The Ultimate Betrayal

Hamidm mian #265 : “what does america or the religious evangelicals have to do with this ?”

It has nothing to do with the topic. Neither do mullahs. This is my whole point. Just because someone disagrees with you on something, doesn’t mean they have a religious figure holding a gun to their heads, or that they hate America. Yet you automatically assume that……..

“i don`t think there is any chance that they will soon legalize child molestation in america or anywhere else – “

I think perhaps you are being far too sure of yourself and optimistic. A lot depends on what you define a child or pre-adult to be…….

In Denmark, the age for consentual sex is 15. Also, “It is not illegal in Denmark to provide sexual services for money or goods as long as this sex work is not the main source of income for the prostitute.” http://www.ageofconsent.com/denmark.htm

So I assume a 15 year old can legally become a prostitute…….Would you consider that child molestation……..I certainly would………

And, as informed by our good friend, Mr. Patrick Masih, in Holland, it is 12!! (By the way, PM seems like a person, whose views on most issues match yours. However, he sees nothing wrong with sexual relationships with consenting boys). Apparently, neither does the State of Holland……

“Holland’s age-of-consent law ``permits sex between an adult and a young person between 12 and 16 if the young person consents. Prosecutions for coercive sex may be sought by the young person or the youth’s parents.`` But under Dutch law, parents have no clearly defined power to prevent or terminate ``consensual`` sexual relations between a 12-year-old child and an adult……Under Dutch law, concludes the pamphlet, ``nobody is allowed to interfere`` with adult-child homosexual contacts ``as long as the situation is mutually agreeable, but should problems arise, then the sexual relation is certainly punishable.`` In other words, it’s open season for Dutch homosexuals to prey upon 12-year-olds, as long as they’re careful” http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-03-2002/vo18no11_emancipated.htm

How do you view the above…………

Granted, you can pull rank over me, since you have actually raised two daughters, while I have not. But one still should keep an open mind, and not assume that everything in the world is happening like you think it is happening………

romair mian,

........ what does america or the religious evangelicals have to do with this ? ........ evangelicals and seculars both agree that child molestation is a big problem in america and elsewhere ...........the only peole who seem to be struggling with this are pedophiles and religious nuts of all shades ...........

..... as for your statement that ``the more important issue is to figure out why people molest children in the first place``, it is romairesquely silly ........... everyone with half a brian knows that it is a mental illness/addiction and that a lot of professionals are working on finding a cure ........... but ``more importantly`` we have to figure out how to protect our children - a much simpler task that does not require a phd in psychology ............

....... and contrary to your and the mullah`s flights of fantasy, i don`t think there is any chance that they will soon legalize child molestation in america or anywhere else - the common sense definitiion of right and wrong is not as fuzzy as that laid out by divine scriptures ...........

hamidm mian #262: ``now don`t you see anything wrong with this picture or do you need to refer to a book of ethics ?``

You tend to get unnecessarily worked up, when someone disagrees with you, on something. That is quite odd, since you tend to disagree with so many people on so many things, to the point of ridiculing them. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one can take as well as one can receive..........

Yes, I do seem something wrong with that. And I highlighted that. However, the point I am trying to make is that you and others of your ilk live in a pretty simplistic world, where you have right and wrong defined for yourself, and anyone who doesn`t fit into that definition, either hates America or is a Religious Evangelist (although you now support them, also)........

The world isn`t that simple. If it were, then so many psychologists wouldn`t spend years doing Ph.Ds. in the subject of child molestation. And write books about it..........

If the only issue was to, ``protect`` the child, then it would be simple. However, the more important issue is to figure out why people molest children in the first place. Obviously, they don`t think like you and others, and don`t live in your world of distinctly defined rights and wrongs. And it is also important to try to figure out the ethical direction that various societies are taking, and where they will end up, someday, in regard to consent, incest etc...........

As someone pointed out, in an earlier post, the defintion of right and wrong is changing as societies are moving along.........Pretty soon one may discover that the society`s defintion of right and wrong is out of whack with one`s own..............Do consider that, also.........And let people discuss it.........

Sex, incest, consent etc. are not the simplistic topics you are making them out to be. They may be simplistic rights and wrongs to you (and to me, for that matter). But you are living in a world, where everyone isn`t a photocopy of you. And anyone who wants to protect their children needs to figure out what is in the minds of others, also..........

romair,

...... my grandma beats yours ...........

......... she was eleven when she got married to my khan baba when he was almost forty and had another older wife to boot ....... luckily, for my grandma, the old hag died within a couple of years and she got my grandfather`s undivided attentiion ........... as a result of this attentioin, my grandma was barely twelve when she delivered her first baby and went on to produce ten more, seven of whom survived........ she died when she was in her early fifties ...........

................ now don`t you see anything wrong with this picture or do you need to refer to a book of ethics ?

hamidm: cant fix what aint there. that is too big a task even for quack shankar.

Romair #259 ``Ethics is extremely difficult to define. ``

particularly if you are a moron.

shishapa #253: ``Since this much information has been divulged about your grandmother, how old was her first cousin to whom she got married?``

She was actually thirteen or fourteen (not sure which one, but definitely one of the two). Her husband was either seven or nine years older than her, which would make him between twenty and twenty-three...........

Apparently this was quite normal, back then………

There are various other marital, and thus sexual norms, in Pakistan, which would be incestual, socially unacceptable and in some cases even criminal in the West. And vice-versa. Marriage between first cousins is the most common form of marriage in Pakistan. This is taboo in the West and even illegal in certain American states. I suppose it would fall under the category of incest in those states. Marriage between a daughter and her father or mother’s first cousin is also legal in Pakistan. Though not the norm, it does happen.

Most interestingly, in Pakistan, an adopted son or adopted daughter is not considered a real son or daughter. Hence it is legal for an adopted son of a person to get married to his biological daughter, provided both weren’t breast-fed by the same mother. Not only that, a father can, legally, get married to the divorced wife of his own adopted son, in Pakistan.

Most, if not all, of the above may be considered incest in the West. They are, at least considered taboo, to the point of being considered, “sickening,” in the West. Yet perfectly normal in Pakistan. No one thinks twice about it.

Similarly, living together, out of wedlock is normal in the West. It is taboo in Pakistan. And a crime, if sex is involved. Adultery and extra-marital relations is the norm in the West. And is legal. It is a crime in Pakistan. Pre-marital sex is and overwhelming norm in the West. It is taboo in Pakistan. Gay relations, and in some countries, gay marriage is perfectly normal and legal. In Pakistan, it is taboo and illegal. Having one wife and two mistresses is legal in the West. It is illegal in Pakistan. However, having two wives (under certain circumstances) and no mistress in legal in Pakistan. Z.A Bhutto’s father had two wives. As did Dr. Abdus Salam……..

Ethics is extremely difficult to define. As is incest, consent, age of consent etc. There seems to be only one criteria that everyone agrees to: it is incest to marry your blood brother, sister, father, mother, daughter, son etc. However, I have a feeling that criteria will unravel also, in certain societies, over the coming centuries, if not decades, since the only thing keeping such laws in place are religious and social customs……….which will eventually get over-ruled by the courts under the precedence of, “What two consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is their own business.”

romair 252:

...But what about issues, where both parties are consenting? And both are adults...

that would come next ...maybe another article...right now this is focussed on minors under one`s wings...what recourse is available for them?...do they need protection and support?...who provides it?...and how?...etc.

Re: # 258

temporal mian,

...... as usual, roamir, in his sophomoric eagerness to show-off his mastery of of logic and rhetoric, is going off on a tangent - the man is imposiible ! ........... as tahmed points out it is difficult for him to define ``ethics`` without getting all caught up in his shorts - maybe we should plan a get together in toronto and have the quack shankar do some pro bono work over dinner ............

Ana is right. There are several parallel topics emerging here; 1)consensual incest 2)Western “morality” or the lack thereof and 3) Religious v. Secular laws. All these topics are complex and important and deserve adequate treatment for any justice to be done them. Please let’s keep in mind this story is about non-consensual CSA and try and do justice to that.

Just to recap here: Sajal’s story is about child sexual assault (CSA) in a South Asian home. It is abundantly clear she wants to highlight CSA in the desi community.

I think several people have said this in earlier posts but again the issues concerning us should be:

1)Prevention-which I suppose involves vigilance to some extent but also as Hamidm so rightly pointed out (hope you don’t mind hamidm) that our “family values” shouldn’t give us a false sense of security at the expense of a child’s safety. Denial is inimical in this case.

2)In the absence of prevention providing adequate care for the survivor and also having a system in place to charge the sex offender.

3)But before 2 can take place there is the enormous hurdle of having an abused child come forward. Breaking through the silence (due to stigma/honor or fear of safety) is a very real problem as many of us have highlighted in previous posts.

The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (U.S) defines child sexual assault as: ``Contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used for sexual stimulation of the perpetrator or another person when the perpetrator or another person is in a position of power or control over the victim.”

They go on to list examples but I’m exercising discretion and not posting them here because some of us may find the list too graphic. The examples range from inappropriate touching/fondling to engaging a child in pornography.

Sajal: I just read your story. Well written, even though with a shocking ending. Now I see how this entire discussion started.

If I may add my 2 paisas to this philosophical discussion on right and wrong:00

At a given time and place, the ethics of right and wrong are quite clear and there are no fuzzy lines that romair is talking about. If you were born in papua new guinea before the early 20th century, you would would no doubt consider it perfectly ethical to eat the brains of your sadly deceased next door neigbor. Today, even eating the brains of an animal is considered unhealthy (not to mention gross).

Conclusion:

1. Dont overphilosophize when an ounce of common sense will tell you what is right and wrong.

2. Dont pass judgement on people who lived in different times and different places when some kind of behavior was acceptable.

sajal:

Just read your piece. There are a couple of holes in the story/scenario. First, you don`t say anything about the mother`s role. Is she unaware of what`s going on, complicit, trying to stop abuse by father or indifferent? Secondly, people like that do not stop abusing their children just because they attain puberty, the abuse continues until the child herself refuses to be victimised.

For those who are using this scenario to justify religion-based morality, irreligious people have morals too. There is no evidence that incest was more common in the godless Soviet Union, China, Cuba or even North Korea.

And let`s not forget, religions mostly seem to have provided religious sanctions to what was already prevailing morals in the time and place of their origin. The difference is that religious morals are static and frozen in time. Thus no reforms are possible in child marriage, sati, caste system or polygamy, etc. if morality is fixed in a distant past.

``My grandmother, living in a village, got married to her first cousin, when she was thirteen. She had three kids before she was twenty. ``

Since this much information has been divulged about your grandmother, how old was her first cousin to whom she got married?

Rahul/Temporal #239: “murder, rape, robbery etc. are recognised in most civil societies and states as crimes against its citizens and prosecutable thus...the sanction of religion in this is an after-thought”

This is correct. The question here isn’t whether religion is making the world better or worse. Maybe it is making it worst, maybe it is making it better. The question is to define which criteria should be used as a basis of ethics – specifically in the case of sex, consent and incest.

The examples you have given above, have one clear factor that is common: They are not done by consent. A rape victim does not consent to rape. A robbery victim does not consent to robbery. A murder victim does not consent to be killed. Hence they are easy to legislate, both inside and outside religion.

But what about issues, where both parties are consenting? And both are adults. And both are doing something in their bedrooms, and doing it quietly, so that the peace of the neighbors is not disturbed?

How does one legislate on that? Why criteria should be used? In a religious system, one interprets religion and adjudicates. What about in a secular system? In a secular system, one specifically sets aside religion, by definition. And one adjudicates on the basis of the rights of the individual taking precedent over the religious or social views of the society; even if the later is an overwhelming majority.

What if a father and daughter are both consenting adults and want to have sex? It may seem sickening to 99% of the public, but are their rights being violated, if they are not allowed to do so? What about two first cousins who get married in Pakistan. Their sexual relations are legal there, but the moment they migrate to some of the states in the USA, their relationship becomes incestual.

What about our good friend Patrick Masih (who hasn’t appeared on this site for a while). He has openly declared his love for young teenaged boys, and I believe has even had physical relations with one or two. He sees absolutely nothing wrong with it, since it is consentual and, according to his logic, fourteen fifteen year olds are old enough to decide consent. I believe he mentioned that is the age used in Holland (or somewhere??)…..

There are no clear cut answers to ethics. They are rooted in all kinds of different beliefs. They are only clear-cut when there is a clear violation of someone’s consent is involved. Other than that, it is extremely difficult to even decide a standard age for minors. Every eighteen year old isn’t equally mature or immature.

My grandmother, living in a village, got married to her first cousin, when she was thirteen. She had three kids before she was twenty. Had my grandparents been in America or various other countries, they would be criminals. Yet their next generations have turned out fine. Having said that, I would never, under any circumstance let my daughter or grand-daughter or great grand-daughter etc. get married at the age of thirteen. And would discourage them from marrying first cousins………….Two individuals in the same family tree, following the same religion, looking at things so differently……….

I think the Western societies are at an interesting point, at the moment. The definition of marriage and the challenge to the State’s involvement in it, based on a violation of secularism, is going to change the basic fabric of these societies, as well as the basic definition of right and wrong, when it comes to incest, sex, consent etc……….

romair,

..... since you don`t have any children and also think in the typical linear fauji fashion, you are incapable of making any sense on this subject (in addition to many others )..........

................ this has nothing to do with secularism or religion - the evil of child molestation, pederasty and incest are intuitively obvious to most people with common sense who know anything about children ............ and to most straight folks with average iq`s, secularism simply means that civil affairs, education and the law of the land should not be based on religious considerations but it does not prevent people from making fools out of themselves at home or at church ..................god and other hobgoblins can run wild as long as they don`t interfere with the running of the state on a day to day basis ...........a secular state provides ``freedom from religion`` along with ``freedom of religion``

........... as ana and others have pointed out , the concept of ``consent`` does not apply to children even if god himself says it is okay ...........really, it is quite simple and only mullahs and child predators need to refer to a book to find this out - the rest of us just ``know`` it .......