As if that’s supposed to quiet all the fuss over the law. We have another, four-syllable term here in the West for sexual favors rendered according to a quid pro quo arrangement. An update on this story. “New Afghan law does not allow marital rape… but lets men refuse to feed wives who deny them sex, says cleric,” from the Daily Mail (thanks to Alex):
A new Afghan law that has drawn Western condemnation for restricting women’s rights does not allow marital rape as its critics claim, but lets men refuse to feed wives who deny them sex, the cleric behind it says.
Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni’s Shi’ite personal status law sparked controversy abroad because of a provision that ‘a wife is obliged to fulfil the sexual desires of her husband’.
This was read by some as an open door to marital rape, and together with clauses restricting women’s freedom of movement denounced as reminiscent of harsh Taliban-era rules.
The law has been criticised by Western leaders with troops fighting in Afghanistan, including U.S. President Barack Obama, who called it ‘abhorrent’.
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai, who signed the law last month, has since put it under review.
But Mohseni said the law – which only applies to the 15 percent of Afghans who are Shi’a muslims – has been misinterpreted by critics.
Its sexual clauses aimed only to ensure men’s sexual needs were met within marriage, because Islam prohibited them seeking satisfaction with other women.
‘Why should a man and woman get married if there is no need for a sexual relationship? Then they are like brother and sister,’ he told Reuters in an interview in his recently built central Kabul mosque and university complex.
‘A man and wife can negotiate how often it is reasonable to sleep together, based on his sex drive, and a woman has a right to refuse if she has a good reason,’ said the bearded cleric….
If the husband is to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a “good reason,” it is no longer consensual sex — it is coerced.