This is amazing we have got all precious about the marriage mores of Afghans - and we are sorry but we have an alternate view. Under the statute required by the Afghans women are " obliged to fulfil the sexual desires of her husband."
Well yes - we agree - that's one of the reasons that women and men do the marriage thing - but we also think that Afghans women are getting a raw deal because under this law "a wife is obliged to fulfil the sexual desires of her husband". It also states that a husband should spend one night in every four with his wife, have sexual contact with her at least once every four months and that a woman has to wear make-up if her husband demands it.
So you see we reckon that obviously the Afghans are a bunch of soft cocks.
If Afghan women are pissed off about this law it is probably because it means they will get less nooky than they would like.
Seriously - these guys want us to believe that they are the big swinging dick masculine shoot at shit types but they can only guarantee to get it up once every four months and then only if their wives wear make up? Lordy we wouldn't stand for that . And it is hardly exploitation of women. They are at best getting exploited once every four months.
That's probably a hell of a lot better deal than most women in the Western World get.
The fact that marriage is a contract and implicit in that is the requirement to have sex with your spouse seems to be overlooked here.
While we understand that the Afghan law looks to be oppressive, we think that its not.
It gives women far more freedom than you think. And shows that Afghan men are not all that sure of their sexual prowess.
So John Key is going to have a yarn to Hamid Kharzai. Kharzai reckons that the translation might be a bit off.
Anyway for what it is worth , we think that there are much more important things for our Government to concern itself with.
Word of the day
2 hours ago
2 comments:
What's with the royal "we"?
Perhaps the royal we includes Lamcut, though I doubt it. BB is nothing if not a unilateral law unto herself. By comparison, Lambcut refers to herself in the third person. You might want to speculate on that.
In any event, regarding BB’s post, it’s worth bearing in mind that Christianity and Islam are the bastard children of Judaism. Lambcut understands that the Torrah and related religious writings give women grounds for divorce if their spouses do not service them regularly. It is probably where this part of voluminous Sharia discourse finds its genesis. Islam is a very perscriptive religion. Unfortunately, for Islam, the sheer weight of law leaves it open for a plethora of interpretations.
In any event, it’s safe, and even an understatement, at least in Lambcut’s view, to say that Afghan women suffer from a willfully cruel and pitiless interpretation of Sharia law.
Post a Comment