Couple of reasons why you should'nt take Dowry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shekhar

So all of you say I was wrong.

---

No Shekhar you are absolutely right and you have once again proved that you are a Gentleman. I really appreciate you for not giving up your love in the name of caste and creed. Hats off to you :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Between caste and son, they chose caste. It was their decision and they are responsible for it.

---

Absoulutely yes !!

Quote:

---

Looking back, the whole thing sounds so absurd.
My wife became more close with my mother than with me. Any little issue she would run to my mother and I had to hear sermons and admonitions from my mother.

---

These absurdities are very common. Just because they are parents it doesnt mean everything they do or think is correct . I have seen parents making absurd and wrong decisions - specially regarding their children's marriage and ruining their whole life.

Quote:

---

Now both my parents are dead. My self and my parents, both lost 3 years of mutual relationship. Should I carry the guilt? .

---

You dont have to ! Just be proud of yourself !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hehehewalrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visu

Walrus brother!
In our place elders give "moi" only after falling at their feet. :)

---

Unga area-la Ushaar partygal rombave jaasthi :cry:

---

Ange mattum illai ingeyum taan! :lol:

Quote:

---

My God! what a miscommunication! My comment was in response to censure on 'Westernised marriage, where parents are invited as guests', and leaning towards old cultural style marriage. I have objection to neither. It was a response mainly to PP Mam's comment and other's response to PP mam's comment.
Regarding my views on dowry, if you haven't perceived it what can I do. I thought it wouldn't be difficult for anybody to understand the difference between what I say in light humour, and what I believe.

---

Thank you for that clarification i thought i did understand what you believed until i read this post....anyways maybe you can quote the pertaining passages so you know the gurls can understand what you're saying...all that extra typing and thinking left me speechless....for about a second too long :P

Did a bit of research on the dowry concept! It is amazing why the concept came about!!!

The Manu Dharma Shastras declare that there are 7 forms of wedding - Brahma, Daiva, Arsha, Rakshasa, Paisacha, Gandharva etc.

Some like Gandharva is your typical love marriages where the man and woman enter into the agreement and get married. It is absolutely legit and sanctioned by the sastras, no matter what parents might say or feel about it.

But of the seven, only 4 are legal, the other 3 considered unlawful or barbaric. One is when the woman is drugged or asleep, and the man marries her or ravishes her. This is declared inhuman and barbaric and rightly so. The other is when the groom gives money to the girl's parents or guardians and takes a bride. This has been declared illegal, as it is akin to prostituion. In fact, the Manu shastra condemns it saying it is selling the daughter for money. To dissuade greedy fathers from selling their daughters for wealth, they law makers of the day said the best marriage was when the girl's father approaches the groom after carefully examining his credentials and then offers the girl along with jewelry for her.

This way, selling the daughter was totally abolished. So, dowry started off as a good enough concept intended to protect the woman, but turned ugly thanks to the greed of men, like all other good things!

Badri, just a small correction. There are eight types of marriages, not seven.

Rite of Brahmana (Brahma) - where the father of the bride invites a man learned in the Vedas and a good conduct, and gives his daughter in marriage to him after decking her with jewels and costly garments.

Rite of the Gods (Daiva) - where the daughter is groomed with ornaments and given to a priest who duly officiates at a sacrifice during the course of its performance of this rite.

Rite of the Rishis (Arsha) - when the father gives away his daughter after receiving a cow and a bull from the bridegroom.

Rite of the Prajapati - (Prajapatya) where the father gives away his daughter after blessing the couple with the text "May both of you perform together your duties"

Rite of the Asuras (Demons) - when the bridegroom receives a maiden after bestowing wealth to the kinsmen and to the bride according to his own will.

Rite of the Gandharva - the voluntary union of a maiden and her lover, which arises from desire and sexual intercourse for its purpose.

Rite of the Rakshasa - forcible abduction of a maiden from her home after her kinsmen have been slain or wounded and their houses broken open.

Rite of the Pisaka - when a man by stealth seduces a girl who is sleeping or intoxicated or is mentally imbalanced or handicapped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a.ratchasi

Ange mattum illai ingeyum taan! :lol:

---

Alrite then, bend as frequently as possible - spinal cord surgery is costly these days :P

AR: I stand corrected! Thank you for posting the information.

Just to add, there have been debates about the Arsha method

Rite of the Rishis (Arsha) - when the father gives away his daughter after receiving a cow and a bull from the brightgroom.

But the lawmakers stated that this was not akin to selling, as the cow and bull were given only for conducting sacrificial rites, and this was more a gift.

ratchasi,

the concept of Prajapati marriage is simple and good. Had it been practised as a routine, killing of girl babies wouldn't have become true at all.

Anyway, my vote is for Rite of the demons only.. :wink:

Akka: It is the Asura marriage which was banned, as it led to sale of women!

Surprising that you prefer that!!!


The three banned marriages are

Rite of the Asuras (Demons) - when the bridegroom receives a maiden after bestowing wealth to the kinsmen and to the bride according to his own will.

Rite of the Rakshasa - forcible abduction of a maiden from her home after her kinsmen have been slain or wounded and their houses broken open.

Rite of the Pisaka - when a man by stealth seduces a girl who is sleeping or intoxicated or is mentally imbalanced or handicapped.

The fact that the three were banned shows how much women were actually respected in the past, contrary to all popular beliefs, as each of these three violate the right of a woman either by force, fraud or bribery.

Badri thambi,

That was on a light note , as I have 2 daughters you see.. :wink:

thanx to Badri and A.R. for those interesting posts....seriously u do learn something new everyday!

Some like Gandharva is your typical love marriages where the man and woman enter into the agreement and get married. It is absolutely legit and sanctioned by the sastras, no matter what parents might say or feel about it. (this here is gold :wink: :lol: )

Anyways when the father gives away his daughter after receiving a cow and a bull from the bridegroom. Is that like to keep them company until the grandchildren come along or something? :P

Were there any laws as if there needs to be dowry given to those who are widowed or involved with another person previously or even raped? How about when siblings from one marriage (sis and bro) marry another sis and bro will dowry still be necessary?

(sorry for tangent - one thing keeps bugging me please tell me that it is just in the movies where guy wants to marry gurl already involved and deeply in love with another guy......why the hell would he want to do that!?! Just for dowry? :shock: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scorpio

Badri thambi,

That was on a light note , as I have 2 daughters you see.. :wink:

---

Yup, I know. I thought that was why you favored that rite!! :lol:

The me is just joking too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hehehewalrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a.ratchasi

Ange mattum illai ingeyum taan! :lol:

---

Alrite then, bend as frequently as possible - spinal cord surgery is costly these days :P

---

Walrus, I trust you are saying this out of experince! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scorpio

ratchasi,
the concept of Prajapati marriage is simple and good. Had it been practised as a routine, killing of girl babies wouldn't have become true at all

---

If only, scorpio, if only!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scorpio

Anyway, my vote is for Rite of the demons only..

---

Hahaha...hitting two mangoes with a single stone eh? :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Q

Anyways when the father gives away his daughter after receiving a cow and a bull from the bridegroom. Is that like to keep them company until the grandchildren come along or something?

---

Q, only you can come up with something as amusing as that! :thumbsup:

I was watching a debate yesterday and found out that the tying of Thaali is infact part of a relatively recent adaptation of the Tamil wedding ceremony. Tamils did not have a marriage ritual. Instead, anouncements are made to immediate families mentioning that so and so has joined hands. This, however was taken advantage by unscrupulous males who started to desert their wifes by mere mention of "what proof have you got to say that I am your husband". Thus, Thaali was introduced to safeguard the marital rights of women.

Interesting...

That is interesting, AR. but when you say recent, how recent is this recent?

From all accounts, women seemed to regard the "thali" as the most sacred ornament that should not be removed for any reason, a concept that has at least been popularised by a plethora of Tamizh films, at any rate.

But I don't think there is any such concept in North Indian marriages, is there? Maybe there men did not desert their wives as easily as they did in the South, and hence here they required an insurance against such a thing in the form of a thali?

Actually, Badri, I too am curious to know more about this 'revelation'.

Though, I have to disagree with your Thaali sentiments based on Tamil movies. :) It amused me to know that the very Thaali which is now perceived as a symbol of modern day 'slavery' was in fact applied in the good interest of the wedded maiden only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbadri99

From all accounts, women seemed to regard the "thali" as the most sacred ornament that should not be removed for any reason,

---

:roll: :lol: Yes...I was so surprised to see this sentiment among my friends once they got married... I couldn't believe it when one of my friend who didn't have much sentiments & superstitions told me that we shouldn't take off the thali whatever the reason be... & the funniest part is that thali is a prestige symbol...so they usually buy thalis weiging 60-100 gms & they expect us to wear such a heavy things 24/7...365 days a yr... :banghead:

:roll: oh puhleeese with all this thali sentiment...what's the use of a thali if the union it represents is like a living hell? the only good thing a thali will do is pull you down faster when you have a noose around your neck :x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Querida

:roll: oh puhleeese with all this thali sentiment...what's the use of a thali if the union it represents is like a living hell? the only good thing a thali will do is pull you down faster when you have a noose around your neck :x

---

Every religion I know of requires ppl. to possess some mark/s of marriage or the other, apparently as a proof of the marriage being legitimate and/or as safeguarding of modesty in case of women, more than nething else. Tat the marriage it represents might eventually turn out to be hell or heaven is a diff. issue! :wink:
Just like for eg. Christian/Muslim women wear wedding rings, so in Hinduism the Thaali (& also red bottu/kumkumum, metti etc.....:D )....
But in other religions, even men r required to wear the wedding ring.....most unfortunately in Hinduism, they r not known to wear ne thing tat denotes they r married, unlike women, except maybe 4 certain castes......note: I know its strictly taboo to bring religion/caste into discussion here but I'm not intending to create ne casteist bias/disharmony/offence here by discussing this issue here.
I merely wish to emphasise on this to put forward a point- most of u will know tat among a few certain castes in Hinduism, men r always required to wear a length of collective strands of thread (called poonel)......now for men who r unmarried, the poonel consists of 3 strands (brahmachari poonel).....and after marriage they hav to wear a thicker poonel w/ 4 strands, to indicate tat they r married....
so the good thing in this case is tat even the men r always required to wear a mark of marriage and not the women alone! :wink:
Thus I feel tat this particular custom is fair enuff to women in our religion who r compulsorily made to wear the thaali around their necks!
So, w/out relating to casteism, I feel tat if all communities in Hinduism make it mandatory for men to wear the poonel- or sumthing significant- to indicate their marital status, then it will also create in men a feeling of equality w/ their spouses and thus might discourage them from exhibiting unwanted arrogance/superiority over their wives, which might be created in their minds otherwise! :wink:
Neways, this is just my personal idea....I intend to voluntarily wear my poonel to indicate my marital status and respect the sanctity of my marriage after I'm married, if my wife were to wear the thaali, w/out relating to casteism! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordstanher

But [/b] in other religions, even men r required to wear the wedding ring.....most unfortunately in Hinduism, they r not known to wear ne thing tat denotes they r married, unlike women

---

Tulus wear wedding rings - both men and women. It's one of the most important parts of the wedding ceremony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordstanher

after marriage they hav to wear a thicker poonel w/ 4 strands, to indicate tat they r married....

---

I thought it was 6 strands for a married man? I wouldn't really know, though.

A married man doesn't need to wear anything to show he is married. The stamp of idiocy to have got married shows all over his face!! :lol: :lol:

Shekar that's really funny man :lol:

Wearing poonal over the shirt ! That's double funny. :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aravindhan

Tulus wear wedding rings - both men and women. It's one of the most important parts of the wedding ceremony

---

.

Wow, tats most interesting to know!
First time I got to know abt ne Hindus wearing wedding rings in their marriage! And tat too both men & women! :)
But in tat case, I guess the thaali would be more or less unnecessary.....unless, as I don't doubt, its just worn as a safeguard and/or in case ppl. who r unfamiliar w/ the Tulu traditions begin to question the women abt the lack of the thaali....! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aravindhan

I thought it was 6 strands for a married man? I wouldn't really know, though.

---

Oooops!! Very sorry, my mistake! :? Yes ur right, it shud be 6 strands for married men! :)
Actually a relative of mine once said it was 4 but just confirmed it from my mum....she said its double the no. of strands in the brahmachari poonel, so obv. 6 strands!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visu

Wearing poonal over the shirt ! That's double funny. :lol: :lol:

---

Hmm....well, imagine wearing 'jetti' over the pants! :wink: :lol:
I don't reckon ne guy who does tat is going to look exactly like Superman....! :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordstanher

Hmm....well, imagine wearing 'jetti' over the pants! :wink: :lol:
I don't reckon ne guy who does tat is going to look exactly like Superman....! :lol:

---

i think the renaissance man beat you all to it...God i'm still trying to forget that mortifying history lesson about codpieces :x :o :oops:

anyways back to uhhh more safer ground...
so what about a prenuptial agreement...is that something that should come more into fashion? Or is that breaking with trust....again it has to be done before the wedding no?

money .. money u guys , work hard for money not this get money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordstanher

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visu

Wearing poonal over the shirt ! That's double funny. :lol: :lol:

---

Hmm....well, imagine wearing 'jetti' over the pants! :wink: :lol:
I don't reckon ne guy who does tat is going to look exactly like Superman....! :lol:

---

Well you may give it a try mate! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordstanher

Hmm....well, imagine wearing 'jetti' over the pants! :wink: :lol: I don't reckon ne guy who does tat is going to look exactly like Superman....! :lol:

---

When I was studying in college, during the ragging period we had to become superheros during the evenings. What that meant was that we had to wear our jettis outside the trousers, wear a lungi on our backs, and pretend to fly if we wanted to go anywhere. Actually, it was quite funny, even for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visu

Well you may give it a try mate! :wink:

---

Naah.....wats the use! I can't get ne superhero powers even w/ tat! :P :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by podalangai

When I was studying in college, during the ragging period we had to become superheros during the evenings. What that meant was that we had to wear our jettis outside the trousers, wear a lungi on our backs, and pretend to fly if we wanted to go anywhere. Actually, it was quite funny, even for us.

---

Hmm.....well atleast I hope ur seniors didn't 'punish' u w/ addnl. ragging for ur 'failure' of being able to fly! Tat wud not hav been funny.....nor I think wud wearing a komanam (loin cloth), instead of jetti, over the pants be.....:wink:
And yes, sorry for this little digression in this thread! :)

Hello Friends,
Ok no one should take dowry or give dowry.
I am dead against that barbaric custom.
But this topic calls for the following question which needs to be addressed properly.

Please explain me why people should not evolve a process by which their daughters are given fair share of property.

Nichiro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nichiro

Please explain me why people should not evolve a process by which their daughters are given fair share of property.
Nichiro

---

Dear Nichiro,
Your question is a valid one.

This is one of root cause of dowry. If the ancestral property is equally divided between the kids irespective of gender differences, dowry system may disappear soon.

The another one casue is the materialistic expectations of bride as well as their parents. Most of them want a groom with highly paid, so-called highly educated and a stable positions. Most of the advertisements in matrimonial columns are just like "sale". Recently I had been asked to place an "advt" for one of my relative. When I forwarded the responses back to them, the first question asked to me is that about the salary of each one who responded. If some one expect materialistic gains, then they may have to pay for it (just like buying and selling). As long as marriage is based on materialistic expectations. It is nonsensical to blame dowry in those cases. In order to eradicate this, we should encourage the future generation to go for love marraiges irrespespective of intercaste, inter religious and interracial issues.

Mates!
Actually there is a law for equal share of property between siblings irrespective of gender.
If girls go to court then that's it mamu!
We people are clever to hoodwink them in name of culture.
If parents give their daughter, their original fair share(which they are mostly not doing) it will prevent any legal battle with their siblings in future.

Even if the daughters get a fair share will they be able to provide support to parents/handle family matters as equal as sons do? That's the thing parents are apprehensive about.