“My marriage is not against Shariah," insisted the randy codger.
"The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)." -- Bukhari 7.62.88
"Child bride turned over to 80-year-old husband," from Arab News, August 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):
AL-LAITH: A 10-year-old bride was returned last Sunday to her 80-year-old husband by her father who discovered her at the home of her aunt with whom she has been hiding for around 10 days.A local newspaper said the husband, who denies he is 80 in spite of claims by the girl’s family, accused the aunt of meddling in his affairs. “My marriage is not against Shariah. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he said.
He added that he had been engaged to his wife’s elder sister and that this broke off as she wanted to continue with her education. “In light of this, her father offered his younger daughter. I was allowed to have a look at her according to Shariah and found her acceptable,” he said.
Maatouq Al-Abdullah, a member of the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR), said there is no system in place regulating the marriage of young girls, something that he said results in adverse psychological, health and social effects.
“Such marriages are considered a gross violation of charters on the rights of children, which the Kingdom has signed and which set the age of adulthood at 18,” he added.
I sincerely hope the Aunt now has somewhere to hide.
"If it was good enough for Muhammad/Then it's good enough for me."
Besides, Robert, the average age of the spouses is 45. That's a respectable age, by anyone's reckoning.
Must be nice for a young girl to have an experienced husband. There is no age discrimination in Islam. ;-)
ARE YOU EXPERIENCED?
If you can just get your mind together
Uh-then come on across to me
Well hold hands and then well watch the sunrise
From the bottom of the sea
But first, are you experienced?
Uh-have you ever been experienced-uh?
Well, I have
(well) I know, I know, youll probably scream and cry
That your little world wont let you go
But who in your measly little world, (-uh)
Are you tryin to prove to that youre
Made out of gold and-uh, cant be sold
So-uh, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced? (-uh)
Well, I have
Uh, let me prove it to you, yeah
Trumpets and violins I can-uh, hear in the distance
I think theyre callin our name
Maybe now you cant hear them,
But you will, ha-ha, if you just
Take hold of my hand
Ohhh, but are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Not necessarily stoned, but beautiful
(song written by Jimi Hendrix and recorded by The Jimi Hendrix Experience for their 1967 debut album "Are You Experienced").
I guess they must have forgot to include the part where the parents and pedophile husband were hauled off to jail.
Ooo, gag me wi' a spoon.
there will never be a system in place regulating the marriage of young girls. the PROPHET is the model.
there will never be a system in place regulating the marriage of young girls. the PROPHET is the model.
My marriage is not against Shariah
He's right. Before any of you make a snide remark about how Sharia ain't too tough a standard to apply to oneself, consider this: Mohammed was about 8 times older than Aisha on their wedding day, and this sexy fellow in the complaint was the same.
*** 33:51 ***
There is no shame, so let us not fall into playing the blame game. Let's just concede that the Moslems are sexy people and leave it at that.
Our Moslem friends have feelings, too. I can still imagine how Osama bin Laden must have teared up and sobbed a little when he was forced to leave his 12 hr old wife behind in the Sudan when he left for Afghanistan to battle Infidel Imperialism.
*** Ishaq 281 ***
Although I'm still a little miffed that as an American taxpayer I helped fund those $500 dowries Hamas doled out at that mass wedding in Gaza.
Go ahead and applaud, sociopath Cherie Booth Blair. Go ahead and applaud Blair's sister-in-law Loren Booth. Go ahead and applaud lowly Malmostan formerly known as Sweden. Go ahead and applaud cowardly American "feminists". Give us a "respect for other cultures" excuse for this one.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Maybe she wasn't hiding, just playing 'hide and seek'.
Where 80 year olds marry 10 year olds that would make him old enough to conceivably (no pun intended) be her great great great great great great grandfather.
Religion of peace? Nah! ...religion of perversion & pedophilia.
80-10=70 year age difference.
Is that a "record" for paedophilia?
This can happen only in islam, the cult of peace and love. Love for little girls, following the footsteps of "profit" Mo.
What the hell! This is so messed up that it can only be from the screwed up ideology of Islam.
Does Islam allow randy old men to imbue viagra? I was watching something about some Palestinian "old folks'" home on PBS (yes, the source of this capitulating liberalism) that was being "walled off" from the rest of "Palestine." Some old Arab woman yelled at an elderly Christian woman that kept on singing alms, "Silent, you wretched lizard. To hell with your Jesus and Virgin!" Mind you, this elderly home was ran by a Catholic charity. So I thought to myself, "Why doesn't the old bag move into a muslim hospice? Oh, that's right, they don't have any, since whatever charity they acquire is used to blow IDF and American soldiers out of their humvees! They don't have any money left over to house their own elderly." Oh, what a duplicitous religion.
Mohammed suffered from Jesus-envy, he hijacked the two main religions (Christianity and Judaism) and made his own version of the two to suit his own needs and wants (his fondness for marrying little girls being one of them) and brainwashed a lot of people into believing his hogwash(no pun intended). There’s still way too many of them out there who believe the idiocy he preached and they insist on going back to the "Dark Ages"!! Unbelievable!
Yes, ami, it is exactly the same thing the American false prophet Joseph Smith did; in that, he found the religion at hand not to be agreeable to his tastes, so he invents his own (to allow such things as polygamy, etc).
You find this sort of "making it fit" throughout Islam, when Mo abrogates his previous fatwas to fit his then current situation to meet his desires. In the beginning, Mo and his cult were very small, so starting wars with their pagan neighbors would have ended his blight upon the world. So in the beginning, he preached being tolerant of the surrounding non-believes. Then, in Medinna (after gaining sufficient converts), he abrogates his previous stance and begits this blood-crazed religion that has lasted heretofore.
With any luck, the old pervert won't live too long,then he can meet his equally perverted prophet - in Hell!
"Where 80 year olds marry 10 year olds that would make him old enough to conceivably (no pun intended) be her great great great great great great grandfather."
Posted by: poetcomic1
Maybe he is. He'd be a more distant relation than a first cousin, and first cousins often marry in Islam. Actually, I think you've got about three too many greats in there; but even then he's more distant than a first cousin.
"the husband, who denies he is 80 in spite of claims by the girl’s family..."
Actually, he's only 78 -- so it's ok.
Deist,
You've touched on a subject that I have given considerable thought: the parallels between Joe Smith and Muhammad. I'm convinced that Joe studied and emulated Mo. There are so many similarities. Mo had the angel Jibreel give him the word of Allah, Joe had the angel Moroni give him the word of God. Joe borrowed the death for apostasy concept from Islam and raiding non-believers, raping and pillaging for booty were Mormon practices just as much as they were Muslim practice. Polygamy is another example common to both false religions.
Mo copied much from Christian and Jewish tradition, Joe stole much of his ceremony from the Free Masons.
http://www.mrm.org/second-muhammad
In the past, Marisol has deleted posts critical of the Mormons. We'll see how it goes.
What man in his right mind would want to have a 10 year old bride?
Oh, wait... I forgot we were dealing with a Muslim man who believes in Sharia, so he's not in his right mind anyway.
I'm unsure as how you're meant to contact Robert for any news stories...but here it goes. http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=14315
The 80 year old sugar daddy found the ten year old girl acceptable. Very interesting, but the girl didn't feel the same way about him. Mohammedans are really the lowest species on this planet. No animal would ever have sex with a little one. Yuck, words fail to describe Mohammedan abjectness and perversion.
I'm unsure as how you're meant to contact Robert for any news stories...but here it goes. http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=14315
Posted by: Jesus >>>> moHAMmed
"Contact Us" is located towards the bottom on the left-hand side of the main homepage.
To send him a story, slide down on the left side and find his email box. Paste the link in there and send it.
Also, sometimes this format takes a few moments to pop up a post so don't get impatient and clicj twice. It'll go through with one click only.
Clicj: for those posting from the former Czech Republic.
The Religion run by dirty old men, for the benefit of dirty old men.
This is just so WRONG on so many levels...wife (read slave).
I'm interested in what happened to the aunt that hid her? Guess we'll be reading about those consequences soon tho, since we can all guess what will happen.
epistemology:
"No animal would ever have sex with a little one. Yuck, words fail to describe Mohammedan abjectness and perversion."
You are quite wrong!
Bonobos are a good example - each individual regularly mates with all members of its group, regardless of age or sex. This is a form of social bonding for them, helping them resolve conflicts without the need for violence. It is obviously not done for reproduction, since they mate with individuals of the same sex and those too young to breed.
In stoats, males will enter nests of newborns whilst the mother is absent and mate with all the females in the litter. Their eggs are fertilised, but do not implant and complete development until the females have grown up and left the nest. This is a way of getting a head start on breeding for a small, vulnerable animal that often does not live very long.
Many species have social systems that have evolved to prevent or at least minimize incest, as this is usually detrimental. For example, male lions leave the pride they were born into when they reach sexual maturity, and attempt to take over another, unrelated pride - this prevents them mating with their female relatives. Females remain in the pride they were born into all their lives, but the tenure of males is usually only two to three years, so by the time they reach sexual maturity their father will have been overthrown by new males, thus preventing them breeding with him.
So you could say that pedophilia and incest is quite common, maybe even natural, among all animals including human beings. ;-)
So: Ipso: you would find it quite natural and normal to screw your own seven year old daughter, and would be deeply offended if anyone else were to suggest that this might be wrong? And would prefer it if all those pesky laws that criminalise such conduct, were repealed?
And presumably you think that that bloke in Austria who kept his daughter locked up as a prisoner, and bred children from her, was terribly misunderstood and shouldn't have been punished at all...after all he was just doing what comes naturally, poor fellow...?
So you could say that pedophilia and incest is quite common, maybe even natural, among all animals including human beings. ;-)
Posted by: Ipso Facto
Yep, that qualifies as egregious, alright ...bordering on overly egregious. Tick, tock!
Ipso, if you could find a way to f-yourself then I'm sure you would. My, you're pathetic.
Can't wait for the Daily Kos (AKA Scuz) and their Loonwatch coterie to explain the many benefits of geriatric mates for prepubescent kids.
It must be something not repellent and diseased, as it seems to the average person, but somehow shows a glorious multiculti broadmindedness.
Never mind the stray grey hairs on her little jumper.
Ipso Facto has now gone certifiably insane.
In order to do what I am not sure but it sure looks like exculpation of Islamic pedophilia, Ipso Facto adduces the sexual behavior of the Pan paniscus -- a primate otherwise known as the "Bonobo" or "Bonobo chimpanzee", belonging, so the biologists tell us, to the same taxonomic family (Hominidae) as does our species, homo sapiens. Ipso facto is not merely making this a primate issue, but also adduces the stoat and the lion. Now, if Ipso Facto had adduced these subhuman species as a way of wryly putting Islamic pedophilia in its proper place, that would be one thing. Instead, Ipso Facto seeks to drag us all down to the subhuman level in order to -- what, exactly? Exculpate Islamic pedophilia. Then to add outrageous insult to the already monstrous injury, Ipso Facto implies that it is those humans who resist pedophilia who are going against the healthy natural order of their animal nature.
Please everyone here just take the "Are you an Islamophobe?" test on Phylis Chesler's site. I think you'll find that we're all a bunch of vile islamophobes here. There's a question about little girls and old men on it, too.
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/610/are-you-an-islamophobe
Islamic mothers don't have daughters...they have chattel...
Shariah = Legalized child molestation
Islam is so vile.
Hesperado and Champ - I entirely agree.
Indeed, going by this and by some other things ipsofacto has said, I would have to be blunt and say straightout that (speaking as the mother of a ten year old daughter and eight year old son) I would never under any circumstances permit ipsofacto inside my yard, let alone inside my house. I wouldn't want him anywhere *near* my children.
Ipso may want to argue, because of the existence of indiscriminate sexual-practice-for-social-bonding among another primate species, the bonobo, or from the fact that another mammal species (not a primate; a small carnivorous mammal, the stoat) mates with prepubescent juveniles, that *human* pedophiles are only doing what comes naturally and presumably ought not to be censured or penalised for it ( I do observe, on re-reading his post, that he does hesitate somewhat over incest and reluctantly acknowledges that even among the beasts there seem to be mechanisms to avoid it, because of the obvious genetic fallout from inbreeding).
But his examples (and the implied argument from a 'natural' 'is' to a human cultural 'ought'; the implication that human cultures that [for example] disapprove of adults having sex with prepubescents are flying in the face of 'nature' and should mend their nasty unnatural ways and instead permit and even approve of such behaviour) fail even on the grounds of science. One does not need to invoke theology or morality at all.
Any biologist can tell you that just because species A exhibits Behaviour X, this does NOT necessarily mean that you should expect to find Behaviour X exhibited by closely (or distantly)-related species B. Lions can interbreed with tigers in the zoo; yet lions and tigers have utterly-different social and reproductive behaviours.
Among the primates: other chimps don't do what bonobo do; gorillas are different again; and orang utans (who lead mostly solitary lives) are different again.
So why should not humans, who are a different species from any of the other great apes, not have their *own* 'species behaviour'??
Nothing says we *have* to do exactly what any of our cousins do. Let alone what other, less-closely-related, mammals do. Just because a male gorilla keeps a harem, doesn't necessarily mean that it would be normal for a human male - any more than it is normal for tigers to live in prides, like their cousins the lions. And no sane biologist would expect humans to behave exactly like stoats.
"Nothing says we *have* to do exactly what any of our cousins do. Let alone what other, less-closely-related, mammals do."
Yes, dumbledoresarmy. And furthermore, even within our species, nothing says we have to do what members of another sub-species, the Umma mohammedensis, do. Quite the contrary.
Agreed, DDA & Hesp! ...leave it to Ipso to eclipse an already repulsive headline with his demented and repugnant comment; and it sounds like the guy needs to be placed on some kind of Watch-List for sexual perverts. Seriously!
Grounds for being banned? I think so!
This news is right from 'the kingdom' Saudi Arabia that blessid place. The only thing the guy got defensive about "denies he is 80" Otherwise it's all good and he's looking out for kids education. This is reported with a breezy air of just everyday news of the day.
I suppose over there it's tough making breaking news of another plug for the big guy and Mohammad.
champ,
If I had my druthers, I wouldn't ban Ipso Facto yet: I'd give him a warning: don't advocate pedophilia again. I say that because there's no explicit rule against it here. And that reminds me, it would be nice if JW could put out a list of things that warrant banning, (with the obvious stipulation that the list is not complete and that JW reserves the right to ban for other reasons as well if it sees fit). If the items on the list are fairly clearly described, then commenters will have a better sense of what they can and cannot say. Of course, items on the list should be really, really bad -- like advocating genocide, or pedophilia -- not just somewhat bad.
(Also, it would be nice if the development of such a list invited and integrated the input of JW's loyal readers.)
Wow.
I've followed Ipso's writings and I do believe there's been a misinterpretation of his sarcasm. The sexual practices of the Bonobo's being equated to the polygamy in islam is quite the insult to islam from a blogger who usually uses facts to gode discussion, of which he has succeeded, but not by those who should be offended.
Civilized as we (screw the we, I'll use "I") am, I know what's wrong from right and need not equate base animalisitc behaviour as an explanation for sexual crimes committed by islam. BUT, on the base side of human feral desires loosened by the laws of Sharia under islam, it seems such things are completely allowed. THAT is the sarcasm I saw. The actions were wrong but needed a sarcastic leap beyond to make it a such a kitchne counter joke that we don't loose our minds over it, well at least Ipso.
Remember, humour is verbotten in islam, and all the nuances that come with it. AND, so are the deeper arguments used as a devil's advocate that many of us find inconvienent to adress. My obsessions are a little closer to home, but the arguments built at JW make each of those obessessions even more important with every passing day.
So you could say that pedophilia and incest is quite common, maybe even natural, among all animals including human beings. ;-)
Posted by: Ipso Facto [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 26, 2009 2:50 PM
Are you a professional provocateur or do you actually approve of pedophilia? If you consider marriage between a ten year old girl and an eighty year old man to be normal, healthy, and acceptable, you are a much of a pervert as the deranged muslims who practice this abomination. There are certain universal taboos, practices that should be illegal and forbidden in ALL cultures, even sadistic, malevolent islam.
Islamic law is pure barbarism and has no place in the modern world. The islamic countries that practice this abomination should be isolated, ignored, and ostracized until they become civilized enough to participate in the twenty-first century with the rest of us.
Help! This free debate is under attack from intolerant extremists and fundamentalists who claims to seek the truth but want to kill the messenger if presented for facts and oppinions not to their liking. As all fundamentalists they have no understanding for the use of irony, humor or satire. ;-)
The following consideration seemed to have talibanized the debate:
"So you could say that pedophilia and incest is quite common, maybe even natural, among all animals including human beings. ;-)
The joke is directed both at Islam and Christianity.
Islam claims to be the natural religion and permit older men to marry prepubescent girls.
Some Christians claims that homosexuality is unnatural because animals are not homosexual. Other Christians claimed that homosexuality was beastly because some animals practice homosexuality.
What I am trying to say is that we cannot use the categories natural/unnatural to prove or disprove anything normative about human beings.
Animals face no moral choises because their behaviour are almost exclusively controlled by instincts, but we do because each of us are faced with the ethical question.
The individual can - more or less precise foresee the conquences of his actions, and include this knowledge as a causal condition for his action. That is what seperates us from animals and defines us as persons and which means, that we are not determined to follow our immediate impulses or the existing social norms, but are able to put ourselves beyond these limits and ask what we should do - what it is rational to do.
For short ask the ethical question and answer it.
Different civilizations has given different answers to the ethical question and changed the answers over time and legitimized the answers with reference to the dominant religion until the time of reason about 250 years ago when we in the West attempted to base our ethics on reason instead of religious belief.
That´s why morally and culturally speaking the world is a blooming buzzing confusion and under the influence of globalization the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics and the fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. We are already now living in the future Huntington predicted in 1993 and the bloodist fault line is between Islam and the West.
So what is my serious answer to the question of pedophilia allowed in islam and considered a serious crime in the West?
A child is not a person and therefore not capable of giving consent to a sexual relationship with a growen up (a person) and it changes nothing if we call it marriage or not. That follows from the definition of person I gave above. On the other hand a person qua person is capable of foreseeing the negative consequences to the child if he engages in a sexual relationship even if it is on the initiative of the child.
That´s the ethical reason why we cannot allow a sexual relation between a child and a person.
Some argue that the negative consequences (traumatization and other negative psyhological effects) for the child is relative to the norms of a given culture. Even if this is true, and I think it is, such a sexual relationship cannot be allowed purely of the ethical grounds stated.
From this argumentation it should also be clear why sexual contacts between two persons of the same gender is not an ethical question as long it is based upon mutual concent and does not harm any third part.
It is probably true that we do not choose our own sexuality but qua person we can choose not to practice a given sexual desire if it means crossing the ethical barrier. In that sense every possible sexual deviation from heterosexuality could be labelled "natural". But natural does not necessarily make it morally acceptable.
Now my position on pedophilia is made clear - I hope! In the future please look out for the special signal I use - ;-) - when I mix in a dose of humor, sarkasm and irony or just want to provoke an opponent to get a more lively debate.
"What I am trying to say is that we cannot use the categories natural/unnatural to prove or disprove anything normative about human beings." -- Ipso Facto
That's odd; nobody was arguing that before you started injecting that. You picked up on one off-the-cuff remark by epistemology -- "No animal would ever have sex with a little one" -- and you went to town with an elaborate eccentric theory about pedophilia, incest, nature, anthropology and biology. Nothing wrong with going to town with elaborate theories, as long as they don't end up condoning sex with minors. You seem to have a theory that nature is valid, but culture is not; or that culture is not if it seems to go against nature.
Kaffir Kanuck, I re-read Ipso's post, and I cannot detect the kind of sarcasm that would reverse the apparent condoning of pedophilia there.
Kaffir Kanuck, I re-read Ipso's post, and I cannot detect the kind of sarcasm that would reverse the apparent condoning of pedophilia there.
Posted by: Hesperado
I agree -- and why would someone wait 6 hours before explaining such a provocative comment? He only did so shortly after Kaffir defended the possibility of it being sarcastic, and that's when Ipso seized the opportunity to explain his signature smiley face. O, like we were suppose to know what that damn smile meant.
Hesperado:
"Kaffir Kanuck, I re-read Ipso's post, and I cannot detect the kind of sarcasm that would reverse the apparent condoning of pedophilia there."
Of course you can´t because you snipe and bend over backwards to find fault, and then wonder why you have so few friends in the blogosphere. In appointing yourself as the guardian of the boundaries of ideological purity, you have made yourself the odd man out.
You don´t even deserve a reply from me so instead you got the wise and true words of Marisol - who also had enough - characterizing all the fun you add to the debate. ;-)
Wussie! ...now you're hiding behind Marisol? Wow, what a coward! Come on, are you a mouse, or a man? ...use something original.
Deist, I have often thought that Mo and Joe were similar in their 'latter day' invented religions (which seem to be reflections of their own egotistical and fevered minds-tho' Mo's latter day religion, aka Islam, is downright evil; Joe's more misguided.
Yet again, Islam perverts the natural order of life--children should be protected not married off to old goats by their parents. Evil, evil, evil. Islam is from Satan.
On Mormons and Muslims, there's one gigantic difference: although Mormons began as fanatics who caused a lot of problems, they evolved and changed, and by a few decades, by the 20th century, they became civilized and Americanized and now are peaceful prosperous citizens of the US. Though some may be annoying and perhaps comical, they are completely harmless and productive members of society. Muslims, on the other hand, have had 1400 years to evolve, but they are still exploding, beheading, torturing, killing, abusing people and trying to conquer the world in the name of deranged apocalyptic fantasies -- and the ones among them who aren't directly getting their hands bloody are excusing (if not covertly helping) their brothers and sisters who are.
This absolutely disgusts me!
If anyone, especially an old fart like this 80 yr-old pervert, ever touched my nine year-old grand- daughter I would castrate him slowly.
That Saudis still practise this ancient custom legally only proves the sociopathy of this "religion of farce".
I curse all Muslims world-wide and pray that early death befalls anyone who practises it.
As God is my witness I shall fight this psychopathic ideology to my death.
Kaffir_Kanuck,
When I wrote my serious reply to a number of hysterical opponents who wanted to burn me at a stake I had not read your good supportive comment. The reactions and misrepresentations were expected because pedophilia has become a very strong sexual taboo in our Western civilization and especially in the US.
On June 25, 2008 in Kennedy v. Louisiana, the US Supreme Court ruled against Louisiana's child rape death penalty, saying "there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons." The Court went beyond the question in the case to also rule out the death penalty for any crime against an individual (as opposed to "offenses against the state," such as treason or espionage, or crimes against humanity) "where the victim’s life was not taken”.
With this decission by the Supreme Court it seems that the taboo about pedophilia has now peaked in the US.
This imply that an adult-child sexual relation can now be discussed more freely – at least among professionals.
Psychiatrists attending an annual convention in the American Psychiatric Association (APA) on May 19, 2003 in San Francisco proposed removing several long-recognized categories of mental illness - including pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism and sadomasochism - from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Most of the mental illnesses being considered for removal are known as "paraphilias."
Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco's Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented conferees with a paper entitled "DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal."
People whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden or religiously proscribed should not necessarily be labeled mentally ill, they argued. Different societies stigmatize different sexual behaviors, and since the existing research could not distinguish people with paraphilias from so-called "normophilics," there is no reason to diagnose paraphilics as either a distinct group or psychologically unhealthy, Moser and Kleinplatz stated.
"The situation of the paraphilias at present parallels that of homosexuality in the early 1970s. Without the support or political astuteness of those who fought for the removal of homosexuality, the paraphilias continue to be listed in the DSM," Moser and Kleinplatz wrote.
In previous articles, psychiatrists have argued that there is little or no proof that sex with adults is necessarily harmful to minors. Indeed, they have argued that many sexually molested children later look back on their experience as positive, Nicolosi said.
"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.
But whether pedophilia should be judged "normal and healthy" is as much a moral question as a scientific one, according to Nicolosi.
"The courts are so afraid of 'legislating someone's privately held religious beliefs' that if pedophilia is normalized, we will be hard put to defend the retention of laws against child molestation," Nicolosi noted.
Link: http://home.wanadoo.nl/ipce/library_two/files/apa_debates.htm
It is my view that all science (by definition) is descriptive. It can tell us what IS the case but not what SHOULD BE the case. This means that you cannot deduct from one or more descriptive premises about what is the case to a normative conclusion about what should be the case. If you do you commit the naturalistic fallacy.
The social sciences and especially psychiatry and psychology is often politizised and used to confirm a given cultural paradigme legitimizing a corresponding moral order or to change the moral order when a general shift in moral attitudes takes place in a population.
So whether pedophilia is classified as a mental disorder or not is logically unrelated to whether it is morally acceptable or not. But societies do not necessarily react rational or logical especially when it comes to deviant sexual practises being banned by the dominant religion as a crime against God and nature and later classified as a criminal mental illness – as was the case with homosexuality. It is extremely hard to change such a tradition being part of the Jewish/Christian paradigme for several thousand years.
Scientifically you cannot prove or disprove if homosexuality or pedophilia is a mental illness.
It depends on how you in the theory define “mental ilness”. Taxonomic classification is not a science in the social sciences but a pragmatic tool.
Anthropologists have observed that taxonomies are generally embedded in local cultural and social systems, and serve various social functions. Perhaps the most well-known and influential study of folk taxonomies is Émile Durkheim'sThe Elementary Forms of Religious Life. A more recent treatment of folk taxonomies (including the results of several decades of empirical research) and the discussion of their relation to the scientific taxonomy can be found in Scott Atran's Cognitive Foundations of Natural History.
We have the same type of problems when we try to give an exact definition of “child” and “childhood”.
For practical reasons we use a classification (almost purely) based upon age. But even within our own culture the minimum age of (sexual) concent range from age 12 to 18. In some Muslim countries there is no minimum legal age of (sexual) concent because sex outside marriage is against Sharia and punisable by death.
This leads to absurdities in the legal system. In the state of Lousiana you could (before the ruling of the US Supreme Court) risk death penalty for something that is legal in Europe. For instance in Holland, where the minimum legal age of (sexual) concent (in some cases) are (or used to be) 12 year. In Germany it is 14 years in both heterosexual and homosexual relations.
With my sarkasm and irony I was trying to make us critical about our own ethic and how we punish sexual offenders. And not least to ask the question WHY sexual contacts between children and persons are ethically unacceptable. If we cannot rationally argue for that in a consistent way it becomes a matter of belief or tradition.
Some were offended probably because they regard pedophilia as a sexual taboo not to be discussed and not to be made fun of. But in a free society all subjects should be open to debate and arguments should be refuted by more consistent counter arguments.
Let me finish with a few words about the phenonema taboo.
The word TABOO derives from “tapu”meaning, "not allowed") dates back to 1777 when English explorer, Captain James Cook, visited Tonga, a place he named "the Friendly Islands".
Taboos can include dietary restrictions (halal and kosher diets, religious vegetarianism, and the prohibition of cannibalism), restrictions on sexual activities and relationships (sex outside of marriage, adultery, intermarriage, miscegenation, sex between people of the same sex, incest, animal-human sex, adult-child sex, sex with the dead), restrictions of bodily functions (burping, flatulence, restrictions on the use of psychoactive drugs, restrictions on state of genitalia such as circumcision or sex reassignment), exposure of body parts (ankles in theVictorian British Empire, women's faces in parts of the Middle East, nudity in the US), and restrictions on the use of offensive language.
No taboo is known to be universal, but some (such as the cannibalism and incest taboos) occur in the majority of societies. Taboos may serve many functions, and often remain in effect after the original reason behind them has expired. Some have argued that taboos therefore reveal the history of societies when other records are lacking.
Certain taboos lose their stinginess over periods of time. In the United States and western countries, most people are now more comfortable than before when they discuss and explore social issues: alcoholism, depression, divorce, income disparity, personal relationships, pregnancy and childbirth and teenage rebellion. Medical disorders and diseases like cancer, polio,AIDS and suicide aren't as heavily taboo now as in the past.
Certain personal things such as age, height, weight and appearance are not always shared with confidants or in public; this indicates that such topics may be taboo to some people.
Other societal taboos to a certain extent or to some people are the issues of sex, death, racism, genderism, ethnicity, nationality, religion, politics, money, socio-economic class, sexual orientation and disability. People follow this advice of not discussing, joking about or making an issue of things that can lead to bigotry, discrimination and stigmatization of people with those social group differences. They developed as a result of concerns for civil rights, sensitivity and multiculturalism in the 20th century.
When done as a parody or comedy, said or done by comedians, taboo topics and subject matter can induce comical reaction by the general public, without disgust or offense on what was said or mentioned about an emotionally charged issue described as mainly taboo in a given society.
Sigmund Freud provided an analysis of taboo behaviors, highlighting strong unconscious motivations driving such prohibitions. In this system, described in his collections of essays "Totem and Taboo", Freud postulates a link between forbidden behaviors and the sanctification of objects to certain kinship groups. Freud also states here that the only two "universal" taboos are that of incest and patricide, which formed the eventual basis of modern society.
I think Freud is right about incest. The so called “Westermark effect” seems to have a strong genetical component but it is not strong or consistent enough to make the taboo against incest truly universal.
Piet Hein and Albert Einstein are people I feel close to mentally. They both used humor and satire also in scientific discussions. Einsteins refutation of the Danish scientist Niels Bohrs theory of quantum mechanics is a classic: "God does not play dice [with the universe]." That is funny, especially when said by an agnostic.
Piet Hein (1905-1996) is less well known. Hein was a Danish scientist,mathematician, inventor, designer, author, and poet, often writing under the Old Norse pseudonym "Kumbel" meaning "tombstone". His short poems, known as gruks or grooks (Danish: Gruk), first started to appear in the daily newspaper "Politiken" shortly after the Nazi Occupation in April 1940 under the pseudonym "Kumbel Kumbell".
Piet Hein, who, in his own words, "played mental ping-pong" with Albert Einstein in the inter-War period, found himself confronted with a dilemma when the Germans occupied Denmark. He felt that he had three choices: Do nothing, flee to "neutral" Sweden or join the Danish resistance movement. As he explained in 1968, "Sweden was out because I am not Swedish, but Danish. I could not remain at home because, if I had, every knock at the door would have sent shivers up my spine. So, I joined the Resistance.
To end this tour de force against hysteria, lack of humor and tolerance I have selected a sweet little gruk for deeper reflection and self reflection:
“THE ETERNAL TWINS
Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thoroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.”
Have a nice day everybody!
Oh, come on, people. Muslims don't look at her as a 10 year old little girl...she's just a piece of property, a new model, an unfinished work in progress.
Islam is the most vile "religion" in existence. No wonder so many males are turning to it...they like the idea of females being sanctioned as their property.
In Islam, even rape is the woman's fault.
Ipso
I am not hysterical and I did not propose burning you at the stake or even banning you.
But I must stand by what I said: as the mother of an 8 year old and a 10 year old, were you living next door to me, and I had heard you say the things (about sexuality and children) that you have repeatedly said in this forum, and very often without a sarc mark and without the least perceptible trace of irony, then there is *no way* I would permit you anywhere near my children. Simple prudence. Better sure than sorry, and all that.
And if I found any creepy old guy leering and ogling and making up to my ten-year-old daughter, and sticking his hand up her dress, then he would get a wallop upside of the head with a 2 by 4. Oh how mean and cruel and hysterical and nasty of me, to spoil his fun and mess up her 'initiation' / sarc/
I do not see that *any* rational case can be made for permitting those adults (usually male) who want to get their jollies by screwing or otherwise sexually using children (often, very young children, even babies) to do so with impunity. (Would you approve of an 18 year old male amusing himself by playing with the genitals of an eight year old or a three year old girl? Of a one year old girl? Or shoving his finger into her little vagina? Or buggering her, like the Ayatollah Khomeini recommended? Would you say her parents should just smile fondly if they find him doing it, and say, oh, she loves it, go right ahead?)
A child is physically smaller and weaker than an adult; a child can be seduced, a child can be frightened, a child can be overpowered or bamboozled or blackmailed, with the greatest of ease, by a selfish and unscrupulous adult who uses their adult intelligence and adult power to *use* that child. All the decks are stacked against the child. You are fond of citing psychologists. Well: given what we now know about brain development in infants, in young children, and even in adolescents, give me the proof that a child of five, or ten, or even a midteen, can argue and negotiate on equal terms with an adult of twenty five or thirty or forty who has all the power, mentally and physically. (We won't even go into what's happening if an adult is 'getting off' on the sexual use of a helpless preverbal infant).
I remember vividly a report upon pornographic videos, produced by pedophiles, that were discovered by a police investigation: these depicted small children weeping uncontrollably, crying and screaming as they were violated.
Oh, and quite frequently such little victims are infected with STDs by their abusers. How sweet.
Question: do you or do you not think that this girl in Saudi Arabia should be f***ed by her 78 year old husband? Are you just fine with that? Do you think the Resistance to Jihad should ignore that sort of thing and that, rather, in this matter, western law should conform itself to what one must assume you regard as the more 'rational' and 'natural' provisions of the Sharia?
Would you propose that the laws in western countries should be changed to decriminalise the sexual use of children aged between 0 and 16, by any person not actually genetically related to them, who is pleased to do so, and has the opportunity? Open season on 8 year old girls! NAMBLA, come out of the shadows!
Reality check.
The 'fallout' from child 'marriage': that is, from the regular and normalised sexual use of very young girls by adult males.
As witnessed by a US soldier, posting here some years ago, who had worked at a field clinic for Afghan civilians.
"While in Afganistan, we ran a clinic for people in the village.
You wouldn't believe the number of abused women that were brought there.
*Young girls around six to 14.* {my emphasis added - dda}
They were burned with scalding water, beat,
*had all kinds of damage to their reproductive organs.
Some women within an inch of their life.*
I am sure alot a killed and there is no reprocussions for the husbands.
They were often brought by their husbands, who were about 20 to 30 years their senior.
They freak out when their young brides don't get pregnent {note: probably because the poor kids aren't even ovulating yet - dda} or for any reason under the sun.
I think most these girls by nature just try to be kids, which they are, and their adult husbands can't take it.
A women thats older than 14 and not married is an old maid.
Any westren woman that would convert to Islam, should live in Afganistan."
Posted by: American_soldier at February 10, 2007 9:56 AM
For more on what can happen to the body of a girl who is married off too young, and who gets pregnant when her body has not fully matured: read Catherine Hamlin, "The Hospital By the River"...a whole hospital, in Ethiopia, dedicated entirely to the repair of vesico-vaginal and ano-vaginal fistula.
ipso has let his mask slip once too often.
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that has figured this egoist out.
He seems the type that would take the opposite view of a post that he agreed with just for the pleasure of arguing...or stirring shit for the smell.
islam is a lie and
Truth is killing it.
Good post dumbledoresarmy. Also you didn't quite directly mention one more problem with sex with minors: the psychological debilitation it causes those minors as they grow up into their teen years and into adulthood, often encumbered with all sorts of problems such as addictions, social anxiety, social difficulties, increased difficulties with acquiring and keeping stable romantic relationships, etc.
Ipso Facto is not only deranged; he's an imbecile. And what's worse, his head is full of knowledge.
Something from the jihadwatch archives.
"...Have you read 'Princess' by Jean Sassoon? She wrote about three books on similar themes. Very easy to read, these books touch on the inevitable lesbianism that arises for that very reason.
' It also describes the temporary 'marriage' of young girls and sex slavery generally.
'Two stories stick in my mind.
One is of a 12 year old girl from Pakistan, {who might well be Hindu or Christian, not Muslim - dda} sold to a Saudi man as a sex slave and being gang raped by him and his brothers.
'Not only do the men not think it is wrong, but the Arab women think it is OK because men can't help themselves and in any case the girl has been paid for.
'Another story is of a girl in a modern hospital in Jeddah, about to give birth. As soon as she has had the baby she will be executed. Her crime? She was gang raped.
'Astonishingly, the writer completely exhonerates Islam from these and other horrors she describes. Yet the treatment of women is no worse than that meted out by Mohammed and his companions and breaks no law in Islam.'
Posted by: Interested at October 7, 2005 11:57 AM
And here are certain excerpts from the Miriam Ali book 'Without Mercy', that I mentioned above: as reproduced at the answeringislam site, where it discusses child brides.
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm
Miriam Ali, in "Without Mercy", pub. by Warner Books, 1995 tells the story of her daughters being abducted and sold as wives in Yemen. Their names are Nadia and Zana. The girls were both in their early teens. Here are relevant excerpts:
page 123: 'Gowan (a man who purchased one of Miriam's daughters) laughed in my face. "They are not your daughters Miriam, they are ours (because the men purchased the girls). Mine and Abdul Khada. I paid good money for Nadia to bear children for my son, as Abdul Khada paid for Zana....Muthana (Miriam's husband) knows this. He knew this when we struck our deal. He has no problem with it........."Do you think I would allow this, the sale of my own daughters?" What is it to do with you Miriam? This is man's business, nothing for a woman to concern herself with."
page 300: - ' I discovered that I wasn't the only one to have suffered at the hands of a Shamiri. I now knew at least 5 other mothers who have had their children taken to Yemen. This had accounted for at least 10 other children, the majority of them female. I knew that there were many more like them.'
'Zana had met so many girls taken from the Midlands (England), taken by force who were now in Yemen.
'One was a petite blonde from Derby. She was 9 years old when she was taken *and had already three miscarriages when she became pregnant a fourth time. This time the child had been stillborn. The death of this little baby had taken the child-mother's sanity. She was 12 years old* "{my emphasis added - dda}
END QUOTE.
Four pregnancies, three miscarriages and a stillbirth...all in three years, between the age of 9 and 12.
Welcome to dar al Islam, where people - especially females - are treated like *things*.