The Muslim World's "Sick Relationship With Women" -- And Sex
It's no wonder young Muslim men are blowing themselves up to get sexual access to those supposed 72 supposed virgins -- they can't get women on earth, thanks to Islamic views on women and sex. (Polygamy -- the monopolizing of many women by a few men -- adds to the problem.)
Women, in Islam, are basically like goats or camels -- possessions of men.
Bukhari (62:81) - According to Muhammad, the most important part of a marriage contract is the unrestricted access that a man has to his wife's vagina.
Contributing op-ed writer Kamel Daoud writes in The New York Times about the sick view of sexuality, and especially female sexuality, under Islam:
In some places, women are veiled, stoned and killed; at a minimum, they are blamed for sowing disorder in the ideal society. In response, some European countries have taken to producing guides of good conduct to refugees and migrants.Sex is a complex taboo, arising, in places like Algeria, Tunisia, Syria or Yemen, out of the ambient conservatism's patriarchal culture, the Islamists' new, rigorist codes and the discreet puritanism of the region's various socialisms. That makes a good combination for obstructing desire or guilt-tripping and marginalizing those who feel any. And it's a far cry from the delicious licentiousness of the writings of the Muslim golden age, like Sheikh Nafzawi's "The Perfumed Garden of Sensual Delight," which tackled eroticism and the Kama Sutra without any hang-ups.
Today sex is a great paradox in many countries of the Arab world: One acts as though it doesn't exist, and yet it determines everything that's unspoken. Denied, it weighs on the mind by its very concealment. Although women are veiled, they are at the center of our connections, exchanges and concerns.
Women are a recurrent theme in daily discourse, because the stakes they personify -- for manliness, honor, family values -- are great. In some countries, they are allowed access to the public sphere only if they renounce their bodies: To let them go uncovered would be to uncover the desire that the Islamist, the conservative and the idle youth feel and want to deny. Women are seen as a source of destabilization -- short skirts trigger earthquakes, some say -- and are respected only when defined by a property relationship, as the wife of X or the daughter of Y.
These contradictions create unbearable tensions. Desire has no outlet, no outcome; the couple is no longer a space of intimacy, but a concern of the whole group. The sexual misery that results can descend into absurdity and hysteria. Here, too, one hopes to experience love, but the mechanisms of love -- encounters, seduction, flirting -- are prevented: Women are watched, we obsess over their virginity, the morality police patrols. Some even pay surgeons to repair broken hymens.
In some of Allah's lands, the war on women and on couples has the air of an inquisition. During the summer in Algeria, brigades of Salafists and local youths worked up by the speeches of radical imams and Islamist TV preachers go out to monitor female bodies, especially those of women bathers at the beach. The police hound couples, even married ones, in public spaces. Gardens are off-limits to strolling lovers. Benches are sawed in half to prevent people from sitting close together.
He doesn't mention how Mohammed encouraged the rape of "infidel" women.
But he does point to where this sickness about sex via Islam leads:
Dreaming about such prospects, suicide bombers surrender to a terrifying, surrealistic logic: The path to orgasm runs through death, not love.
And about all those migrants just accepted into Western Europe:
People in the West are discovering, with anxiety and fear, that sex in the Muslim world is sick, and that the disease is spreading to their own lands.
We women in the West aren't people under Islam. We're merely "uncovered meat." The story, from the Guardian, from 2006:
A senior Muslim cleric in Australia has sparked a furore by comparing women who do not wear a headscarf to "uncovered meat", implying that they invited sexual assault.Sheik Taj Aldin al-Hilali delivered his comments in a religious address on adultery to around 500 worshippers in Sydney last month, but they only came to the attention of the wider public when they were published in the Australian paper today.
Sheik Hilali was quoted as saying: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab [the headdress worn by some Muslim women], no problem would have occurred."
Right. No problem at all...no change whatsoever to our free society from taking in all those immigrants -- many of whom have been raised, all their lives, to see a woman in a tank top as good for the rapin'.
I like us to be a nation that takes in immigrants. But we really do have to admit that this is a major and apparently insurmountable problem.
Deny young men access to sex and you can turn their energies to other destructive uses.
Shaka understood this. He forbid his warriors from having sex. The penalty for disobeying this rule was a horrible death. HIs Zulu warriors were feared throughout southern Africa and he amassed a large (for that time and level of technology) empire at the head of a fearsome army of sex-starved impis.
Conan the Grammarian at February 13, 2016 8:30 AM
Well, it's a good time, I guess, to mention this article too (though the two situations are, in a way, almost like apples and oranges, but it's not as though even apples and oranges don't have some things in common).
Regarding that business about stealing bread, way down, I've imagined people thinking that way, but somehow, I never thought anyone would actually say it. What would that anonymous poster say if some doctor told him that no one has ever died from lack of sex? Or even been injured? Not to mention that in the case of George Sodini, he was OK-looking and relatively affluent, so the many women who refused to date him more than once likely sensed something seriously wrong with him - and they were clearly right. (Assuming, of course, that even the men, rich or poor, whom NO one likes, don't turn to violence as a rule, since they tend to realize that their social skills need serious work. May I add, though, what I've said before: No man has the obligation to pay for more than one date in a row with the same person, especially when he hates doing so. If everyone learned this, it could erase a lot of resentment.)
http://bust.com/feminism/15551-mo-beta-blues.html
(current issue of the magazine)
By Robyn Pennacchia
Excerpts:
ON OCTOBER 1, 2015, in a scene that has become depressingly familiar, 26-year-old Christopher Harper-Mercer walked into Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, and opened fire, killing nine people and injuring nine more. Like George Sodini, who killed three women and himself in an L.A. Fitness Center in Pennsylvania; like Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and injured 17 others at Virginia Tech; and like Elliot Rodger, who killed 6 people and injured 14 others in Isla Vista, California; a large part of Harper-Mercer's motivation was his toxic anger at women because of his lack of success with them.
Harper-Mercer was a virgin at 26, and not happy about it. According to police reports, his "manifesto" (which was not released to the public) contained complaints about how unfair it was that he didn't have a girlfriend. And, like many of these other killers, his frustrations played out online--in blogs and on misogynist forums--before he ever took action....
...Most of the posters on the /r9k/ forum and Sluthate refer to themselves as "incels" (involuntary celibates), "beta males," and "NEETs" (Not in Education, Employment, or Training--in other words, neither working, nor studying, nor preparing to work or study). Many identify as having Asperger's or as being somewhere on the autistic spectrum, but are primarily self-diagnosed. This feeds into their collective self-image as socially awkward, misunderstood geniuses--although when you actually start reading through their posts, it's pretty clear that they are vastly overestimating the "genius" part of the equation...
...Essentially, they blame feminism--and its encouragement of women to work outside the home, embrace sexual freedom, and reject patriarchal beauty standards--for their lack of access to young, thin, submissive, virgin-supermodel wives who are eager to wait on them hand and foot. They also, rather oddly, believe that women are only interested in having sex with physically abusive alpha males, which is their way of framing themselves as the heroes of their own bizarre narratives. What it boils down to, really, is, "I'm great and girls don't like me--so obviously they prefer men who are terrible."...
...The kind of commiseration that happens over social media tends to have a normalizing effect, even on bizarre opinions like those expressed in the post above. Views that would be considered absurd, horrific, and frightening in real life are commonplace in these groups, helping like-minded individuals to develop a shared delusional view of the world. Despite their deep disdain for the political left (which they blame for giving women more independence from men), their posts have evolved into a twisted, sexualized rehashing of Marxist rhetoric. Except instead of workers and the poor rising up to demand a redistribution of wealth, betas are dateless men who believe they are rising up against women and alpha males and demanding a redistribution of sex.
On Sluthate, this ideology gets hashed out even further, as members like Omega-KV go so far as to justify rape in the name of a more equal distribution of sex:
"Rape is wrong because it violates a girl's chastity," he writes. "If a woman is married to another man, it's wrong to rape her because it taints her sexual bond with her husband. Similarly, raping a virgin girl taints her sexual bond with her future husband.
"But when some slut gets raped, there is no chastity to violate. Rape is merely a discomfort for her. Someone incel enough to commit rape would have gone through much more pain from being incel than would his 'rape victim' as a result of the rape. As long as the girl getting raped is an unwed non-virgin, a man raping her would be comparable to a starving man stealing a loaf of bread."
Along these same lines, many participants in these forums complain about how
unfair it is that they can't legally have sex with women under the age of 18. They also talk about how "shallow" it is when women reject men whom they find "creepy." It's an echo chamber of extreme toxicity that only gets more toxic the more time posters spend in these closed communities.
Psychologist Kristin J. Anderson, author of Modern Misogyny: Anti-Feminism in a Post-Feminist Era, notes that some of this may be a reaction to the more disastrous economic changes that America has gone through in the last 35 years. Although it's actually the one percent that these middle-and-working-class forum posters are legitimately losing out to, they'd rather see themselves as losing out to women, causing them to wonder, "What has feminism done to the world I was promised?"...
...In an oft-quoted post on Sluthate, user NewGenious119 explains why he believes he is entitled to sex with attractive women:
"This idea that nobody owes anyone anything completely goes against the entire point of even having a society in the first place. If society doesn't owe an individual person anything, then the individual owes society nothing either, so don't be surprised when they take their frustration out on the world.
"There is absolutely NO GOOD reason why, in the 21st century, every person shouldn't have their basic needs met. That means food, shelter, clothing, and transportation for all. And, yes, if you are a male, sexual access to attractive females as that is considered a basic need for men as well."...
lenona at February 13, 2016 11:49 AM
I see these stories in the newspaper of interfaith gatherings embracing muslim clerics and all I can think of is that the chickens are inviting the wolves into the hen house. This will not end well.
Jay at February 13, 2016 1:57 PM
People in the West are discovering, with anxiety and fear, that sex in the Muslim world is sick, and that the disease is spreading to their own lands.
Unfortunately, this isn't the only thing in the Muslim world that's sick. 16 out of every 100 Muslims in the world's most populous Muslim country, Indonesia -- a country that is viewed as "moderate" -- believing that a Muslim who renounces Islam should be killed is extremely sick.
JD at February 13, 2016 2:07 PM
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's"
And, where I come from, when we have such a problem with too many feral cats - we just shoot them. problem solved.
charles at February 13, 2016 2:44 PM
The problem is NOT that many are actually ignoring the teachings just as some Catholics do not follow all of their teachings.
The problem is the LARGE number of those (including countries) that do follow/believe in the brutal and despicable teachings present in the teachings.
Wish Obama would address what we are supposed to do about that but he's got his eye on the clock so ...
(Condolences out to Scalia's family and I'm not looking forward to the battle about his replacement.)
Bob in Texas at February 13, 2016 2:53 PM
Sheik Hilali: "...whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's""
I love how, with this analogy, the sheik is equating Muslim men with animals.
JD at February 13, 2016 3:09 PM
The quote about food being eaten by feral cats is exactly on point. Just not the way the Imam means it. He is basically saying that muslim men are incapable of behaving better than feral animals.
That is the core of the problem: Islamic culture does not demand civilized behavior of its adherents.
Wish Obama would address what we are supposed to do about that...
Why do you think Obama has any clue? He's a good reader of teleprompters, who was placed in power by the existing political establishment.
The coming election is shaping up well: Either Sanders or Trump would be a great choice, simply because they are both despised by the political inner circle that decides "whose turn it is" to be president.
a_random_guy at February 13, 2016 11:55 PM
But for Lenona and other hate-mongering feminists, Western men are no different, and no better, than the slavering, backward Muslims.
Blame feminism? For spreading the message that men should feel shame for being men? Ridiculous, amirite?
Jay R at February 15, 2016 2:58 PM
All I'm saying is, if you know a non-Muslim man who talks an awful lot like a stereotypical Muslim, regarding women (as in "women are property"), maybe you'd be doing everyone a favor by asking him why he feels that way, before things get a lot worse. (If Sodini had any real, male friends, I never heard of them. I trust no one here is going to suggest, as so many MEN do at the websites mentioned in the article, that any woman has any obligation to sleep with a man she can't stand or a man who just plain scares her, or that it's HER fault if he murders strangers later on, when she refuses him.)
To my knowledge, a man can still divorce a wife for "alienation of marital affections." What he can't do is rape her, let alone expect her to keep loving him after that.
And when it comes to getting a wife or a girlfriend in the first place...you don’t have a right to a spouse. You only have the right to TRY to have one. This is just one reason why the law isn't everything in society - etiquette is about trying to prevent the full-fledged wars that DEMAND the intervention of the law. It's not some silly, obsolete system that only women care about - after all, men have feelings too - but it's always a two-way street, like it or not, and a lot of it is remembering that different people have different tastes that need to be respected. E.g., if you're straight, you don't keep hitting on someone of the opposite sex who's gay just because you honestly think you're "doing that person a favor." That's just common courtesy.
lenona at February 15, 2016 4:01 PM
Leave a comment