Booklover/Ash's nookie [I'M BACK] Showing 1,751-1,800 of 4,885

[[deleted user]]

And how are people reading 4000+ books in a year(the top readers)?!
Don't they have school, work, home, anything that consumes their time?!
Do they read for a living?!!!

[[deleted user]]

Excuse the excessive use of '?!'

[stu]

They probably do it for a living then idk

[[deleted user]]

Booklover wrote: "Okay so we're revising a chapter on Islam (Delhi Sultanate) and in the text polygamy is written as a 'social evil' and I'm so angry! Polygamous relationships *aren't* a "social evil" (as long as th..."

My take on it:

You are reading about the Delhi Sultanate where women's rights were negligible. Do you really think all these kings with 100s of wives were taking their older wives consent before marrying again?

And if polygamy is fine then polyandry too should be fine and common. But it is rare, if any.

Few years ago, a read a case in newspaper where a man had two wives, apparently with consent of the older wife. But.. on one fine night the older woman cut the man's penis with razor in retaliation, which is wrong, I know.
But why do you think it happened? Because she was forced to consent

[[deleted user]]

The same case goes with the Delhi Sultanate women. They were MOSTLY, NOT ALWAYS forced to consent to polygamy, making it a 'social evil'.

[[deleted user]]

And I don't see why a woman or a man will consent to their spouse marrying others, without divorce.
It's not the practise but the execution of it that makes it a 'social evil'.

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Yess 100% agree with what you're saying @Anshika

What my point is that the textbook framing (it's one para long lol) was that polygamy is *always* bad which isn't true! Yes, when without consent it's most definitely wrong but *with* consent it's okay. I'm sorry, I should've been more clear in the above statement :))

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Anshika wrote: "Congratulations Ash!!!"

Thank you!

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Anshika wrote: "And how are people reading 4000+ books in a year(the top readers)?!
Don't they have school, work, home, anything that consumes their time?!
Do they read for a living?!!!"

Lol no. Basically GR counts the books you've 'read' (in the top readers) as the amount of books you've shelved in the last week/month/year whatever. Which is *super* annoying cause I haven't read 500+ books in the last twelve months! Only shelved them. Glitchreads :( *eye roll emoji*

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Anshika wrote: "Booklover wrote: "Okay so we're revising a chapter on Islam (Delhi Sultanate) and in the text polygamy is written as a 'social evil' and I'm so angry! Polygamous relationships *aren't* a "social ev..."

Yea it's a year-round school proj.

I'm saying that with consent it's okay.

Agreed

Yes I know (&agree) that polygamous relationships can be both good or bad (good if there's consent, bad if it's forced) but the textbook phrased it as if *every single* polygamous relationship is a 'social evil' irrespective of consent or not.

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Anshika wrote: "And I don't see why a woman or a man will consent to their spouse marrying others, without divorce.
It's not the practise but the execution of it that makes it a 'social evil'."

Well, it could happen ig? I was talking about relationships where all three people are (romantically) in love with each other. (don't open the spoiler tag if you don't want to be spoiled for The Dark Artifices) (view spoiler)[ like Mark/Kieren/Cristina in TDA (hide spoiler)]

and yes

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Anshika wrote: "The same case goes with the Delhi Sultanate women. They were MOSTLY, NOT ALWAYS forced to consent to polygamy, making it a 'social evil'."

Idk about forced consent but I *do* know that back in the 1500's etc polygamous marriages were non-consensual and pretty much common for kings and queens.

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Okay I feel as if I should clear something up:

I was talking about polygamous relationships in GENERAL, NOT in the Delhi Sultanate period. I do know and agree that most of the marriages were polygamous during that period, WITHOUT consent and that's WRONG.
HOWEVER, polygamous relationships WITH consent are OKAY.

[Hershey]

wow👀

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

xD
My nookie is finally active lol

[Ishika]

Booklover wrote: "xD
My nookie is finally active lol"

And it is dead again

[[deleted user]]

Booklover wrote: "Okay I feel as if I should clear something up:

I was talking about polygamous relationships in GENERAL, NOT in the Delhi Sultanate period. I do know and agree that most of the marriages were polyg..."

It was just miscommunication ig.. I get and agree with your point

[[deleted user]]

And I also revived your dead nookie

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Ishika wrote: "Booklover wrote: "xD
My nookie is finally active lol"

And it is dead again"

Lol yea. But to be fair I was offline in the afternoon-evening

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Anshika wrote: "Booklover wrote: "Okay I feel as if I should clear something up:

I was talking about polygamous relationships in GENERAL, NOT in the Delhi Sultanate period. I do know and agree that most of the ma..."
:)

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Anshika wrote: "And I also revived your dead nookie"

Yess ty xD

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

I need 6 more comments to go to the next page

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

so

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

lets

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

spam

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

cause

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

why

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

not?

[Hershey]

Booklover wrote: "not?"

not?

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

see end of previous page

[Niharika✩]

ooh

[Niharika✩]

Aashi wrote: "Booklover wrote: "not?"

not?"

not?

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

"so lets spam cause why not"
the entire sentence @Em and Nihrarika

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

BY THE ANGEL

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

I JUST REALIZED

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

THIS THINGY ISN'T CALLED A NOOKIE

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

ITS A NOOK

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

BUT I STARTED CALLING IT NOOKIE AFTER SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME WITH Y'ALL GUYS

[Niharika✩]

huh?

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

IDK IF Y'ALL ARE CORRUPTING ME OR WHATEVER

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

BUT I LOVE IT

[Niharika✩]

Well duh it's a nook!

[Niharika✩]

lmaooo

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

I'M LITERALLY CHANGING MY SPEECH

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

BECAUSE OF YALL

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

WOW

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Niharika✩ (Hiatus) wrote: "Well duh it's a nook!"

I THOUGHT IT WAS CALLED A NOOKIE

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

YALL ALWAYS CALLED IT A NOOKIE

[Niharika✩]

Booklover wrote: "Niharika✩ (Hiatus) wrote: "Well duh it's a nook!"

I THOUGHT IT WAS CALLED A NOOKIE"

IT'S A NOOK

[Ash (inkwordsandash)]

Niharika✩ (Hiatus) wrote: "lmaooo"

INDEED