from the Afghan brain trust

[ceagle]

Hey! How would ya like to live in a country that tells you how and how often to have sex with your wife? Welcome to Afghanistan! ;/

Comments

[telbert.livejournal.com]

*sighs* Crazier still is the fact that the Taliban gained control of the Swat Valley region. Not good.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Definitely dastardly stuff goin' on out there.... :/

[sebkha.livejournal.com]

To be fair, there's a lot of legal ink spilled everywhere about who, when and where you can have sex. In the West, gay marriage is the line we're currently dancing back and forth over.

My pet theory is that social institutions (government to some extent, but religion particularly) are at some level aware that they're arbitrary, so they work very hard to try to insinuate themselves as indispensable to biologically real events. Birth, adulthood, finding a mate, sex, and death don't require institutions, but the institutions teach that they'd all go terribly wrong without marriage, baptism, funerals, getting a driver's license, etc. And they're in a position to make things go terribly wrong for anyone who tries.

[orv.livejournal.com]

Well, and in the case of religions there's the importance of creating new followers; hence the ban on any kind of sex that doesn't result in procreation, in many sects. There have been religions that prohibited sex altogether, but they didn't tend to last long.

Many mainstream religions also seem to seek to freeze society at the point it was at when they were formed. This is the only way I can explain the Anglican Church arguing for the sanctity of traditional marriage with a straight face.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

hehe.... interesting points! *chuckles at the no-sex church comment*

and yep... wasn't the Anglican church established by Henry the 8th so he could legally get divorces?

[orv.livejournal.com]

Yeah, exactly. Hence the irony when they argue for "traditional marriage" now.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Good point. Self-Justification is certainly an attempted strategy for many an organization, sometimes useful, but often not... because justification should exist with meaningfulness to those who *give* acclaim, not those who seek it, yep. :|

[tacet.livejournal.com]

I used to wonder how you can get raped by a spouse, but anything penetrative and not consensual counts. I've had a fight about this with someone before.
I still should have sued his ass off for what he did to me, but it's been 7 years.... And he seems to think he was rude, but it wasn't unlawful.


So this law allows the husband to get a "positive response" to sex every forth night? MAYBE 3 times a year at the very least?

Way to go breeding ill feelings if someone isn't up for it! I know in some middle eastern countries, you don't marry the girl you love, you love the girl you marry.
But despite how you met, I think the law would disrupt the household more than not regulating sex. Faking orgasms or half hearted sex being the norm can disrupt the couple, too. You'd think it'd be better to back off on sex than force bad sex.
Or do things like mental states how someone feels in that relationship women not matter?


What's next? Missionary is the only allowed position?

[tyrrlin.livejournal.com]

Naw, the U.S. Army already has that rule.

Seriously. We went over it at Basic Training.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Freaky!
That must be a rather interesting class!

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

"Way to go breeding ill feelings..."

Totally. I guess feelings really aren't important to some... :/

[stokerbramwell.livejournal.com]

What an enlightened, forward-thinking nation...

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

well-put ..... 8| ... eeeeeesh!!

[androgynism.livejournal.com]

It's actually the other way around: The proposal tells wives how often they're REQUIRED BY LAW to put out for their husbands.
Basically, they just greenlit rape within the marriage.

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

You make a good point. It's a subtle semantic case here. I actually debated how to report the wording, to make it clear that this was a bad thing for wives, and most people seem to have picked up on that, but I can see your point that it could be misinterpreted. Saying 'having sex with your mate' didn't seem to have the same impact, so I used the wording in the articles (wife), which also were pretty clear that it was an invasive and deplorable thing to attempt to legislate this. If you can think of a better wording though, let me know...

[jedd-marten.livejournal.com]

This is hilariously ironic. The west imposes democracy and then, to help win an election, one of the parties comes up with this little gem. :)

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Some peoples def'nitly gots sum answerin' ta do!... eeeeeeesh!! ;P

[genecatlow.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Hoo boy... if that's an example of what the Afghanistan brain trust is capable of, it's defintely not the big head doing the thinking...

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Well-put, me friend.... I wonder how it's being resolved, if at all... The commenter just below pointed out that the article is no longer accessible ;/

[atkelar.livejournal.com]

Interesting... the article is no longer available - or it's not available outside the US?

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

Thanks for pointing that out... 8|
I've excerpted much of the article under fair use, and placed it here (http://www.hirezfox.com/ce/SHR/AfghanLaw.txt) in this link for you.

[atkelar.livejournal.com]

Wow. That does sound like the middle ages... And people keep wondering why there's no real progress in the middle east. It's not really what god you pray to but rather what earthly rules you abide... but since the Koran has those linked (as far as I know) there's no real progress possible.