The prison virgin bride rapes.

Because these people genuinely believe they are preventing the girls from going to heaven. Of course -I- don't believe that, but -they- do, so the intent is there.

And the girls get killed believing they won't go to heaven. What a horrible way to die!

That's absolutely true, and he married her, too.

You should also note that while Islam caps the number of wives a man can have to 4, Muhammed broke his own law by having seven wives.

I remember also when we were discussing gay marriage, someone was suggesting polygamy would be next. I wonder why, when we assume polygamy, we assume that this is a "men's only" benefit. If polygamy is allowed, what's to stop an affluent woman from maintaining a stable of studs to satisfy her, a la Catherine the Great?

(By the way, contrary to popular belief, Catherine the Great did not die while having sex with a horse. And while she did love both horses and sex, no evidence exists that she ever united the two passions.)

Because, Patrick, historically polygamy has been overwhelmingly bad for women. I'm sure we can find exceptions, but that's what they are... exceptions.

Generally being gang-banged by several men isn't considered a positive for women the way banging lots of girls is for men.

This is my favorite Muslim sex story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

Serves him right, Martin. Thanks for sharing!

Amy,

I found it impossible to choose. But I posted a link to you on the other blog.

I find it amazing that any western women seek out this sort of treatment. I am sure you have met some, as have I. The only time I hear about strangers in these situations is in the news when their children are stolen and taken overseas.

I think a lot of western women meet the men -here-, and the men act mostly westernized. Maybe slightly macho or dom, but within normal ranges. The shit hits the fan after they are married.

Like "Not Without my Daughter" which was very popular in my social circles when it came out.

Doesn't it put a warm fuzzy glow in your heart to know our tax dollars are going to re-build The Golden Dome mosque in Iraq?

Whew!
This hasn't morphed into another stupid circumcision thread...

I think a lot of western women meet the men -here-, and the men act mostly westernized. Maybe slightly macho or dom, but within normal ranges. The shit hits the fan after they are married.

None that I have met nor the ones my friends have briefly dated either. They might have had brief spurts of "nice" but they went all Nazi pretty fast.

Then again, my experience is limited.

"Mohammed married a 6-year-old and had sex with her when she was 9."

Isn't this an admirable story of sexual restraint? (/sarcasm)

Can't give a choice. I only got about halfway through the list. I was gratified, though, to have one of my thoughts about these people put in print.

"Muslims generally believe female desire to be so much greater than the male equivalent that the woman is viewed as the hunter and the man as her passive victim. If believers feel little distress about sex acts as such, they are obsessed with the dangers posed by women. So strong are her needs thought to be, she ends up representing the forces of unreason and disorder. A woman's rampant desires and irresistible attractiveness gives her a power over men that even rivals God's. She must be contained, for her unbridled sexuality poses a direct danger to the social order."

I never have read much about their religion or philosopy, but I always figured that worrying this much about controlling your womenfolk had to be based in fear.

Acctually NicoleK polygamy is on average more benifical to women then to men.

Several women who would have to settle for beta males(and lower) could share the wealth of an alpha male without haveing invest and much in sex.

Monogomy benifits men and only the smallest selection of women.

Besides in procreatinve terms there is little difference between polygamy and the serial monogony we have been practicing as a culture for the last 3 decades or so

...a la Catherine the Great?

Catherine was actually fairly monogamous with her lovers. She just traded them out after a while.

Marriage was out of the question for Catherine because, if she married, he'd be the tsar and she'd be out of a job. After killing her husband to get the job, she wasn't about to lose it.

(By the way, contrary to popular belief, Catherine the Great did not die while having sex with a horse. And while she did love both horses and sex, no evidence exists that she ever united the two passions.)

Catherine died of a stroke.

We in the West never treat women badly. Domestic violence, rape etc is totally non-existent. And all this struff about Orthodox Jewish women shaving their heads in obedience to their husbands is just sheer nonsense. All those stories about Catholic priests raping young boys and girls are total lies. Thousands of South American Catholic women aren't sold into sexual slavery.

Let's live in denial about how much we in the Judeo-Christian West abuse women by painting a grim (and totally inaccurate) picture of other societies.

MM the difference is in the Wst those Catholic priests raping kids, South American women sold into slavery (are you talkingn the sex trade) are abberations and considered backward and illegal. Our society do NOT support those things and have laws to prevent those things from happening. We in the west do not just say its our culture or its the way things are so it is excused

Those kiddy diddling priest when found are usually charged by the police, those slaves are freed when found and given help, that bald Jewish woman is told that she can come into the real world and she will be sheltered and treated as a normal person only if she makes that last step.

The difference is that most of those screwed Islamic sexual practices up above are given creedence and supported by law, excused by culture, allowed to continue and heck not even given a good tounge lashing or tsk tsk by the rest of their society.

You want strange read the little Green Book of the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mosavi Khomeini. (Try sayig that ten times really fast).

http://prophetofdoom.net/The_Little_Green_Book.Islam

Like the sections of pure and impure things and woman and their periods.

You will be shaking your head at the backwordness in minutes.

I've got one for you all. When I was in Afghanistan, the national police (ANP) were called to respond to a "domestic violence" situation. Apparently this young man was beating his wife senseless for not conceiving. Upon further questioning, it turned out he was only having anal sex with his wife and that's why she wasn't getting pregnant....Profoundly sad, the level of ignorance in some of the most basic human matters. In another thread I'd posted that young Muslim boys often find their first sexual companions in other boys due to the fact that boy/girl interaction is so severely limited in the culture. This seems to be evidence of that--this young man didn't know how else to "do" sex and apparently no one had taught him. And the poor wife-- just too ashamed or terrified to try and correct the husband...assuming she was fully read into the birds and bees herself.

Conan writes: After killing her husband to get the job, she wasn't about to lose it.

Catherine the Great did not kill her husband, nor is there any evidence of her complicity in the assassination. And he wasn't killed to place Catherine on the throne since Catherine had already assumed the throne in a bloodless coup d'etat three days before Peter was murdered. Peter was killed by Alexei Orlov. This was probably a bit of overkill, since by all accounts, he was happy to be rid of the throne and would have been contented to retire to a single estate with his mistress. It was doubtful that he was any threat to Catherine after the coup, nor did he have the aspiration of becoming one.

By the way, Conan, how is one "fairly monogamous?" You are monogamous or you are not. There are no varying degrees of monogamy. Perhaps it's like being "a little bit pregnant"?

Getting rid of Peter III may have been overkill, but he was such a useless drunk (he actually stayed out drinking all night on his wedding night, then stumbled into Catherine's bedroom in the morning & passed out) and such a complete failure as Tsar that it's hard to have much sympathy for him. Catherine spent much time & effort cultivating the support of the nobles & the army, who were thoroughly disgusted by Peter, before the coup. Orlov may have acted on her behalf, if not at her command, to eliminate any possible threat from an unworthy sot to a worthy occupant of the throne.

"Fairly monogamous" just means serially monogamous. She did have many lovers, but she wasn't hopping in & out of a different nobleman's bed every night. For the most part, she was devoted to one man at a time, for years on end.

I don't believe Orlov acted on Catherine's behalf at all. There is neither evidence nor testimony that suggests she ordered him murdered. Moreover, there's nothing I can find in Catherine's history that would indicate she was that vindictive. Orlov acted because the nobles hated him and he likely felt that allowing him to retire to a nice estate and romp with his mistress was too good for the likes of him. (And in that respect, he may have had a point.)

By the way, there is a truly excellent book that I'll recommend for you. It's called "A Treasury of Royal Scandals," by Michael Farquhar. And it's a riot! Filled with anecdotal accounts of the most outrageous antics of royalty (kings, emperors, tsars, even popes) throughout the ages, showing that what we call a scandal these days just doesn't compare. I mean, does Bill Clinton having an affair really hold a scandal to Henry VIII? Bill Clinton certainly didn't have Hillary's head cut off, at least!

The first chapter is called "The Lust Emperors," and it actually opens with Catherine the Great. When you're talking about autocratic rulers governed by lust, it's pretty hard to leave her out!

And fuck you, FTC. No one's paying me to recommend this book. I just happen to like it.

I hated history in high school, but if this book had been my textbook, it would have been my favorite subject.

Pricklypear writes: "I always figured that worrying this much about controlling your womenfolk had to be based in fear. "

Yeah, clearly, there's a whole bunch of rationalization going on. But it's really just one aspect of the whole pan-Arab cultural thing of avoiding introspection, and blaming one's circumstances on absolutely everyone and everything other than oneself. I think that's why Israel pisses them off so much; it demonstrated to the rest of the world that they really could control their circumstances and make something of themselves if they wanted to.

Looks like my stalker loves this post of yours. Or, at least, she likes looking at blogger buddy Suki's treatment of it.

I am still trying to find ways to make stalker go away, but ignoring was of no use. Maybe I did not ignore long enough?