Disturbing law proposed in Afghanastan

[Van Canna]

I don't think I am missing the point at all. This is all good natured banter, lighten up.

And yes, I agree that a woman or man should be able to make a choice and accept the consequences of the choice made.

PS...I think it is a stupid law and unfair to women for sure.

[Mary S]

Van the "you" was not intended as "you"... (perhaps we should all lighten up?)

I think western civilization as a whole sometimes takes it's freedoms for granted (whether "you" be male or female).

[Van Canna]

No problem, Mary...glad it is cleared up.

This is a very highly charged emotional subject and seen from different life experiences.

I don't think there is a right or wrong way to see it...we are all at the mercy of human nature.

[Shana Moore]

I see this having several points, most of them bad in this case:

the right of a woman (or man) to choose if they have sex

the nature of intimacy in different countries (I'm assuming many of these marriages are arranged, which can but does not assure affection and passion)

political motivations having a deep impact on individual freedoms

the nature of public vs personal choice/freedoms (should the gov't REALLY be involved in whether a man and woman have sex...and who enforces these laws?...the bedroom police?!?!? )

fundamentalism/fanatacism vs mainstream religion (The same religion that created a female leader like Benazier Bhutto, she was also Shia, approves of such a demeaning law to women...?!?!?)

Practically speaking, I'm wondering if this depends on the husband simply saying his wife refused him in order for her to be punished...yeah, that will lead to honest rule of law.

And a final point...force always creates such a woooonderful experience for all ...if you want it to be good - -not just be - -then you need mutually consenting adults.

my 2 cents

[Van Canna]

Most excellent points, Shana.

It is really nobody's business what goes on between a man and a woman, especially between husband and wife.

What could be despicable about this law is that if she chooses to 'pass' ...then the husband could force himself on her _ 'rape her' 'hurt _ her]...without incurring criminal penalties....I don't know if the law would go that far...but you never know with fanaticism, as you point out.

The 'enforcement' point is well taken. who's to do it? And How?

[Bill Glasheen]

Much of this stems from the view of women - like slaves - as property rather than as individuals. That apparently is the case at least in some parts of Pakistan.

When Women Are Property: Husband Sells Wife's Kidney to Buy Tractor and Girl "Lost" in Poker Game
February 27, 2007

Today, the Daily Times-Leading News Resource of Pakistan reports that in Multan a husband sold his wife's kidney without her permission and used the proceeds to purchase a farm tractor. Yesterday, Reuters reported that a teenage girl in southern Pakistan, whose late father lost her in a poker game when she was 2 years old, has asked authorities to save her from being handed over to a middle-aged relative as payment.

While the stories are different, they are also the same. That is, they are stories about women who are the property of their husbands and fathers.

The same used to be true in this country.

- Bill

[Jason Rees]

This is nothing new. It's a part of an attempt to insert Islamic law into the code of Afghanistan. This is also the plight of millions of Muslim women, law or no law.

I think Van is creating a useful contrast to modern sexual tyranny, that of denying sex to married men. Two sides of the same coin, both arguably codified in their respective parts of the world.

[Van Canna]

How about old Catholic wedding rites

(Bride) I, (Name), take you, (Name), to be my wedded husband.

With deepest joy I come into my new life with you. As you have pledged to me your life and love, so I too happily give you my life,

and in confidence submit myself to your headship as to the Lord. As is the church in her relationship to Christ, so I will be to you.(Name),


I will live first unto our God and then unto you, loving you, obeying you, caring for you and ever seeking to please you.

God has prepared me for you and so I will ever strengthen, help, comfort, and encourage you. Therefore, throughout life, no matter what may be ahead of us, I pledge to you my life as an obedient and faithful wife.

Obey

[Van Canna]

This is nothing new. It's a part of an attempt to insert Islamic law into the code of Afghanistan. This is also the plight of millions of Muslim women, law or no law.

I think Van is creating a useful contrast to modern sexual tyranny, that of denying sex to married men. Two sides of the same coin, both arguably codified in their respective parts of the world.

It seems you are the only one getting this, Jason

The 'voice' of intelligence and life experience. Congratulations.

[Chris McKaskell]

Afghan government examining rape law: ambassador
Last Updated: Thursday, April 2, 2009 | 10:13 PM ET CBC News
Veiled Afghan women attend the inauguration ceremony of the First Women's Council in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Oct. 29, 2008. (Musadeq Sadeq/Associated Press)

A controversial proposed law in Afghanistan that includes a provision making it illegal for a Shia Muslim woman to refuse to have sex with her husband is under review, Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada says.

Afghan Ambassador Omar Samad said the Afghan government is studying the law, which has sparked international outrage, to determine its status, and pleaded for patience and understanding.

"I fully understand the reaction — the immediate, emotional reaction of countries like Canada who have done so much to build a young democracy," Samad said in an interview.

Omar Samad, the Afghanistan ambassador to Canada, is pleading for patience and understanding on Afghanistan's proposed family law. (CBC)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and opposition leaders have expressed strong concerns about the legislation, which would also make it illegal for a woman to leave the house without her husband's permission, or have custody of children.

The law is intended to regulate family life only inside Afghanistan's Shia community, which makes up about 20 per cent of Afghanistan's 30 million people.

"People also need to understand that this young democracy is immature. It is not at the same standard as a Canadian or European democracy," Samad said. "And it's in a very different cultural context as well. We are going to fall down, we are going to make mistakes, and we're going to move forward as a result."

The Canadian government summoned Samad for consultations over the law, considered a form of diplomatic rebuke.

Samad said the condition of women in his country cannot be compared to the days under the Taliban, who banned women from appearing in public without a body-covering burka and a male escort from the family.

Women now hold 89 of parliament's 351 seats and many own businesses. Millions of girls also now attend school.

Critics say law designed to win election support
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office has so far refused to comment on the proposed legislation, which has been criticized by some Afghan parliamentarians and a UN women's agency but has not yet been published.

Critics say the Afghan government approved it in a hurry to win support in the upcoming election from ethnic Hazaras — a Shia Muslim minority that constitutes a crucial block of swing voters.

The law, which does not affect Afghan Sunnis, says that a wife "is bound to preen for her husband as and when he desires."

"As long as the husband is not travelling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night," Article 132 of the law says.

"Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."

One provision says a "man should not avoid having sexual relations with his wife longer than once every four months."

[Shana Moore]

I think Van is creating a useful contrast to modern sexual tyranny, that of denying sex to married men. Two sides of the same coin, both arguably codified in their respective parts of the world.

Jason, I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you here....because I read your comment to say that married men are owed sex simply because they are married? This could also be said that married women are owed sex simply because they are married as well...Either way, it reduces sex to an obligation and a requirement...not a privilege and a pleasure (hopefully) for both partners, as it should be. This statement also implies that only married men are victims of this "tyranny", which is an oversimplification at best and bloated machismo at its worst.

If I have misunderstood your comment, my apologies, and please help me see your point better. Thank you!

If not, then I have to disagree with you. Comparing western married relationships where one partner (male or female) decides to use sex as a bargaining chip/punishment/etc. is NOT the same as forcing a woman to have sex against her will. One involves choice and poor communication, the other involves no choice and no communication. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They may both be fruits, but they do not look, feel, or taste the same because they come from two totally different environments and seeds.

[Van Canna]

This is, as I indicated, a very complex subject to discuss and to view 'fairly' by men and women.

I don't subscribe to the idea that either men or women are 'entitled' to sexual favors simply because of a marriage contract, although the presumption is there.

What I subscribe to _ is 'choice' _

Both man and woman should have the choice to 'not' submit to 'asked for' sexual favors by a marriage partner...

However, they must accept the consequences of such refusal without going into a tail spin.

To wit

Emily, 37, is a successful solicitor with a husband and a two-year-old son. To her friends, she doubtless lives a charmed existence. But recently she sat across from me in a life coaching session.

She was very distressed. Having just discovered that her husband of five years had had an affair, she felt that her world had disintegrated. She’d been a good partner, hadn’t she? She was caring and hardworking, wasn’t she?

Closer examination of their relationship revealed that Emily hadn’t had sex with her husband for many months.

When I pushed Emily gently on this she was incredibly defensive. It was her view that she was too busy with her career and raising their son to give any thought or time to sex.

Over the past two decades I have worked as a psychologist, life coach and sex expert, and I have found that Emily’s attitude is all too common.

[Jason Rees]

Nobody is 'owed' anything. I'm in agreement with Van. There are consequences on both sides. Any man foolish enough to rape their wives deserves it as their wife cuts their throat when they fall asleep. Any woman who refuses their husband sex for months on end shouldn't expect their husband to turn asexual.

[Van Canna]

Nobody is 'owed' anything. I'm in agreement with Van. There are consequences on both sides. Any man foolish enough to rape their wives deserves it as their wife cuts their throat when they fall asleep. Any woman who refuses their husband sex for months on end shouldn't expect their husband to turn asexual.

It makes sense, really. The problem is that when this happens [the refusal] usually the wife, as it happened in the case of a good friend of mine, will advance all kinds of reasons and excuses justifying her refusal, expecting to be 'in the right' and demanding a 'change of his ways' ...

we can only imagine the consequences of such untenable stands.

Here is a quick example:

He...wants to have sex...

She_ 'not now, maybe later'

He_ 'later when?'

She_ 'about 9 PM'

He...'it is 9PM honey'

She...' Aw not now, I am tired' maybe tomorrow.

And on an on...

He...finds a beautiful mistress...

She 'why did you do that?'

He..'so I wouldn't have to bother you again for sex' just doing you a favor honey'

_ bad goes to worse...he divorces his wife and marries his mistress living happily to this day.

As I said...very difficult subject to discuss.

[Bill Glasheen]

Buried in all of this is "the relationship." If it is working, things often go well on the intimacy front. If it isn't, lots of things can go wrong.

Actually I've been in relationships where the intimacy was great but other things weren't working. Talk about a difficult thing to break away from... There are so many interwoven layers to the male-female thing.

- Bill