Desicritics Comments on Being A Liability

Comment by Juanita Farmer

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:24:13 EST

yur4n2bdafe3on2z

Comment by Ajay

Tue, 9 Jan 2007 01:39:58 EST

Reader in #103-As we see newer social systems emerge in the form of singlehood, single mothers, open prostitution,live-ins etc,ushered in by women, there is a great inertia among women to allow the same free thinking among men and to allow him to redefine issues from his point of view.If live-ins and the supposed amendments are the new social realities that have to be faced, then why not have the courage to face the concept of "live seperately" to protect men to safe guard themselves. Why crib about it and decry it as a "TIRADE" by "SIFians". More over, all the men here are not linked to SIF. I do not belong to SIF and so do a lot of men I know who are commenting here.Why not have the moral courage to accept the male point of view rather than bracketing all in the hue of being SIFians. Can not a man express his views in his own right?? Is it so threatening?

Comment by Sanjay Jain

Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:12:32 EST

Null why should men control their needs and wants. Today woman want to to behave "as they want to". Then why restrain men?? If men have have a higher sexual urge , why should he feel ashamed of it and not feel normal about it.It is his right to live as he wants to and to be proud about it. How can woman decide what is good or bad?

Comment by A.K Rathor

Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:04:15 EST

"so men have to basically control their needs or else they will land in the hot soup of 498a and burn their bottoms et al permanently;" I am surprised that moderator is still allowing these lines and not banning the IP of #105. BIG QUESTION MARK ?????????????

Comment by Riya

Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:39:59 EST

Its very sad the way women are looked upon even after they have proved themselves in every field of life. I dont quite understand the logic behind calling woman a liability. The only way they can prove they are not a liability is by staying seperate, earn their living & be independent. Still the question remains if a son can stay with his parents, not earn & still not be a liability...what kind of world are we living in?

Comment by null

Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:08:50 EST

WEll said Sujai, so men have to basically control their needs or else they will land in the hot soup of 498a and burn their bottoms et al permanently; Sumanth are you listening?? Guys, run run run run, bigg boss is coming.

Comment by Sujai

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 14:04:06 EST

Observing nature gives insights into humans to some extent. 1. Marriage is not natural to animals. The concept of marriage is more in the interests of women than men. Men, as any male in the higher order species of the animal kingdom, has one primary aim- to impregnate as many women as possible. Women, as any female in the higher order species of the animal kingdom, has one primary aim- to rear the child, protect it and feed it. 2. Marriage is one of the most successful institutions that has benefited mankind. In contrast to animals, whose kids are ready to walk off within few hours of birth, humans do not walk for almost a year. The kids of humans cannot protect themselves for many years. The growth of human brain in the first five years is the maximum compared to any species on the planet. Kids grow up observing rather than learning locomotory skills in the first few years. All this allows humans to be intelligent (in comparison to other animals). Marriage helps the woman to protect, rear and feed the kid for a very long time (thus allowing humans to be intelligent) with the help of the man who will always be there to bring home the game and the food. 3. Marriage is conducive to our sexual activity. Unlike animals, where every male gets to know when the female is receptive, we humans cannot exactly say when the woman can reproduce. Also, the woman can have sex almost anytime unlike in animals. A male thus has better chances of having sex being with one woman than if it was like in the animal kingdom (where you get a small window of opportunity with a female and you have to fight for it with other males). Thus, monogamy is also in the best interests of a male to have more sex- but the downside is that he doesn't get to inseminate many females. So, we have #1 and #3. As men, we have to strike a balance. The man is always trying his best to choose another female for sex while continuing to keep his wife in the marriage :)

Comment by Readers

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:13:28 EST

Readers and the owners have time and again asked sif geeks to stop their tirade. Do you want to read those comments. Readers and the owners have a zillion times deleted your comments. Readers and the owners have successfully banned a few geeks in the past.

Comment by Vivek

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 05:24:16 EST

Ajay's view in #91 is indeed worth a second look.If the live-in amendment really comes through, then it is bound to throw up newer reactions and responses from men which feminists have not obviously anticipated. Live-in is a concept which has emerged from women's perception that marriage is restraining. In the same vein, the post amendment live-in relation will be similarly viewed by men as restraining and it is natural that some oher kind of relation will emerge to beat the oppressive and one-sided live-in. It may lead to Ajay's concept of "live seperately", where each partner enjoys his/her own freedom,stay in seperate residences, enjoy a relationship,have individuality and identity and are not unilaterally imposed of any unwanted and undesirable liability. I too strongly feel that more and more men should pitch in strongly for "live-seperately" rather than get involved in a post amendment live-in and be bound by host of unwanted legalities, impositions and life long burdens.The society and feminists should be flexible enough to let such sentiments emerge.Feminists can not complain afterwards if things do not turn up as they had immaturedly envisaged. They seem to take men for granted and never envisage that men too will react and respond in their own way which will not be in tune to feminist way of thinking.And as and when men start reacting, feminists start feeling frustrated and deeply disturbed.

Comment by Vivek

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 05:24:15 EST

Comment by A.K.Rathor

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 04:07:59 EST

Readers can make out who is talking sense and who is frustrated. They are intelligent and do not need a certificate from madam x (null). btw, null is defined as an invalid input to any program.

Comment by null

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 02:13:56 EST

Yes we are raedy for heavey losses, the earth will be saved when 140000 men will lead to suicide and heavy profits will happen when fan sales go up!

Comment by null

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 02:11:33 EST

Hardy and Rathor are as usual frustrated endlessly! Btw, how is the jail, court and police experiences? Some infamous people became famous when they wrote their jail stories, comon this your time of limelight, go for it. ' Guys you need to choose between the after effects of RCR or alimony? See we give you choices. I love when I saw my husband begging in front of the judge(his drama). I too said the same things and as soon as we arrived home, the drama was over and he was in for a major anti climax. He was not sure whether 5 days in jail was worst or 5 weeks spent out of RCR were his worst! He tried his best to record my threats but did such a shabby job, it blew up on his face totally!!

Comment by null

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 02:07:04 EST

thanks for responding

Comment by A.K.Rathor

Sun, 7 Jan 2007 01:16:30 EST

Criminals are good at attack and innocents become fearful and become defensive to save themselves. Time is not far, when mis-users of law will end up behind bar like hostile witness Zahira Sheikh(Best Beckery). SC is definitely working towards making laws of perjury strong and IPC 182 and 211 compulsory. Going forward, burn your fingers, make false accusations and after a small victory be ready for a heavy loss. I know #94 knows this and that's why did not complain. Is she trying for a(n) (im)moral victory?

Comment by Hardy

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 23:52:26 EST

"A comment by null(frustrated)" is the best medicine. ;). Poor husband who got married to ****. JC or not his life was hell. BTW, > ?Criminals? are always scared of the police > and the 5 nights spent in jail in enough > for 5 lifetimes. I thought, that was the case with ordinary innocent citizens not the criminals. Criminals have no fear of prisons just like your Majesty. Their modus operandi is to instill fear in common people and then exploit them.

Comment by null

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:59:43 EST

Ha hahahaa speechless huh?? Loose loose loose--remember girls, if you husband ever files an RCR on you, take it and use it and give him the experience of a life time. But dont forget, he is recording what you say, so do more, like add salt to the food, drop the milk in the kitchen, burn your finger and call the police. My in-laws almost died of a heart attack when i burnt my finger and threatened to call the police. Criminals are always scared of the police and the 5 nights spent in jail in enough for 5 lifetimes. So GOOOOO for tthe RCR. It is fun!

Comment by Hardy

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:45:19 EST

me too.....HAAAHAHHHAAAAA ??? HA HA...

Comment by null

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:04:53 EST

I dont think any women who is capable of filing a 498 is a liability. But does not matter, stay in your own world! With regard to the drama in court, again it is a loose loose loose(3 times) situation for you Hardy baby. Because if we come back -we will make your life miserable If we do not come back, we get a divorce, which we badly want too to free ourself. If we get a divorce , then the 498 cases can run on youguys for years. Harrdy why do you always do this. Do you think whne I see my husband begging in RCR cases I do not know it is drama? But I let him know that it is I beleive him. Coz I got a chance to suck his life out when I went back to him. HAAAHAHHHAAAAA

Comment by Ajay

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 09:13:39 EST

What Nandu has said in #89 is in the right spirit.Sense of duty, commitment and devotion can arise in a relationship only if the conditions in the relation is conducive for it.It simply can not be forced by law.Feminists are ignoring the reality that people cannot be compelled into relations if they feel that they will be victimised by it.It is the natural right of any individual to decide whether he/she at all wants to be in a particular kind of relationship. If this obnoxious amendment really comes through then men will have no option but to react in either of the two following alternatives:- a) Either insist on a legally enforceable marriage where both the parties are legally bound to discharge certain duties and responsibilities, or b) Usher in a new kind of relation i.e."LIVING SEPERATELY" wherein both the partners live in their respective homes, share a relation, meet outside or at either's house, but do not share a home or co-habit under the same roof. This way all the problems will be solved.Men will not be treated as a mere free meal ticket and there will be no domestic violence or torture of women as there will not be any "domestic" house. "Na raahege baas no bajenge bansuri". Prior to bringing about this amendment, feminists should explore all the likely facets and not complain afterwards and start blaming men for the reactions.

Comment by Hardy

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 06:22:11 EST

#87 Who gave you this hilarious illusion that wife abandoned husbands. The fact is that they were totally unwanted in their matrimonial homes as they acted as nothing but leeches posing a big threat, liability and burden to the peace at home. Men wanted them away and out from house, but court wanted men to keep them(as it considered those women as liability indeed) or else threatened them legally with a huge penalty called alimony. Men only pretend in courts that they want to keep the marriage going, for the sake of minimizing this Immoral, Illogical, Biased and Stale concept of alimony for wives who brought themselves to divorce(and themselves to disgrace) in less than a year. Now that statement by wife saying she abandoned husband is called www.dictionary.com

: delusional

Comment by Nandu

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 04:41:54 EST

Marriage is a relationship which involves both the man and the woman. Men had taken over the role of the provider since the cave ages and had done it without complaining. He used to sacrifice all his hard earned money for the upkeep of his family.It was never imposed on him in the sense that he never felt it as an imposition. It was out of natural feelings of duty, commitment, love and binding for one's family, for one's wife and children. It was the same for the wife, who was supposed to look after the family and nurture it.She did it with utmost affection, commitment and sincerity. That was the way, the basic unit of human existence, i.e. "the family" came to being. The roles and duties were not legally imposed but evolved with course of time. They became conventions and unwritten rules which were passed from one generation to another for the sustenance of the "family". That is what feminists have overlooked and totally misjudged. Whether it be marriage or a live-in, the emotions, commitment and sense of duty should flow naturally. It should come from the heart. It will come from the heart when one feels belonged to the "unit". Hence the unit, even if it is a "live in", should evolve naturally so that it gives rise to commitment, duty and love naturally. That requires hard work from both the man and woman in the relation. If feminists think that they will force men legally to unilaterally discharge his love, affection and sense of duty in a live in without expecting any thing in return, it simply can not happen. Over a course of time men will simply refuse to enter into such lop sided relations. Feminists have to accept that they are dealing with human beings and not machines. Men will simply abstain from living with a woman under the same roof if he feels it will lead him to more trouble.It will be as simple as that. Then feminists have to make laws imprisoning men if they refuse to share a house with a woman! It is an impossible situation for feminists.

Comment by A.K.Rathor

Sat, 6 Jan 2007 03:19:40 EST

Preeti ji, But the problem is those wives of those husbands do not abondon them unless they prove themselves a liability on their husbands in the court of law and get a Good sum of money.

Comment by Preeti

Fri, 5 Jan 2007 22:53:18 EST

Absolutely disgraceful ! One would have thought that lessons would have been learnt by them after their wives abandoned them, but I guess more music is only going to come their way. Sakshi You are right --ignore. But well expressed article!

Comment by SidDes

Fri, 5 Jan 2007 09:32:36 EST

Hey just read the first few replies to this post. What remains to b seen is how many ppl who go on and on about males being assholes etc etc follow their own fucking advice. and thats the reason my college going generation rocks.