Deyi gayi choot - Page 2

D episode where pakhi was leaving for maayka after DIG episode , that time sai brought Cgang to breakfast table that day ninad & omkar critised Virat of not calling out on Sai's behaviour.

Originally posted by: Fruitcustard_9

Cgang & pakhi had always called virat having biased support for sai & he dont listen to his family. They say he don't say anything to sai for his rude behaviour for them virat silence is like encouragement for sai

Virat meant that only I will not support her any further coz he never thought sai will go this far before he only supported her 4 devkit marriage

Virat is no where a controlling husband but some people he will always like controlling one.

.

He's not a controlling husband! As examples given by someone in that scene both Sai and Virat had faults. If Sai told Virat that she had allergy with Aalta, I don't think so he would have told to apply rather may fought for her. And in Lunch episodes, I don't support manhandling, denying food and money drama but actually Sai started it first.

But the line choot, dk it has a controlling behaviour or not, I can't deny that it didn't affected me.

Originally posted by: Andy3456

He's not a controlling husband! As examples given by someone in that scene both Sai and Virat had faults. If Sai told Virat that she had allergy with Aalta, I don't think so he would have told to apply rather may fought for her. And in Lunch episodes, I don't support manhandling, denying food and money drama but actually Sai started it first.

But the line choot, dk it has a controlling behaviour or not, I can't deny that it didn't affected me.

@bold the alta incident goes like this.

He returned home and his family told him tbat Sai refused to apply Alta. They all filled his ears asking when has she ever listened to anyone. This is another protest of her.

His mom tried to tell him but he stopped her saying that you always support her even when she is wrong.

Without checking with Sai why she didn't apply Alta, he started to support his family and asked them why did they allow her to go without getting the Alta applied. He said you guys should have ensured she applied it. She can't go everytime against someone. He then asked Karishma to bring her saying I called her. Karishma hesitates to go and for that too, he said tell her that I called her.

His Aai then called Sai who came and asked what happened. She then starts to joke saying, you have reached home , why don't you have something to eat? Have these people already spoken something against me as usual? He would then shout saying stop all this and asks her why she didnt apply alta. She would say who said I didnt. He will then ask have you started to tell lies too and then she will show him her feet and that is when he would calm down.

Please watch the scene once so that you know who is Virat too.

He never even thought of why she would have refused to apply. He just blindly trusted his family and their words. And why should he come to a judgement about why she didnt apply?

Forget allergy, if a person doesn't want to apply too, is it wrong? Virat will say that they should have ensured that she applied Alta? The family used force and apply Alta on her? What does he know that he started to jump to conclusios. What if she did not want to apply Alta and she had not applied? He only calmed down when he saw her feet with Alta, what if not?

What I have described is in English, to see who Virat can be, you have to watch the episode, hear his dialogues and look at his behavior before saying he would have understood her.

I am sorry but supporting someone without knowing how they have actually behaved is not right.

It looks to me as if you are saying that it is unbelievable that Virat would act that way. Sai would have been responsible for that. One cannot judge characters based on their past behavior alone and without knowing what really happened.

Originally posted by: laksh

@bold the alta incident goes like this.

He returned home and his family told him tbat Sai refused to apply Alta. They all filled his ears asking when has she ever listened to anyone. This is another protest of her.

His mom tried to tell him but he stopped her saying that you always support her even when she is wrong.

Without checking with Sai why she didn't spply Alta, he started to support his family and asked them why did they allow her to go without getting the Alta applied. You guys should have ensured she applied it. She can't go everytime against someone. He then asked Karishma to bring her saying I called her. Karishma hesitates to go and for that too, he said tell her that I called her.

His Aai then called Sai who came and asked what happened. She then starts to joke saying, you have reached home , why don't you have something to eat? Have these people already spoken something against me as usual or have said I am wrong in some way? He would then shout saying stop all this and asks her why she didnt apply alta. She would say who said I didnt. He will then ask have you started to tell lies too and then she will show him her feet and that is when he would calm down.

Please watch the scene once so that you know who is Virat too.

He never even thought of why she would have refused to apply. He just blindly trusted his family and their words. And why should he come to a judgement about why she didnt apply?

Forget allergy, if a person doesn't want to apply too, is it wrong? Virat will say that they should have ensured that she applied Alta? The family used force and apply Alta on her? What does he know that he started to jump to conclusios.

What I have described is in English, to see who Virat can be, you have to watch the episode, hear his dialogues and look at his behavior before saying he would have understood her.

I am sorry but supporting someone without knowing how they have actually behaved is not right.

It looks to me as if you are saying that it is unbelievable that Virat would act that way. Sai would have been responsible for that. One cannot judge characters based on their past behavior alone and without knowing what really happened.

I literally don't have energy and time to watch an episode to know about someone's real face 😪. If you want to bash him for that go on, I'm not anyone to stop you from doing that.

I didn't support his behaviour ever when he's wrong and won't!!!

Bold : I won't ever support a controlling husband behaviour ever!! Though not a feminist but as an equalist and being a part of patriarchal society, I know how a girl endures. But your answer is in your post, I won't question his behaviour for the past work he had done. People evolves as a person, their thought process changes and yes change isn't gradual.

Still I didn't like the chhoot word FYI!!

Originally posted by: basherz

I have not seen the episode yet so I'm not sure about the backdrop of the dialogue.

But to take the dialogue at face value - take from another POV, here it could mean - she's taking advantage of the freedom (whatever that may be) given to her, its not about owning people. Virat may feel, he has supported her & didn't object her from standing up for herself but she has back-stabbed him by arranging a marriage without his knowledge.

I've heard similar dialogues in no.of families like = usne deyi gayi choot ka faayda utaya (the most I have heard is for kids, when they don't perform well in their studies & parents say, the kid has taken advantage of the freedom given to them or when kids get punished for their mischievous activities).

People are usually angry or pissed off when using these words & most of them at the recv. end don't take it too offensively.

I agree with you to some extent. Though if I am being honest, as a woman and that too one who has always been given freedom, the statement did felt offending to me in the beginning, especially the fact that it was spoken a bit repetitively. But when I actually thought about it, I felt that Virat hadn't meant it in that sense. Since Virat plays the role of both husband and a guardian in Sai’s life, him saying that wasn't all that bad. But, another thing which I would like to point out was that, he is her husband and not her parent. The thing is when our parent say that it seems fine, but not so when husband says the same. Because our parents are actually our elders, our seniors, but husband and wife, no matter the age difference, are each other's equals. This is why it is easy to take offence at such a statement.

Originally posted by: Andy3456

I literally don't have energy and time to watch an episode to know about someone's real face 😪. If you want to bash him for that go on, I'm not anyone to stop you from doing that.

It is not about bashing him for a past action. That has always been the case is the point.

I didn't support his behaviour ever when he's wrong and won't!!!

Bold : I won't ever support a controlling husband behaviour ever!! Though not a feminist but as an equalist and being a part of patriarchal society, I know how a girl endures. But your answer is in your post, I won't question his behaviour for the past work he had done. People evolves as a person, their thought process changes and yes change isn't gradual.

I am not a feminist either.

The problem is that he hasn't evolved. Everytime at situations like this, this is how, he has behaved is.the point. He would have supported her, his feelings for her would have changed, not his traits or his nature.

I am also a suupporter of Virat FYI but I will point out if he has been wrong or is wrong.

This was brought into picture not to look into his past, but to say that this is how he always has been.

Still I didn't like the chhoot word FYI!!

👍

I gave it a thought and I feel it could be the below.

I only thought that the word was probably used like saying he has not been strict or stern with her about a few things. That he should have clearly set some rules that these will not be accepted or tolerated. And that she has misunderstood and taken it for granted because he has supported her. Like taking more liberty type. It is not about giving freedom, it is about taking liberty on things which she has no rights on or no business with.

I thought if this is what he could have meant. I would say how he acted and what he spoke in the Alta incident was much much worse than this dialogue. I didn't really find this word to be that severe, it was not meant to be harmful or controlling. Just my opinion.

@Sukri @lostin90s what do you feel he meant by this word "choot"?

Do you agree with my understanding?

Originally posted by: Andy3456

He's not a controlling husband! As examples given by someone in that scene both Sai and Virat had faults. If Sai told Virat that she had allergy with Aalta, I don't think so he would have told to apply rather may fought for her. And in Lunch episodes, I don't support manhandling, denying food and money drama but actually Sai started it first.

But the line choot, dk it has a controlling behaviour or not, I can't deny that it didn't affected me.

Main aapko nhi keh rahi thi I was saying acc 2 what forum has views for him. They carry this view that he want to control her

If u remember after grahpravesh it was he who asked sai to don't take d insult silently do reply back in a decent way , yahi choot di thi aaj tak virat ne sai ko or isiliye Cgang call named to him coz virat don't speak mostly when sai insult them.

Vo sai ko choot de bhi nhi sakta coz Sai is not dependent on him even now financially .

Yes he choose a wrong world by he had a different meaning I guess .

It's my pov.

Originally posted by: laksh

I gave it a thought and I feel it could be the below.

I only thought that the word was probably used like saying he has not been strict or stern with her about a few things. That he should have clearly set some rules that these will not be accepted or tolerated. And that she has misunderstood and taken it for granted because he has supported her. Like taking more liberty type. It is not about giving freedom, it is about taking liberty on things which she has no rights on or no business with.

I thought if this is what he could have meant. I would say how he acted and what he spoke in the Alta incident was much much worse than this dialogue. I didn't really find this word to be that severe, it was not meant to be harmful or controlling. Just my opinion.

@Sukri @lostin90s what do you feel he meant by this word "choot"?

Do you agree with my understanding?

First when I heard, I was also offended, as it meant more like he 'allowed' her to do things per her wishes. Though she has fought for every right incl with him, he still feels like he has "given" her the freedom to do what she wants. That is regressive thought.

The alternate meaning could also be like it's my fault for giving her the freedom to do per her wishes with Devi. It's mainly coz kaku gang always wanted her to stay away from Devi, but he let her play and eventually their relationship has reached a stage where Devi trusts no one except Sai. Now she has gone ahead to marry her per her wishes.

Originally posted by: laksh

I gave it a thought and I feel it could be the below.

I only thought that the word was probably used like saying he has not been strict or stern with her about a few things. That he should have clearly set some rules that these will not be accepted or tolerated. And that she has misunderstood and taken it for granted because he has supported her. Like taking more liberty type. It is not about giving freedom, it is about taking liberty on things which she has no rights on or no business with.

I thought if this is what he could have meant. I would say how he acted and what he spoke in the Alta incident was much much worse than this dialogue. I didn't really find this word to be that severe, it was not meant to be harmful or controlling. Just my opinion.

@Sukri @lostin90s what do you feel he meant by this word "choot"?

Do you agree with my understanding?

I haven't watched the episode but the gist I get from reading updates is that he was merely venting out his frustration for what Sai did. It is pretty normal reaction which parents give when they get angry with their child, irrespective of their gender, for not conforming to the mores of the society they live in, and believe they are misusing all the freedom and opportunities they are provided with on something that might affect them adversely.

If he was a controlling husband then we would have seen it in his actions rather than just words. Let's not forget he is the same man who asked her to give back when his family members taunt her.

There can be other meaning, it was a deal marriage and it's still a deal marriage to Sai so as per the terms of the deal Sai was here in CN to finish her education not get involved in the family matters. He might have said in that context