Yemen Confronts Plight of Child Brides

Post Reply New Topic

For comparison, here's another article on the same subject that somebody posted in another thread. Same slant, but at least they attempted to bring in the other side:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26042107/

It's been a stimulating discussion, for sure.

Sorry ummAR but I am going to have to side with BokeKaeru on this one. I am not fond of the idea that a husband has a right to sex, even if the wife is not in the mood for it.
If the wife wants sex does that mean that the husband can refuse? or is he expected to go along with it like it is the other way around?

I don't like it when religion meddles in people's personal sex-lives. Personal choice trumps 'duty' in my opinion.

I can't say I liked it either. I was also raised with the idea that sex as a wife's marital duty is old-fashioned and stupid (by society--my mother fully subscribed to the notion) and I understood it as making sex seem like something burdensome and hateful. In fact, this was part of my major internal conflict in my own marriage (most likely contributing greatly to its collapse). But then, I started searching for answers and I found these marriage sites talking about ways to revive a dying (or even dead marriage) and this is one of the things I found, which is (it seems to me now) part of the wisdom of Islam. For me my religion is like a puzzle. I accepted the framework, but I periodically jostle the parts to try to see the full picture better. Anyway, the issue of sexual responsiveness came up on every site (it's obviously a bigger deal to men than many women realize) and the advice was for women to accept that this is a big deal for their husbands and that, even if they're not in the mood, they need to go with it--that men suffer a lot from rejection, it builds resentments and slowly eats away at the fabric of the marriage. But the trick is to do it not as punishment and degradation for yourself, but out of good will for your spouse. And, of course, sometimes (albeit rarely) the tables are turned.

The fact is, marriage itself is constructed differently amongst cultures and to impose American, Western, whatever ideals on Islamic societies is unfounded, whether you agree with their point of view or not and that's what is encouraged by this issue of "child brides".

Sex inside of marriage should be a joyous thing. Nobody should feel put-upon by it. I don't understand why the woman would always have to be coerced into having sex with her husband.

NOTE: "Marriages" between adults and children I do not consider valid.

sex keeps the marrage going?

if I was working all day and late into the night and had to get up early in the morning for work, and my husband was in the mood... I am going to sleep. I am not going to enjoy sex if I don't want it, and how would the husband feel that the sex he is getting feels like a chore to the woman?

sex between two people should be wanted by the two people, but it dosn't always happen. The idea that when one wants sex and the other does not -- too bad so sad go with it, still bothers me, which is why I don't like how some religions sticks it nose in personal sex lives.
Telling a couple how to, when to, and feel to have sex just dosn't seem that realistic to me seeing as how diverse couples can be.

maybe I am just thinking too much in to this, but that's just the way I am I suppose.

A marriage relying on sex for its contuance is tenuous at best, at worst abusive and unfair for both man & woman.

You're welcome. ^^

Also, I forgot to mention this - http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm

That last weblink, Khan Sama, is hateful propaganda.

It's lies.

"The corrupted Bible" corrupted by whom?

How is relaying the contents of your holy book "hateful propaganda"?

I'm just saying that if the bible approves of raping 3 year olds, then surely, it's not against child marriage, right?

Corrupted by man, btw.

And the Quran is not?

When Muslims try to distance themselves from murder, rape, and terrorism, it's a blatant lie. It's an insult to the intelligence. There's a long history of bad blood between Islam and Christianity. Neither side is totally innocent. Both sides have run smear campaigns on the other. Both sides have blood on their hands, so let's stop with the bullsh*t.

Please don't misunderstand me, that source was the only one I could find (I'm short on time right now) that shows the bible condones sexual intercourse with children. Of course, if you need to search for rape, murder, and terrorism in the Quran, your result is only a google search away (for example, this article I came across by Mark Bonaido - http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/51178 ) . I'm not trying to start a flame war, just showing that Christianity approves. Please don't misunderstand me, but do try doing some research on your own religion before commenting on others. From what I understand, priests and imam's always preach the aspects of a religion that are convenient to you. They always tend to ignore the bloody verses.

I agree, there's a long history of blood with any religion.

How are the bloody verses useful to the general church- or mosque-going public?

I can't accept that Christianity embraces pedophilia. Not even in the OT. It does not sound right to me. The thing with Scripture is that anyone can find a quote to support their agenda or personal belief. Isolated from the rest of the Bible, taken out of context, these quotes by themselves mean nothing.

I believe it's true that people gloss over the difficult parts of their religion, but that's for a very obvious reason. If people have any interest in peace, you have to first establish common bases. Every time I pop into the Politics, Religion and Philosophy forum, I see the thread on "war: a necessary evil" and I tell myself, no…don't go there. You don't need any trouble. I don't see that as strange… in discussion. On a more personal note, though, I think you'd have to be fooling yourself if you couldn't look these parts of your religion square in the eye and try to make sense of them.

Going back to the "marriage relying on sex" bit, first of all, it's not quite that simple. Of course marriage does not rely only on sex. If a marriage were based solely on sex, I would start looking at my wristwatch to see how long it would last.

That given, my question to detractors is: have you ever been married? Even for the sexual experienced, marriage contains surprises in terms of how you react to the demands and pressures, how you handle conflict, how you change and grow, etc. Even good marriages go through stages and sexual dynamics play an awfully large role in this.

Human beings (for the most part) were created with sexual needs. Sometimes these needs are stronger than at other times and when the need is strong, your partner refuses, and you have no other legitimate outlet, it is, well, painful...in many ways. This is generally more of an issue for men, but not exclusively so.

Sex in Islam is an obligation, but it is also a highly rewardable charity. I can't seem to find the source, but just about any Muslim will know the hadith I'm talking about: The Prophet (saws) told his companions that in the act of sex there is a charity, so they were surprised and they asked him. He answered them to the effect that if they satisfied their desires in an unlawful way, they would be guilty of sin and that likewise, if they satisfy their desires in a lawful way, they will be rewarded.

In a verse of the Qur'an it says (that which means):

{Verily, protect yourself and your family from the Fire.} [Q 66:6]

Sex is one way of helping your spouse to protect himself/herself from unlawful action.

Sex is not supposed to be forcible:

"Do not approach your wife like a beast. Rather, send a messenger to her." They asked, "What is the messenger?" He replied, "Kissing and kind words."

These are just brief examples of what I'm talking about. Volumes have been written on the subject. I could go on all day, but I digress...

It's hard for anyone to accept it. I understand, I felt the same earlier. But these are facts. Do consider that you were living 3,000 years ago. All of these things mentioned were regarded as alright. Just 4 centuries ago, ritual human sacrifice was common in your continent. It still occurs in India, along with cannibalism (there are 80-100 cases of human sacrifice every year in India, 150-200 worldwide). Islamic view is such, that Allah (swt) sent messengers to rectify human mistakes, but over time, most of what these messengers preached was corrupted, and that Islam is the only uncorrupted religion. There have been attempts at this as well, such as Alevism in Turkey, the syncretic religion practiced at a certain island in Indonesia, and a pagan custom popular with a minority of Indian Muslims - ancestor worship.

The fact is, an average person lived for approximately 35 years in the past. Hence, marriage at an early age was a must. Nowdays, we have education, and long life due to advanced medicine. Slowly, over time, in the west, marrying young girls after their education became a norm. Now, it's considered cruel for a teenage/preteen person to get married, but it's alright for them to have sex. Usually, the ones (in the west) trying to preach this to us "ignorant" people firstly fail to realize that this was, until recently, not only a part of their culture and is still a part of their religion, they also fail to realize that it's completely legal in many countries. Marriage aside, have you visited www.ageofconsent.com ? The legal age for sex in some countries such as Japan and Spain is almost shocking.

I agree with everything ummMar said in his last post. But that bit about human sacrifice on this continent some 400 years ago, is that referring to the white Europeans or the Indians? When I think of human sacrifice I think of the Aztecs, who vanished from this part of the world much more than 4 centuries ago. They were the original South American Indians, and their religion involved mass murder and ritual human sacrifice in the context of religion.

Exactly. I'm talking about the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, etc. My point is, no religion is as clean as it may appear in the surface. As far as the Aztecs were concerned, giving blood to their Gods was a religious duty, and that the sacrifices were "small ceremonies" which were a necessary evil. It was the conquistadors who exaggerated everything, and conquered their countries in the name of God only to massacre 90% of their respective populations in the long run. Now which was the lesser evil? The ritual sacrifices, involving a few thousand people every 51 years, or the genocide, involving millions of people? It's no different from the opinions and views you have of Islam, without realising what's in your own holy book.

I still think that the bloody verses were necessary in their time, especially during war. However, their existence is undeniable.. It would be blasphemous to deny it.