Procreation or Recreation?
« previous entry | next entry »
Aug. 13th, 2006 | 02:23 am
mood:
irate
A recent economic report on India Vs China claimed that the percentage of youth in India being far greater than that in China (thanks to its one-child policy and the subsequent alarmingly high aged-to-young ratio), gives a fillip to the former’s attractiveness.
There was a recent piece of news making waves for all the wrong reasons – that of an eighty eight year old man in Rajasthan becoming a father, in a quest to proliferate the “Jat” community.
The Kerala Catholic Church has taken a strong stand against contraception, disseminating the message that children are the “gifts of God” and should not be refused.
Then there are women like Angelina Jolie and Sushmita Sen who have given such a graceful and exemplary angle to adoption. They are the saving grace of womanhood in stark contrast to those illiterate second wives of old men in Rajasthan (for instance) who do not even think before pulling up their lehengas while the man indulges in the routine. I also believe that there are a class of men in this world who are not Chengis Khan wannabes.
This brings us to the question: Why do people take procreation so seriously? Is marriage’s primal motive producing children and prolonging the “vamsh” or generation? Whenever a boy is born in the family, they say they have a “vamshoddhaaraka” (a saviour of the family). Whoever coined this term must have been a male chauvinistic pig or a typical self subjugated female. And whenever a girl is born in the family, people in some parts of the country pronounce that she will one day light up someone else’s house. But how - by producing kids like a litter of puppies? If she cannot carry out this biological function successfully, she is dowsed with kerosene and set afire. Not a very nice way to light the house, I’d say.
Then is the act of intercourse just for recreation – an orgasmic result of the interplay of sex hormones? Well, the answer may be a blunt “yes”. But does every such act have to result in an issue? Well, the answer is “not necessarily”. But sometimes couples are obliged to have children. Either to prove their fertility to the world. Or “enhance” the growth rate of their clans. Pretty contemptible rationales. Would the sensible man and woman please stand up.
There was a recent piece of news making waves for all the wrong reasons – that of an eighty eight year old man in Rajasthan becoming a father, in a quest to proliferate the “Jat” community.
The Kerala Catholic Church has taken a strong stand against contraception, disseminating the message that children are the “gifts of God” and should not be refused.
Then there are women like Angelina Jolie and Sushmita Sen who have given such a graceful and exemplary angle to adoption. They are the saving grace of womanhood in stark contrast to those illiterate second wives of old men in Rajasthan (for instance) who do not even think before pulling up their lehengas while the man indulges in the routine. I also believe that there are a class of men in this world who are not Chengis Khan wannabes.
This brings us to the question: Why do people take procreation so seriously? Is marriage’s primal motive producing children and prolonging the “vamsh” or generation? Whenever a boy is born in the family, they say they have a “vamshoddhaaraka” (a saviour of the family). Whoever coined this term must have been a male chauvinistic pig or a typical self subjugated female. And whenever a girl is born in the family, people in some parts of the country pronounce that she will one day light up someone else’s house. But how - by producing kids like a litter of puppies? If she cannot carry out this biological function successfully, she is dowsed with kerosene and set afire. Not a very nice way to light the house, I’d say.
Then is the act of intercourse just for recreation – an orgasmic result of the interplay of sex hormones? Well, the answer may be a blunt “yes”. But does every such act have to result in an issue? Well, the answer is “not necessarily”. But sometimes couples are obliged to have children. Either to prove their fertility to the world. Or “enhance” the growth rate of their clans. Pretty contemptible rationales. Would the sensible man and woman please stand up.

chengis khan wannabes?
from:
braindead_in
date: Aug. 14th, 2006 07:53 am (UTC)
Link
Reply | Thread
Re: chengis khan wannabes?
from:
juneflower
date: Aug. 16th, 2006 05:35 am (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
Re: chengis khan wannabes?
from:
braindead_in
date: Aug. 16th, 2006 06:31 am (UTC)
Link
Reply | Parent | Thread
what happens to the Gene pool
from: anonymous
date: Sep. 14th, 2006 04:13 pm (UTC)
Link
If all smart and intellectuals like you strat thinking of adoption... what will happen to the gene pool of the world... dont you think it will make the world a more dumb in general? just a thot...
M
Reply | Thread
Re: what happens to the Gene pool
from:
juneflower
date: Sep. 17th, 2006 02:28 pm (UTC)
Link
I cud not quite check your Bolivia pics due to firewall restrictions in office...waiting for the postcard though!
Reply | Parent | Thread