Don't let this distract you from the fact that Winston Murderer Churchill killed millions and is also considered a hero.
Ethan Dignam Sure causing 3 million+ death sounds like a ‘morally ambiguous’ legacy to me . Who knows if its a good thing or a bad thing.. shouldn’t judge,should we?
Not surprising at all. He didn't sleep with his wife for years preferring the company, no doubt platonic, of young female acolytes. Not the saint he's made out to be.
Abhishek Shenoy how? Was his brown Indian neice also to blame for HIS behaviour? Take your ridiculously backwards mentality back to the 1600s where they belong. Ridiculous comment.
This ‘surprising’ thing about Gandhi is pretty common knowledge to anyone who had looked past the introduction paragraph on wiki or any other source material for him. You think think his views on women was ‘surprising’ then don’t see what he got up to in South Africa.
This headline is misleading! Should I take it positive or negative?? Confused!!
Interesting article. Although I am far more progressive with regard to my views on sex and women, I can’t argue with the statement: "What a pity that the modern girl attaches greater importance to following the code of fashion than to the protection of her health and strength."
Just wanted people to know that Sanskrit literature, the Indian epics and Hindu temples reflect an acceptance and celebration of sexuality and carnality. Gandhi’s views do not reflect what most pre-colonial and pre-modern Indians believed. Or indeed what most modern Indians believe.
Ahhh I’m going to rub my hands with glee here!!
Winston Churchill apart from being a genocidal racist fuelling a famine in Bengal would dictate notes start naked
JFK America’s sweetheart had a voracious sexual appetite
Einstein had countless open affairs
Lyndon Johnson would expose himself every time he got the chance...
Every human that has lived on this earth has had a few marbles loose. And trust me none of us live or have lived lives that are sanctimonious. Even the erstwhile popes of the Vatican have held orgies (google banquet of chestnuts)
So let’s focus on more pressing matters shall we??
Can’t imagine this preposterous pandering of worthless gossip!!!
Who cares, why not focus on all the great things he did which weren’t in line with thinking of the time rather than reassessing the character of a great person through revisionist eyes?
Ghandhi’s view on women is quite warped, he believed that “menstruation was a manifestation of the distortion of a woman's soul by her sexuality". Weird guy.
I find it interesting to use our 21st century bias on a 19th century male. he probably didn’t support gender fluidity either .... oh well....
Margaret Sanger was no saint from a 21st century lens...she advocated eugenics, selective breeding, racial fitness and that birth control could be used to prevent fertility in those physically and mentally defective.
See we've had religious buffoons throyght the ages and this comes when there are 6000 investigations into sex abuse by Catholic priests in Germany and the USA.
He was also a horrible racist when he was in Africa.
Don't idolise humans, they tend to disappoint you.
Why is the BBC making a semi-hit piece on a man who's been dead for 70 years? And really, besides taking the idea to an illogical extreme, what's wrong with people to controlling their sexual desires and pairing it with a 'spiritual' relationship? I'm sure everyone's read this knows someone who has or has been a victim of their own lust and done something stupid because of that. Is the idea of promoting the controlling that so wrong? Besides taking it to a ridiculous extreme, as I said before, I don't see what he said to be extremely insulting to anyone. And yes, his treatment of his niece is inexcusable. No one is defending that. But should his contributions to his society be forgotten because of this? Are all his views null and void? I'm not sure.
Lest we forget that Margaret Sanger entered moral grey areas with her views on eugenics, believing that births must be controlled to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit" (the slippery slope that can develop from that line of thinking should be rather obvious). And yet she undoubtedly progressed women's rights. Does her moral shortcomings negate her contributions? I think not.
I believe people are really starting to get out of hand with this current handling of history ('revisionist' history? Not sure on the proper term.) I am sure that looking through history one will be hard pressed to find ANY individual that can be considered a saint. These great historical figures were (surprise, surprise) human. They should be given their fair shake as such, and while their shortcomings shouldn't be swept under the rug, explaining the nuances and complexities of their lives is hard to do even in a full fledged book on the subject, let alone a news article with a misleading title that can be read in the course of 10 minutes.
Totally out of context that was decades ago ... and he is not here to defend himself ... and who knows if this is truth or BS ..
This is exactly what our religious texts Bhagvad Gita and Srimad Bhagvatam tell us it’s about controlling mind and senses !
He was indeed a great soul.
India got freedom because of sacrifices of Bhagat Singh & other freedom fighters . Politicians can't bring freedom but they can get the credit.
Another man telling a woman what to do with her body.
Firstly, the headline is completely misleading. Wonder what these bbc fellas are thinking. It implies that women ought to play the role of a rape victim in a sexual relationship. Something seriously wrong with the bbc, given this, it's other grosslyskewed posts, and juvenile ones.
Back to the issue....
Well, Gandhi here espouses sexual restraint. Sanger here talks about contraception and how people should have sex when they want to. I'd be more inclined to go with Sanger instead of having sex just for procreation.
However, when we look at how the west has descended to sexual 'looseness', with lots of one night stands, adultery, homosexuality, bisexuality, infidelity, divorces, etc, etc, and all of this being promoted or normalised in their 'entertainment', Gandhi's restraint might seem to be a better choice.
Personally, i'd like the middle path between the two. Towards the end of the article, Gandhi suggested that people just have sex during the 'safe period'. That's what i did when i had relationships in the past. Don't see anything wrong with that. I don't bother with condoms as i don't sleep around, and using it is like having sex with the condom itself.
So pick the right girl, be faithful, and go for it.
They found this after 100 years!?
Preparation for 2019 election.
Sorry but it's human nature to bang my man.
Ethan Dignam Sure causing 3 million+ death sounds like a ‘morally ambiguous’ legacy to me . Who knows if its a good thing or a bad thing.. shouldn’t judge,should we?
Not surprising at all. He didn't sleep with his wife for years preferring the company, no doubt platonic, of young female acolytes. Not the saint he's made out to be.
Abhishek Shenoy how? Was his brown Indian neice also to blame for HIS behaviour? Take your ridiculously backwards mentality back to the 1600s where they belong. Ridiculous comment.
This ‘surprising’ thing about Gandhi is pretty common knowledge to anyone who had looked past the introduction paragraph on wiki or any other source material for him. You think think his views on women was ‘surprising’ then don’t see what he got up to in South Africa.
This headline is misleading! Should I take it positive or negative?? Confused!!
Interesting article. Although I am far more progressive with regard to my views on sex and women, I can’t argue with the statement: "What a pity that the modern girl attaches greater importance to following the code of fashion than to the protection of her health and strength."
Just wanted people to know that Sanskrit literature, the Indian epics and Hindu temples reflect an acceptance and celebration of sexuality and carnality. Gandhi’s views do not reflect what most pre-colonial and pre-modern Indians believed. Or indeed what most modern Indians believe.
Ahhh I’m going to rub my hands with glee here!!
Winston Churchill apart from being a genocidal racist fuelling a famine in Bengal would dictate notes start naked
JFK America’s sweetheart had a voracious sexual appetite
Einstein had countless open affairs
Lyndon Johnson would expose himself every time he got the chance...
Every human that has lived on this earth has had a few marbles loose. And trust me none of us live or have lived lives that are sanctimonious. Even the erstwhile popes of the Vatican have held orgies (google banquet of chestnuts)
So let’s focus on more pressing matters shall we??
Can’t imagine this preposterous pandering of worthless gossip!!!
Who cares, why not focus on all the great things he did which weren’t in line with thinking of the time rather than reassessing the character of a great person through revisionist eyes?
Ghandhi’s view on women is quite warped, he believed that “menstruation was a manifestation of the distortion of a woman's soul by her sexuality". Weird guy.
I find it interesting to use our 21st century bias on a 19th century male. he probably didn’t support gender fluidity either .... oh well....
Margaret Sanger was no saint from a 21st century lens...she advocated eugenics, selective breeding, racial fitness and that birth control could be used to prevent fertility in those physically and mentally defective.
See we've had religious buffoons throyght the ages and this comes when there are 6000 investigations into sex abuse by Catholic priests in Germany and the USA.
He was also a horrible racist when he was in Africa.
Don't idolise humans, they tend to disappoint you.
Why is the BBC making a semi-hit piece on a man who's been dead for 70 years? And really, besides taking the idea to an illogical extreme, what's wrong with people to controlling their sexual desires and pairing it with a 'spiritual' relationship? I'm sure everyone's read this knows someone who has or has been a victim of their own lust and done something stupid because of that. Is the idea of promoting the controlling that so wrong? Besides taking it to a ridiculous extreme, as I said before, I don't see what he said to be extremely insulting to anyone. And yes, his treatment of his niece is inexcusable. No one is defending that. But should his contributions to his society be forgotten because of this? Are all his views null and void? I'm not sure.
Lest we forget that Margaret Sanger entered moral grey areas with her views on eugenics, believing that births must be controlled to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit" (the slippery slope that can develop from that line of thinking should be rather obvious). And yet she undoubtedly progressed women's rights. Does her moral shortcomings negate her contributions? I think not.
I believe people are really starting to get out of hand with this current handling of history ('revisionist' history? Not sure on the proper term.) I am sure that looking through history one will be hard pressed to find ANY individual that can be considered a saint. These great historical figures were (surprise, surprise) human. They should be given their fair shake as such, and while their shortcomings shouldn't be swept under the rug, explaining the nuances and complexities of their lives is hard to do even in a full fledged book on the subject, let alone a news article with a misleading title that can be read in the course of 10 minutes.
Totally out of context that was decades ago ... and he is not here to defend himself ... and who knows if this is truth or BS ..
This is exactly what our religious texts Bhagvad Gita and Srimad Bhagvatam tell us it’s about controlling mind and senses !
He was indeed a great soul.
India got freedom because of sacrifices of Bhagat Singh & other freedom fighters . Politicians can't bring freedom but they can get the credit.
Another man telling a woman what to do with her body.
Firstly, the headline is completely misleading. Wonder what these bbc fellas are thinking. It implies that women ought to play the role of a rape victim in a sexual relationship. Something seriously wrong with the bbc, given this, it's other grosslyskewed posts, and juvenile ones.
Back to the issue....
Well, Gandhi here espouses sexual restraint. Sanger here talks about contraception and how people should have sex when they want to. I'd be more inclined to go with Sanger instead of having sex just for procreation.
However, when we look at how the west has descended to sexual 'looseness', with lots of one night stands, adultery, homosexuality, bisexuality, infidelity, divorces, etc, etc, and all of this being promoted or normalised in their 'entertainment', Gandhi's restraint might seem to be a better choice.
Personally, i'd like the middle path between the two. Towards the end of the article, Gandhi suggested that people just have sex during the 'safe period'. That's what i did when i had relationships in the past. Don't see anything wrong with that. I don't bother with condoms as i don't sleep around, and using it is like having sex with the condom itself.
So pick the right girl, be faithful, and go for it.
They found this after 100 years!?
Preparation for 2019 election.
Sorry but it's human nature to bang my man.