I just saw a drudge headline reading, "Critics assail Afghan law that 'legalizes rape'". Oh No! (I thought...)
Now, when one actually reads the freakin' article, one will see that the language in the law actually reads:
Now, when one actually reads the freakin' article, one will see that the language in the law actually reads:
"As long as the husband is not traveling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says. "Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."Wondering if you guys have the brass ones to discuss this online? (Note: Please do no make any assumptions on my views on the matter; I'm just reporting what I read, folks...) Hobbettes are welcome to comment. After all--we don't live in Afghanistan...
posted by Greg | 1:56 PM
3 Comments:
So Greg, you ask us not to "make any assumptions on [your] views on the matter", but... I can't help but infer--particularly due to the use of the words "freakin'" and "actually"--that you believe that the headline is misleading. They were careful to put the words "legalizes rape" in quotes. They're quoting the aforementioned "critics".
First off... The idea that there could be laws governing the sexual relationship between a husband and wife offends my delicate Western sensibilities. It's ridiculous.
That being said... do I believe that this proposed law "legalizes rape"? I dunno. I imagine that the "No" argument might go something like, "Well, if a woman refuses, and it's been four days, and she's not 'sick' (however THAT'S defined), then... you do what you do when you witness any other law being broken. Either you call the police, or you let it go and work it out yourselves.
I dunno, this whole endeavor is ridiculous. It's almost like trying to answer "What if 2 + 2 were 5 instead of 4?" Okay, not quite, but I feel like I would need to know so much more about Afghan law in order to render any judgement on the matter--other than something blatantly racist or Euro-centric.
The use of the word 'freakin' was actually a Farkism, often seen on Digg as well. The acronym RTFA, where the F stands for something...
So that's where the F came from.
"Actually"...I've got no excuse. Guilty as charged...
Seriously though...
I also giggle when I see laws that try to dictate values. It just won't work...
Second--I, too, thought of how such an offense would be prosecuted. From a muslim perspective, where women have relatively little personal liberties.
So that got me thinking--from the muslim perspective, this might actually defend a woman to a certain extent. Instead of whenever/where-ever, it's got a 4-day period-of-refusal. In a sense, this is something that they may not have had before.
In that sense, it reminds me of when they started closing down the child-labor-factories in developing countries. Sure the kids had crappy working environments...but it was better than the (nothing) that they had before. Yet the ignorant liberal elite won a real victory against the abuse of children, by taking away their society's stepping stone towards industrialization.
But I digress...
Post a Comment
<< Home