, the witch burnings, the rape and pillage, the imprisoning of Galileo for questioning theological reality, the molestation of alter boys by "those filthy priests" the hypocritical greedy televangelists, the biblically inspired murder of homosexuals - and then that's really about all he has to say on the topic.
My response to that is simply - yes, that is indeed sad and unfortunate, but I do know quite a few Christians that are nice.
To Joseph - the first part of your post surprised me a bit. As is always the case with this kind of written communication, it is difficult to assess the tone in which something is stated. I would simply ask that you re-read my previous post.
Really, paranoia is what you get from it? The only way I can even fathom this interpretation as I look back over what I wrote, is if you might have mistook my candor and warmth toward you as sarcasm. In all honesty I was simply indicating that I like the way you think. Your mistaken interpretation of this could likewise lead me to say the same thing about you, but I don't think either of us is paranoid. Paranoia is generally characterized by an inability to find the slightest bit of credibility in any opinion other than one’s own. It typically includes agitation and insult. And the mind closing up like pupil of the eye when one shines a light upon it. Paranoia stems from a position of insecurity and I assure you we are entirely secure in our lovestyle, having discussed virtually all of these issues at lençth over a period of several years.
My response to Princess might indeed have some fangs showing, but that's just because she keeps saying she is not being judgmental - then proceeds to make statements that are exceedingly hard to interpret otherwise - I'm trying though.
Here's an analogy that might show her/you what I keep seeing in her posts, as always, I may be entirely wrong:
A person says to me that they have no real problem with the fact that I eat fish, even though they don't care for it themselves. Next they say that fish is really a disgusting and smelly substance. No one they know or have ever known happens to like fish, but hey, whatever you fish eating, freaks want to poke down your swollen gullets is just fine by me - 'cause who am I to judge.
Perhaps I've over exaggerated my point, but I don't know that I would be entirely alone in reading princess' style thusly.
bye for now.
Russ
| By Princess on Tuesday, September 07, 1999 - 10:31 pm: |
Russ,
I honestly don't care much for the lifestyle you choose but I am curious to know. Kudos to you for being different. My problem isn't atall with who and what you are but simply with the fact that you are looking to an Indian woman in India to be part of an arragement that is never heard of in India nor part of tradition or customs. Not to mention as an alternative to "oppression". In India it would be asking a woman what she'd prefer - death by starvation or death by stoning.
Ofcourse I'm exeggerating but I think you get my drift. You are offering what is a better option in your eyes to someone from India but in an Indian's eyes it's not a better but an option that would outcaste them from the society, culture and traditions they are part of all their life. So inadvertently you are asking someone to choose between their identity and who they are and being part of your world, a world which isn't part of their identity or world.
A woman coming from an oppression type of situation in India wouldn't contemplate being bisexual, it's not an option available to women. Wanting to survive from starvation, war or whatever problems is not equated to leading a bisexual lifestyle. You will be asking her to jump from one hot pan into another.
The very traditional reasons you gave intially for wanting an Indian woman tell the woman to never accept her man with anyone else, never share herself with anyone other then her man, never do anything unethical (your arrangement is considered unethical in the Indian society/hindu religion), and a marriage is pure and honest without anyone else sharing her bed. The concept of polyamory fails all these. Again I'm not putting the concept of polyamory down but I'm explaining to you what an average person in India thinks.
Perhaps you should as I suggested before look more into the life an average person leads in India and specifically the kind of person you are seeking, one from a background that is unfortunate. Remember unfortunate people come from lower then middle class and oppression is more prevelent among the uneducated so what are your options then? You would physically have to go through India and find such a person. I don't know a lot of Muslims but there are a lot in India and polagamy is part of their religion however it is conditional, a man is allowed to remarry again upto 4 times if the woman is barren, if he is able to provide for all wifes equally. However I don't know more and I'm sure it can be researched further. However average muslims are even more conservative then hindus.
Don't be so venomous in your approach to questions. Regardless of how "normal" this is in your part of the world you will undoubiously be asked a lot of questions in the future. I would think if one validates what they do and think then they should be prepared to justify it. Simply getting pissed of at my line of questioning makes you lose credibility in your angle of approaching this. Don't tell me you have never had anyone question you in the past about this? Is this how you handle it...by being angry?
PS: I'm sorry if the first links I found were futile. I admit I didn't spend more then 20 minutes trying to look for information. However it was the first glimpse and my first impression of Polyamory.
| By Sincerely... on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 06:00 am: |
Hi Everyone,
I'm sure I'm going to get socked for it, but Russ, bottomline is sex & convienience for you & Pam & little sparkie. Look into some research on couples that used to have these types of relationships, mortality rate is pretty high.
If you truely want to help someone in India, can't you do it without the intention of taking that person to bed??? My impression of your several posts is this- if you were so sure of this decision & think it's so right, why so defensive? What are you defending? There's nothing to defend is there?
So you scour the internet or go to India to look for your sexual plaything/nanny/ possible mother/ wife & mistress to both you & your pregnant girlfriend....?! I'm sorry, I don't wish you an ounce of luck. At least find someone here or somewhere that has lived this dream lifestyle of yours and knows how to scram out of there when she's sick of it.
| By FunLover on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 02:20 pm: |
Well Said Sincerely!!!
No ma'am. You'll not get socked for this. You should get kissed! I just went through the stream of these discussions. I find it very devious, this guy saying that he is giving the option of sleeping with him and his wife to an Indian woman and equating it to helping a poor and oppressed woman. And uses words like love, affection, warmth to support his arguments.
All the while he and his wife are thinking of exploiting the poor girl to be his and his wife's concubine. I think this person and his spouse should look for people of their ilk not among the poor and oppressed in India but among the rich and the idle everywhere.
I am not saying they do not have the right of personal choice. Let 'em do whatever bullsh@* they want. But rationalizing it with lectures on paranoia and atheism! They did research, it seems! Years of it! I laugh! They shared each other! What do they think humans are? Pieces of meat to share! Oh! They are atheists right? Well there's a reason.
And he then talks about cultural programming of males with Clint Eastwood and John wayne rationalizing that is the reason he does not want to get screwed by men. What if he had seen movies of Gays? Would he have become a gay? ••••••, me thinks.
What this guy wants is a menage a' trois. And he wants to find a poor woman so that he and his wife can oppress her in a different way. I don't even want to understand this guy and his "lovestyle". I am sure his wife is another oppressed woman who is dependent on him for one reason or another or vice-versa. Pretty sick! Not their right to choose but their arguments to defend it.
| By Sincerely... on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 07:43 pm: |
Hi Funlover,
Thank you. All I can say is I can see right through people like that & it's not a pretty sight.
Thank's for the support,
Sincerely...
| By Seekwar on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 08:50 pm: |
I feel the same way Funlover and Sincerely. You have my support.
| By Sincerely... on Wednesday, September 08, 1999 - 11:32 pm: |
Hi Seekwar,
Thank's again. I just can't get over the picture this produces in my mind. Picking a Country that has so many unfortunate yet has so many beautiful people there to be a predator for your sick fantasies. If it's so prevelant in Canada why not find a Canadian?? Dosen't make sense... a nightmare in the making. I pray for the poor child his girlfriend is having... I could go on & on but you get my point. There is a difference to being understanding & just plain gullible. You got to be so careful in this world, sad...
Take Care,
Sincerely...
| By Dexter on Thursday, September 09, 1999 - 05:29 am: |
Hi Seekwar, FunLover, and Sincerely. . .
I've been reading and I was wondering how is the pregnant woman going to explain her child about her tri-union?
Has anyone asked Russ to worry less about finding a third partner and focus more on his child-to-be? You just can't leave something serious like pregnancy and parenthood on a back burner.
People are going to "get their groove on" no matter how bizarre their tastes are, but this couple is about to have child to arrive. Instead of a partner, he should be looking for some Pampers.
| By Sincerely... on Thursday, September 09, 1999 - 06:09 am: |
Hi Dexter,
You put things in perspective perfectly! :o)
Take Care,
Sincerely...
| By Princess on Thursday, September 09, 1999 - 01:48 pm: |
Dexter,
I raised a lot of questions to him about his child that is coming and he said I was "judgemental", my views were "compartamentalized" and that he admired "my courage to speak up for 3 million women in india" :-)
Let's not railroad the guy now. I really want to know what he has to hear.
| By Seekwar on Thursday, September 09, 1999 - 02:46 pm: |
This whole sitiation is a sad one. I feel sorry for the child most of all. The adults are making choices and have an ideas of what the consiquences are but the child is inocent. The sadest part to all of this is that there may be someone out there who may agree to this marriage and for the wrong reason, to 'escape'. And they may see this as the "ticket to freedom" but this could make there life even worst if they don't know what they are getting into. My prayers go out to the child. And to whatever woman (Indian or not) would consider this as a for of liberation.
Russ
Why don't you try getting a woman in US or Canada. They have swingers clubs, magazines etc. You can place an ad in one of these or go to these places. I think you are looking in India because you think you will find an inocent gulable girl.
| By Russ on Friday, September 10, 1999 - 07:30 pm: |
This will be my last post to this board.
Your latest messages have shown that India is clearly not the place for us to be seeking open minds. So in that sense, you will have your wish and I will go away. It is now plain to me the reason you have so much difficulty in understanding our true motives. Though I find it sad, it is not altogether unexpected because, after all, I did approach you.
Of course you would see our choices as a bad and selfish, and would presume we are hurting our children. Your culture is obviously deeply entrenched in tradition and has a deep respect for the way things were, and were done in the past.
You see our views as greedy because you presume that all others must naturally see things as you yourselves do. You clearly believe we are subjecting our children to a life of ridicule and pain, but you are mistaken on that. I would wager that you would also feel sorry for Chelsey Clinton due to the ‘Clinton sex scandal’ though, in contrast, Pam and I predict that she will one day become one of the most powerful and influential people on Earth - in part because of it.
Westerners - especially those who represent achievement and progress do not have nearly so much respect for traditions as you obviously do. When we look back even one generation, we typically see the ways of our parents as naïve and silly and the ideas of our grandparents as positively ludicrous. People that do not change or reinvent their own progressive cultures are seen as ‘red-necks’ or ‘throwbacks.’ In the words of the musician Sting: “Our written history is a catalogue of crime . . . the sordid and the powerful, the architects of time, a simple act of faith – of reason over might, to blow up his children will only prove him right . . . history will teach us nothing.”
While there will always be value in knowing the past; that value is in recognizing and avoiding the pitfalls and the mistakes of those who have gone before us and in understanding how we came to where we are today.
It is not always at the surface of our culture but it is always there. Canada like the US does have its share of ‘republicans’ but they will gradually fade away as we advance even further. Have no fear, our children are not to be pitied. They will one day be seen as the descendents of people were quite advanced for their time, but who were perhaps a bit conservative by the current standard. If any of you have any lingering desires to know what makes a poly tick, I invite you to read ‘Stranger in a Strange Land” by Robert A Heinlein. It is an enjoyable SF read regardless of your views.
I feel I have learned something of your culture throughout this exchange, and I thank you all for that and wish you well.
Russ
| By Pk Kapila on Friday, September 10, 1999 - 09:30 pm: |
Dear Friends
I didnt have time yet to scan every single message on this issue but my observation of Indian and other communities worldwide is that Polyamoric, polyandric or polygamic marriages are based on convenience.
Obviously this is not an issue based on a specific cultural group but rather a universal and quite polemic one and need more thinking and research.
Indian and other Muslims have conveniently used their faith as a permit to engage in polygamy legally and socially. On the other hand, there are several small communities in Central India and the matriarchal societies of North Eastern India where polyandry is practiced. Polyandry involved a lady having 2 or more husbands living in the same residence.
I can not offer any advice to Russ at this moment but would like to discuss this matter more seriously on this and another dedicated forum on polygamy/polyandry at http://www.marriagepartner.com
http://marriagepartner.com deals with marriage issues in global perspective and can have more meaningful dialogue on this matter.
In many African countries; especially Eastern Africa, Kenya and Tanzania there are several tribal and communal groups where polygamy is absolutely a norm and legal.
India is a vast country of 1000 million people and have all kind of people among such diversity.
From our personal point of view, influenced by the moralistic Hindu or Judeo-Chrisitian education, we may reject Russ' idea but we cant suppress the basic human instincts.
I respect åveryone's personal views but i guess in a democratic and fråe society, the 'liberalized' people like Russ and other highly emanicipated people should have freedom to practice or realise their dreams or desires.
India may sound like an ancient culture but there is no dearth of extra ordinary advanced peïple ready to expriment and imvrovise.
Prof. Rajneesh later renamed Osho, didnt preach polyandry or polygamy but he just wanted to instill a de-learning process in individuals and a fun approach to fulfilment. His unapologetic dismissal of Christianity well in his words Crosstianity, as a miserably oppresive oâsession with guilt, sin and death of Jesus brought about a new thought process where philosophy, refined Buddhism, sexual liberátionism, zen, Yoga, throwing away the hypocrate moralism imposed upon by layers of religious thoughts, evolved into a new style of life.
In those discussions a great deal of issues éncluding the current one were talked in revolutionary way.
I would like to start a discussion on this particular topic at http://www.thinkers.net/talk separately but coming back to Russ and Pam, i guess if he wants he definitely can find enough women in India ready to share their vision.
Obviously there is a possible fear of exploitation by one of the parties.
There may be someone illusined to go to Canada and live a different life but who knows who can exploit whom. If there is sufficient love and understanding may be this works out as a good living arrángement.
I have seen or read reports in newspapers and media many such families in Europe, India and even in the US but i dïnt know any involving one Indian woman in particular.
We should not underestimate the Indian scene as things have changed a lot. There are more and more educated people and mixed witè economic freedom the Indian thought has started to refine once again.
Russ do not get depressed yet!
| By Savarna on Saturday, September 11, 1999 - 06:28 am: |
Russ,
I have just scanned the posts and wanted to say that you are courageous for posting your views on a controversial topic. I think a lot of people here are jumping to conclusions, but a lot of good points have been made, too. It's too bad that it went from an intelligent discussion to a mud slinging party. That's what happens when people realize that they have failed to change the viewpoints of someone else. There are times when we just have to agree to disagree.
Having several friends in less than mainstream situations, from gay parenting to open marriages, I can honestly say that if both (or more) partners are happy with the arrangement, then so be it. Each situation is unique. If that's what works for you, then more power to you.
Best of luck,
Savarna
| By deep on Monday, September 20, 1999 - 08:56 pm: |
hi everyone, first of all why is woman involve in this critical issue,why not another man.russ(a man)have you asked pam(a woman) if you guys want to try a family life living as two men and a woman.man had tried it for centuries.why dont we ask women this time.its the turn of the century and the issue is stil the old.how about other way around.
| By Sincerely... on Monday, September 20, 1999 - 09:49 pm: |
Hi Deep,
I can only say that I would not be interested in having two men in my life. I have done research on these situations since my ex-husband seemed to have a fantasy with these issues. These relationships are very real with very real problems.
It is hard enough to have a one on one relationship with another person on the most intimate level, let alone with several people on the most intimate level. It's alot of time, work & commitment.
If you do research on it, you will find that most of these men & women, if they are not doing it for religious reasons are doing it for other unhealthy reasons. They look at it as freedom & expansion of their love. But in reality, it is their fear of intimacy that attracts them to these types of relationships.
Laziness, as far as what I don't feel like doing the third partner will, etc. And it is a proven fact that there is always a favorite in these situations. Look at history in the time of concubines, there was always a favorite wife or concubine.
These types of men often have a very early exposure to pornography, etc. Fantasies start ruling reality and they start trying to apply this thinking to real life. Well, reality is alot harsher than fantasy.
These men often can find a girl that has had sexual or mental abuse in their past, lack of a good male role model, low self esteem (they want to compete for favoritism) or other things that make them think they could handle this type of lifestyle.
The mortality rates on these types of relationships are high with unbelievable complications and deep scarring to all those involved, not to mention the children.
And finally, about the comment on mudsling. Disagreeing with someone is not a mud slinging match. It's a fact of life that people will disagree with others. But you must take into account that some people may have some knowledge of these things & strongly disagree for their own reasons.
Because of the way I was raised and the fact my first marriage was a nightmare, I strongly disagree with these types of lifestyles. They are destructive and in this day & age, quite useless.
I was not in a live in situation like this but I was married to someone obsessed with these things and it has a very destructive domino effect on those around them. Politically correct, tolerant, whatever. I'm none of those things in this issue. Tolerance is good but there are some things that I simply cannot tolerate. I'm only human & this is the way I feel, it's not mudslinging.
By the way, alot of this research was with the help of my Doctor that was helping me at the time. I actually thought there was something wrong with me! Well, there wasen't anything wrong with me at all.
Take Care,
Sincerely...
| By Nicki on Tuesday, September 21, 1999 - 01:52 pm: |
Hi
Whoever wants to have more than one wife should convert to Islam and migrate to Saudi Arabia and leave our Dear Old India alone.
| By Paul Ward on Saturday, September 25, 1999 - 02:53 pm: |
I agree with Savarna. Let the guy be. Just because a few people disagree with his lifestyle because it's not their idea of "normal" isn't a reason to be so silly about it.
There are many bisexual women out there of all nationalities...yes Indian too...I know a few so maybe he'll be sucessful and maybe not.
Russ I hope you find happiness whatever you decide.
| By asthra on Monday, November 15, 1999 - 09:35 pm: |
Hi Russ! I did not read all the back and forth messages but curious about one thing:Why did you not keep your options open in terms of getting "a person"? In other words, if the reason for you to post a message on this board for an Indian girl is ONLY BECAUSE YOU WERE ATTRACTED BY INDIAN CULTURE then why not ask for an Indian man or a woman to share your wife/girlfriend(pam) or you thereby showing equality for your woman...Your unborn child could equally benefit from two fathers as he/she would with two mothers???
| By vijay on Friday, December 24, 1999 - 01:07 am: |
Sex, is the driving force of life.Sexual Morality is a framework for pocession. No man worth his balls will refrain from fantasising the pleasures of sex with an attractive woman. So why pretend. I understand you russ.I admire you for being able to overcome this ownership atitude towards your spouse. Every man wants his wife to be loyal to him but few would spurn a chance to have a sexual realtionship with an attractive woman. I have seen indian men and women go beserk when they have been freed from the bonds of morality , i.e when they go abroad. If an indian turns you on russ , look for one outside india. There is an ocean of difference between love and sex. Those who dont see it have never been in love or have never known what raw sexual urge is. The utopian situation is when a man finds both in one person. I cant speak for women , because I'am not one. I know people may find this disgusting. But it's the fact that the human species will one day wake up to. What makes us humans believe that we are not animals ourselves. No other species on earth has this life long bondage to one partner. Why do we impose it on ourselves ?. Society has been built by the male human and designed by him to keep his spouse loyal to him. I 'am of the same creed to and I'am ashamed of it. I will never get married till I'am sure that I can give to my wife the loyalty I demand from her. I think it's natural to love just one person as a partner. But to say that our sexual desires are confined to one partner is asking for too much. Let's not rate our morality by the fact that the current social fabric does not promote promiscuity. If the average man was given a safe chance, social and physical , he would sleep with every attractive woman he comes across. No , I'am, not a sex maniac. Go to any college campus, all that boys talk about is how they would love to do it to her and to her and to her. Good luck russ
| By Princess on Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 03:53 am: |
Vijay,
I couldn't have said it any better. You hit it right on the nail. Promiscuity is fine where all parties agree but morality is not on the same level to everyone and where one person's morals may be from A-G another's morals may be from A-Z. So promisciuty tends to hurt and the general society tends to look down on it. There are people who have freed themselves from it. However it makes me wonder about love or the lack of it....where security isn't established.
| By karrie9 on Thursday, January 20, 2000 - 09:54 am: |
I agree with Princess. Russ is not focused on his child and reality. Where did such a person come from that he thinks he can engage in such an arrangement in a society that will not tolerate it! To bring a child into an ostracized family is past morally apprehensible.
Karrie
| By kirbsy on Friday, April 07, 2000 - 12:23 am: |
kirbsy
Talk to me and tell me what; you thinkabout arranged marriages as soon as possible
| By Indian male 23 on Friday, July 07, 2000 - 11:43 am: |
Hi Russ,
How could you even think about an Indian girl working as house-maid as well as a prostitute? your trying to find a desperate indian girl whom you can exploit for use as guinea-pig in VAGUE EXPERIMENTS IN SOCIAL STRUCTURES. no respectable indian girl with dignity will ever agree to your ridiculous concept ahh.. probably a prostitute may agree to work for you. try that , you have more chances of success with them. try finding some indian american from US/Canada probably she might agree to your vague idea. Take an advise , Innovation and unconventional thinking and creativity is to be applied only to Technological and Management issues and not for disturbing existing social order. I shall pray to god that no poor indian girl agrees to your offer out of desperation.
| By MissManners on Tuesday, August 01, 2000 - 07:58 pm: |
I agree your little experiment is horrific!!! Don't you think that your "Indian Girl" would like a man of her own??? People on here are spot on you'd have better luck lookin in Utah. What if your wifey wants another man are you open to that also? You'd better be or you're a hypocrite!!
| By sheila on Thursday, August 31, 2000 - 08:05 am: |
Hi Russ,
What if Pamela wanted to have an adult male to join the family and father a child with her? Would you be open to that as well?
| By M_SINGH on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 08:07 pm: |
I've got nothing against Russ' ménage à trois - after all it's his life. And if he manages to find an Indian women who agrees to this sort of "arrangement", so much the better for him. In my opinion there are two scenarios:
(1) He might find a woman who agrees to such an arrangement because she wants to escape dire poverty in India. But the relationship that Russ & his present wife will have with their Indian 'friend' will be based on a 'slave-master' footing rather than one based on equality & love because of the very nature of the offer that he is making.
(2) The only way to have a relationship based on a somewhat equal footing would be for him to get an Indian woman who is financially secure and has no need to emigrate to Canada solely for financial reasons. And the odds of finding such a woman in India are far lower than finding such a woman in western country for the very simple reason that tradition is still more firmly entrenched in India than western countries.
Also, whatever scenario Russ ends up with, the bottom line is that it's already difficult enough having to live with one wife, not too talk about two.
| By hindustan on Sunday, November 12, 2000 - 12:03 am: |
don't bug Russ so much, if he is interested in polygamy and if he finds a indian girl who is interested in polygamy, what's the problem with you guys?
| By maushami on Tuesday, November 14, 2000 - 02:07 pm: |
Dear Russ,
VERY UNUSUAL!! Russ, i am an indian myself & i doubt if any woman would like to enter a bigamous relationship. Also, i was wondering why have u cohosen a woman (& not a man)& that too of an indian heritage? when other cultures in the world over are more open & receptive. Or is it your understanding that indian women are submissive, naive and the like as described in the media, especially for sex tourisim? Don't u think it is better that u find out somebody whom u know since a few years cuz such a person would be more likely to understand u & ur partner. Anyways bye and wish u goodluck
| By Ali on Monday, November 27, 2000 - 06:16 pm: |
There are plenty of Indian sluts all over in the UK,USA and developing in India,there should be no problem,i as a muslim pick up Hindu and sikh girls regularly,and ,boy are they submissive,and the best thing is they WANT to have sex,2's,3;s,even 4 of them at the same time,especially with us handsome,tall and fair skinned Jehadis,White women do it for the money,Sikh and Hindu girls do it for a thril.
| By Indian on Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 06:25 pm: |
true Indian women are sluts, thats why I'm gonna marry a an Arab/Muslim woman.
| By Steve Canadian on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 10:14 pm: |
Just to let Ali know that muslim women go for anykinda
dick they can get thier lips on cos Jihadi's like Ali himself keep them at home like slaves and when they go out they are covered in tents, Given an opportunity which lots of Pakistani sluts are doing in U.s and U.K they •••• the brains out of any man in the world especially non muslims cos they have an inch longer then the muslims (Ali is another chopped dicks off course )
| By D on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 11:58 pm: |
I`d have to agree with Steve on that. I`m from Canada myself and yes there are a lot of Muslim women screwing outside there cultures and its being kept very very quiet. But its all good. Thats how they are going to know how to please their future Muslim husbands. Ha.
I`ve dated a few muslims and broken in a few, and I must say that dark skin and dark hair is a turn on.
I don`t know if I agree with the dick statements but then again I`m not worried about other cultures dicks.
| By Ali on Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 06:03 pm: |
Steve Canadian and D
A muslim girl will never go out of her culture,we do what we have to to keep them inside Islam,they wear Burkas with pride and freedom,unlike your white pale skin women they walk naked in front of their fathers and brothers,the smaller the amount of clothes the sexier they look,that is the motto of your ugly society.We muslim men make your women feel like women and that is why so many christan and hindu and sikh girls convert to islam,the get respect.
I screw women outside islam all the time,cheap,cheap,cheap,sluts,sluts,sluts.
I feel sorry for you white men,nobody left to love you.
| By D on Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 10:42 pm: |
Hey Ali, give your head a shake, muslim girls would and do go out with people outside their cultures, they just keep it quiet. They like to get experience from other cultures before their parents persude them to marry one of their own. And belive me they arent ad, we get them first then you get them all used up.
How do you like me now chump
| By Damon on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 03:13 am: |
Hey Ali, You say that Indian men give women the respect they need, is that what they call it now. Do you tell your wife or girl that if she is seen talking to another man you will beat her. Or tell her parents she has cheated on you. Yep, you show those indian women who`s the boss. Thats why they keep coming back to us, we treat them right and give them good loving too.
Please, don`t be shy, any indian women out there, come on join this chat, give us your views. I`m asking not demanding like your men.
| By bhagavan on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 03:52 pm: |
You Cant celebrate without love
What will you celebrate
With what.
Osho
| By Ali on Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 04:37 pm: |
D & Damon.
At least we agree about the Indians,they are whimps,just like you.Hindu and Christan men both very sad because they have no women left,but you are all queer and homos,so •••• each other and enjoy,be merry and Gay,Hindu,Sihk and white women are more than happy to be with us handsom MUSLIM men.You stupid white faggots.
| By Peter Sachse on Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 03:47 am: |
I understand the reacton of many Indians to the proposal for finding a second Indian Wife, but I find it very sad.
POlygamy is not a form of sexual fantasy, but a way to integrate people, nationalities and races. A very good reason for looking for an Indian woman is to form a mixed family, where Western and Indian people are united and share a family and children. This is not only not offensive for Indian people, but it shows that some people from the West want to integrate with them.
To make it clearer, I am sending to you the artocle: "The four pillars of Indo-European Civilization". I can see in many answers a confirmation of it: Many Indians are "Western" in this sense. Happily, this CAnadian cuople, who wants to form a family with an Indian girl, have surpassed our western mentality, which has caused so many pain to all humanity.
The four pillars of Indo-European Social Order
The Indo-European Civilization, from which Romans and Greeks were a part, is also our civilization. We are very proud of it, and rightly so. Nevertheless, its social order is absolutely incompatible with Christianity and its message. It may seem a contradiction to praise the achievements of the Indo-European civilization and, at the same time, to denounce its social principles as incompatible with Christianity, but such phenomena are usual: for instance, western democracy is the consequence or reaction against western absolutism, and the welfare state is the consequence of the incredible human abuses of the industrial revolution, and so on. Marx would say (and, by the way, I am not a Marxist) that the world progresses because and by means of its contradictions.
That my assertion is true, was first seen in the reaction of the Roman world to Christianity: they tried to exterminate it. They were killing Christians for 300 years!, and “rightly” so, because the Christian doctrine meant the dissolution of the Roman (Indo-European) social order. The rapid expansion of Christianity was, in fact, due, to the very inhuman 4 pillars of this social order (because Christianity was contrary to them, so, subjugated people saw in Christianity their liberation), because they were directed at keeping an exclusive elite in power and at the subjugation of the vast majority of the population. The rapid expansion of Islam in the VIII century was due to the same phenomenon: on the one hand, the southern part of the (ex-)Roman Empire could not accept the conversion of Christianity to Romanism; on the other, the Indo-European kingdoms in Persia and India, based on these subjugation principles, dissolved as a lump sugar, when a religion came, which said, that all people had the same rights. In Spain, for instance, bishops had become feudal lords, with large states, cultivated by slaves. When Moslems came and said that they were all equal and free and that land had to be distributed among them, the whole Visigothic kingdom crumbled in less than a year. Towns were opening their gates to welcome the “invaders” (by the way: I am also not a Moslem).
The first tragedy of Christianity is that, after 300 years massacre, especially after the persecution of Dioclecian, where almost all original texts of Christianity were burnt, Christians capitulated. Constantine “converted”, what meant, that he accepted the principles of Christianity at an “angelic level”: all men were equal, but only for God in heaven. Here, on earth, the Roman order continued. Of course, this meant a gigantic step forward, because slaves continued to be slaves, but since they had a soul, they had stopped to be animals, although only in theory and during the church mass. It was the same mockery that took place in America 130 years ago: slaves were hunted in Africa as animals, put on chains and forced to work, but they were baptized, because those good white Christians cared very much about the salvation of their souls. On the one hand a true mockery, but, on the other, the seeds were sown, till somebody would come and realize that the whole thing was absolutely contrary to the very principles of Christianity.
How did it begin?: some people say that the same way that Stalin perverted the Russian (socialist) Revolution and Napoleon the French (juridical) revolution, St. Paul perverted Christianity. I do not agree, and not only, out of respect for St. Paul.
If you remember that famous confrontation between St. Paul and St. Peter, in Antiochia, when the latter said that for a pagan to become Christian, he had first to take up the Jewish religion (by which, he was the first Moslem in history, although he rectified and accepted St. Paul’s point) and St. Paul slapped him on the face and retorted that this was not necessary, you will see that St. Peter wanted to make Christianity identical to the Semitic Civilization (this is Islam) and St. Paul retorted that Christianity was independent of ALL civilizations, by which he opened the door to the Roman (Indo-European) world becoming Christian. The problem and the disgrace is that ON THE THEORETICAL LEVEL, Romans converted to Christianity, BUT, IN PRACTICE, Christianity was the one which converted to Indo-Europeism, closing, this way, the door to all the other civilizations.
The bitter irony is that St. Peter would have made out of all Christians, Moslems (that is, Semites), and, 300 years after St. Paul, with Constantine, the Christians “abjured” from Christianity, to become Indo-Europeans.
Indo-Europeans were conquerors. Their civilization was based on war, subjugation of conquered people and the erection of an order, which would guarantee that these conquests would not dissolve in a few generations. Conquered people had to remain down for ever and victorious people up for ever. In today’s vocabulary they were, what we call now FASCISTS, and with this word everything gets clearer. No wonder that Hitler was so fascinated by Aryans (synonym of Indo-Europeans) and that he considered them “the superior race”. The first -of course, only the first- problem with his conception was that “Aryans” are not a race, but a culture and a group of languages. Even less means “Aryan” a skin color: the Aryans in northern India, for instance, are quite dark, but they come from the same group, they have the same culture and they speak the same language(group) than the most pale Europeans.
In fact, fascism is nothing but the exacerbated attempt of the European middle classes to revert the consequences of the French Revolution, which was the one, which destroyed absolutism, the first of the 4 pillars. Nietsche, the German philosopher who inspired Hitler, was very right, when he condemned Christianity as the great enemy of what they considered the “Western and European Civilization”. Dioclecian and the other Roman Emperors would have agreed.
What are these four pillars? We have to understand, first, that the four of them are all mutually necessary for a social order based on war and conquest: once you remove one, the other three begin to crumble and this whole war-submission order falls down in a cloud of dust. It may take years and even generations, but the end is then inevitable.
On the contrary: if you keep the four of them, you can enjoy being a privileged upper class member for hundreds and even thousands of years, as the Indo-Europeans did: they started their war campaigns 2.000 years before Christ and managed to overrun Europe and Southern Asia till the North of India. Later, with their fainted Christianity, they conquered America (exterminating a good part of their inhabitants), Africa and Oceania. Folks, with our immoral methods, we have subjugated almost the Earth! A good record for ruthless conquerors, although for Christianity, judged with Evangelical principles, a little bit shameful.
And something obvious –once we see their description-: these four pillars need violence to be erected and more violence to be maintained. State violence and Church violence. It is a kind of vicious circle: they have been erected to build a system of privileged, dominating people. And they need more violence to prevent people to bring them down and/or desert from this system. No wonder that Indo-Europeans had always a taste for armies and war and, also, for the most horrendous weapons. When the Church converted to Greek-Romanism, it had to move the stress of Christianity, from love to threatening with hell. Hell for those, who did not obey the absolute ruler, for those slaves, who wanted to be free, for those who contested an unjust system of property, for those who wanted human love. Where do you think the Protestant assert come from, that “you get salvation from faith and not from good deeds”? People were horrified at the perspective of going to hell, when they simply could not bear those inhuman commandments.
The four pillars are the following ones:
i. Absolutism or non-democracy.
I can hear the screams produced by this assertion: “How dare you to say that non-democracy is a pillar of the Indo-European Civilization, when they were just the Greeks who invented democracy”. Yes, but it did not mean what we understand as democracy. Literally, democracy means the power of the people, but the catch is that “people” did not mean for Greeks (and Romans) what we now call people, but the privileged ones and this, in Greece (and in Rome at the beginning), in very small towns. What we now call people, includes the lower classes and what at that time were the slaves. These last ones, as well as the foreigners, were not even “persons”, and this, up to the point, that the word “person” did not even exist: it is just the great conquest of Christianity, to consider all human beings equal, and thus, the Greek word “prosopo”, which means “theater mask” was given another meaning: the meaning of “person”. For instance, in Greek towns, in Ulysses times, the noble occupation was piracy: foreign ships were assaulted, robbed and their occupants killed or made slaves, because those people were not “persons”. “Senatus populusque romanus” cannot be translated as “The Senate and the people of Rome”, but “The Senate and the upper classes of Rome”. What we now call people, in Rome were the “plebs” plus the slaves.
Consequences:
a. When Rome grew too big and more and more people started to become “people”, this kind of “democracy” did not serve its purpose anymore, so that the Republic had to be transformed into Empire and the Emperor became absolute, by which, the upper classes preserved their monopoly of power.
b. The first pillar need pillars 2, 3 and 4 to prevent, what we now call “people”, from getting the power.
2. Slavery.
The unqualified working class had to be kept in slavery: otherwise they would have overrun the citadel of power and destroyed the whole system of privileges, incorporating ex-foreigners, who had been made slaves. Remember that it has taken a century in USA to remove all discriminations against all (black) ex-slaves. Slaves were not persons and even less “people”. So, see what a kind of democracy was the one invented by the Greeks.
What happens if you try to keep pillar 1 without pillar 2, that is, if you try to keep the privilege of ruling the country inside a social class, excluding the other social classes from political rights, without keeping them as slaves? People who are not slaves will not tolerate for a long time being second class citizens, nor the economic consequences of it, nor the economic inefficiency entailed by the fact that the upper class rules for its benefit. All revolutions have started this way (and this is also the way communism crumbled, once the people got a little bit of freedom): a small class rules the country and the majority gets fed up. To prevent this from happening, the lower classes have to be kept down as ignorant, poor and powerless as possible, that is, as slaves.
3. Absolute private property.
This absolute property right (preserved even by the French Revolution) and only abolished by the Russian Revolution (an extreme reaction) and by social-democracy in Europe, with the invention of the Welfare State, was stronger than all humanity considerations. Property was the right of “using and abusing” and was the next barrier to prevent free citizens, who had already become “people” and, even, citizens, from getting into the privileged circle of rulers. Remember that till the XX century, western democracies even restricted the right of vote to those who had a certain annual income.
4. Monogamy for 100% of people and prohibition of polygamy.
This is the very last barrier, designed to keep privileges and to prevent slaves and poor people from being assimilated along the generations, as well as to keep big fortunes and prevent their redistribution.
How does it work and why is it necessary?
The defense of this fourth pillar has been so strong, that we have been “hypnotized” and brought to believe that the question of polygamy is one of sexual nature, but, it only needs a little bit of reflection to see that what really matters about polygamy is the social part of it.
To start with, IF IT WERE SO, polygamy would not have been so banned in all western countries, nor polygamists so persecuted. EVEN MORE SO, if we open a book of history and learn that the prohibition of polygamy was introduced in the West by Romans and Greeks (and originated 2.000 years before Christ in the Indo-European civilization), who accepted every form of sexual perversion; then, it starts to be SUSPICIOUS that was polygamy was about was sex.
Why was then prostitution in big numbers admitted, fostered and pampered? Why did these “feminist-minded” (Ha, ha!!) Romans and Greeks prohibited polygamy and, at the same time, considered prostitution as something, more or less, holy?
There is also a kind of naïve truism in refusing to see the social component of polygamy and considering only the sexual part of it: sex is precisely the device invented by nature to bring people together and to overcome personal selfishness: everybody is selfish, till the moment he feels attracted sexually by somebody and feels compelled by sex to care about this other person. Every mechanism that fosters sex across races social classes and nations will be the best way to bring down these barriers; and, conversely: every barrier to sex between social classes, races and nations, will be the best way to keep a certain race, social class and nation isolated on the top. This applies in a much higher degree, logically, if it is not simply sex, but marriage, building families and having children.
To see how polygamy brings down barriers among races, social classes and nations, one only needs to realize that polygamy does not clone women and that we have a given number of women in excess of men. In fact, there are so few women in excess of men that, if polygamy is admitted, most rich men, who are the most likely ones who are able to maintain a big family, cannot get more than one wife, and they have to “import” them from:
a. Lower social classes
b. Foreign countries
c. Other races, producing, this way, interracial marriages, fostering the melting of social classes, nations and races; so, it ERODES PRIVILEGES, destroys little by little, along generations, the differences between rich and poor, nationals and foreigners, victorious and defeated people, masters and slaves, Indians, yellows, whites and….(what a blasphemy for racists!) even blacks.
Horror, folks!: polygamy will foster that masters get married to slave women. In a few generations you will assimilate all your slaves and lose, this way, that cheap labor.
If you remember that Thomas Jefferson had a black (slave) woman as a lover and got children with her, you can easily realize that, if polygamy had been admitted in his time, this woman and these children would have become Jefferson’s family and shared his heritage.
What happens when colonizers admit or prohibit polygamy?
Moslems, who admit polygamy, mixed with the blacks in Africa. Spaniards, who did not admit it officially, but practiced it, mixed with Indians and blacks in America, but destroyed their culture and sent blacks and Indians down to the inferior classes. In South America you have, as a consequence of it, millions of fatherless children on the streets. English, who were absolutely monogamous, where the most cruel colonizers and exterminated Indians in a systematic way. Dutch, in Indonesia, got the record on inhumanity. And in South Africa, English and Dutch wrote one of the most shameful pages of human history with Apartheid (they knew very well that even illegal polygamy was the true way to erode their absolute power, and made even sexual intercourse with blacks a criminal offense).
What happens to social classes when polygamy is admitted or prohibited?
The admission of polygamy is THE RECYCLING VALVE of rich and poor: rich men get married to poor women (they do not find enough women in the upper class, to be polygamous), so that income gets redistributed, plus there are not single women or widows, who end up in poverty, plus their (fatherless) children. Poor people do not hate rich people, since rich people are the salvation for many women of their class (a poor father hates the rich man, who uses his daughter as a prostitute, but loves the rich man, who gets married to his daughter). By the way: it also produces another result: no social hate, no proletarians, no chance for communism: communism dies out for lack of social hate, which is the fuel of communism. Proof: Moslem countries, even the poorest ones, were immune to communism.
So: Polygamy is not mainly about sex, but about power, classism, racism, the sharp and immovable division between poor and rich, keeping privileges and having cheap labor. Excess women should not get polygamously married, because their children would inherit and be equal to our children, but become lovers or prostitutes, because their children are inferior and do not inherit…..or stay single and not to have children, so that the whole heritage will remain among us, the white and rich ones.
Another proof that polygamy is not prohibited to protect women (which women, those who in absence of polygamy remain spinsters, single mothers or, even prostitutes?), is the invention of “illegitimate children”, made, both to prevent their access into fortune and the upper classes, as well as to “punish” their mothers. If women need to be punished for accepting polygamy, it simply means that it is not so bad for them.
TILL NOW, we have seen how pillar 2, 3 and 4 are needed to keep pillar 1, that is, why slavery, absolute property rights and 100% monogamy are needed to keep the absolute political power of the upper classes.
NOW, we can see it the other way round: if the political power is given to the people (true democracy and not Greek “democracy”), the other 3 pillars will also crumble.
If you admit that the political power does not belong to any given class or absolute king and admit freedom of assembly, press and speech, honest people will start protesting against slavery and colonization. It has taken 2 centuries since the French Revolution, but it has come as an inevitable consequence. Liberty of speech and press will annul and overrun the churches’ support to slavery. So, the second pillar will also crumble.
If slaves are liberated, they will be very poor. If they can vote, they will vote for socialist and, even, communist parties, so that to stop it, all political parties will have to limit property and to establish a welfare state. That is the end of the third pillar.
Once democracy is established, there are jobs for all and everybody gets an education, people will, first, realize that this distinction of “illegitimate” children as second-class citizens is inhuman and discriminatory: it will be abolished, as well as all kinds of repression against single mothers.
Once everybody has political rights and is educated, there is freedom of speech and press, all women will say that they have right to have sex, a family and children. If they do not get discriminated for it anymore, CALL IT THE WAY YOU WANT, but in the moment every woman has sex and children, since there are more women than men, this is polygamy.
Example: there is a rich northern country in Europe (higher per capita income than USA), where more than 40% of children are out of wedlock, whereas all women (single or married) and all children (“legitimate” or “illegitimate”, because this distinction does not exist anymore) have absolutely the same rights. Tell me: what is the difference between this and polygamy? If there is still any juridical difference in acquiring any rights because of the nature of the union between any man and any woman, the tendency is to suppress them, one by one, because, in a free country, why should anybody accept somebody’s “religious” preconceptions for acquiring any right in freely established human relations? Freedom of speech and of ideology is doing away with all this remnants.
For a time, as long as you want, there will be the fiction that “all marriages” are monogamous and that those relations, which are polygamous “are outside wedlock”.
In a certain moment, some people might want to live together in polygamous units. What can be done? Prohibiting it? How? Are you going to send to prison those people who live together the way they want and leave their children fatherless and motherless? Why? It is the most ridiculous “victimless crime”.
In a certain moment, people will invoke their civil liberties to do it, and freedom of speech and press will make it unbearable for any government.
The last defense will then be, not to “recognize officially” polygamous marriages. This will only deepen the discredit of “recognizing” marriages, which is today already serious enough.
In a certain moment, the churches will realize that, by prohibiting polygamy, they have just introduced another obstacle to family life, helped to promote divorce and promiscuity and just another push towards increasing the number of children without a stable family. In other words, that the churches, which were supposed to promote stable families and stable sexual life, were just working in the opposite direction, WITHOUT COMING CLOSER TO THEIR OBJECTIVE.
One day, the churches will learn elementary arithmetic and realize that if you have in a society more women than men, once they have lost the power to keep excess women single by force and to punish single mothers, prohibiting polygamy is an ARITHMETICAL IMPOSSIBILITY, because, if people are prevented from doing it officially, they will do it unofficially.
The churches will realize that, by supporting the four pillars of Indo-European Civilization, they just fell in the third temptation of Jesus. Constantine, brought them to the top of the Roman Capitol and, showing them the whole Roman empire, told them: “All this Roman Empire will I give to you, if you kneel down before me and worship these four things, I need to keep my privileged classes at the top: Proclaim that the power of the Emperor is absolute, maintain slavery, proclaim that the property rights are absolute and prohibit polygamy”.
As a reward, they got the Roman Empire “Christianized”, but, of course, it was in reality the other way round: the churches got romanized, all other civilizations became incompatible with this weird "Christianity" and, along the centuries, as these pillars crumbled one after the other, the churches got discredited and people brought to think that Christianity was an inhuman religion, enemy of well-being and happiness of humanity.
The proverb says it: “this is the way the Devil pays, those who serve him”.
Churches have already started to realize that they committed some mistakes since Constantine till now. Even the present catholic Pope has apologized for “some mistakes” of the past and attributed them to “the mentality of those times”. Well, this is precisely what I am saying, but one has to be more precise. What does it mean “the mentality of those times”? Let us call this “mentality” and these “times” by its name: THE MENTALITY WAS THE INDO-EUROPEAN MENTALITY AND THE TIMES WERE THE TIMES, SINCE YEAR 300, WHEN THE CHURCH SURRENDERED TO CONSTANTINE.
By the way, why do you think that Jesus said to Satan, refusing to fall into this third temptation: “Get away, Satan, because it is written, thou shallt only worship God, thy Lord and only serve Him”?
Because God is a jealous person and does not like competition?
God is a person, but not in this sense. He is, before all, a metaphysical force (the one which brings evil to its self-destruction and good to its completion) and when He prohibits something it is, because He knows, the apple or the Kingdom, Satan is offering to us, is a poisoned one, which has in itself, the seed of its destruction.
Jesus knew that if He had accepted Satan’s offer, He would have got, of course, the whole world and could have baptized all humanity without any pain and effort, BUT, submitted to the condition that He would add SOME CORRECTIONS to His Gospel. This corrections -for instance, admitting slavery- would have worked for a time (along with a lot of sufferance for the slaves), but would have, eventually, discredited Him and His Gospel.
Well, this is just what has happened to the churches and to our notorious European “Christianity”, which, for instance, went to America to evangelize” Indians, with the result of exterminating them in a good part and went to Africa to “evangelize” the Africans, transforming them into slaves and killing them by millions.
These have been just two examples, but I could add all the others, including the sea of tears, sufferance and poverty caused by the awful sexual repression, needed to keep alive the fiction that 100% of the families are monogamous.
| By Raj on Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 02:23 pm: |
Hey mullah, u every try picking a fight with a singh or a tamil? You'll get yours kicked every time. my friends and i never fail to be surprised at how easy your women are. Especially the ones from iran and pakistan. Dont talk bad about other communities when your own community stinks. atleast we dont opress our women like u queers. Even with all that, your women still run to us guys. hahahhaha nobody wants a bearded camel raper like u when they can have us sharp featured clean shaven indian guys who look like men, not crossdressers like u fools.hahah later loser.
| By Peter sachse on Monday, December 11, 2000 - 12:13 am: |
I am very sad when I see that, in the same way we, Christians don't follow Jesus example and engage in fights among ourselves and with other religions, you, Indians don't follow Gandhi's (there have been three giants in human history; Buddha, Jesus and Gandhi) example and attack each other, Moslems and Hindus. especially sad is boasting about "easy women". For me, every woman is or can be a mother, a wife and has been a girl, so every woman deserves a respect. If some women are more or less "easy", there is always a man, who made her so. Women are there to make them wives and mothers and not to mock at them, after a man has enjoyed her. This is the most abhorrent ingratitude.
| By Peter Sachse on Monday, December 11, 2000 - 12:50 am: |
By the way: At the question of why I am in favour of polygamy and (although I have personally nothing against) not so much in favour of polyandry and whether it is not “male chauvinism” I would answer no, because:
1. I agree that it is absolutely ridiculous and unfair that polyandry is forbidden.
2. The prohibition of polyandry doesn’t cause as much pain and human catastrophes as the prohibition of polygamy, for a series of reasons (men don’t get pregnant, men can fight better for a job than women …)
3. But you see in some previous posts: men do boast about “easy” women and this does hurt women, while women don’t boast about “easy” men and this would make men proud and not hurt them.
One of the very reason I am for polygamy is to the end of diminishing the number of ruined women’s lives, because they have been seduced, made pregnant, abandoned, labelled as easy, repudiated because of it by society, punished because they are single mothers and who end up in prostitution, poverty and loneliness.
The very fear of poor parents in not so rich countries of their daughters ending up this way is one of the reasons why they prefer to have boys. You have a boy: he will make his future. You have a girl: my God, what will be her destiny?
You people who are against polygamy, please, answer to me:
Imagine a spirit appears to you and tells you: there are five possible futures for your daughter, you have to chose:
1. She will stay single and alone for her rest of her life.
2. She will be the illegal lover of a man (who loves her)
3. She will be a prostitute
4. She will be a single mother
5. She will be the second wife of a man (who loves her, as well as her co-wife)
No other possibility, since there are more women than men on this world and your daughter is one of the millions of women who will not find the position of “unique wife”
What would you chose?
And since somebody spoke about bisexuality, another question. What would you prefer for your daughter, who has bisexuals tendencies (neither you nor she can help it):
1. Be a lesbian, who doesn't have a family and has one or several girl-friends.
2. Be happily married to a man who has another bisexual wife and all of them are happy and have a family.
Religion is very good, but when religion derives in prejudices and these prejudices go as far as making people unhappy (especially a daughter), because these people collide with one's prejudices or perferences, religion becomes Phariseism.
A very important part of Jesus message is that the Sabbath of the Jews was holy, but, "Sabbath was created for men and not men for the Sabbath". People who took it the other way round are called Pharisees and were the greatest enemies of Jesus and are crticised along the whole Gospel
| By adr on Friday, December 22, 2000 - 04:29 am: |
Peter, I think the reason why at least some of the posters were so opposed was traditional bias. Second, for some of the others (this was an extremely interesting thread) there is the power differential that inheres in all heterosexual relationships. The ability to carry a child is a source of power and disempowerment - i.e. it breeds a fear of the reproductive capacities of women, while simultaneously dictating, especially for rural women in developing nations, that they rely on a man for support. This power differential turns into outright exploitation (despite the best of intentions) when it involves a Western couple, with far greater financial resources, looking for an Indian female partner. The well-educated will not take the option; they have enough choices in the mother country. That leaves the villager or relatively poor urban woman as the only real choices. What happens if she changes her mind? Deportation? Russ doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would call Immigration, but they would probably step in regardless. So what does she do? Leave behind her children from that union? And even if she decides to stay, she would regardless be beholden, for her entire life, to the power of the Canadian dollar. It's hard enough being a stranger in a strange land. Try adding being broke on top of that.
Polyamory is a personal choice, but it should be made (as with any other sexual choice) out of consent. And when the reasons are fleeing nuclear war or rural poverty instead of desire for such a union, a line is crossed from lifestyle into pure exploitation.
| By isolation on Monday, December 25, 2000 - 12:47 pm: |
to princess and others
i will only say one can only learn to respect the views of other people we have no right to force our opinions on anyone as no one can be like us in our unique way.
but i just want to voice my views abt polygamy
i want to say to all those parents that when u give birth to a beautiful innocent child just dont leave him or her for yr fulfillment for sex. i dont understand why they marry in the first place making a mockery of this sacred institution. i would love to ask you married guys out there who search for sex how would u react if u came to know about yr wife being asked to indulge in sexual fantasies with a couple. i would love to see the reaction on yr face.
| By akr on Tuesday, December 26, 2000 - 09:44 pm: |
My views are similar to isolation. Let there be no rationalistion or justifications for wanton sexual indulgences.
| By ZeuZ on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 07:45 am: |
This is in response to Russ wanting a third co-participant in his and wife's life, well I have lived in India and abroad(AUS,USA) and I would disagree that Russ will have a tough time in finding a femal of Indian origin to match his requests.. why not? every year all over India hundreds of women are intiated into devadasi system and hundreds more into marraigeless life as they cannot afford a dowry. Most of the posts regarding Indian society here seem to come from non-res Indian crowd which is not to say they dont know whats happening but i feel in their quest to morally uplift India they have departed from reality.
| By linda on Friday, December 29, 2000 - 01:31 pm: |
Well said, adr!
| By ace on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 01:43 am: |
Mr. Peter
so poylamory liberates the destitute women, good. but what about the destitute men ? why poly women and not poly men ? well the reason is man has been powerful and used these methods for his sexual satisfaction. you can't support polyamory just because by coincidence some one betters.
some other disadvantages are
1 sex slave
2 dislike .. her like doesn't matter
3 respect, she will be treated as a slave and equal respect may not be possible
4 disharmony, what if problems crop between the three ?
5 what about sexually not apealing women
6 women may not like to be involved sexually
7 considering the population of women is lesser than men in india, polyamory increases the problem virtually.
coming to illegal trading of women, which is mostly prevalant in the poor muslim community is because of social evils like dowry, poverty etc stronger enforcement of govt laws will end the system. i presume this is almost nil now.
what if the spirit appears and offer the following poly solutions ...
1 rehabilation by govt support .... unlike a sex slave
2 re-marriage.
ur mails try to sell polyamory with lot of profits, but in a complicated society like india, these are very imposible.
i think lesbianism and gayism are not as famous in india as it is projected by the media. to any average indian is too conservative to even get interested in them. and the family, society doesn't accomoditate such activities.
its a difficult task to convince an average india that love marriage is better than arranged marriage, so forget about homosexuality.
i dont have any idea about bi-sexualism ... sorry
-ace
PS : sorry but i did not read all ur mails completely though they are educative. please note that there are better methods apart from polyamory to bettering the society and dont use reasonning skills to convince about a shady concept.
| By humphrey on Friday, March 02, 2001 - 04:20 am: |
Russ,
I think you are looking for a (sex) slave.
No more , no less as it might be difficult to find one in Canada
| By Ram on Friday, March 02, 2001 - 04:17 am: |
Ali
You must be orriginating from a sex frustrated family.And I think you have a wild fantasy of have sex with indian sluts.May be in your life you didn't manage to have sex with one muslim slut.
As a true muslim you must a have chopped dick , which no one else want.
As muslim I don't know what you think of your self but I wonder which one of you has seen allah . The attitude you are taking even allah will punnish you for it.
Trying to be holy in the meantime ••••••• with sluts.
You are nothing more than a ••••••••••••.
| By seeking advice on Saturday, March 03, 2001 - 02:57 pm: |
hi everyone,
I'll relate you my story.
I married in '92. I am a hindu, she is a muslim. It was a love marriage. We had dated for around 4 years, we slept together a lot during dating period also. Everything was fine till say '97. I'll mention both of us r professionals in computers, have good jobs, wiht decent salaries ( at least as compared locally, not like you guys in states or canada ).
Any way recent making love frequency is something like once a year ! I dont' have any fetish etc,or whatever you call it.She has turned absolutely passive. I was a mastrubate-thrice-a-day teenager !( meanign having sex ( feeling of being accepted )is very important to my mental balance. This situation is really detrimental to myself, it has affected my career also. I know i love her ( I was away for 5 month on a assignment alone, whole team was in bachelor status, so we had usual get drunk parties, had prostitiutes bought in but i was not able to have sex with them, somehow ), we have a 5 year old kid who is absolutely adoreable. I can't even dream of living without him. She is liked by everyone in our family,friends & relative.I like working with her, talking to her ( except after 9 pm, a sort of tension develops , will we won't we type ).
I am not sure what to do. The only outcome of all this has been, I have started drinking heavily, nearly spoiled my career ( why do this, why do that etc..).
I don't know what i did in this janam or last janam to deserve this ???
| By Badar on Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 02:54 am: |
Hi Russ:
I think you will have a hard time finding some girl in India for your type of lifestyle weird as it is.
In more than a billion people there could be a crank or two somewhere there, so go looking.
As far as polygamy in Muslim culture, my suggestion is you throw your spotlights at Utah and to what was in the market in late 60's/early 70's USA.
For someone like you to be ballyaching about polygamy in Islam without knowing why it was necessitated to bring more than one woman into the fold some 1400 years ago only tells me you need education and the sooner you get it the better it is for the internet junkies.
Badar.
| By Russ on Saturday, May 05, 2001 - 03:10 am: |
Hi, I'm an immoral dick head typical of all christians in the west. I like to •••• goats, spread Aids and blame on India. I need help!!!
| By khalid zaidi on Wednesday, July 04, 2001 - 07:36 pm: |
I WANT A GRACEFULL LADY FOR LIFEPARTNAR ONLY INDIAN BABES CONTACT WITH ME I CLEAR THIS ISSUE I AM ARLEADY MARRIED BUT NOT SATISFY WITH MY WIFE BEHAVEAR .
| By BigStud on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 04:31 pm: |
Is any babe from any race there who will satisfy my passion.
| By anon on Wednesday, August 29, 2001 - 08:59 am: |
Russ
If you want that sort of thing l suggest you try america. They are pretty perverted over there.
What makes you think this kind of thing is indian?
You know nothing about india, every perverted thing you tink comes from india. If you want a slave suggest you try africa.
| By A A on Tuesday, October 09, 2001 - 03:01 am: |
To Russ:
Wish you were in Kansas City man. There is a whore house that offers 2 girl, half-hour for $150.00. Even to my surprise, few of the girls are gorgeous.
I know this rich dude in Iran that now has 3 wives. He's got all of them one cosmetic surgery or another. He's a party animal and a hard drinker. What happened to the religious police? They take bribes too. Nevertheless, as all else have told you, this is an increasingly uncommon lifestyle. It amazes me to see ads like: "Me and my husband are looking for a SWF..." in US papers. I agree, you'll have far better luck here than in the east.
| By Devi. on Wednesday, October 10, 2001 - 04:31 pm: |
Although,different people have different opinions regarding each minute thing but most of them are not bold enough to express their thoughts and fantacies because of many factors like social preassure,culture ect but thats how new cultures n societies r evolved.xxx
Dear Poster
We do not believe that your post is authentic.
If you are honest and really what you claim to be please write us at editor@indiafamily.net
to enable further postings.
| By rani on Saturday, October 13, 2001 - 06:47 am: |
Russ man you are so disgusting.
| By Turok - 3DfX KICKS MAJOR ASS!! on Monday, October 15, 2001 - 11:36 pm: |
To "seeking advice"
dude you need to talk it out with her. the fact that you wrote a post about it here indicates you have not talked it out with her. believe me, one tension will lead to other. such things have to be nipped in the bud. a suggestion: when you feel some tension is developing, be DIRECT with her. ask her if she is feeling sick, does she have any worry which dosent allow her to enjoy, whether you can do something to ease it and most importantly, be open with her, persuade her to talk openly with you. You have a child and all this will reflect on the child's development.
| By Russ on Sunday, October 14, 2001 - 08:09 pm: |
I just want to make sure you guys know that I am a dogy goat with a ••••• of a wife who is a lesbo. WE indulge in hardcore kinky sex and she wants me to have a slut inthe house to set herself off when my mout in numb..
I am also gay, a LOSER , a fukin' M-ORON HAHHAHA with no fukking life. Someone please find me and shoot me