Re. points about grand simplifications – I plead guilty, unfortunately that’s par for the course when you have so little room to develop an argument.

Yes! So if Hinduism is difficult to define, then why say, “Hinduism in contrast places huge emphasis in understanding and de-mystifying sex.” If Hinduism is difficult to define, it’s difficult to delineate what you are asserting above.

“I’m not saying there was no regulation. I’m saying in some areas there was… in other areas, no.”

Want to go back in time to see if this was true or not?

I think you’ll have a hard time defining ‘Hinduism’ anyway… even if you just take the Vedas, Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita into account. There is far too much diversity on issues of sex. The problem is that nowadays this culture of prudeness towards sex has taken hold.

I’m not saying there was no regulation. I’m saying in some areas there was… in other areas, no.

Meaning, it is people themselves who construct religion.

“There’s nothing in it that suggests it was the law.”

I stand corrected, if this is true. You are also right that the Arthashashtra was not too concerned with
religion, and so thank you for pointing that out.

However, there’s nothing that suggests that it wasn’t law.

So let’s take what you and Sunny (who got his claim from Wikipedia) assert, that Manu Smriti and Arthashashtra were not laws did not really have an impact on society at the time, and (BTW, it’s not only statecraft; you can read some of the thoughts on women and sex). So are you saying that Hinduism is really much more free and permissive with regards to sex and 2) there were really no regulations of sex through the prism of Hinduism?

If yes, then I completely disagree. I don’t concur on the idea that Hinduisim was one way (much more generous towards sex, “demystified” it, etc. I think those who have argued this tend to romanticize Hinduism and with a sort of orientalist take). IMO, it is people who construct religion.

like hell that doesn’t seriously affect a human being!

i mean that it is natural to think about sex but not natural to go around basing everything on the fact that its a sin/a sin if you’re not doing it with the designated partner/( which when you’re not allowed to choose your own partner is pretty controlling)

and .. yeah right anas, like your attitude towards sex isn’t going to be influenced by parents saying e.g. ‘how dare you play with yourself’ that is haram..to a little boy for example.

and for a girl – being told to on no account touch a boy – and be kept away from all men – and then suddenly being expected to leap into wifely duties – to a complete stranger – -> how is that not going to screw you up or at the very least – make things difficult??

prudish attitudes towards sex is definitely linked to sexual abuse – particularly towards children. that – YOU might not find disturbing – but i certainly do.

What? Are you kidding? Manu Smriti was the law, wasn’t it? There’s nothing in it that suggests it was the law. Hindu injunctions are simply post-facto codifications of practice. Every community (at an even finer level than the jati) has its own custom. There are also eight prescribed rites of marriage that range from the arranged alliance all the way through the Gandharva Vivaha, which is simply cohabitation by mutual consent. Now that is also “law”? The Arthas`astra, is more concerned about statecraft and right through exhibits a remarkable dislike for any organized religion. The VHP/RSS/BJP are all but permissive on sexual matters. If you disagree talk to Ashok Row Kavi.

You’ve probably nailed it.

It’s law that was laid down by kings, but it doesn’t necessarily have theological validation. It has mostly cultural validation. The laws of Manu were smriti… but they are not shruti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aruti

But don’t you think that it was regulated by customary laws, such as the caste system and what not which were then religionized/mystified?

Agreed.

The other point is, many revivalist movements railed against the caste system from a theological point of view. Arya Samaj… Swami Vivekananda… in many ways even the abhorrent VHP crew.

They haven’t got anywhere because the economic/social circumstances remained. Now, as we see the caste system slowly collapsing in India because of globalisation, economic development and increased industrialisation, it is very unlikely that there will be much theological appetite to ressurect it.

“Heh, good point. But as we both know, Hinduism isn’t regulated by one or two scriptures entirely… and the Manu Smriti and Arthashastra aren’t theorlogically important.”

What? Are you kidding? Manu Smriti was the law, wasn’t it?

And let’s take your point that Hinduism isn’t regulated by one or two scriptures entirely. Fair enough. But don’t you think that it was regulated by customary laws, such as the caste system and what not which were then religionized/mystified?

And what makes you think that there weren’t practices or realities that fell out of the purview of Abrahamic scriptures? Muslim kings had boy concubines. Homosexuality is banned by the Koran.

“you’d be right in saying that in reality Hindu culture has degenerated since Manu smriti and I would agree with you.”

So you think there was a singular Hinduism that was all great and perfect prior to Manu smriti that permitted more sexual liberty to ancient Desis? I thought the whole jist of your argument is that Hinduism is decentralized, and if it always has been, then prior to Manu Smriti, it is entirely possible that there was still strict enforcement of sex relations regulations. In fact, how do we know that Manu Smriti didn’t codify what was already happening?

“I think there’s a direct correlation: as obsession with religion increases, so do abstinence and thus obsession with sex in general).”

Um, NO. This is not true. People are still going to get it on, and will probably just hide it due to social stigma.

It’s also lame to create two polar camps such as the “religious world” and “secular world.” It’s equally lame that sex does not have significant meaning in “secular culture,” that there aren’t high expectations, and that people are not obsessed with it. People everywhere, regardless of whether they are religious or sexular, are obsessed with sex. Sex is what drives the survival of our species.

i’m not sure society has come to a moderate, acceptable definition of what constitutes a healthy sex life.

The truth is not the reverse, the truth is EVERYONE IS OBSESSED WITH SEX secular or religious, whether society is comfortable or uncomfortable with it. Sex. Sex. Sex. The thing is in the secular world sex is much more easily and therefore far more openly exploited by advertisers and those who run the media so that they can sell things to people that they don’t really want — capitalism. And this leads to a kind of over-saturation of sexual imagery everywhere making it hard to avoid. That’s why secular culture makes sex banal and emphasises the carnal and purely physical aspects of it. Like the great Robert Anton Wilson said, they’re managed to make a porno film out of every aspect of human sexuality except for the tenderness — that essential intimacy with another human being is something you can’t really market.

Religion starts from the belief that sex is a fundamentally holy act, one that should be performed (if at all) only by a married heterosexual couple. This creates an extraordinarily high level of expectation regarding the sexual act, one that is often impossible to attain. In contrast, secular culture emphasises the carnality and banality of sex. It is able to reach heights that can sometimes only be described through the metaphor of spiritual language, but often it doesn’t. And that’s OK. Sex is great even when it doesn’t “transcend”.

This is another gross generalization. When it comes to sex being “special” or “spiritual” or whatever, I don’t think it really matters whether you’re “religious” — in terms of belonging to an organised religion — or not, I think it’s all down to your attitude towards the act itself, and maybe ultimately how you view yourself and others — and of course it matters who you’re doing it with.

b’shalom

bananabrain

1. sex in judaism is recognised as a fact of life – and a pleasurable one.

2. of course it is “better” if the sex is between a married couple, because it should be at least loving, if not earthshaking (his assumption, not mine) sex. personally, i think affection and emotion trumps physicality. think of music – you may find frank zappa’s “the black page” a technically challenging piece of music which requires astonishing virtuosity to pull off, or you may find it meaningless, mechanical noise which lacks the emotional appeal of, say, an easy-to-play three-chord love song. i personally say it’s horses for courses and one needn’t preclude the other – he’s setting up a false dichotomy.

3. in jewish law the wife is the *custodian* of the sexual domain. it is she who says when, where, how often and whether it’s up to scratch. a wife can divorce a husband who fails to give satisfaction – and this is a one-way rule.

4. in jewish law marriage can be achieved through intercourse, but only if everyone concerned intends it – which provides for the possibility of intercourse without marriage.

5. what about concubines? hellooooooo….?

6. as i believe even shmuley points out, whatever can be done within a consenting couple to “increase intimacy” is permissible.

7. the fact that a substantial amount of talmudic argument concerns the consequences of various instances of intercourse between unmarried people suggests a quite robust popular culture.

8. the sacred stuff is incredibly important, but there are levels here. only the great kabbalists really got involved with sacralising the performance of the [marital] act. the internal mystical workings of the G!Dhead are described in what would appear to be extraordinarily prurient terms – but this is because the dynamics are so intimate; it’s the only suitable metaphor for what is considered to be occurring in the “higher worlds”. this does not mean, however, that all sex should be carried out specifically in order to “unify the Holy Blessed One and the Shekhinah”. sometimes, it can just be between the man and the woman. sonia’s point #7 above regarding *human* as opposed to Divine sexuality is particularly aposite here, given that some of the mechanics of the “Divine unifications” would be 1000% forbidden for reasons of incest if carried out by humans – hence we have no “hieros gamos”, that being a particularly gnostic short-circuit.

9. there are a number of occasions which are hinted at in the classical literature where the young and unmarried, shall we say, pair off. the “merry making of the water-drawing ceremony” of the Temple, which led to the original segregation of the sexes during prayer, is a case in point, as is the custom of the 15th of ‘av for the young girls to ask their beloved to marry them rather than the other way around.

10. either way, the dynamic is entirely different from that of christianity, where the graeco-roman idea that women are basically a sort of defective boy comes from. judaism is quite comfortable with the power of womens’ sexuality, which should be obvious from the fact that it is women that determine permissibility (see point 3. above) whereas men are assumed to require more direction and restriction.

11. nobody takes vows of chastity in judaism, because we wouldn’t understand the concept of this somehow elevating you to a higher plane of existence. to us, this is precisely where sex can get you and nothing else can, not even prayer.

12. judaism is obsessive about the details of *everything* – not just sex.

b’shalom

bananabrain

I think there’s a direct correlation: as obsession with religion increases, so do abstinence and thus obsession with sex in general).

Yup. And that’s why Manu Smriti and Arthashastra were so nice to women with regards to sex in the ancient times,

Heh, good point. But as we both know, Hinduism isn’t regulated by one or two scriptures entirely… and the Manu Smriti and Arthashastra aren’t theorlogically important.

you’d be right in saying that in reality Hindu culture has degenerated since Manu smriti and I would agree with you.

Brilliant comment!