Tuesday, 18 June 2013

To bang or not to bang???

The next time you plan to bang someone cute, careful dudes and dudettes, the Court is watching. Funny, to imagine, the lady with the balance waits by your bedside trying to decide if the chick you just banged is over 18. And, dude, you sure are above 21, aren’t you? If no, then you can drink and make merry, kid. You can have as many casual flings as you can and the Justice isn’t bothered. And just in case you are over 21, you are royally screwed, my man!

The new ruling of Chennai High Court is a truly landmark judgement. “If any unmarried couple of the right legal age indulge in sexual gratification, this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed husband and wife.” What an amazing judgement! Hail, Milord! What if I wake up in the morning with no idea of being married to the bartender or the item girl :P

I can hear them conservatives jump up with joy at the ruling. “ That will put them youngsters at the right place. Chi. Chi. So many live in relationships, casual flings…now they will know of our culture”. Oh yes…now the number of one- night stands and casual coitus will dwindle…how scary! I am not that na├»ve to say one got to wait for the Mr. Right to learn what is sex. But why do we Indians have the passion to always relate sex and marriages? For God's sake, sex is just sex and marriage is something that has to last longer. Not to be decided or proved in a Courtroom! And how the Hell does one prove they had sex in the confines of one’s privacy? Film it?( Isn’t that pornography?) Or rather take sleazy pictures of the act and put it on the Court’s noticeboards?

And what is the relevance of family and the ‘mangal sutra’? The saath pherahs, the agni kund, the chain that ties the two goats (ahem, read mutually consenting adults for sex)together? Does the Court say they have no relevance or they are shitty waste of time and money? You want to get married, simple, get the chick drunk, bang her, take few pictures and voila! We pronounce you man and wife! Or the other way…you find a well settled man, a little indecisive and you are over 18, want a secure life, just start living together;) The Court will guarantee you a happily ever after…provided sense prevails and your man sticks to you.
What happens in case ‘such lawfully wedded couple’ need to break up after a one night stand? Simple- apply for a divorce, live a year in separation and two more years clearing the legal hassles. All this wait for one night of sex? By the time you get your divorce, boy would you have wished you never had a sexual apparatus in your body!

I am totally baffled…the teenie-weenie youth would now be banging their heads on bedposts, thinking- “to have or not to have”…rather “to wed or not to wed”…It would be better if the judges concentrate on clearing the cases on their benches faster than creating such ‘landmark’ judgements. And let us leave the institution of marriage outside the purview of sex. Please!

p.s.: So what is the rule for extra marital sex? Any clarifications? Just interested :P
p.p.s.: You are going to be seeing me more from now on...beware ;)
p.p.p.s.: "More" above means i am weighing a whoppy 80 kilos :P
p.p.p.p.s.: Sincere condolences to celebrity cook Nigella Lawson who was manhandled by her husband in a restaurant. Lady...better watch what you cook :P

23 comments:

  1. For the second most populous country in the world - we get awfully touchy and defensive when it comes to matters of intimacy - Hycritical bunch we are.

    Great write up as usual - had me howling in laughter.

    PS: Brilliant title as well :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A.S.- That was a nice comment:) Thanks. Yes, speaking of sex by itself a taboo here, yet look at the rate at which we multiply;) How I wish I could put a status update on fb like "had some great sex" ;) Hypocrites! Every one of us!

      Delete
  2. You have nailed it!

    Someone is Special

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahhhh...thank u bro! Hope I nailed it 'bang' on the head ;)

      Delete
  3. halo
    i read tat judgment. it says like.. if a man had lived with a woman or if they had a sexual relation for a brief time..then they can be consideered as a married couple.. this will help woman who lives with a man (on his promise of marriage)..and falls prey in a weaker moment,, so i dnt see nothin wrong with that stmt..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha! How funny. So you saviours are out to protect the 'weak' women? How male chauvinistic! Is this akin to some local khap panchayat where the moron who raped the woman is forced on her again? Grow up! Marriage is not the solution for everyone's sexual fantasy. The scenario you speak is a rarity. Mostly, it is the ladies who want to opt out of such live-in relationships. Not vice-versa. And please change your mind on "falling prey in a weaker moment'. There are plenty of morning after pills flooding the market anyway :P

      Delete
    2. AKKA! here the intention of the court is to protect interests of woman...the words weaker moments Doesnt imply only for females but can be extended to males too..and dont apply tat with ppl of our ages (ie middleages).. apply tat to teen + .. i know a pair who had phyl reln by grade+2...tats it..( if u c zee tamil Solvadhellam unmai.. most of the storeis revolve around this area...

      Delete
    3. I don't think you are so naive to trust all that happens in those kind of talk shows are real. It represents only a loose part of our populace who are willing to let in cameras to the confines of their bedrooms. It's all TRP gimmicks, man! And please grow up- women just don't need men to protect them as the weaker sex! What a misogynitic outlook!!!

      Delete
    4. enakku venum!idhuvum , innamum! so u mean u can giv a free pass for any one who like to tresspass!??even by the court the SEX with MUTUAL CONSENT n case both wer majors is not an offence by law.. and this judgemnt is diff from tat.. pl chk the diff..

      Delete
  4. what do they mean..bangers, keepers? cant stop loling. :D These legal idiots think marriage is a punishment for sex..what sort of cultural value is that? They call it a sacred and then do something totally shitty like this and make it all look stupid. May be they have pathetic married lives, punishments for wanting sex mostly. And this is going to be the norm..we will see increased sexual interactions among unmarried adults. adultery from the married ones, broken families and more single mothers. But this what we have been all racing toward when we are developing as a nation. As much as people can argue that modernism is spoiling morality, i argue that it simply made people to express themselves, get out of forced unions and explore their options.
    Like many people here get baffled, sex with a complete stranger is far more barbaric than taking the leap with a person close to you. What we should be doing instead is providing our children, adequate knowledge for safe sex, the emotional intelligence to select a partner and being supportive to their ambitions and outlook on life. :) :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow! That is some comment from someone who has their brains at the right place! Thanks Cynthia. I totally agree with what you say- knowledge of safe sex, intelligence in selecting a partner is going to solve the issues. Not legal shit like this that binds people who wish a one night stand in a hell ;)

      Delete
  5. I am still laughing!! OMG! You know as someone said next time the night clubs should play the "Wedding March" as the closing number! And the language -Gosh sounds so biblical ! I almost expected the word "fornication" to pop up from somewhere :) Good piece!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meera!!! Thanks for the comment. The comment on "Wedding march" is awesome...LOL! Could almost imagine the scene...You had me in splits :P

      Delete
  6. So what I get from this is...
    You bang a girl today... You are her Husband...
    The next day you bang another... You are the husband of the second one...

    Wait a minute...
    Isn't Polygamy Illegal...
    So You should be divorced automatically...

    That's a good one...
    Kudos to Chennai High Court...
    No Red Tape... No hassles...
    You bang to get married...
    bang another to get married and unmarried...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Omnipresent :) Thanks for the comment. Bang, bang and keep on banging is what the Court trying to tell us ;) Hahaha! Hilarious comment yar!

      Delete
  7. ROFL, first for the title. I mean when you use the word 'bang', you are officially screwed. Now, two things is for sure to happen -

    1) A lot of social media jokes on this judgement. I was on the verge of posting one today but you know, my in-laws are on facebook.

    2) Many high spirited people who will check whether the judgement will be implemented. By check, I mean lot of action. :D

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks for the comment, Saru. That will be hell of action :P Lol! Thankfully my inlaws are not in fb. God save me, Amen!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hmm, Loads of jokes around but I'd like to look at this from a more serious perspective. Yes, the judge went overboard and terribly wronged by saying, 'If you live together, it amounts to being married or a more euphemistic 'civil union''. However, if you look at the background of the case, the final judgement makes a lot of sense. Live-in relationship, especially in a sex-tabooed country like India, has become a convenient short-cut for several men to woo culturally confused women without any legal binding. And in this case, that's what exactly happened. The guy lived with her for several years, begot two children and finally said that he doesn't have any responsibility just because he wasn't legally married! How atrocious! In fact, they seem to have had a private muslim marriage and we all know how easy it is to get separated in that system. Yes live-in or a one-night stand will/should definitely not be equated to marriage, but that doesn't mean that only the woman has to bear the consequences and issues (read children) that come out of the relationship. In this case, while the lady did not get alimony, (which in my view is correct, she lived-in , now she should not expect a husband-like support! She is one bitchy weakling!), her children got some maintenance amount of Rs. 500/month, which is still quite less in my opinion. And most importantly, the guy was with her when the children were born, even signed her c-section form, which means the pregnancies were planned with mutual consent.

    That's my two paise!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the detailed comment, Malini. I perfectly understand the case, but there should be onus on the live-in relationships.

      Delete
  10. hehe Your post was truly hilarious. Seriously, the judges are demented.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can't help laughing as I read...satirical as always C9.
    You made valid points....it would favour some only....so women, tighten up your act and men, your zippers!..ahahaha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tight up zippers? Rofl! Thanks for the sweet comment, Ibhade!

      Delete

Hey, just let me know your feedback:)