Moderator: Available
That is correct, the reason why these are really 'impossible discussions' leading to nowhere.Bill Glasheen wrote: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
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.
And such views don’t bode well for the success of relationships. With increasing frequency, women in their twenties, thirties and forties take a pragmatic, postfeminist view that sex is something over which they have no need to negotiate.
In the bedroom, there is no compromise. If a man has a higher sex drive than a woman, then he can sort himself out.
If he wants to try something new and she can’t be bothered, tough luck to him.
This is what causes many marriages to dissolve.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.
And such views don’t bode well for the success of relationships. With increasing frequency, women in their twenties, thirties and forties take a pragmatic, postfeminist view that sex is something over which they have no need to negotiate.
JPII taught very clearly on the “gift of self” and when a woman understands that gift of self has many dimensions, she will also see that one of those dimensions is the physical way in which she can give herself to her husband.
A husband, then, also has obligations as the “receiver” of this gift.
Jewish law teaches that a man who pleases his wife is doing a mitzvah – a good deed.
This teaching is many thousands of years old and clearly based upon the understanding that God created the martial union for the pleasure of both husband and wife but also in the ways in which it elevates them as pro-creators with God.
The rules and regulations of sexual intimacy between a Jewish husband and wife are many and are meant for their mutual benefit.
Of those laws there are specific ones in regards to what is not acceptable. This includes exploitation, rape, incest, coercion, or subjugation of another person.
Sex within a marriage is considered sacred. Jewish teaching says that it is a sin not to enjoy sexual intimacy within marriage.
More an economic, infrastructural problem then an ethnic or religious one.Jason Rees wrote: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.
But in Muslim countries, nobody is going to intervene. No matter how many 'institutions' you create. Nobody is going to interfere in the affairs of another household (unless they're gay. Yes, I said the G-word. Try real oppression sometime, victocrats).Basically, beating your wife isn't something viewed as something acceptable, even in muslim countries.
Controversial women's law to be reviewed: Karzai
Last Updated: Saturday, April 4, 2009 | 9:25 AM ET Comments162Recommend49CBC News
Afghan President Hamid Karzai says a new law that critics say would severely undermine women's rights will be studied and may be sent back to parliament.
The law makes it illegal for Shia Muslim women in the country to refuse to have sex with their husbands and restricts their rights outside the home as well.
Media reports Friday said the law contains articles that said women cannot leave the house or seek education without their husbands' permission.
Karzai told reporters in Kabul on Saturday he has told the Justice Ministry to review the law, and if anything in it contravenes the country's constitution or Islamic sharia law, "measures will be taken."
"The minister of justice will study the whole law, every item of it, very very carefully. If there is anything that is of concern to us, then we will definitely take action, in consultation with our ulemma (council of religious scholars) and send it back to the parliament."
Karzai also said the law may have been misinterpreted because of poor translation.
Canada has 'significant concerns' over new law
NATO's outgoing secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, responded to news that the law had been passed by saying it "fundamentally violates women's rights and human rights."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he raised Canada's "significant concerns" at the NATO summit over the rights of women in Afghanistan.
"I'm pleased to see that President Karzai is submitting this law to further review," he told reporters as the summit ended.
"That said, let me be very clear on this ... there is going to remain enormous pressure on the government of Afghanistan on this question. This goes fundamentally, directly, to the heart of the reasons for allied engagement."
U.S. President Barack Obama — also speaking after the summit wrapped up in Strasbourg, France —called the new law "abhorrent." He said the legislation came up in conversations among the military allies, adding that NATO's closing statement specifically says human rights should be respected.
The legislation, passed in February, is intended to regulate family life inside Afghanistan's Shia community, but the United Nations Development Fund for Women said it "legalizes the rape of a wife by her husband."
Critics say the Afghan government approved it in a hurry to win support in the Aug. 20 election from ethnic Hazaras — a Shia Muslim minority that constitutes a crucial block of swing voters.
Not religious at all... (sic) It's all the same.AAAhmed46 wrote: More an economic, infrastructural problem then an ethnic or religious one..
It depends...According to Catholic religion, it is a sin for the wife to deny her husband _ last I knew
There is a reason why those wedding vows are now the "old" wedding vows.BY marriage a man and woman grant to one another certain rights
over their bodies for the begetting of children, the increasing
of love, the healthy ordering of passion. The fulfilment of this
concession is a matter of justice, its denial an injustice,
though a couple who are still newly in love may smile at such
terms. Justice, however, is a living virtue and not confined to
cold legal forms.
The principle is this: whenever either the husband or the wife
seriously and reasonably asks for the marriage due the other is
bound to render it. Reasonably asks: no one in marriage engages
to become a convenience for another's passion; neither must force
their every wish on the other; they are equal and, particularly
as regards the marriage act, have the same rights. It is most
desirable that the action should be mutual. This will not be too
difficult if the two love one another in a human way and are
ready to be considerate and make sacrifices, if each tries to
serve the other, and if it is realized that for their happiness
together the act should be the comfort and content of both.
There are exceptions to the obligation of rendering the marriage
due. A married person is not strictly bound to grant it if the
other has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery. Normal
relations are only re-established by the generous forgiveness of
the injured party. There is no obligation if there is a danger of
the infection of disease. Or if the request is unreasonable, if
it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and
distressing, then it may be refused. This particularly affects
the woman; she has not promised to be the man's slave, but the
sharer of his human life, of his control as well as of his ease.
It is commonly held that a woman to whom pregnancy would be fatal
or highly dangerous is not bound to render the due; the request
for it would be unreasonable. Finally, there is no obligation of
granting it, rather the reverse, if it is going to be abused by
the sin of onanism.
There is no obligation of asking for the due except when harm
would be done by abstinence, a weakening of love, a risk of
impurity. In this connection, husband and wife will learn to
interpret and anticipate the wishes of each other.
By mutual consent married couples may abstain from intercourse
either for a time or for ever, not as evading the obligations of
their state, but as an offering and sacrifice to God. They must
not deny the existence of the right, but may forgo the exercise
of it."
