New Afghan law lets men refuse to feed wives who deny them sex

[MatureDJ]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...n-refuse-feed-wives-deny-sex-says-cleric.html

*** One way to keep force her to do her marital duties ...

 

[ketostix]

I can't believe I'm saying this but that's not a half bad idea lol. It seems fair. In the US women basically get payed to not have sex with their husband (Divorce).

 

[piranha45]

they don't condone marital rape, bummer. but it's not as if they have DNA labs over in that 3rd world country to actually check for that, hah.

the men have it real good over there (as do all islamic nations in general, I believe); it's definitely something to be envious of.

personally I think islamic law regarding how women must be fully shrouded at all times in public makes perfect sense, on so many levels.

 

[Mr. Me]

That says a lot about the men if you have to resort to coercion and starve your wives to have sexual relations, ya know? Using enforcement and punishment to get compliance in matters of the heart and desires of the flesh. That's just like AFCs who claim to be "nice guys" but then show a mean streak when the woman doesn't respond the way they'd like, magnified 1,000 times.

 

[piranha45]

I don't know about you, but I have rape fantasies that will have to go unrealized in this Westernized civilization.

Although come to think of it, there's still a lot of logistics to consider over there, in such situations... hm.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Ah, but isn't it their moral imperative to starve their wives in order to teach them that ƒucking their husband is their moral duty?

I mean, the cleric said so, right?

 

[Fallen]

That says a lot about the men if you have to resort to coercion and starve your wives to have sexual relations, ya know? Using enforcement and punishment to get compliance in matters of the heart and desires of the flesh. That's just like AFCs who claim to be "nice guys" but then show a mean streak when the woman doesn't respond the way they'd like, magnified 1,000 times.

Exactly. If you're a real man who has his sh!t together, your wife wouldn't deny you anything. If you're a bum sittin' at home all day and doing nothing, why would she wanna have sex with you? Why would she wanna be with you in the first place? Doesn't matter if it's it's here in Germany, in the U.S. or in Afghanistan.
Insisting on a "right" without seeing, respecting and carrying out the corresponding duty is fvcking pathetic.
It makes me wanna puke every single time I hear of such events when those idiots cry for legal or religious support and eventually get it. The only thing that p!sses me off even more are countries where men are such pvssies they have to mutilate and neuter their women by some barbaric rituals to get a hard-on and feel like a man.

 

[horaholic]

Exactly. If you're a real man who has his sh!t together, your wife wouldn't deny you anything. If you're a bum sittin' at home all day and doing nothing, why would she wanna have sex with you? Why would she wanna be with you in the first place? Doesn't matter if it's it's here in Germany, in the U.S. or in Afghanistan.
Insisting on a "right" without seeing, respecting and carrying out the corresponding duty is fvcking pathetic.
It makes me wanna puke every single time I hear of such events when those idiots cry for legal or religious support and eventually get it. The only thing that p!sses me off even more are countries where men are such pvssies they have to mutilate and neuter their women by some barbaric rituals to get a hard-on and feel like a man.

This is in Afghanistan. The men work and pay the bills there. The actual law says men can demand sex every four days. Thats not too much too ask, really. Also, the woman has the right to work, and buy her own food, as well. Its basically like: You dont HAVE to share YOUR pvssy, but I dont have to share MY food either, bytch. Its not as bad as it sounds. I think its halfway fair, actually. The man works to buy the food for dinner, the woman spreads her legs for dessert, at least every four days. In and of itself, thats a pretty fair trade. I still think its better to have the woman enjoy the sex and give it willingly, though.

Imagine if we took a girl on a second date and ate a meal by yourself in front of her! Well, thats what its like for guys when our date wont put out. And the girls will say "So all you care about is sex? thats bvllshyt!" and us guys can go "What? All you care about is a plate of food? WTF, bytch? If Im gonna have to stroke my own meat tonight, then you can buy your own meat to eat."
But, that would be sexist!

 

[Mr. Me]

>> You dont HAVE to share YOUR pvssy, but I dont have to share MY food either, bytch. >>

"Fine", I'd say if I was one of those women. "And I don't have to shop for YOUR meals and cook YOUR food for YOU either, nor be cleaning YOUR house, nor ironing YOUR clothes, picking up after YOU and running YOUR errands. And if I can't eat your food unless I please YOU, then you can't have my puzzy until you do things that please ME."

And it wasn't that long ago that some Muslim sects forbade their women from working and from getting an education. Just to keep them down.

And being forced to cover themselves? That's to ward off being tempting to other men, right? Well, who's frickin' fault is it if a guy gets aroused looking at a woman? It's the guy's issue - not the chick. What? These guys can't control themselves if they see a thigh? That's what's pathetic: not the women, the men. All these directives are aimed at making the woman null - because the men there need strict legislation to keep their women with them.

Remember that cartoon a few years back satirizing the prophet Mohammad that had the Islamic world up in arms? Well, that's the same mentality at work. They would rather deny YOU the right to free speech and censor you to assure compliance to their own particular religious views. Just like they want to deny food to their wives to assure compliance in the bedroom.

 

[piranha45]

I see it as the men being the ones in power, and consequently imposing their will on others, and I'm all for that. I believe 51% dominates 49%, and that men dominate women. And since we have a conflict of fundamental values here, I'd say we just have to agree to disagree, rather than waste our time with further pointless arguing over personal ideologies.

 

[STR8UP]

At the far left of the spectrum you have the feminaizi's who want prference and special privilege under the guise of "equality".

On the other end of the spectrum you have an all male dominated society where women are only there to be subservient to the needs of men and have absolutely no rights.

Despite what the feminists would have you believe, it is and has always has been somewhat equitable between the sexes, if not slightly skewed in one direction or another.

What we have here is 180 degrees the OPPOSITE of what is happening in America and the rest of the western world.

Over there the laws are more than slightly skewed in the favor of men.

Over here the laws are skewed more than slightly in favor of women.

Ideally things would be completely equitable and determined not so much by laws and government intervention, but by individual societies and the way they determine fairness amongst themselves.

Does anyone think FOR ONE SECOND that women are "happier" over all in today's world than they were 50 years ago when men supposedly ruled the world? If you do, you're a fool. Western women have created their own pile of sh!t to roll in and now they are more miserable than ever.

Don't judge laws which obligate women to sex without acknowledging the equally unfair laws that obligate men to provide for women even after the woman decides that the man has served his purpose.

 

[DJDamage]

More proof that marriages are pure bullsh1t from the other side of the planet.

The women in Afghanistan have it really bad over there. They are forced into arranged marriages and also are forced to be attracted to men who will probably beat the sh1t out of them sensley if they aren't pleased. Those women also don't own sh1t plus asking for divorce would probably mean potential death for them or being kicked into the streets like a dog with no laws to protect you. Also by covering up the women, not allowing them to walk alone on the streets, having arranged marriages and honor killings pretty much ensures that a Don Juan would not thrive there.

Meanwhile in North America we got the powerhungry feminists who are never satisfied despite the scale being tipped favouring women in marriages and these feminists would only be satisfied when married men would be treated like married women in Afghanistan (complete emasculation of men and masculation of women).

The root of all evil here are marriages because the majority of the time it doesn't work for most and the sh1t ends up hitting the fan in the end.

 

[sodbuster]

My cousin was in Desert Storm,she saw a woman say something to her husband and he knocked her down- When she got up, every man on the street that saw it knocked her down too. You'd think the feminists would be for any war against Moslems[instead of against],just think of how they would scream if we had their laws here[once, until we knocked them down] Not saying it's right,but it is potentially amusing[be funnier than he11 to see it happen to my ex].

 

[ketostix]

This is true, but there is no moral equivalence between how women are treated in Islamic fundamentalist dictatorships and they way men treated in an open, democratic society, especially in which they have a voice to effect change to the laws of the land.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with Str8up and I think there is totally an equivalence of how things are scewed in women's favor in the US to many other countries that are patriarchial. Female dominance doesn't look the same as male dominance but it still can be every bit as inequitable. What real voice do men in this country have in divorce law, child custody support etc., affirmative action and every other feminist social convention? It's a common fallacy on here that being a "DJ" is being what every man wants to be anyway and will make you so irresistable to women that they will always treat you how you want them too. It's really more like busting your azz and becoming a slave to delivering what women respond to.

Anyway, I didn't see that Str8up's point was drawing equivalency between muslim nations' ways of going about relations between the sexes and how the US has become. I think his point was imbalance either way is not good for anyone. And I think he was pointing out how things have historically been pretty balanced between the sexes in western societies and women were happier then than when they had everything their way.

 

[Jitterbug]

Well that's a little extreme, but I think Western countries can adopt a mild version of that.

Currently, after a divorce, a man may be required by law to pay his ex-wife to continue her lifestyle while they were married as she's become accustomed to it. However, the ex-wife is not required to provide him with the lifestyle he was used to, like sex every week and a BJ every month, for example. This is where Western countries can learn a little from our Afghan friends.

 

[AfghanDude]

And it wasn't that long ago that some Muslim sects forbade their women from working and from getting an education. Just to keep them down.

And being forced to cover themselves? That's to ward off being tempting to other men, right? Well, who's frickin' fault is it if a guy gets aroused looking at a woman? It's the guy's issue - not the chick. What? These guys can't control themselves if they see a thigh? That's what's pathetic: not the women, the men. All these directives are aimed at making the woman null - because the men there need strict legislation to keep their women with them.

Remember that cartoon a few years back satirizing the prophet Mohammad that had the Islamic world up in arms? Well, that's the same mentality at work. They would rather deny YOU the right to free speech and censor you to assure compliance to their own particular religious views. Just like they want to deny food to their wives to assure compliance in the bedroom.

I’m a Muslim, who was born in Afghanistan, so I’m just going to share a different spotlight, and educate some of you folk who have no knowledge of Islamic law, Afghan culture, and other misinformation related to the new Afghan law.

There are no Muslim sects that forbid Muslim women from working and getting a education.

No one is being forced to cover themselves. Its not the woman either, men follow the same guidelines except the face is shown.

How can you not get aroused, you might not get an actual blood pumping erection, but your mind goes on overload and your testosterone starts to get ready.

The assumption of strict legislation to keep their women with them is a ludicrous assumption.

The problem with the satire about the Prophet wasn't the satire, it was the fact that you can't draw the Prophet, you can draw his body, but not his face. Also, I'm sure you didn't read the comic, because it was really insulting. It was beyond a satire.

Fundamental muslims are AFCs.

Care to explain?

More proof that marriages are pure bullsh1t from the other side of the planet.

The women in Afghanistan have it really bad over there. They are forced into arranged marriages and also are forced to be attracted to men who will probably beat the sh1t out of them sensley if they aren't pleased. Those women also don't own sh1t plus asking for divorce would probably mean potential death for them or being kicked into the streets like a dog with no laws to protect you. Also by covering up the women, not allowing them to walk alone on the streets, having arranged marriages and honor killings pretty much ensures that a Don Juan would not thrive there.

Meanwhile in North America we got the powerhungry feminists who are never satisfied despite the scale being tipped favouring women in marriages and these feminists would only be satisfied when married men would be treated like married women in Afghanistan (complete emasculation of men and masculation of women).

The root of all evil here are marriages because the majority of the time it doesn't work for most and the sh1t ends up hitting the fan in the end.

No they are not forced into arranged marriage. The women see the guy, the guy sees the women without the burkha. They feel the other family out, and if everything is good to go, then the couple gives the go ahead, then the parents. No women gets beat, unless she’s committed a major sin. If she displeases her husband, he is not allowed to lay a hand on her, and the only thing he can hit her with is a Miswak, the original toothbrush. So imagine beating your girlfriend with a toothbrush.

Honor killings happen because again of a major crime. It’s a third world country, if you rape my sister, my family will personally kill you.

Are you saying in Afghanistan, the men are emasculate and the women masculine?

This is true, but there is no moral equivalence between how women are treated in Islamic fundamentalist dictatorships and they way men treated in an open, democratic society, especially in which they have a voice to effect change to the laws of the land.

While men may get the short end of the stick when it comes to marriage and divorce, men in the west are still free to avoid completely that hornet's nest, if they choose. And whether or not our women are happier, they ARE liberated, sexually speaking, to a point where a man no longer has to endure societal pressure to sacrifice his freedom just to sleep with one, let alone several, women.

And I see what you're saying that women's lib has created plenty of misery for females, and that is what they were asking for. But do you honestly want to live in a world where females are covered in burkas and treated as walking, breathing vulgarities, subject to f*cked up gang-rape sentencing if they so much as glance the wrong way at the wrong guy?
I’ve never heard of a gang rape sentencing.

I don't think it should be a zero-sum game where shoddy treatment of females around the world makes up for shoddy treatment of men in the US. And I don't think there is anything "DJ" about needing a law to compel your wife to fukk you every four days. After all, we're talking about the same p*ssies who flew planes into buildings on the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I'd rather call b.s. on both situations than use one as justification for another.

Are you so ignorant you lump a whole country together by the actions of a few, many of whom were not even Afghan?

 

[STR8UP]

Well, this is like a woman, in 1900 say "what real voice do I have, when I can't even vote, or get a legal abortion, or run for office?" Men in 2009 America have plenty of avenues to change things. It may speak to just how great the AFC epidemic is that most men would rather kowtow to the feminist agenda than stand up for themselves. But throwing your arms up at a problem and calling it impossible when the machinery is there to change it is defeatist.

Not entirely true.

The big issue here is the modern notion of the fairy tale marriage as opposed to the more practical version from earlier last century.

And the idea that arranged marriages are nothing more than indentured servitude for women is laughable at best. What that is amounts to ASSUMING that all women want to be "independent" (read- act like men)

The ways of various societies have served to perpetuate the species for many centuries. It hasn't been until RECENTLY that the practical aspect of marriage has been all but stripped away, leaving the rotting, stinking corpse that is modern, "romance" based marriage.

In the past you married, had kids, raised a family, and hopefully lived long enough to see a grandkid or two. It was an arrangement that was conducive to moving genes into the next generation. Today womens "freedom" has come with a price that not only females are paying, but kids and men as well.

Now we have birth control, women earning their own money, "cougars" running amok trying desperately to snag SOMETHING before they get thrown into the dumpster....it's a FAR cry from the days of old.

What is ONE man to do to change the situation today? It probably won't change drastically in our lifetime, although there is some momentum. The problem is that political correctness doesn't allow men to utter a mere PEEP, lest they be chastised and ostracized.

Sound a little like the plight of women in Afghanistan?

 

[STR8UP]

I think there MUST be a change in the not-so-distant future.

Men are catching on and saying "NO" to the virtual slavery that is marriage. Enough men boycott marriage and women will be forced to change and so will the laws. It's already happening. We are casting our votes with our refusal to sign our rights away.

That said, I consider myself to be in the more enlightened 20% of men who don't buy into ANY of this crap, but I still can't express my views in a mixed group and most CERTAINLY not in a group of all women. Any attempt to have an intelligent conversation on the subject is instantly met with ridicule and contempt. The worst part of it is that many men will chastise you just as badly as the women.

True, we can say whatever we want, but in this case the truth will keep you from getting laid.

 

[ketostix]

My point is that by default men are obligated already to give of themselves in a marriage (via income). We CANNOT avoid this in a marriage, particularly in the west. Women literally have to give up nothing. What if women had to give up the sex and men didn't have to give support at all to a woman? Is that not the mirror opposite of the situation?

I think it is. And you don't even have to be married to the woman. I think child support is also more supporting the woman and punishing the man. Think about, the woman can decide to have a kid but not stay with the father and still have him support her and the child. Then you add it's her right to carry the child or not in the first place. There's no real cap on child support etc. See how the woman is free to make choices even if they are foolish ones and the man has little choice and only responsibilities?

 

[Mr. Me]

>> There are no Muslim sects that forbid Muslim women from working and getting a education.>>

If what you're saying is that Islam itself does not forbid women from working or obtaining an education, yes, that's a fact. However, there are those that twist the Qur'an. Under the Taliban, which was a religious based regime, women were denied educational and employment opportunities. Women were forced to keep covered in public, or be beaten by the Taliban. There are still those clergy who cite these beliefs and enforce them on their followers. Women's rights are still an issue in Afghanistan. This cannot be denied.

>> How can you not get aroused, you might not get an actual blood pumping erection, but your mind goes on overload and your testosterone starts to get ready.>>

If your mind goes into "overload" because you see a revealed leg, that is about YOUR lack of self control, not about a leg. I would ask instead, how could a man be so weak as to have his mind run away so when seeing some skin?

>> The assumption of strict legislation to keep their women with them is a ludicrous assumption.>>

It's not an assumption. It's a new law. Deprive the woman of food if she does not comply sexually. Assumption no. Ludicrous, yes.

>> The problem with the satire about the Prophet wasn't the satire, it was the fact that you can't draw the Prophet, you can draw his body, but not his face. >>

The fact is actually that YOU can't draw the prophet's face because of what YOU believe. The person who drew that cartoon does NOT need to bow to your beliefs or protocol, they live by theirs just as you're free to live by yours.

What I question about people who "fight" for their God, and this is true no matter what the religion is, whether they're Islamic, Jewish or Christian, if they truly believed that their God is the all powerful Creator of everything visible and invisible, not at all subject to his creation but quite the other way around - a God who at his will can stop the earth from spinning, manufacture fire raining down, create earthquakes and floods - how is it possible that such a almighty being suffers at the hand of a person drawing a mere cartoon? I find it unfathomable.