April 7, 2009

"As long as the husband is not travelling, he has the right to have sexual intercourse with his wife every fourth night."

"Unless the wife is ill or has any kind of illness that intercourse could aggravate, the wife is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desires of her husband."

34 comments:

Jason said...

Now that ER is in reruns, I don't see the problem here.

Meade said...

Only every fourth night? That part, at least, seems fairly laid back and easy going.

SteveR said...

Anything about conversation and long walks through the poppy fields?

traditionalguy said...

The Saudi Arabian response: There the women go again. Next they will be demanding free time outside the home.It's enough to drive a Moslem to seek the destruction of Western freedoms peddled everywhere by those crazy Americans before they can destroy our thing. First we arrange to destroy their economy, and then cancel their spending on military superiority weapons, and finally tax their use of the world air supply. Then we will have them weakened and we Moslems can kill their men and take their women under proper discipline. The despised Sarah Palin must never be allowed to set a bad example for our women, my fellow Moslems.

Meade said...

And let's say, as long as I'm not travelling, then every other fourth night, I get to be the one to hold the whip. M'kay?

Ann Althouse said...

@Meade LOL.

And what is "a positive response" anyway? Can it be as easygoing as saying "It's sweet of you to want have sex with me." And that's only every 4th night. The other 3 nights she's free to say "Nooooo!"

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hey maybe that guy who was complaining about his girlfriend who put the lock box on her vagina until they got married should move to Afghanistan.

Meade said...

The other 3 nights she's free to say "Nooooo!"

Okay, but just a point of clarification: "Nooooo" does not mean no the way "no" means no.

You know?

pduggie said...

While the law is most definitly bad and would lead to marital rape, I wonder if it actually "sanctions" marital rape as the news report stated.

Afghanistan seems to be defining the marriage bond as "you consent to sex with your husband at any time". Having agreed to such a contract, well, you consented, right?

It might not mean that the husband has the right to force rape, just that if he's denied his marital right, he has grounds for divorce. That would be a minimal reading of the text, no?

pduggie said...

To think of it another way, we all "consent" to pay our taxes, right? We have a system of "voluntary compliance" right?

And if you say "I signed this under duress" when you sign your tax return, the IRS looks at you pretty funny, doesn't it?

Methadras said...

Meade said...

The other 3 nights she's free to say "Nooooo!"

Okay, but just a point of clarification: "Nooooo" does not mean no the way "no" means no.

You know?


Yeah, but what about "Oh no", "Oh my", "Oh Dear", and the ever popular "Oh no you di'unt"?

Joe said...

Whether the law sanctions marital rape or not, do you really think a man in Afghanistan is going to be prosecuted for claims he raped his wife? Hell, she'd probably be whipped for daring to make the accusation. in the first place (under the Taliban, she'd be beheaded, so I suppose that's progress.)

traditionalguy said...

I give up. What has travelling got to do with the 4th night rule? Does time stop running when the couple is apart? Does the Hubby get to use Prostitutes while on the road, so he will need another 4count to get ready for the Wifey when he returns? Does she need 4 nights of romance to fogive him for leaving her?

pduggie said...

Joe: No, probably not. But that means its almost as meaningless for the law in Afghanistan to say "A wife may refuse sex at will and the husband may not force it on her". And how would you really get Afghanistan to agree to such a law, except by force?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yeah, but what about "Oh no", "Oh my", "Oh Dear", and the ever popular "Oh no you di'unt"?

As long as it's not "Is it in yet?" you're gold. ;-)

Lem said...

We should look to Afghanistan as a bed-rock of Jeffersonian democracy ;)

Revenant said...

While the law is most definitly bad and would lead to marital rape, I wonder if it actually "sanctions" marital rape as the news report stated.

If extorting sex through threats of violence counts as rape, I would think that extorting sex through force of law would, too. The implication is clear: if the woman is legally obligated to submit to sex, sex with her cannot legally be considered rape. If you have the right to enter a house once every four days, they can't arrest you for breaking and entering on that day even if you force open the door, right?

Hunter McDaniel said...

Reminds me of an old Woody Allen movie (forget the name). Woody's shrink asks him how often he is having sex and he answers "almost never - three times a week". Cut to Diane Keaton's shrink asking her the same question, to which the answer is "constantly - three times a week".

save_the_rustbelt said...

Somebody throw some cold water on Anne and Meade, they got it bad.

Good grief man, get in the car and drive the 500 miles, anything for love (which reminds me of the night I drove from Toledo to Akron for a quick cuddle session and then drove home to be at work the next morning).

Revenant said...

Reminds me of an old Woody Allen movie (forget the name).

Annie Hall

BJM said...

pduggie: Having agreed to such a contract, well, you consented, right?

Afghanistani women (and those living in traditional Muslim societies governed by Sharia law) are not a party to the contract. They do not choose their husbands or when they will marry. Marriages are arranged between family patriarchs. It's not uncommon for girls (and boys) to be pledged from birth to consolidate/advance fortunes or position in the tribe.

We forget that young American woman did not ignore similar societal conventions without a great cost to themselves not so many decades ago.

We did not have the vote, property rights or even a legal identity apart from our husbands or fathers until the 1920's. It wasn't until the 60's women gained gender equality.

So while we've indeed come a long way, it's taken more than a hundred years of political activism in a free society to get here.

I think Muslim societies will change and adapt as global communications spread images and ideas that cannot be contained by censorship or religious edicts.

Faster please.

rhhardin said...

The difference in sexual desire is what allows the woman to express something with it, that she is happy with her man; which is what the man needs.

Make it a law and it's no longer expressive.

srfwotb said...

@Meade Remember, you can have up to four wives.

Pogo said...

My Sharia

Ooh my little pretty one, highhanded one.
When you gonna give me my due, Sharia?
Ooh you make my motor run, I have a gun.
Stone you if you don't toe the line Sharia

Never gonna stop, I beat you up.
Hit your dirty mind
Always get it up for the touch
of the younger kind.
My my my i yi woo.
M M M My Sharia...

zedzded said...

Pogo for the win.

Revenant said...

We did not have the vote, property rights or even a legal identity apart from our husbands or fathers until the 1920's.

That is not quite accurate. Women's rights weren't completely federalized until the 20s and 30s, but many states had provided those rights to their female residents for decades prior to then. It is common to equate "the federal government doesn't protect a right" with "the right doesn't exist". But you need to remember that prior to the 20s and 30s the federal government wasn't expected, or allowed, to be in charge of every aspect of American life.

kentuckyliz said...

Every 4th night.
Islam permits up to 4 wives.
He's getting it nightly.

Now all he has to do is put up with having 4 wives. LOL

JAL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JAL said...

Something like Revenant (hard to believe): The issue which struck me is a national government (or I guess any 'government') making marriage behavior rules which are not related to harm, life, or death.

It has struck me that the most severe of the Islamic cultures seem to show some massive male insecurities (to say the least). There are some serious sex problems there that the culture seems to want to lift the responsibility for dealing with from the individuals.

A not too refined observation, but how bizarre is it that law is passed on a national level guaranteeing a guy sex. So is a "positive" response just lying there? Or are they counting oohs and ahhs too?

traditionalguy said...

FYI in Georgia we are always intrigued by deeds written out of state that have recitals about the Married or Single status of a Party to the deed. No one cares in Georgia. It seems that Georgia was the FIRST legal system in world history to give married women the equal rights to own their separate property completely free from their husband's legal claims. That became law here in 1815, before most of the Georgia's lands were taken from the Indian tribes' control.I blame the Wesley brothers who were always reforming things.

•Netblue• is my favorite color. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PatCA said...

Not that they're overly regimented or anything.

Jennifer said...

The specificity is what kills me. I'm imagining a roomful of dusty, bearded, swarthy mullahs debating whether it should be every third or fourth night that is more reasonable. Trying to think of exceptionable clauses and settling on travelling. Puzzling over a reasonable wording and settling on "positive response".

EDH said...

pduggie said...
While the law is most definitly bad and would lead to marital rape, I wonder if it actually "sanctions" marital rape as the news report stated...

It might not mean that the husband has the right to force rape, just that if he's denied his marital right, he has grounds for divorce. That would be a minimal reading of the text, no?


Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, they are probably saying that in Massachusetts a woman can force a man to take Viagra.

Massachusetts Grounds for Divorce

The Complaint for Divorce or Petition for Divorce are the initial documents filed with the Massachusetts court. It is in this document that the filing spouse will request the court to terminate the marriage under certain specified grounds.

A divorce from the bond of matrimony may be adjudged for the following:

No Fault Based Grounds:
Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

Fault Based Grounds:
Adultery, impotency, desertion continued for 1 year next prior to the filing of the complaint, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, cruel and abusive treatment, or, if a spouse being of sufficient ability, grossly or wantonly and cruelly refuses or neglects to provide suitable support and maintenance for the other spouse. (Massachusetts General Laws - Chapter 208 - Sections: 1, 1A, 1B and 2)