Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

The Homoerotic Taliban


Never mind that they don't even allow street signs with the little symbolic walk or don't walk figures with heads on them, here's a video/photo show of the pretty boys of the Taliban. Black eye-liner and hand-holding and pretty long hair are evident in the photos, although homosexual behavior is strictly banned. The Taliban actually turn young boys into sex slaves. Here's an excerpt from an article on that from Jamie Glazov from FrontPageMagazine.com:

Just recently, the Taliban issued a new set of 30 rules to its fighters.

Many of the instructions were to be expected: rule No. 25 commands the murder of teachers if a warning and a beating does not dissuade them from teaching. No. 26 outlines the exquisite delicacy of burning schools and destroying anything that aid organizations might undertake -- such as the building of a new road, school or clinic. The essence of the other rules are easily left to the imagination, basically involving what militant Islam is about: vile hate, death and destruction.

But there is a curious rule that the Western media has typically ignored. Rule No. 19 instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters.

Right.

(Cough and clearing of the throat).

Aside from the question of what is permitted if a young boy does happen to have facial hair, this new Taliban commandment brings light to a taboo pathology that underlies the structures of militant Islam. And it is crucial to deconstruct the meaning of this rule -- and the horrid reality that it represents -- because it serves as a gateway to understanding the primary causes of Islamic rage and terror.

Rule No. 19 obviously indicates that the sexual abuse of young boys is a prevalent and institutionalized phenomenon among the Taliban and that, for one reason or another, its widespread practice has become a problem.

The fact that Taliban militants’ spare time involves sodomizing young boys should by no means be any kind of surprise or eyebrow raiser. That a mass pathology such as this occurs in a culture which demonizes the female and her sexuality -- and puts her out of mind and sight -- is only to be expected. To be sure, it is a simple given that the religious male fanatic who flies into a violent rage even at the thought of an exposed woman’s ankle will also be, in some other dysfunctional and dark secret compartment of his fractured life, the person who leads some poor helpless young boy into his private chambers.

The key issue here is that the demented sickness that underlies Rule No. 19 is by no means exclusive to the Taliban; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout Islamic-Arab culture and it lies, among other factors, at the root of that culture’s addiction to rage and its lust for violence, terror and suicide.

There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality: wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment in which females and their sexuality are demonized and are pushed into invisibility, homosexual behaviour among men and the sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases. Islamic-Arab culture serves as a perfect example of this paradigm, seeing that gender apartheid, fear of female sexuality and a vicious misogyny are the structures on which the whole society functions.

It is no surprise that John Racy, a psychiatrist with much experience in Arab societies, has noted that homosexuality is “extremely common” in many parts of the Arab world. [1] Indeed, even though homosexuality is officially despised in this culture and strictly prohibited and punishable by imprisonment, incarceration and/or death, having sex with boys or effeminate men is actually a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The key is this: the male who does the penetrating is not considered to be homosexual or emasculated any more than if he were to have sex with his wife, while the male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not considered to be emasculated since he is not yet considered to be a man. A man who has sex with boys is simply doing what many men (especially unmarried ones) do. [2] And this reality is connected to the fact that, as scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic-Arab societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination. [3]

Posted by aalkon at August 28, 2007 12:01 PM

Comments

Gee, lemme see here. Deny the existence of women, and only allow certain high-status males to accumulate all of those women to their own use. What's left for the remaining un-marriageable men?

buttsecks.

Nah, can't be.

Posted by: brian at August 28, 2007 6:22 AM

And then ban butt sex except pedophilia.

This is one sick society.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 28, 2007 6:26 AM

But the question is, to me, why and why now?? Or why is it so exaggerated at this time? These guys were well ahead of the europeans 1000 years ago in science, medicine...etc. What happened? Why was it more tolerant then? Once the europeans were able to stand up to them, they collapsed, and were driven out of europe over 500 years. Why were the europeans able to get out of the "dark ages" rut, and these guys are still stuck there?

Posted by: The Mad Hungarian at August 28, 2007 7:18 AM

Like a pond cut off from flowing water, the culture has stagnated. Also with wars in that area (which have been going on for millennium (The 300) all of the civilized people left. The region breeds fanatics, then add in the mixed messages of misrepresented Islam (intentionally) and shit is traveling a relativistic speed towards the fan. The cultures of some of these countries are basically savage, Islam is evilly misused to control the simpler groups.

Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2007 7:49 AM

Yet another glaring reason that the Taliban must be eradicated uterly. The trick is to do so in such a way as to not cause the rise of a similar group out of the ashes of the current.

Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2007 7:51 AM

This is exactly what I mean by the misuse of Islam.
"The boy, however, is not considered to be emasculated since he is not yet considered to be a man."

I'm pretty sure that when the prophet wrote the Koran (whether through divine inspiration or not is debatable) I pretty sure when he said no men he meant no men regardless of age. This is the type of self serving interpretation of religious text that made me leave all churches.

Posted by: vlad at August 28, 2007 7:58 AM

> These guys were well ahead of the europeans 1000 years ago in science, medicine...etc. What happened?

Perhaps our own Orient expert Joe could shed some light on this. Joe? Are you there?

If my memory serves me correctly, I recall reading that leaders and thinkers in the Islamic world gathered at one point to discuss precisely this question. They realized that this indeed was the case, but did they conclude that they needed to apply all that formidable brainpower to catching up and even exceeding what the western world had accomplished? No, they concluded the reason they had lost their way was that they had departed too strongly from their Islamic roots by pandering to the western lifestyle and values. Therefore, they decided that, to regain their former premacy, they needed to embrace fundamentalist Islamic values and practices with renewed vigor. They needed to become more "Islamic".

Joe, correct me if this is wrong. I'm sure you can flesh this out more knowledgeably. I believe I read this in a book by the respected German Orient expert Peter Scholl-Latour.

Posted by: Marie at August 29, 2007 4:10 AM

My reading of the classics is somewhat shallow, but I seem to recall that the sodomized=gay/sodomizer=not gay paradigm was well understood in Ancient Greece, Rome, and most modern American prisons.

So, while I hate to defend the taliban, this is not an abnormal nor a specifically Islamic insanity.

It is, nevertheless, a meme we should start shouting from the rooftops, until the dread fighters of the Taliban make Catholic priests look like anatomically-incorrect angels.

Posted by: Andrew at August 29, 2007 6:52 AM

that, to regain their former premacy, they needed to embrace fundamentalist Islamic values and practices with renewed vigor. They

Yes, that makes sense. The europeans got a lot of their metallurgy, science and medicine from them, then used it to make better swords, ships, maps...etc. What would have happened if a sheik sailed the Atlantic instead of Columbus???

Posted by: The Mad Hungarian at August 29, 2007 7:50 AM

"These guys were well ahead of the europeans 1000 years ago in science, medicine...etc. What happened?"

According to my Iranian friends, "Islamic Arab" advances were really just stolen from the conquered pre-Islamic Persians.

Posted by: winston at August 29, 2007 9:56 AM

I knew it! The Taliban is actually the Super Adventure Club!

Posted by: Russputin at August 29, 2007 11:29 AM

> advances were really just stolen
> from the conquered pre-Islamic
> Persians.

...Because nothing from post-Islamic Persia was worth stealing.

Y'know, I fuckin' hate Iran, and I fuckin' hate Russia. Not really, it's just that in the national character of those two countries, we face a stubborn laziness that we're just never going to be able to tame. Everything else in the Far East and even Africa could, conceivably, possibly, just maybe, fall into place. But the way those two cultures in particular are built around the worst, most cowardly qualities in human nature make me think things are just not going to get better.

Posted by: Crid at August 29, 2007 11:41 AM

This is proof positive that the eeeevil Rethuglicans are just as bad as the Taliban! Larry Craig was in the men's room of MSP Airport doing the exact same thing! Except he was tapping his foot. Allegedly. Not actually committing, y'know, sodomy. And he only votes against legislation favored by gays, rather than brutally sodomizing them and then beheading them for getting str8 d**ck up their sh*tt*rs. SO other than being completely different, it's all the same. Eeevil Repukelicans.

Posted by: Defending the Indefensible at August 29, 2007 1:46 PM

This is actually common in a lot of early cultures; the Greeks come to mind.

The notion that pedophilia is pathological and damaging to the child is a very recent and Western phenomenon (although, I hasten to add, a very correct one).

Europe was largely barbaric in 700 AD; Muslims were refining a lot of concepts that would later fuel the Renassiance. Over the next centuries Europeans became Christianized and less barbaric, while Islam's strength, the codifying of knowledge, became its weakness as it inhibited free inquiry and experiment, the empirical processes that allowed European Christians to stem the Islamic tide after the highwater mark at the Second Siege of Vienna, and eventually make expansionist Islam a footnote in history.

Posted by: TallDave at August 29, 2007 1:50 PM

As I remember hearing, this rather common practice of keeping young boys for sex was eliminated (in public at least) when the Taliban was in charge, and returned, publically, after their removal.

This isn't a Taliban problem - this is an Afghani cultural thing.

Posted by: Jeff at August 29, 2007 1:51 PM

After reading articles like this, I feel better about a YouTube video I saw of gun-camera film from an AC-130 attack aircraft that blew the absolute hell out of a Taliban compound.

I was queasy at the sight of all those little running figures being chased down and atomized by bursts of cannon shells, but it means a few dozen savages are no longer a threat to boys, women, and teachers.

In the Old South they had a saying: "He needed killin'."

Posted by: Tom W. at August 29, 2007 2:00 PM

Grew up in india and the mid-east. having sex with young boys was quite a common practice in the are was of Indian where muslims are in the majority.
BTW, have you noticed how many mid-eastern(Arab) and Indian men are being busted in dateline MSNBC's "To Catch A Predator" series?

Posted by: danny at August 29, 2007 2:04 PM

A 1,000 years ago there was technological and intellectual parity between Islam and the rest of the world.

The need for commerce and trade radically changed cultures. The West became a mercantilist society and they had no competitors. The world was their oyster and they simply took over whatever culture existed in that region.

Islam had no need to expand commercially. They had a large empire and raw materials. There was no need to expand.

To this day raw materials are keeping them fat and happy. Oil is their savior and their greatest burden. As long as the world needs their oil they will remain fat and happy.

With the demise of the Commies, Islam feels its their turn to be rulers of the world. Its kinda hard to take Islam or the Russians very seriously. The rest of the world has grown up and advanced and here is are these childish 3 year olds screaming loudly to be considered as world powers.

Its really sad but we have to deal with these 2 idiotic countries as intellectual/technological equals. If we smote them mightily then we can really focus on the Chinese.

Posted by: otorbus at August 29, 2007 2:05 PM

"There’s a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but alas I cannot swim.”"

From "The Wounded Heart," a Pashtun marching song.

In general, sexual behavior as dominance (incl'g the Taliban, but also, incl'ing for ex, the ancient Irish kings who would copulate w/a "white mare" to prove their virility) is a symptom of narcissism, w/its characteristically high but false ego that sacrifices what the Dalai Lama might term "fully-developed human lives" to a Red Queen race for power and control. It is a self-reinforcing cycle and as such must be broken across the board if it is to be broken at all.

To The Mad Hungarian,

"But the question is, to me, why and why now?? Or why is it so exaggerated at this time? These guys were well ahead of the europeans 1000 years ago in science, medicine...etc. What happened?"

In its glory years, Islam evolved a philosophy encouraging a mataphorical, rather than literal, interpretation of the Koran. Seeking knowledge was seen as holy and the Islamic sciences flourished. Prob not coincidentally, this was an era where muslims lived alongside their conquered peoples, many of whom did much if not most of this work.

But as the Jizya and other inducements forced conversion, a shift from the more open philosophy (aka Mutazilism) to one emphasizing blind obedience(aka Asharism) took hold sometime around 900 AD ... IIRC, I'd have to look uip the dates to be more precise. Anyway, such a shift would have served the rulers well at the expense of the people.

The irony, at least as I see it, is that this shift is responsible for Islam's high-water mark ... bot only because it reversed the trendline for Islam from up to down and thereby created the peak. [Many intellectuals in Europe, remember, openly lamented Charles Martel's victory as they felt that the inferior civilization had staved off the superior and relatively freer one under which they would have preferred to live].

So when Al Qaeda and co call for a return to the values of Islam at its peak, they make a fundamental mistake of misreading history by looking at a snapshot rather than a trend; reasoning from a conclusion, they is.

Posted by: ras at August 29, 2007 2:12 PM

"Man-boy love" in the Middle East and central Asia precede Islam by a thousand years at least. Islam's role in those regions may stem from it being a faith and way of life that stimies progress and enlightenment.

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at August 29, 2007 2:18 PM

TallDave,

"Europe was largely barbaric in 700 AD; Muslims were refining a lot of concepts that would later fuel the Renassiance."

You might enjoy, if you haven't read it already, Jack Weitherford's book on Genghis Khan and the Making Of The Modern World.

FWIW, I couldn't help but see the core values of the Western Renaissance - religious freedom, trade, greater equality, even diplomatic immunity - in a new light when I saw how GK had pioneered them in his time, and how it was his empire that opened up the trade routes that led to EU prosperity. [EU got all the benefits but never had to conquered to get them; nice deal if you can get it]

Those same trade routes later spread the Black Death, of course, which also fueled the Renaissance. Anyway, a recommended read. I'd quote a bit more from it, but I loaned my copy to a friend.

Posted by: ras at August 29, 2007 2:23 PM

And while I'm commenting,a question to all, esp the history buffs: Islam's decline relative to Europe accelerated gratly after the invention of the printing press.

My hunch, tho that's all that it is, is that Islam, at least in it's Asharite form, is simply not conducive to the intricate cooperation required in a modern society, but Christianity and other religions are.

With so many more copies of the holy works in circulation, religious dictates would have been followed more closely. Prior to that, I suspect that for a lot of Muslims the normal vicissitudes of life would have been handled by common sense rather than centureis-old fiat froma work of dubious provenance(*), and that common-sense was better.

OK, I'm going back to work now.

[* The koran was not written down till many decades after Moh's death. It was commissioned by the 3rd caliph, I think, and he demanded it because everyone was remembering Moh's speeches and commands differently and arguing. Naturally, we can assume that his approved version was beneficial to himself and his office, if to no one else. See here.]

Posted by: ras at August 29, 2007 2:34 PM

I can't believe it's taken this long for the media to pick up on this.

The troops serving in Afghanistan refer to it as "Man love Thursday" or "Butt seck" Thurday - always followed by RPG Friday.

Posted by: Wen at August 29, 2007 3:23 PM

"My hunch, tho that's all that it is, is that Islam, at least in it's Asharite form, is simply not conducive to the intricate cooperation required in a modern society, but Christianity and other religions are."

Maybe, but there's not a lot to support that thesis. Europe had a huge leg up on everyone else by being poorly positioned in terms of world trade. They were close enough to know there were goodies out there, but not close enough to get them easily. The Middle East, being at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe, had everything come to them. The number we call Arabic, for instance, are actually Indian. The biggest contribution the Arabs made to the Renaissance was the preservation of some ancient Greek and Roman texts. Being in the middle meant lots of things came to them.

Europeans, by contrast, had to go out and get things. This forced them to master more advanced forms of navigation, ship building, economic and political structures, communication, etc. In addition, the lack of a central authority, like the Caliph in the Middle East, meant there were many competing systems and ideas, rather than a single unified system dictated from on high. Natural selection did the rest.

If you haven't read it yet, I'd highly recommend Hansen's Carnage and Culture.

Posted by: Brian at August 29, 2007 4:33 PM

"These guys were well ahead of the europeans 1000 years ago in science, medicine...etc. What happened?"

Well, a great number of "these guys" at the height of Islamic culture were non-Islamic peoples, subjegated into dihimmitude. With the passage of time the core of these subjegated peoples chose to become Islamic and embrace sharia, which in turn, severely limited scientific and artistic endeavors. The positive reason for embracing the dominant culture is as old as time, escape from punitive taxation, social ostracism and marriage opportunities.

Similarly, the injunction against lending money for profit had its way with economic life. The final burden of sharia, is the complete subjugation of government to the religious class, which further suppresses independent thought.

In order to continue to thrive, Islamic societies are under pressure to expand and subjegate neighboring peoples into dihimmitude. As you can see today, at the interface of Islam with any non-islamic culture, there is a great deal of violence, subtrefuge and cultural foment.

There is nothing new about this phenomenon; it has been going on since the religion was invented.

Posted by: Garrett at August 29, 2007 4:57 PM

This is why I'm against gay marriage.

I believe that there are a certain percentage of people who are born gay, and I understand their desire to fully legitimize their relationships. On the other hand, there are situations where men who aren't born gay will engage in gay sex. A perfect example is men in prison, and Islamic men living in a totally screwed up culture. This is sexually deviant behavior, and is different than a "truly gay" person who just wants a normal, loving relationship with someone of the same sex.

When society creates laws that say that if a person wants to get married, they can either marry somone of the same sex, or they can marry someone of the opposite sex, and as far as society is concerned, both are equally normal for EVERYONE, we can all go either way (and that's exactly the message that legalizing gay marriage will send to people over the long haul), we are setting ourselves up for a return to the sexual deviancy of ancient pagan societies.

Posted by: The Fop at August 29, 2007 5:51 PM

Holding hands with other men is not necessarily a homo-erotic act. Many cultures allow for closer male-to-male contact than the West.

Yes, its weird to walk around an Indonesian mall with your friend's arm wrapped around you, but it's a sign of affection. Its interesting to try to suppress your cultural creep factor.

Posted by: Aaron at August 29, 2007 6:40 PM

I read something a while back that said that those 72 virgins awaiting in paradise was not the total reward for the faithful. "One hundred is the number of pleasures in Paradise": included with the 72 virgins are "28 smooth young boys."

Posted by: Bob at August 29, 2007 7:00 PM

Just a guess, but once the sea routes to India, China, and their products (spices, silk, etc.) were found, and were much cheaper means of obtaining the goods, there was no need to go through the Mid East, and they lost a relatively easy source of income. And then, without the income and the exposure to the rest of the world that came with the trade, they stagnated, as others have mentioned.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at August 29, 2007 7:01 PM

I think I just figured out why Democrats are so sympathetic to the Taliban. Common interests and all.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 29, 2007 8:16 PM

Islam indeed has the open forms of Mutazilism in its past. However, those lasted for at most a century of Islam's existence in each area it was introduced. The patter was the same everywhere Islam spread by force-- first, a military victory, followed by a relatively open society with Islam at the head --followed by a more generally Islamic society, and finally, within a century of the conquest, stagnation of society in Asharism or Wahabbism, or whatever the latest incarnation is. In fact, it seems that Asharism is the ultimate destination of any Islamic society.
The problem is the Islamic conception of mankind and the world. Islam sees humans in their basic nature as being incapable of free will or choice, in a world that is not necessarily rational. While this conception is only superficially damaging, and even possibly helpful in causing a temporary "cosmopolitan" flourishing of the Mutazilistic variety by breaking down societal normal barriers, it only remains so light a presence as long as Islam maintains only a tenuous, superficial grasp on the culture. Once Islam acheives permeation--which it eventually will, post-conquest, due to the self-reinforcing mechanisms of jihad, the jizya, and the insistence on supreme Muslim political authority--the Islamic conception of choice takes over, political controls tighten, and the freedom to explore and question which scientific progress requires, dies off.
The Islamic conception of the world as not rational and certainly unknowable is reinforced by the nature of the Koran, which as a poetic revelation of a single author, is said to be literally the words of God and only source of true Islamic knowledge.

Posted by: tom at August 29, 2007 8:25 PM

I remember reading a P.J. O'Rourke accunt of visiting Petra in Jordan, the ruined city carved into rock. Petra, reported P.J. had been a choke point passage between geological barriers to caravan routes, and it grew wealthy by essentially extorting money from every passing caravan. "Another case of vast unearned wealth in the Middle East" was P.J.'s comment.

Posted by: Victor Erimita at August 29, 2007 8:25 PM

Brian,

Thx for the recommendation. I haven't yet read C & C, but I will now.

Wholly agree re the "competing systems," btw. The Chinese in the time of Zheng He (aka Chung Ho), a lifetime before Columbus, were way ahead of everyone else in terms of seafaring, but one man, the emperor, changed all that, whereas in Europe one man couldn't. One of the best examples I know of the cons of over-centralizing.

[The cons of under-centralizing, esp re the capcity for violence - to the pt of warlordism and constant plunder - are even worse, but striking the right balance definitely gives any society a leg up]

Posted by: ras at August 29, 2007 8:28 PM

In a large tribe in the region, especially Afghanistan, the Pashtun, an older wealthier individual can "buy" a boy as his personal companion and property and, presumably, the sexual exploitation of.

A real tragedy, especially considering that sometimes parents are glad to receive these payments and see a step up for their son.

It's confusing when you say "the Taliban" because the Pashtun were actually glad when the Taliban were deposed in Afghanistan so they could go back to these kinds of practices.

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 29, 2007 8:46 PM

That isn't to say that the exploitation of children in the "Arab world" isn't horrendous.

Hell, bin laden's latest wife was (reportedly) a 16 year old girl. I'll bet she was thrilled to get to marry that hoary guy in his mid 40's.

And one of the attractions for the brain dead to "suicide bombing" is to finally actually get to see a whole unveiled woman ("in heaven") besides your mother and sisters.

Somebody ought to do a doctorate on the relationship between horniness and blowing yourself up.

Yasir Arafat was probably a toad when it came to using young boys for his own perverse nature.

Just having to read the Koran all day long in Pakistani Madrassas must be torture. As well as inculcating very (very) young children into the glories of martyrdom.

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 29, 2007 9:06 PM

Y'all remember Osama bin Ladin's butt boy? Remember that video in which bin Ladin claimed and rejoiced in the WTC destruction? There was his butt boy, sitting cross-legged next to him, looking up reverently into bin Ladin's face, and pretty much acting like a love-struck woman. Some guy also has an article on homosexuality amongst the Saudis. A society that represses normal sexuality is going to find aberrant sexuality the norm.

Posted by: indga at August 29, 2007 9:27 PM

"... but Christianity and other religions are."


No religion leads to prosperity and enlightenment. The best a religion can do is stay out of the way.

Letting Galileo out of the tower did far more for Western civilization than locking him up. We thrived when religion was put in its place, once a week every Sunday, so that we could conduct the business of life free from the warped superstitions of our ancestors the other six days.

Last time I checked Wal Mart was open Sundays ... it seems we're doing pretty well.

Posted by: Laika's Last Woof at August 30, 2007 3:53 AM

seeing that gender apartheid, fear of female sexuality and a vicious misogyny

Just want to point out that this sort of scenario can arise out of political fervor just as easily as religious fervor.

I'm not so sure "feminism," as an "ism," helped us much here in the West.

Lots and lots of young men are being pressured into a repressive social mold. The declamations voiced against any man showing aggressiveness is going to turn us all into Brits.

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at August 30, 2007 4:22 AM

Just kidding about the "Brits".
:o)

Posted by: Joan of Argghh! at August 30, 2007 4:24 AM

The reason Islamic culture was ahead of Europe 1000 years ago is that it had conquered Byzantium. It fed on the culture of Byzantium until there were no more Byzantines left.

In Mohammed's time, the Arabic language had no written form and the Arabs had no architecture. Islamic culture was the product of domination, not of Islam.

Posted by: A Reader at August 30, 2007 7:41 AM

Somebody ought to do a doctorate on the relationship between horniness and blowing yourself up.

Satoshi Kanazawa has done work in this area -- it's in his book with Alan S. Miller, Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399533656?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0399533656
It's very good, I'm reading it now.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 30, 2007 7:44 AM

Actually, I linked to a paper he did on it. It's here (scroll down to the bottom):

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/06/poor_beleaguere_1.html

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 30, 2007 7:46 AM

WOW, this was one of the most interesting discussions I've read in a long time. (Not that the other Goddess discussions are un-interesting...) Never expected so many fascinating thoughts. Another good source, IMO, is Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" on the rise of european domination over the centuries.

Posted by: The Mad Hungarian at August 30, 2007 7:56 AM

No one has addressed the implication for a child when he grows up from what amounts to raping and undoubtedly hurting him. Seems to me he'd grow up kinda pissed off and mad at the world, especially when egged on by his religion. I'm just saying.

Posted by: TH at August 30, 2007 8:34 AM

"The prospect of an exclusive access to 72 virgins in heaven sounds quite appealing to such mateless men in comparison to the bleak reality on earth of being complete reproductive losers."

Yes, but you have to be really stupid and brainwashed to buy into the notion.

Possibly the reason suicide bombing missions in Iraq are likely to be performed by some ardent 14 year old boy imported from Saudi Arabia rather than an Iraqi.

Most Iraqis, reportedly, find the notion of blowing yourself to smithereens repugnant.

Such obvious common sense gives you some hope for this whole thing.

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 30, 2007 9:34 AM

I love that Americans will go as far as this to demonize homosexuality. Who has time to make a crappy photo montage of alleged homosexuality?

Like somehow the horrific things this group of people is done is only worsened by making them gay.

The rape of children (male and female) and women is obviously a huge concern here and that should be addressed, but this is the wrong way. I can only imagine a Republican screaming, “You liberals are all the same, freedom hating, gay terrorist lovers!”

FYI those photos with the cheesy backgrounds are typical in some Eastern countries. It's kind of idyllic for them, a take on our Sears portrait studio. You seriously have to be there to understand, it’s not tacky for them at all.

Posted by: Sally at August 30, 2007 10:53 AM

I love that Americans will go as far as this to demonize homosexuality. Who has time to make a crappy photo montage of alleged homosexuality?

Sally, I don't think that's the point. It's that they kill homosexuals in their society, yet sexually abuse young boys.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 30, 2007 11:01 AM

"But the question is, to me, why and why now?? Or why is it so exaggerated at this time? These guys were well ahead of the europeans 1000 years ago in science, medicine...etc. What happened?"



Many of those "Islamic" advances came from conquered peoples; what we call "Arabic numerals" came from India, for instance - most of the "Arabic" mathematical advances were from India. The name Algebra comes from a Persian (Zoroastrian) man who translated and compiled Indian works into a book titled "On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals". The "Europeans got alot of their metallurgy, science and medicine from them", but not because the Muslims were the original source. Many advances came to Europe by way of Arabs/Muslims, so Western societies gave Arabs/Muslims the credit. "Damascus steel", for example (the European term for wootz steel), was actually from India.



The Arabs/Muslims gathered much of the scientific literature and knowledge from the Greeks, Persians, and Indians and combined it all together, and initially, they did indeed make some discoveries of their own. The Islamic empire grew from controlling Arabia to controlling everything from Tripoli to Afghanistan roughly 100 years. Islamic culture simply didn't have time to replace the existing cultures early on, so there was much openess in the early centuries of the Islamic empire. As the stifling Arabic culture (which is what Islamic culture really is) sank deeper and deeper into the lives of conquered peoples, and as dhimmi populations became smaller and smaller, fewer and fewer discoveries were made.



The Islamic world gained most of their knowledge the same way they gained most of their wealth; by expropriation.



"Well, a great number of "these guys" at the height of Islamic culture were non-Islamic peoples, subjegated into dihimmitude. With the passage of time the core of these subjegated peoples chose to become Islamic and embrace sharia, which in turn, severely limited scientific and artistic endeavors. The positive reason for embracing the dominant culture is as old as time, escape from punitive taxation, social ostracism and marriage opportunities.



Similarly, the injunction against lending money for profit had its way with economic life. The final burden of sharia, is the complete subjugation of government to the religious class, which further suppresses independent thought.



In order to continue to thrive, Islamic societies are under pressure to expand and subjegate neighboring peoples into dihimmitude. As you can see today, at the interface of Islam with any non-islamic culture, there is a great deal of violence, subtrefuge and cultural foment.



There is nothing new about this phenomenon; it has been going on since the religion was invented."




Exactly.

Posted by: MikeMangum at August 30, 2007 11:07 AM

"Sally, I don't think that's the point. It's that they kill homosexuals in their society, yet sexually abuse young boys. " - Amy Alkon


That's because you miss the point of this right-wing propaganda. This information is NOT news. It is common knowledge among anyone who studies the middle-east. Homosexuality certainly exists (in various forms), it's not everyone but it does indeed exist. Duh. You can't tell me all those men go without sex.

What kills me about this is the allusion to homosexuality as if it is something sinister. These men also rape women and young girls; they also kill for not having intact hymens, or going to work or dancing or showing their face. A lot of this could be viewed as hypocritical based on their interpretation of Islam or whatever they feel like saying or doing.

If this had just said they rape women or girls (which is also common knowledge) I doubt very much you would have provided a "funny" photo montage.

Why bother trying to point out hypocrisy in anything they do when they obviously should be removed from power. It's disgusting you bothered with this.

Posted by: Sally at August 30, 2007 1:28 PM

What kills me about this is the allusion to homosexuality as if it is something sinister.

It is. They're raping young boys.

Sally - if you can find a bigger fag hag and supporter of gay rights than yours truly, go ahead.

I have a piece I'll post in a few days about how women fare in these societies - and I've posted numerous pieces about this before.

Furthermore, this isn't "right-wing" propaganda, but news about what's happening. It's so silly when people try to divide things into left or right.

FYI, I'm nobody's political patsy. I'm a fiscal conservative/libertarian who chooses not along party lines but on who's the best candidate.

Regarding photo montages of women and girls, if one existed I'd post it. I believe in letting the truth out for air rather than hiding it.

Perhaps you're new around these parts, but I'm not exactly known for being pussyish about the content I post.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 30, 2007 1:46 PM

Amy I don't understand you. What's with the photo-montage?

You can defend this all day but I don't get it? The photo montage is gay??

I think the real news is the media didn't report this sooner. They have been raping boys forever. There is a book about it, a national best-seller "The Kite Runner."

This story is not about double standards it's about child-molesting and rape. But like I said everyone knows this goes on. Just because they ban something doesn't mean it doesn't take place.

What purpose is this information? So we hate them more? Or we think less of them because they are gay? I don't get it. They kill people.

Break this down simply for me without all the glitter and glitz.

This is political, maybe not by you but the people you get your news from. It is not news and it is slanted. You need to understand homosexuality which is not black and white.

Posted by: Sally at August 30, 2007 2:00 PM

I'm aware of The Kite Runner. Lena read it.

It's appeared on my blog before this. But, photos make it real.

What purpose do you think hiding the information would serve?

I "need to understand homosexuality"? Uh, in what way?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 30, 2007 2:19 PM

"photos make it real”

These pictures certainly have nothing to do with anything you mention. How do they make it real? It's a joke reel.

( Hmmm maybe if we had pics of real Iraq then it would be real.)

You need to understand that a crappy photo montage that consists of over exposed photographs, tacky backdrops in no way relates to homosexuality. It may resemble something Western people assume is looks gay but it in reality that is just being ethnocentric. They are totally out of context.

As you mention in your own article this is "about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination." This is true and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. Not all gay men want to molest or rape young boys.

It's also important to understand the difference in the Western perception of homosexuality and what is perceived as gay in Eastern culture. It's not always the same thing. It’s also important to understand that the Taliban is not the only group of men that practice this in the Middle East.

I’m not trying to dis your information, but I think it is presented in the wrong way.

Posted by: Sally at August 30, 2007 2:34 PM

LOL, Sally hearts NAMBLA.

It is as wrong for straight men to hate women so much it turns them gay as it is for those born gay to hate themselves so much they live a miserable life in the closet.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Posted by: Laika's Last Woof at August 31, 2007 4:51 PM

Also see Bernard Lewis' book "What Went Wrong" about the history of the Islamic world.

Posted by: Dr Ken at August 31, 2007 7:25 PM

Of course homosexuality is as old as mankind! I hope people are not saying that the taliban's exposure to western values is what got them to be so heavily involved in homosexual behaviour. Of course that's non sense!! You mentioned it earlier: There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality:wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment where females and their sexuality are demoniszed and are pushed into invisiblity, homosexual behaviour among men and sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases. Abolutely!! This occurs in every society where females are treated like that. In india, the middle east and the islamic arab world!

Posted by: allan petal at September 16, 2007 7:13 PM

l can see by many of your readers coments that they are part of the western moral code.that they should bread like animals and continue too build all over the place and use up the resourses that are remaining and only when the population reaches 50 billion and countless killing of unborn infants perhaps they may come to understand that a life between too male is and uncondidional expression of love and bonding that only enermies is those that profess too speak on god behalf if such a force excess then we are all sons of god that we are his children.the greek practice this form of love and many of these people are decended from Alexander army of 323 BC so .And do not foreget the U.S.A is the biggest cistpit and have been behind many of the wars in modern times.and continue too surpy arms through out the middle East.The people of afganistan are not the ones that brought the twin towers down.It what l call pay back time .What goes around comes around.If you kick arse then do not be surprise when you get get back.ah the 1960s .That was the time live and let live.Repect orther people culture and do not think your western ways are the only modle their is to a way of life.

Posted by: josh at September 26, 2007 8:41 AM

Leave a comment