Timeline for What types of [non-intimate] friendly touches are allowed with other women?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9, 2020 at 7:33 | comment | added | Wikash_ | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Aug 9, 2020 at 0:36 | comment | added | ram | @Wikash_, i too don't have any doubt. You are making things up. | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 13:37 | comment | added | Wikash_ | @ram I do not have any doubt. You are reading too much into the verses. Nowhere is it mentioned that wanted touches is not allowed you just made that up. I suggest we go to the chat if you want to continue this. | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 8:04 | comment | added | ram | @Wikash_, the same doubt you have with interpretations of verses. English translations are interpretations of westerners of what Sanskrit word means. Unless they have studied Nirukta - which is an entire Vedanga which deals with how to derive meanings of words, then all they're doing is their own interpretation of Sanskrit. And since you're against interpretations, you must be against translations too. | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 7:28 | comment | added | Wikash_ | @ram what is the benefit from that? What doubt do you have regarding the English translation? | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 7:27 | comment | added | ram | @Wikash_, in that, follow your own advice, learn Sanskrit for 10 years, then read the original Sanskrit verses instead of English translations | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 7:25 | comment | added | Wikash_ | @ram You are doing what other theists are doing wrongfully: interpreting verses from your own point of view and reading too much into it. The manus smriti is very explicit in what not to do. You cannot make your own laws: that is not how Hinduism works. | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 7:03 | comment | added | ram | @Wikash_, what does 'sitting alone with a female relative' mean ? why does he say 'senses will carry away even the learned', if he is not referring to dangerous sexual relations? you are being purposefully argumentative (kutarka + vithanda-vada), so I'm not going to waste anymore time with you | |
| Aug 8, 2020 at 7:01 | comment | added | Wikash_ | @ram I again explain to you in that verse nothing is said about wanted touches and even incest. It just says do not sit alone with a female relative. You are reading too much into the verse and in general into Hinduism. | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 23:59 | comment | added | ram | @Wikash_, it's the first comment in this thread. | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 23:36 | comment | added | Wikash_ | @ram in which verse die you read this? | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 21:48 | comment | added | ram | @Wikash_, manu smriti explicitly forbids wanted touches, therefore it is not allowed. | |
| Aug 7, 2020 at 7:58 | comment | added | Wikash_ | @ram I already said that the manus smriti is very explicit in what is forbidden. Here is my proof: I do not see a rule that forbids wanted touches therefore it is allowed. I understand in a flirty setting touching is not allowed to prevent incest however there are many non flirty settings in which men and women interact. | |
| Aug 6, 2020 at 14:13 | comment | added | ram | @Wikash_, Manu bhagvan says, "even the learned are carried away by senses" - that means, you might THINK that it's a non-flirtatious setting but your senses can overpower you. So he is saying do not sit alone or touch a family member. So it automatically extends to non-family members too. If you say "handshakes are allowed", back it up with citations. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 6:54 | comment | added | Wikash_ | Yes that is true however I think the setting and intention is what Manu is getting at. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 6:49 | comment | added | Rickross | Touching hand is not an approved form of greeting in Hinduism. It can be a part of foreplay but not part of a greeting if greeting is done as per Hindu standards @Wikash_ | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 6:47 | comment | added | Wikash_ | Touching hands is a more intimate contact in a flirty setting. By means of a greeting nothing is wrong with that which the op was referring to. | |
| Aug 4, 2020 at 6:43 | comment | added | Rickross | Touching hand is a much more intimate act than just sitting together on bed (even if 4 ft apart) or just touching the clothes. Therefore, when the later acts are not approved how can the former be? Also, it is not necessary that every aspect should be told explicitly in scriptures, many things (have to be) can be inferred. @Wikash_ | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 13:18 | comment | added | Wikash_ | Because the Manus smriti is very specific in its description and nothing is being said about touching in wanted places. Hand shakes are therefore allowed. | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 11:49 | comment | added | Rickross | If touching the clothes, sitting on the same bed not allowed how can we assume that touching the hand will be allowed? @Wikash_ | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 11:35 | comment | added | Wikash_ | Yes it is about touching her clothes, jewelry, giving gifts and sensual acts. So handshakes etcetera are allowed. | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 10:36 | comment | added | Rickross | have you seen 357? @Wikash_ | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 10:29 | comment | added | Wikash_ | So ... touching women in wanted places is okay. This is what the op was asking about; handshakes etc. | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 10:18 | comment | added | Rickross | @Wikash_ Yes ... | |
| Aug 3, 2020 at 8:03 | comment | added | Wikash_ | @rickross verse 8.358 is about touching women in unwanted places, right? | |
| May 31, 2018 at 18:26 | vote | accept | Hindu | ||
| May 31, 2018 at 3:41 | comment | added | ram | OP is asking 'is it allowed to touch non-family women in a friendly way'. Manu bhagavan says 'don't touch even family women in a friendly way'. anyways, if you won't see the similarity, nothing much to discuss. | |
| May 30, 2018 at 6:18 | comment | added | Rickross | It is obvious may be to u but not to me.. there's nothing in it that verse relevant here.. I have used it in many of my earlier answers already.. so if it was relevant then i could have used it here too.. that verse is simply talking about the power of lust nothing else. @ram | |
| May 30, 2018 at 4:59 | comment | added | ram | do you think Manu bhagavan is saying that 'even if there is a huge empty auditorium, where you are in 1 corner and they are in another corner, that still counts as "sitting alone" so it must be avoided' ?.. it is obvious that 'sitting alone' means 'sitting close' with the possibility of touch. yes, it can also include looking, hearing etc. but the main danger is in touch. | |
| May 29, 2018 at 5:35 | comment | added | Rickross | Where does it say anything about touching? It only says "do not sit alone".. @ram | |
| May 28, 2018 at 21:04 | comment | added | ram | that verse says - 'do not touch even women in your own family when alone'. from that, it is implied - 'do not touch other women not in your family', which is the main topic here. | |
| May 28, 2018 at 16:44 | comment | added | Rickross | That verse is just saying that lust is too powerful.. it defeats even the most learned so what to say of the rest.. that's why that instruction.. but what it has got to do with touching which is the main topic here? @ram | |
| May 28, 2018 at 16:12 | comment | added | ram | why is it not relevant ? When Manu bhagavan says that even within one's family, we have to be careful, it automatically follows for women 'not from own family', even though OP mentions that. | |
| May 28, 2018 at 6:12 | comment | added | Rickross | I am aware of that verse.. but it isn't relevant here @ram | |
| May 27, 2018 at 18:47 | comment | added | ram | There is at least one more - wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/… . You can add it to your answer. | |
| May 27, 2018 at 14:02 | history | answered | Rickross | CC BY-SA 4.0 |