Calilasseia";p="921110 wrote:It's nothing more than a disgusting attempt to confer an entirely specious "legitimacy", upon the desire of powerful men to stick their wicks where they please without any strings attached. It's a blatant attempt to sanctify rutting, a means of giving whoever happens to be the big cheese of the moment licence to use women as little more than seminal spittoons, without any obligations with respect to provision for her needs, or to cultivate a proper, loving relationship. Once again, the diseased vision of women as nothing more than pieces of sex-meat to be bought, sold and chewed at leisure, endemic within this verminous piece of mythological excrement, is utterly revolting to anyone who truly values women as human beings.
This kind of stuff spews in such a facile manner from some people that I wonder if it goes through any brain matter first.
I freely admit to wanting to stick my wick where I please, sometimes with no strings attached. I don't make any apology for it. It's fun and even healthful. I don't know how powerful I am, though I think I probably have more power than almost all men in Islamic societies, and I certainly have enough power to do quite a lot of wick-stickage.
It's really quite easy. One reason that it's easy is that I live in a society with a higher status of women and sexual equality, imperfect as it is, but at least relatively better than any Islamic society. When women are in positions of power, rather amazing things happen, including their discovery that they like it too. Of course, not all women are up for casual hookups and sex, but neither are all men, and if anything, there are more women than men who are. At least, there are plenty for me. I like that and, as I say, I make no apologies for it, because they like it too, and they like it quite a lot.
Perhaps you could convince me of something. Perhaps Paula could help, seeing as she's described Islamic women as being trained from birth to please men. In what way should I, or indeed any man, see a woman with half a clitoris, who packs her vagina with cotton to keep it dry and who wears something like a black-spraypainted burlap sack, as some sort of über-desirable sexual ideal? I challenge you.
And while you're at it, perhaps you can explain why you think that buying and selling women as sex toys is also desirable to the wick-sticking crowd, of which I am a member. As far as I can tell, doing this would be particularly humiliating, meaning that one is not sufficiently attractive or does not have sufficient social skills to find women who want sex. Perhaps some men like it, but it is far from universal.
Then there's this:
licence to use women as little more than seminal spittoons, without any obligations with respect to provision for her needs, or to cultivate a proper, loving relationship.
Where the fuck did this come from? The 1950s and the ideal of traditional marriage? Look, even the 1950s weren't the 1950s.
There are oodles of women who want to
provide for their own needs, and many can even manage it. They have a right to do so where I live. They have a right to consider themselves free to do anything a man might do, and that includes setting the parameters for the relationships they want. Some even consider it presumptuous and patronizing for men to assume that they require a man to provide for their needs. Of course, many women are restricted in their choices by sexism, but it is perfectly reasonable to want to eliminate sexism rather than replace it with just another stereotype of women.
You're entitled to find this "disgusting" if you want. You're entitled to believe that men and women should conduct relationships according to
obligation, not even simply according to consensual agreements between individuals but as a general template. You're entitled to have your opinion about what constitutes a "proper, loving relationship." You're entitled to think that anything else involves a "verminous piece of mythological excrement."
What you are not entitled to do, at least plausibly, is conclude that these decisions put you in the position of declaring that you are speaking for those who "truly values women as human beings." Nor are you in a position to generalize about wick-stickers.
Your prejudices are clearly more in line with Western values, especially traditional Christian values, than they are with Islamic values. They are also clearly better, in some sense. Involuntary slavery is, of course, one of the most horrible imaginable conditions. I'm not even going to play moral relativism with it; I agree that it's terrible.
Still, your prejudices are cut out of the same cloth. You have a clear idea of what constitutes a "proper, loving relationship," and everything else disgusts you. A world run by your lights, prescriptively and proscriptively, would be better than a world run by Islamic lights. It still wouldn't be good.
This is why a lot of people want to get rid of restrictions on women's thoughts, choices, and behaviors, or at least the ones that aren't also applied to men. One result of this is that women are free to choose something other than your "proper, loving relationship," at least at times and in certain contexts. They are entitled,
for example, to have flings on holiday or go to swing clubs or pick up guys in bars (or allow themselves to be picked up), and they probably understand how deep and healthful these can be.
actually group sex is another no no in islam,just saying 
well still they'd be hard pressed to find this to be condoned in any of the hadiths or the quran,if it would be i can't imagine that it wouldn't have been acted upon