How come Indian women started wearing veils to cover their faces?

[sorcerer]

Link please, link please, link please, this is the problem with you guys, you do not read books but rather some blogs and sites and mythipedia like wikipedia. Anyway, the whole text is available free online. It is Lalitvistara Sutra. I hope you can find it now. Read the chapter number 12

If you have read atleast one book properly you wont be so idiotic.

Lalitavistara sutra.. and Kamasutra.. these are 2 sutras you are quoting in many posts .. HOw pathetically sutra of you to pretend to be all knowledegble.

I suppose you are a n00b who just found some pdfs online and is trying to get an idea of it..but somehow you cant intepret it well cuz you lack commonsense.

 

[sorcerer]

This guy doesn't sound mentally sound to me.

LOL! while replying to my first post in this thread, he claims I have been making lot of noise in this thread.

This when I hardly post in religious threads and rarely take part in religious debates.

He seems to be a classic clown!

He is a classic asshole who must have found the Ancient Indian text repository online..downloaded a few pdfs.. Ass doest know that a few of us in here share content on those sites.

He has taken Kamasutra in the complete context of societal order..where it naturally refers to the Collective psych of certain factions of society and how men and woman of a clan behave when passionately aroused.

The first few chapters are ground works for the deeper depth of passion.
Cuz Vatsyana gave a broader human psychological understanding in former chapters to understand the seductive and suppressed nature of woman.

This clown in here took it for granted as supression of woman and shit..

The same books talk about toys employed by woman stating her complete freedom of emotion in ancient India. Even the chapters describe many forms of passionate adventures which many religions find tabooo.

Just by him quoting Kamasutra and linking it with supression made me laugh so hard about his understanding about ancient text.

 

[Mad Indian]

He is a classic asshole who must have found the Ancient Indian text repository online..downloaded a few pdfs.. Ass doest know that a few of us in here share content on those sites.

He has taken Kamasutra in the complete context of societal order..where it naturally refers to the Collective psych of certain factions of society and how men and woman of a clan behave when passionately aroused.

The first few chapters are ground works for the deeper depth of passion.
Cuz Vatsyana gave a broader human psychological understanding in former chapters to understand the seductive and suppressed nature of woman.

This clown in here took it for granted as supression of woman and shit..

The same books talk about toys employed by woman stating her complete freedom of emotion in ancient India. Even the chapters describe many forms of passionate adventures which many religions find tabooo.

Just by him quoting Kamasutra and linking it with supression made me laugh so hard about his understanding about ancient text.

If Kamasutra is not proof that women had so much freedom in ancient India lacking in modern world, I dont know what is.

Also, I think he is a classic case of a victim of propaganda consisting of being misinterpreted Indian texts to make Ancient Indian society look like barbarians by JNU. All the more reason why JNU should be purged off of Commies and anti nationals

And I heard that Rig veda is nothing more than a set of Hymns and that it is not written in any Sanskrit words. Not sure if it is true or not but it does show one thing, even our Sanskrit experts cant fully comprehend our ancient text accurately. If our own scholars of Sanksrit cant, then I dont know how much we seriously we should take the interpretations by the westerners

 

[Mad Indian]

Regarding this matter , I think this video will be very insightful on how the "oppression" of women started in the societal progress through our different ages in time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

@Razor, dude watch it. Its well worth it.

 

[alphacentury]

Regarding this matter , I think this video will be very insightful on how the "oppression" of women started in the societal progress through our different ages in time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

@<a href="http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/member.php?u=8025" target="_blank">Razor</a>, dude watch it. Its well worth it.

OT, but oppression of men has started , and a woman is standing up for it.:thumb:

 

[Simple_Guy]

From History of Sikhs:

Gradually Maharani Jindan took the functions of the court in her hands. She was assisted by her brother Jawahar Singh (who assumed the title of vazir), Raja Lai Singh, and her maidservant, Mangla, who, because the maharani was in purdah, acted as an intermediary for her mistress.

Panjab Intelligence of 7 December, states: "The Mai sits in the Sum-mum Burj to hold her durbar behind a purdah with five or six other women, the chiefs of the council ...sit outside the purdah and give their opinions.'

 

[Virendra]

I must quote from some .. quote quote "primary" texts .. that mention how women in India (till Guptas) would wear dhoti for lower body and cover only their breasts on upper body.
Then we can all merry with context less overinterpretation and have fun fantasizing with it
Hopefully tonight if I get time.

 

[sorcerer]

I must quote from some .. quote quote "primary" texts .. that mention how women in India (till Guptas) would wear dhoti for lower body and cover only their breasts on upper body.
Then we can all merry with context less overinterpretation and have fun fantasizing with it
Hopefully tonight if I get time.

Much appreciated if you can post some videos too ...as proof
(read..yay!!!)

 

[jackprince]

the veil system was more prominent in Rajasthani women, than rest of the India.

It would be a mistake to think that veils were there to prevent only Muslim invaders from abusing beautiful women. The beautiful women have always been at threat from powerful people in the times when might was greater than social or religious teachings, and if you see even in the modern day India, at Northern India poweful people still brandishes their might and abuses the weak. It has less to do with religion than corruption of social norms. In ancient India, the women folk were perhaps generally more safe because of the strong social norms and prevalence of 'dharma', where Khsatriya, who were generally the only people with might, were bound by their codes from abusing the women. But generally doesn't mean, universally, as the Rakhsasa Vivah and Paishacha Vivah were mentioned in Manu Smriti.

But in later dates, particularly in middle ages and later, due to incessant attack by the invading Muslims and later due to pacts of various sorts either with Mughals and later British, the Khsatiya Kings developed an immunity in society where they and their coterie of vassal-lords found themselves not to be encumbered with the Dharma, as people have been thoroughly subjugated and left without a voice. The people who had earlier flocked around them for security, have become the sheeps to prey upon. The wolf and sheep relationship still exists in many parts of Northern India.

except the modern day girls who cover their entire body including fingers to prevent darkening of skin-just like egyptian mummies

Good one.

but the basic Idea was the same as islamic Idea...to deter lustful eyes of monarchs and others. even the sati had the same line of thought, it was deemed better to die with husbands body than to be raped by army of conquering kings.

Very true. With the coming of Muslim invaders the accepted practice of warfare was rudely and drastically changed where civilians were put in far greater danger.

 

[Vikramjeet]

I must quote from some .. quote quote "primary" texts .. that mention how women in India (till Guptas) would wear dhoti for lower body and cover only their breasts on upper body.
Then we can all merry with context less overinterpretation and have fun fantasizing with it
Hopefully tonight if I get time.

Could you be please more clear?

 

[Vikramjeet]

It seems that pseudo hindus who are present here can beat Pakistanis in being brainwashed. Arthasastra has been certainly more important than some obscure text like kamasutra which no one knew except some researchers before some 'liberals' made it popular. Even in 60s there were novels with incest and such as themes , does not mean anything. On the other hand, Arthasastra gives us glimpses of how administration was like in ancient India and what elites thought. This is what Kautilya says about 'great freedom of women in ancient India'

These Indian version of Pakistanis are advised to look at text of Arthasastra themselves. I am quoting just relevant portions. The Book number three which is 'Law' in Arthasastra says this

"She shall pay a fine of 6 panas for going out at day time to sports or to see a woman or spectacles. She shall pay a fine of 12 panas if she goes out to see another man or for sports. For the same offences committed at night, the fines shall be doubled"

One pana is equal to 3 grams of silver ( basically coins of 52 grains were called pana). so as per 'liberal' elites, a woman going to some man needs to be fined and if she does this at nights, the fine shall be doubled. Liberalism Lol.

" If a woman leaves her house at night, she shall pay double the above fine. If a man and a woman make signs to each other with a view to sensual enjoyment, or carry on secret conversation (for the same purpose), the woman shall pay a fine of 24 panas, and the man, double the amount. A woman, holding out her hair, the tie of her dress round her loins, her teeth or her nails, shall pay the first amercement, and a man, doing the same, twice the first amercement.

For holding conversation in suspicious places, whips may be substituted for fines."


What a liberalism lol.


And women were not allowed to go out much except for religious pilgrimages and such.

"IF under any other excuse than danger, a woman gets out of her husband's house, she shall be fined 6 panas. If she gets out against the order (of her husband) to the contrary, she shall be fined 12 panas. If she goes beyond her neighbouring house (prativesagrihatigatáyah), she shall be fined 6 panas. If she allows into her house her neighbour, takes into her house the alms of any mendicant, or the merchandise of any merchant, she shall be fined 12 panas. If she deals as above though expressly forbidden, she shall be punished with the first amercement. If she goes out beyond the surrounding houses (parigrihátigatáyam), she shall be fined 24 panas"

And this is best from Kautilya


"If leaving her husband's house, a woman goes to another village, she shall not only pay a fine of 12 panas, but also forfeit her endowment and jewels (sthápyábharanalopascha). If under any other excuse than receiving her subsistence or pilgrimage (bharmádánatirthagamanábhyámanyatra), a woman goes to any other place even in company with an associable man, she shall not only pay a fine of 24 panas, but also lose all kinds of social privileges (sarvadharmalopascha)."

Now i know that people who have no thinking ability and believe what they want to believe would repeat same parrot type kamasutra or such. Worse still, like bearded ghazi who when shown Kuranic verses being violent say 'out of context' they would ask for context.


Hahahaha

 

[Vikramjeet]

Now let us see what their sacred book Kamasutra says.

How wives should behave? Kamasutra says this

"The wife should always avoid the company of female
beggars, female buddhist mendicants, unchaste and rougish
women, female fortune tellers and witches. As regards meals
she should always consider what her husband likes and dislikes,
and what things are good for him, and what are injurious
to him When she hears the sounds of his footsteps
coming home she should at once get up, and be ready to do
whatever he may command her, and either order her female
servant to wash his feet, or wash them herself."

Wow. Getting feet washed is amazing.

"She should avoid bad expressions, sulky
looks, speaking aside, standing in the doorway, and looking
at passers-by, conversing in pleasure groves, and remaining in
a lonely place for a long time;"

Lol, as per this sacred book, she should not look at passers by and remain in pleasure gardens( clubs in modern context).

When hubby is away, she should lead an austere life

"During the absence of her husband on a journey the virtuous
woman should wear only her auspicious ornaments, and
observe the fasts in honor of the Gods.
To the abode of her relations she should not go
except on occasions of joy and sorrow, and then she should
go in her usual travelling dress, accompanied by her husband's
servants, and not remain there for a long time."

 

[Vikramjeet]

And same Kamasutra on how to start love affairs with girls.

"In the next place he should get her to meet him in some
place privately, and should then tell her that the reason of
his giving presents to her in secret was the fear that the
parents of both of them might be displeased,"

Yes meet in secret so that parents do not get displeased which presupposes they getting angry about love affairs in that society.

And this is how KS describes girls

"—She never looks the man in the face, and becomes abashed when she is looked at by
him; under some pretext or other she shows her limbs to
him; she looks secretly at him though he has gone away
from her side; hangs down her head when she is asked some
question by him, and answers in indistinct words and unfinished
sentences"




Shyness at worst.


And mind you, KS says that if girl is young then embrace her in dark.

"But if he is not well acquainted
with her, or if she is a young girl, he should then embrace
her in darkness."


And what about girls who initiate love affairs. Well, these are gospel words


"She should not offer herself, or make the first
overtures, for a girl who does this loses her dignity, and is
liable to be scorned and rejected"

 

[ladder]

Dumb posters need replies that has been dumbed enough for them.

Can ancient 'codes' ( deferent from ancient jurisprudence ) be taken as a reflection of society?

Let me give you a modern example. India has colonial era 'anti-gay sex' law. Does this means in today's India (in her society) policemen enter the bedroom of gays to check whether they are indulging in sex? Or they are rounded up on the complaint of the neighbour? Or they thrown into jail being gay would automatically be indulging in gay sex?

If you gentlemen can conclude any of the above outcomes and extrapolate it to cover the current Indian society by just reading Indian Anti-gay sex law. Then you are probably indulging in 'context less over-interpretation'.

But, then there will some dumb posters who are selectively dumb not to understand.

 

[Vikramjeet]

And this from KS is so regressive

"When a girl of the same caste, and a virgin, is married in
accordance with the precepts of Holy Writ, the results of
such an union are: the acquisition of Dbarma and Artha, offspring,
affinity, increase of friends, and untarnished love.
For this reason a man should fix his affections upon a girl
who is of good family, whose parents are alive, and who is
three years or more younger than himself. She should be
born of a highly respectable family, possessed of wealth, well
connected, and with many relations and friends. She should
also be beautiful, of a good disposition, with lucky marks on
her body, and with good hair, nails, teeth, ears, eyes, and
breasts, neither more nor less than they ought to be, and no
one of them entirely wanting, and not troubled with a sickly
body. The man should, of course, also possess these qualities
himself. But at all events, says Ghotakamukha, a girl
who has been already joined with others (i.e., no longer a
maiden) should never be loved, for it would be reproachable
to do such a thing."

 

[Khagesh]

Now I doubt if you are even a Hindu. Probably a thoroughly secularized Hindu. More likely a Paki.

Look and understand, Kamasutra is not even read by serious students of Hindu Itihaas. Hindus do not need a book to know how to behave with a woman. Till very recently vast majority of Hindus used to refer to almost all women as Mai/Behan, regardless of age. Modernism killed this practice and even till date geographies that gave up these practices have a higher crime rate.

On top of that you are reading a useless english translation. Again a no no for Hindu Itihaas. You are serious you have to read at least the Prakrits like Hindi translations or some other Indian language etc. English is not an Indian language. Ideally the Sanskrit is the only real Shastra sangat bhasha. And seems like you are Sanskrit illiterate because we ask you for originals and you paste some random net searched english article.

On top of that you always always always have to bear in mind that Hindu Shastras and Itihaas cannot and should not be treated as mandatory kind (do this or else you get stoning for blasphemy kind). Much of what is there in Kamasutra is followed in day to day life even today. For example in your own qoute there is some advise to girls not to make herself easily approachable. Something that is recognized even today and most people would hate to have such a woman who is forever making herself available easily. However at the same time these very same people who would reject just such an idiotic girl will not go against a woman should she choose to take to such a lifestyle. Nobody, except criminals, would condone bothering such a woman. Thus Hindu works are not a case of 'islam or sword'.

On top of that you have an unhealthy fancy for the exceptional. Hindus have produced a lot of knowledgebase and you should focus on that instead of looking for incest and kamasutra in this large body of work.

 

[Khagesh]

BTW even in the stupid english version of Arthasastra you will find advise to the King to refrain from hurting woman and doing unrighteous deeds. Unrighteous is not determined by some book, rather it is determined by the Kings Viveka. Viveka developed through practice of yoga and detachment. So, please stop spreading your lies.

 

[Khagesh]

This is from Mahabharata( now do not say link please). This reflects that bringing married wives in assembly of men alone was considered bad a reason why Draupadi taunts all Kurus.

"Vaisampayana said,--"Dragged with greater force than before, the afflicted and helpless Draupadi, undeserving of such treatment, falling down upon the ground, thus wept in that assembly of the Kurus,--

"'Alas, only once before, on the occasion of the Swayamvara, I was beheld by the assembled kings in the amphitheatre, and never even once beheld afterwards. I am to-day brought before this assembly. She whom even the winds and the sun had seen never before in her palace is to-day before this assembly and exposed to the gaze of the crowd. Alas, she whom the sons of Pandu could not, while in her palace, suffer to be touched even by the wind, is to-day suffered by the Pandavas to be seized and dragged by this wretch. Alas, these Kauravas also suffer their daughter-in-law, so unworthy of such treatment, to be thus afflicted before them. It seemeth that the times are out of joint. What can be more distressing to me, than that though high-born and chaste, I should yet be compelled to enter this public court? Where is that virtue for which these kings were noted? It hath been heard that the kings of ancient days never brought their wedded wives into the public court. Alas, that eternal usage hath disappeared from among the Kauravas. Else, how is it that the chaste wife of the Pandavas, the sister of Prishata's son, the friend of Vasudeva, is brought before this assembly? Ye Kauravas, I am the wedded wife of king Yudhishthira the just, hailing from the same dynasty to which the King belonged. Tell me now if I am a serving-maid or otherwise. I will cheerfully accept your answer. This mean wretch, this destroyer of the name of the Kurus, is afflicting me hard. Ye Kauravas, I cannot bear it any longer. Ye kings, I desire ye to answer whether ye regard me as won or unwon. I will accept your verdict whatever it be.'

Ofcourse, Mbh is not Hindu text, Hindu texts are Gurbani and some Tibetan Buddhist texts.

To desist from and/or to protect, a woman against trash talk, lecherous gaze, slander is a worthy objective. To not allow a woman to fall into a situation where she has to grovel is a worthy social object. A society that cannot even afford this protection to a princess is a society that has already fallen to a level where less fortunate woman are not protected.

From out of the Mahabharata war only the 5 Pandavas came out alive and virtually all the other kings, courtiers and ministers and two vast armies were totally decimated. Almost nothing came out of Kurukshetra.

This is the summary of Mahabharata for somebody like you.

And if this happens again in India then similar wars will appear again in India. Only a matter of time.

 

[ladder]

Most Indians certainly have heard about 'Arthasastra' which really shows how far art of Statescraftmanship had advanced in ancient India. kautilya aka Chanakya who wrote this was quite an influential scholar and his view dominated India a lot. Now, Victorian moralists would be shocked to see this from him. He basically prescribes fines for meeting of man and woman ( if purpose was erotic) One pana is equal to 3 grams of silver ( coins were called pana in Arthasastra)

". She shall pay a fine of 12 panas if she goes out to see another man or for sports. For the same offences committed at night, the fines shall be doubled."

"If a man and a woman make signs to each other with a view to sensual enjoyment, or carry on secret conversation (for the same purpose), the woman shall pay a fine of 24 panas, and the man, double the amount. A woman, holding out her hair, the tie of her dress round her loins, her teeth or her nails, shall pay the first amercement, and a man, doing the same, twice the first amercement."

"For holding conversation in suspicious places, whips may be substituted for fines."

He also limited mobility of Indian women a lot.

"IF under any other excuse than danger, a woman gets out of her husband's house, she shall be fined 6 panas. If she gets out against the order (of her husband) to the contrary, she shall be fined 12 panas. If she goes beyond her neighbouring house (prativesagrihatigatáyah), she shall be fined 6 panas. If she allows into her house her neighbour, takes into her house the alms of any mendicant, or the merchandise of any merchant, she shall be fined 12 panas. If she deals as above though expressly forbidden, she shall be punished with the first amercement. If she goes out beyond the surrounding houses (parigrihátigatáyam), she shall be fined 24 panas."

Kautilya's teacher was bit liberal but he was very harsh.

"If leaving her husband's house, a woman goes to another village, she shall not only pay a fine of 12 panas, but also forfeit her endowment and jewels (sthápyábharanalopascha). If under any other excuse than receiving her subsistence or pilgrimage (bharmádánatirthagamanábhyámanyatra), a woman goes to any other place even in company with an associable man, she shall not only pay a fine of 24 panas, but also lose all kinds of social privileges (sarvadharmalopascha)."


Quasi Talibanist attitude, right?

REPLY...............................................

(Transgression.)
If a woman engages herself in amorous sports, or drinking in the face of an order to the contrary, she shall be fined 3 panas.

She shall pay a fine of 6 panas for going out at day time to sports or to see a woman or spectacles.

She shall pay a fine of 12 panas if she goes out to see another man or for sports. For the same offences committed at night, the fines shall be doubled.

If a woman abducts another woman while the latter is asleep or under intoxication (suptamatta-pravrajane), or if she drags her husband as far as the door of the house, she shall be fined 12 panas.

If a woman leaves her house at night, she shall pay double the above fine.

If a man and a woman make signs to each other with a view to sensual enjoyment, or carry on secret conversation (for the same purpose), the woman shall pay a fine of 24 panas, and the man, double the amount. A woman, holding out her hair, the tie of her dress round her loins, her teeth or her nails, shall pay the first amercement, and a man, doing the same, twice the first amercement.

For holding conversation in suspicious places, whips may be substituted for fines.

In the centre of the village, an outcaste person (chandála) may whip such women five times on each of the sides of their body. She may get rid of being whipped by paying a pana for each whip (panikam vá praharam mokshayet). Thus transgression is dealt with.


(Forbidden transactions.)

With regard to a man and a woman who, though forbidden to carry on any mutual transaction, help each other, the woman shall be fined 12, 24 and 54 panas respectively according as the help consists of (i) small things, of (ii) heavy things and (iii) of gold or gold-coin (hiranyasuvarnayoh); and the man, at double the above rates.

With regard to similar transaction between a man and a woman who cannot mix with each other (agamvayoh), half of the above punishment shall be levied. Similar punishment shall be meted out for any forbidden transaction with any men. Thus forbidden transactions are dealt with.

* Treason, transgression and wandering at will shall deprive a woman of her claim not only to (i) strídhana, some form of subsistence of above 2,000 panas and jewellery, (ii) and áhita, compensation she may have obtained for allowing her husband to marry another woman, but also (iii) to sulka, money which her parents may have received from her husband.

CHAPTER IV. VAGRANCY, ELOPEMENT AND SHORT AND LONG SOJOURNMENTS.

IF under any other excuse than danger, a woman gets out of her husband's house, she shall be fined 6 panas. If she gets out against the order (of her husband) to the contrary, she shall be fined 12 panas. If she goes beyond her neighbouring house (prativesagrihatigatáyah), she shall be fined 6 panas. If she allows into her house her neighbour, takes into her house the alms of any mendicant, or the merchandise of any merchant, she shall be fined 12 panas. If she deals as above though expressly forbidden, she shall be punished with the first amercement. If she goes out beyond the surrounding houses (parigrihátigatáyam), she shall be fined 24 panas. If under any other excuse than danger, she takes into her house the wife of another man, she shall be fined 100 panas. But she will not be guilty if the entrance is effected without her knowledge or against her orders to the contrary.

My teacher says:--With a view to avoid danger, it is no offence for women to go to any male person who is a kinsman of her husband, or is a rich and prosperous gentleman (sukhávastha), or is the head-man of the village or is one of her guardians (anvádhikula), or who belongs to the family of a mendicant woman, or to any one of her own kinsmen.


But Kautilya questions :--How is it possible for good women (sádhvíjana) to know at least this fact that the family of her own kinsmen consisting of a number of males is good?

It is no offence for women to go to the houses of kinsmen under the circumstances of death, disease, calamities, and confinement of women.Whoever prevents her going under such circumstances, shall be fined 12 panas. If a woman conceals herself under such circumstances, she shall forfeit her endowment. If her kinsmen conceal her (with a view to exempt her from giving her aid under such circumstances), they shall lose the balance of sulka, money due to them from her husband for giving her in marriage. Thus vagrancy is dealt with.

(Elopement or Criminal Rendezvous.)

If leaving her husband's house, a woman goes to another village, she shall not only pay a fine of 12 panas, but also forfeit her endowment and jewels (sthápyábharanalopascha). If under any other excuse than receiving her subsistence or pilgrimage (bharmádánatirthagamanábhyámanyatra), a woman goes to any other place even in company with an associable man, she shall not only pay a fine of 24 panas, but also lose all kinds of social privileges (sarvadharmalopascha). But the man who allows such a woman to accompany him in his journey shall be punished with the first amercement. If both of them (man, and woman) have similar ideals in life (tulyasreyasoh) and are of sinful life (pápiyasoh), each of them shall be punished with the middle-most amercement. If he whom a woman accompanies in her journey is her near relative, he shall not be punished.

If a relative allows a woman to accompany him, though he is forbidden, he shall be punished with half the above fine (middlemost amercement). If on a road, or in the middle of a forest, or in any other concealed places a woman falls into the company of any other man, or if, with a view to enjoyment, she accompanies a suspicious or forbidden man, she shall be guilty of elopement (sangrahanam vidyát). It is no offence for women to fall into the company of actors, players, singers, fishermen, hunters, herdsmen, vintners, or persons of any other kind who usually travel with their women. If a man takes a woman with him on his journey, though forbidden to do so, or if a woman accompanies a man though she is forbidden to do so, half of the above fines shall be meted out to them. Thus elopement is dealt with.
(

Source Kautilya's Arthashastra R. Shamasastry 1915, page 225-228.

The bold in black, is what the poster amarjeet has quoted.

The red is what I felt he has deliberately missed.

==============
@Ray Sir, @Virendra. Please read the above and see if it is selective quoting to deliberately spread disinformation. Also please take a decision if such thing is and should be allowed.

Now, one can conclude why the poster snapped, when asked for the link.

 

[Razor]

Regarding this matter , I think this video will be very insightful on how the "oppression" of women started in the societal progress through our different ages in time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEeCCuFFO8

@Razor, dude watch it. Its well worth it.

From personal experiences, it is pure torture trying to listen to women yap for a long time (like this 35 min.)
But since you insist I'll give it a try and post comments if I have any.