The Ultimate Betrayal

Incest is the dark reality that no one wants to face. Since it is one topic which no one wants to face, there hasn`t been alot of research done on it in Pakistan. Even if it IS done, general masses know nothing about them. I am sure there is a psychological explanition as to WHY people indulge into something so HEDIOUS and WHAT drives them to the lowest lows of sickness a human can possibly fall to. What are the causes of incest? How can we identify them and then remove them so that our next generation does not fall victim to such sickness.

Thank you Sajal, for encouraging discussion on another extremely important subject, sexual abuse of children, and specifically incest. This article is presented in an effective way, because it shows that for the victim and the sex offender, because of confusion and distortion, sometimes there is a fine line between sex, child sexual molestation and incest.

A lot of people don`t even want to talk about child molestation by strangers, let alone incest. It`s a very taboo subject. When the molester knows that the victim is not likely to tell anyone, it encourages his criminal behavior even more.

It is a very realistic article. And the sex offender does not stop. The element of God and religion also hints at loss of faith, which feels like abandonment by God, making the victim feel even more powerless and even suicidal. The damage done by child sexual molestation and particularly by incest, breaks the person in ways which usually cannot be healed in one lifetime. I have seen people able to remove such pain from the roots, at http://higherpurpose.com where I have been a volunteer for a dozen years

FWIW, Pinky Virani’s Bitter Chocolate: Child Sexual Abuse in India may be relevant to the stuff discussed here. I haven’t read it – just saw it in a bookstore, am passing it on.

So this is how the seculars out-number the religious folks.

Is it a secular flaw or religious that seculars never thought religious nuts could figure it out?


RD, the dead meat was dead to begin with, and that was the whole point. You can still have the last word if it makes you feel better.

:-)~~

Sorry for late reply

miriamk (#322)

Dear sis, I think in your haste you didn`t pay proper attention to the story.
1. US law is not purely secular in its current form, as several have demonstrated here
2. the boy never accused his father of neglect or abuse or anything. please try to see the source of his dilemma
3. he didn`t WANT authorities involved lest he was separated from his remaining parent
4. the father did not commit any crime to justify forced rehabilitation by state

Pakistan: under the tutelage of Great White Sharks, Pakistani judiciary is like the haathi k daant - khanay kay aur, aur dikhanay k aur. The Shar`ia court can be and is overruled by the secular court, not that it is properly used anyway. So you can`t dump the Pakistani ills on Islam either.

Nevertheless, I`m glad to see your acknowledgment that ``we`` (including seculars) have failed the children; you seem to be the only secular courageous enough to accept some blame. On the other hand, I think you`re more conservative than you claim to be. You`re secularly-religious as opposed to some religiously-secular here :-)~~

This board is pretty good representative of global socio-political picture. Please try to see how we`ve failed the children, for that matter women, minorities et al.

We`ve failed them because we believe that our Creator`s Instructions are NOT the best instructions for us, hence deviated from the path He has given us to live this life. We believe that we have enough intelligence to fathom everything about everything on our own, where the reality is that we cannot even tell what would happen in the next minute. We can only guess such a short future. We`ve forgotten that we`re not here for eternity.

Interestingly, when we get on a plane we follow all the instructions for a safe and as comfortable a journey as possible for all aboard. Not all the passengers experience same comfort, or do they?

But when it comes to life, we ignore the Instructions and try to rearrange everything around us to have more comfort and security than already built-in for us. And the result is exploding all over right before us, and there`s nothing we can do change any of that.

In our arrogance we`re only trying to reinvent the wheel of humanity, like so many before us. We`ll also die sooner than we think, just like they did. Only Allah and His Books remain.

Allah knew we could never reach a viable solution without a viable solution for every individual affected by it for the simple reason that He has created us ``unique``. While we`re bickering on definitions and statistics, the women, children, and the less-fortunate continue to suffer.

That`s why He gave us the Instructions; sent prophets to demonstrate to us that the books are meant for humans and the way it should be followed. These Instructions started from Adam (PBUH) and are according to the purpose of every single thing in this life as well as their strengths and weakness. I hope you`ll snap out of this oxymoronic state of secularism and religion side by side. You`re smarter than that, I hope.

The rest is between you and Allah.


hamidm2 (#323):

Based on what you`ve told us about your mamoo, cousin, brother, they`ve only demonstrated an imbalance as was the case with the 13yo boy`s father. If you wish we can discuss each of those cases individually or collectively and inshaAllah I`ll highlight their delinquencies. Meanwhile, I hope you can see that the 13yo boy was failed by system while the three men you`ve mentioned failed on their own.

The only difference between you and Taliban ilk is that they follow whatever little bit they know, and you follow as much as you don`t know. The only thing you do know is to shift the blame on everyone and never accept your mistakes like Dubya.

:-)~~

Romair#368:

``I have no agenda……``

We all have viewpoints/agendas, some more transparent than others. Hopefully, these viewpoints get modified with interaction. Mine have.

``I have mentioned polygamy and polyandry together, in my replies``

I cannot claim to have read all your posts either here or on other threads. Of the sample of several specific examples that I have read, your illustrations are ALWAYS one husband and multiple wives, but I am sorry if I have missed the opposite examples cited by you.

``I am looking at justice, as a philosophy. At a philosophical level, justice should not be affected by any kind of activism that tries to distort the principles it is founded on.``

There is no philosophy set in stone, then it will become a dogma. I do not understand what you mean by activism. It is the job of the legislators and to discuss these things and make changes when needed. Even secularism is not set in stone. The US is secular but there is the ubiquitous ``In God we trust``. India is probably one of the few countries where the word secular is in the constitution but that too is subject to interpretation and amendments; some people think that it should mean a uniform civil code, while others are opposed to it. And the Indian constitution has been amended almost fifty times. Perhaps the only criterion is that justice should be applied equally, and even this is not always true in turbulent times.

``People are allowed to practice anything they want, even if the majority society considers it wrong and deviant. The criteria used is, whether it is harmful to the society.``

This may be the society that you want but I am not aware of any such society.

``In case of Sati, the same criteria should be applied…………``

See, where your logic has taken you? And who is going to decide which religion is valid? Should a religion be considered valid because it has been around for a long time and has a large following? A small group of people may form a cult/religion and call whatever they want their religion. A perfect recipe for anarchy!

NewKid:
not a bad effort at being satirical though you were recycling some pretty dead-meat dead meat.

cheers.

Romairian pearls of wisdom :
``You can live with three women and have sexual relations with all three. But if you marry all three, even with consent, you go to jail.........Go figure!! The exact opposite of the sodomy example........``

The way i was arguing and on that basis You extrapolating, i got this to figure out? OK. Yes, polygamy And polyandry be allowed if the line is drawn on Conesnting Adults. Now, the problem is Only Mormons and women who continue to justify their opressors in the name of Mohammad/Religion/Blah will be going to get into a Polygamous marriage. (this is my speculation).

Answer is: Yes, All types of unions should be allowed and next of kin rights should be granted based on Not what State considers to be an Appropriate Relationship but what Individuals choose on their Own. (ofcourse we draw the line already on consenting adults).

Was that so hard to figure out on your own, Mr. Romair?

PS: USA/Loony-liberals/whatever is irrelevant to this debate.

multiple wives are most certainly allowed in hinduism. most rajas would have multple wivews. however, the example set by ``ideal`` man rama of haveing only one wife is extolled as a virtue.

Re: # 369

I don`t understand why this is a religious issue?

Is any rapist following a religion?

Child abuse and incest happens among all social, ethnic and religious groups. It would be blind to believe that only ``OTHER`` folks have problems

Dost-mittar #365: “You have successfully taken the discussion away from the topic to serve your own agenda.”

There are already enough self-appointed chowkidars on this site, who feel they have a right to decide what should and should not be discussed. I have always found such individuals to be quite arrogant. Please don’t add yourself to that list. I am discussing everything exactly within the factors that I see to be the most important, regarding this issue, i.e. the legal system…….You can skip over my remarks. But do not pass judgement on my intentions. I never pass judgement on yours. Having said that, I believe you addressed me on this thread, first. I wasn’t the one who addressed you…….

I have no agenda…….Though I can tell that some of my comments are making you uncomfortable……….One should not shy away from such discussions. One should confront them……..

“You consistently give the example of more than one wives and not more than one husband.”

I have mentioned polygamy and polyandry together, in my replies. The specific example I gave is because the next challenge to marriage, being prepared, relates to polygamy, not to polyandry…….

“This is only partly true. The justice system is meant only to implement laws impartially, not to make them.”

You are looking at the current judicial systems in place. Based on which your comments are correct. I am looking at justice, as a philosophy. At a philosophical level, justice should not be affected by any kind of activism that tries to distort the principles it is founded on. Whatever those principles maybe, should be followed consistently. Regardless of what the majority thinks…….

“What you say is true only if the religious practices are acceptable to the society;”

Actually, this is not correct. Acceptance of the society, has nothing to do with it. People are allowed to practice anything they want, even if the majority society considers it wrong and deviant. The criteria used is, whether it is harmful to the society. That is what needs to be proven. Along with consent and age. If acceptance was the only criteria, then Ahmedis will never be declared Muslims. In case of Sati, the same criteria should be applied…………

If you can consider the fact that perhaps I don’t have an agenda, I will consider the fact that you don’t have one either. And perhaps we can both learn something……….So, hopefully, no more conspiracy theories, from your side……….

#365 DM you are perceptive ;-)

Romair#363:

``Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to, by design, be affected by popular opinion. In fact, the whole purpose of an efficient judicial system is to ensure that the individual rights of a person are protected, even against the majority view. Hence, justice systems should have nothing to do with what the majority thinks or does not think.``

This is only partly true. The justice system is meant only to implement laws impartially, not to make them. Judicial activism in countries as varied as India and the U.S is trying to change this, but basically, judicial system is only supposed to interpret laws passed by the majority and if the majority disagrees with its interpretation, it can always change the laws and the judiciary would have no option to go along. For example, when India`s highest court ruled in favour of the Shah Bano case, all the government had to do was to pass a new bill. If tomorrow, Canada passes a law against homosexuality, courts will have to go along.

``Similarly, secularism, as philosophy, by design, is supposed to protect the rights of an individual, along religious lines, regardless of what the majority religion dictates``

Not really! Do you think that a Hindu should have a right to practice sati, even if it was voluntary just because Canada is a secular state? What you say is true only if the religious practices are acceptable to the society; as an example both male and female circumcision may involve mutilation of the body - but the society has decided that one is acceptable while the other is not.

``specifically since, two women living with a man and having sex with him is not considered illegal. At best, it can just be considered deviant behaviour by the majority…… ``

You consistently give the example of more than one wives and not more than one husband. If the society ever legalises polygamy, it will not be according to your religious belief. Your wife, or more likely your son, may also have to live with other husbands.

You have successfully taken the discussion away from the topic to serve your own agenda. As of now, child sex abuse is reprehensible, morally, legally and according to all religious tenets. The question is how can we get the South Asian society to accept the fact that it exists and how to fight it.

slan:

``The only possible compromise is where the state doesnt interfere in religion,and lets people of every faith follow what they think is right for them. i think India is an example``

This is not true. Only Muslims are allowed to follow their civil law and that too in civil matters. Hindus and Sikhs, for example, are not allowed to have more than one wives, although allowed by their religions nor are they allowed to deprive their daughters equal right to inheritence according to their religion and custom.

Re: # 365
DM
Thats news to me.I was unaware that polgamy is allowed in hindu and sikh religions.

Re: # 363
``There is no logical and uniform basis of ethics in the world that applies under all conditions and is accepted by everyone………``
Romair,i think this last line of yours sums it all up.Their can either be a value system based on religion(any) where one has no authority to question the rules,its all laid out and followed,or at the other extreme is a system which will continously change in the light of new definitions of freedom.The only possible compromise is where the state doesnt interfere in religion,and lets people of every faith follow what they think is right for them. i think India is an example(however this system is ridden with its own problems)

Ana, I hope I have not offended you,I only wanted to leave you and everyone else on the board with a thought.

Dost-Mittar/Jang #: Justice is supposed to be blind. It is not supposed to, by design, be affected by popular opinion. In fact, the whole purpose of an efficient judicial system is to ensure that the individual rights of a person are protected, even against the majority view. Hence, justice systems should have nothing to do with what the majority thinks or does not think. On most issues, this is how the justice system works in the West. However, on some issues, as Dost-mittar pointed out, it still sways with the wind. This is a weakness in the system….

Similarly, secularism, as philosophy, by design, is supposed to protect the rights of an individual, along religious lines, regardless of what the majority religion dictates. As an example, if Pakistan were secular, Ahmedis would be considered Muslims, by the State. Even though, an overwhelming majority of the population of Pakistan, at a personal level, does consider them non-Muslims. There isn’t a single political party in Pakistan, which considers them Muslims. However, the courts would rule in the favour of Ahmedis, regardless of what the majority thinks.

The point being, judiciary should have nothing to do with majority opinions……..It is supposed to rely only on proof and on consistently following one principal – whatever that principal maybe (in the West it is secularism and individual rights)……..

Gay marriage and sexual unions of any kind should be legal in the above-mentioned two systems. It is really a no-brainer. In a secular system, one cannot ban gay marriage, incestual marriage, polygamy, polyandry, etc. based on the majority’s religious beliefs. In a system that protects individual rights, one cannot ban them; unless it is proven that they harm the society. So far, on this site, no one has been able to provide a single argument on why they harm society. I cannot provide one either, even though, I oppose both incest and gay marriage. Neither can the 50% of the Canadians and the higher % of the Americans, who oppose it……….Which is why, if consistent judicial principles are followed, and not affected by majority opinions, all of the above would be legal in Canada……..

This brings us to polygamy. If you can prove that it will harm women’s rights then it would be illegal. However, I don’t see how that can be proven. When something is made legal, it doesn’t mean, the State is forcing everyone to practice it. It means that it is allowing the tiny minority, who wants to practice it, the right to practice it, because the practice isn’t harming society, in general.

I read somewhere that individuals in Utah, where Mormons live, are going to push the legality of polygamy, based on the same argument as the legality of gay marriage. Once the courts decide that they can redefine marriage, I think the argument would become valid. Someone would have to prove that two adult women consensually marrying one adult man is harmful to the society. Proof is not based on majority views. Could you highlight how it harms women’s rights; specifically since, two women living with a man and having sex with him is not considered illegal. At best, it can just be considered deviant behaviour by the majority……

Incest falls into the same category. However, I don’t think it will be legal, because hardly anyone is interested in it. Hence no one will push its legalization, on the basis of individual rights. However, there are groups interested in polygamy. Personally speaking, I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, incest, incestual marriage, and polygamy (other than in very minor cases, where the woman may herself want to indulge in it, because she wants to certain legal rights, which she will not get as a divorcee). But if I were to go to a court in Canada, which truly practiced blind justice, I don’t think I could win my case, since I don’t know how I could prove that anyone consensually practicing the above, is doing any harm to me…….

There is no logical and uniform basis of ethics in the world that applies under all conditions and is accepted by everyone………

romair..

``I think polygamy will be legal in the USA in a generation or so, if gay marriage becomes legal...... ``

i dont get this leap of logic ....polygamist will have to make a case that polygamy is not disturbing to the society, womens rights etc....the kind of argument gays have been making for decades before there is the acceptance (50% in canada, 25% in alabama) ..in older days gay-life was equated to pedophilia and -ve life-style, now there is a distinction..-ve lifestyle is -ve lifestyle gay couples are just that).

also, i dont think there is any vaccum..all i see is a robust debate.

Romair#356:

I am not sure if your assumptions are entirely valid. Courts and justices do not act in a vaccum. In the U.S, especially, the appointment of justices itself depends upon which way the wind is blowing, as the current raging controversy in the U.S shows. In the final analysis, it is the will of the people that prevails.

In Canada, polls show that opinion on Gay marriages is equally divided, this is why the governments have been moving gingerly on this issue. While the courts have taken up the issue of Gay marriages as an issue of minority rights, they are able to do so only because the public opinion favours such an approach. If you think that any court will take up your right to have three wives or Patrick`s right to have sex with a minor, you are greatly mistaken because the public will revolt against it. Above all, the Canadian constitution has a notwithstanding clause which allows the governments to over-rule court judgements. Alberta, I believe, has promised to do exactly that if the federal government passes the Gay Marriage bill.

But I think that we secularists have to accept your contention that if the majority of the population changes its views regarding polygamy, incest or sex with consenting minors, this would become legal. By the same token, if the majority turns totally rationalistic and decides that religious books should be banned because they promote irrational myths, this could also happen. One can only say that this has not happened over several centuries and is unlikely to happen in the next several generations.

Sorry for butting in so late. Urstruly was right in saying that the relegion brings all the norms of sexual behaviour. In Islam it is the life of prophet. Prophet first married the mother figure in his life. His last marriage was with the daughter figure in his life.

Jang/Raw_Dust: I think these discussions highlight the vacuum that exists in society, and which is slowly being unraveled: what is the basis of ethics? That is the multi-million dollar question. How do we decide what is deviant and what is not? In cases of lack of consent it is easy. Lack of consent makes the action deviant, like rape, murder etc.

But what if there is consent on both sides?

I think there is no single basis of people`s ethics. It is based on where, how and in what timeframe they were brought up. After that, they develop a standard, and then apply it. I never think twice about marraiges between first cousins. To Americans, it is sickening. To the new generation of Westerners (the ones who grew up with gay marriage and homosexuality being legal), homosexuals will be normal. Something they will never think about twice. But I find it sickening and wrong.

Incest is the same. It is no more, ``deviant`` than anything else. It doesn`t even have a correct definition that applies in all cultures. However, I find it deviant amongst siblings. Not for any practical reaons. Just based on my upbringing.

In fact, it is pretty hard to provide a reason for finding incest and/or homosexuality to be deviant, other than people not wanting their kids to turn to it..........

The world will be a different place in a generation or so, if the legal systems continue to adjudicate along the same lines they are doing, right now........People will not think twice over various sexual unions that many people find sickening today.......e.g. I think polygamy will be legal in the USA in a generation or so, if gay marriage becomes legal......

You can live with three women and have sexual relations with all three. But if you marry all three, even with consent, you go to jail.........Go figure!! The exact opposite of the sodomy example........

romair, i think you are right about incest being illegal..but things are kinda strange. even sodomy is illegal e.g. in massachusetts, but you can get a gay marriage. go figure.

even in the great non-liberal state of texas

Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (June 2003). Texas sodomy law ruled unconstitutional by US Supreme Court.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

shishapa sir:
You brought up a valid argument against consenting-adult-incest but it was inadequate; like in chess if you try to mount a castling later in the game to reinforce your defenses sometimes turn out to be counterproductive as you and i had witnessed. :-)

cheers.

ana #349: I believe the criteria used in the legal system (in the West, at least) is not whether a majority of the people think that an act is damaging to the society. It is whether they can prove that an act is damaging to the society. If they cannot prove it, then the decision goes in favor of the individual rights of person committing the act.

This is the basis of the Western legal system, at least, as I understand it. It gives priority to individual`s freedom over social customs.........

Without getting into the useless liberal/secular and religious/non-religious debate, I think, at the basic level, one has to define what criteria and principle one is going to use as a framework for deciding what is legal and illegal.

The reason homosexuality is legal in the USA and the reason that gay marriage is legal in most of Canada, is not because a majority considers it unharmful. There isn`t a single state in the USA where the majority population votes in favor of gay marriage. And I assume a majority of Americans would not want their kids to grow up to be gay. This would indicate that, at a persona level, they see something wrong with it.

However, the courts have ruled in favor of homosexuality. And in two cities in favor of gay marriage, in the USA (and most of Canada, and much of Europe). The reason is that those opposing this, were unable to prove that gay marraige or homosexuality causes problems to the society. They only felt it did. So the courts ruled in favor of the rights of the individual homosexuals..........

Incest is the same. As are various other relationships, like polygamy, polyandry etc. It doesn`t matter whether people think that is causes problems to the society. They will have to prove it. If they cannot, then the rights of the individual wanting to practice it, will be given more importance........

So the importance thing is not to link or de-link homosexuality with incest, or with anything else. The important thing is to define one principal and use it across the board. Not only on areas with which one feels comfortable.........

I agree with Jang that incest may not become a legal issue, because most people don`t want to practice it. I cannot see any specific reason for people wanting to have sex with a sibling, when so many other non-sibling candidates, with equal sexual capabilities are available. Unlike homosexuality, where being the same gender is the main issue, there is nothing special about a sibling that sexually does not exist in a non-sibling..........

However, if someone actually raised it as a legal issue, I think the justice system would have to rule in favor of the person raising it, using the same logic that is applied on cases related to homosexuality and other unions, i.e. what you do in your bedroom is your own business, as long as you both are old enough and agree to it, and don`t make so much noise doing it that the neighbor wakes up............

slan,

i get where you`re coming from. but again who defines and who judges what is deviant behavior and ``liberalism`` for that matter? i cannot define myself as liberal or secular according to what most interactors here would characterize liberal or secular as. as for same-sex love being deviant, i can`t answer that either. how can my friend who loves someone the same gender as him be involved in deviant behavior, and not i, who love a man. i`m not going to make that judgment.

cheers.

Re: # 353

Ana,
if I may ask,would you by the same yardstick refuse to judge adult incestous realation as deviant?

RE # 345
I am sorry for not making myself clear,

As i said `` it is not just incest but child sexual abuse as well`` so incest with a minor is child sexual abuse .

I am not saying that an issue exists by itself but rather everything is interelated and co-dependant . Incest is but one dimesnsion of CSA and it happens more often than we would like to acknowledge.

Re # 346,

Romair , this was a story discussing the anguish of the child and how the father moves on to the next to create the same anguish. It was never meant to be a detailed documentary and a lot of things were left off on purpose as I did not wish to bring it in the forefront.
The most important fact remains the same that incest happened, whatever the reasons and circumstances.
CSA is basically pedophilia so it is not about power like rape but about sex, in the pedophiles mind he loves the child and for him this is normal behavior.

RE: Dionysus:

you wrote:
``The thing is RD that the liberal lunatics first persuaded us to tolerate homosexuality because `what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their buisness` . But we`ve gone WAY beyond all that now. Gays are demanding the right to marriage and to adopt children. They want to be able to express affection in public like normal couples.``

Yep, from the presumed position regarding consenting adults, ALL citizens should have the same rights.

you wrote:
`` One looney liberal on UP a few months ago anouced that anyone who opposed gays kissing in public was `bigotted` If they get their way we could be sitting in the park with our nephews and nieces having to watch two 6`` 3 body builders tongueing each other. It is no longer a matter of what they do in their bedrooms. But if homsexual couples should have the right to express affection in public why not adult-consentual incestual couples? ``

You are right - ALL couples should have the right to PDA. From where you are coming, Bigot seems an apt description though.

you wrote:
``Where does it all end? Where do you draw the line and why?``

Ans: Did you miss something? Line is drawn on Conseting-Adults.

cheers.

PS: this is My understanding of the issues and i cant pretend to be talking from whatever you define to be liberals/lunatics/what have you.

achha, i know i wasn`t making myself clear at all. i am not saying there is no relationship at all between incest and childhood sex abuse. of course there is. . . if a parent is involved in a relationship with a child against the child`s wishes, then clearly it is incest and it is childhood sex abuse. and no, we cannot separate the two.

my concern is that we use the general term incest as sex abuse, and that people have used that here to avoid the issue of abuse altogether because in their eyes, if incest is considered as abusive aberrant behavior, then so should homosexuality.

forgive me, but homosexuality is not any more damaging to our society than some of the acts that heterosexuals have engaged in. everything is connected and linked to in one way or the other, but if we are going to hint in the direction that our society is disintegrating thanks to the homosexuals, and the liberals defend this disintegration. . . . then we are in a world of trouble. and it`s not because of gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transsexuals.

Re: # 349

Ana ,I consider my self a liberal & secular.but i dont believe in defending deviant behaviour,be it homosexuality or anything else.current liberalism is turning out a free for all rule,where every thing is right as long as it doesnt involve someone else.this free for all protected by the state behaviour is bound to produce deviation ,as there is no accountability to any one.and we are not going to be insulated as a society from such deviant behaviour,no matter where we live due to such factors as media and migration.Hence we are not taking of homosexuality or any such social issue as `there`problem,but as a problem which could involve our progeny

slan #347: Your point is valid.

These are all complex social issues, with complex interlinkages. In some cases, the solution for one, ends up creating a problem for the other. This makes it impossible to discuss a simultaneous solution, if all are jumbled in together..........This is what is happening in this discussion.........

I don`t have statistics, but I would think that incest is more common amongst step-fathers than real biolgoical fathers. If that is the case, then divorce, and how it is handled has to be looked at, as well. Personally speaking, I have always felt that children should go to the mother, after a divorce. Until she gets re-married. At which point, the daughters should go to the original biological father (unless there is some specific reason to keep them away from him).

Re: # 348
Romair I doubt if a relation between a step parent and the children would constitute incest in the true sense.But most certainly sexual abuse must be more common in step relations.

Regarding custody of children,I think its best decided on an individual basis-what if the mother is an alcoholic,indulged in baby battering etc.

in southasian settings are more conducive to child molestation, as public physical display of afffection towards children is an acceptable norm, not so in the west. no uncle (aunties are somehow allowed) dare hug a child. add to that all the stuff kids in western school are taught like dont let anyone touch you.

Sajal #various: The statistics you have presented are interesting. I don`t think most people (including me) would have been aware of the numbers.........

I think you may have created too much complexity in this story, and left out too much information, for people to analyze the problem and the solutions, accurately. For starters, you never mentioned the age of the child. Nor the country she is living in. In addition, you seem to have, for some reason, started of with an indication that she was enjoying it and had no issues with it, initially. And you mixed all of this with incest. The only thing that could have created more confusion was if Sara were a boy and not a girl

I think it would be better, if incest part was separated from the child sexual molestation part. Both these are separate issues.

So if we set aside incest, and just look at CSM, then the age of the character and location is an important factor. The reason I say this is that all of the solutions have to be based on the legal system of the country. Not on personal feelings of what is sick and what is not......

Secondly, the way to deal with CSM is not after the fact. It is before the fact. Once a child has been molested, most of the battle is lost. The damage has been done. All the communication in the world is not going to fix the problem. It can, at best, lessen it.

The solution lies in figuring out ways that it does not occur. The basis of that is a strict legal system and a clear definition of what is right and what is wrong. The second part is not too easy to do, and I think some of the legal systems of the world are moving in directions, which may go against the definition of right and wrong of various people on this site.

After that, figuring out what motivates people to commit the crime. What are the factors that lead to this. I am not a psychologist, but I have discussed this in detail with one or two. Apparently, people who have been molested as children, themselves, can turn to become molestors. Your statistics point in that direction. Perhaps Shankar could provide more info.........

Also, is CSM a crime of sex or is it, like rape, actually a crime of power?

No one can protect their children 24 hours a day. The solution to this lies at a sociological level..........

Ana,

thankyou for your well wishes,

If incest occurs with a child who is a minor and therefore under the age of consent, it is not just incest but child sexual abuse as well, as far as my understanding goes. The problem is not just incest or CSA rather an undertanding on child hood sexual abuse perpetrated by anyone.
There needs to be more awareness that it exists and measures taken to protect our children rather than keep believing that it does not exist.
Incest with a child is just a facet of child sexual abuse and needs to be addressed, understood and measures taken for the safeguard of the children.

Re: # 344
if i may pointout,there is a deep relation between CSA and incest.That is the incresed access that the perpeterator has over the victim.This is important in terms of both the quantity and the quality(unsuspected by othe family members)of the access.
once again at the risk of being accused of starting a spin i will like to add something here.Consider this story in the back drop of a divorced couple say on grounds of adultery,alcoholism, neglect etc etc(by either sex-dont want to start of another debate!!).Doesnt that change the whole picture?-The mother is not there to protect or listen to maryam.Shakeel might have developed his perversion beacuse of sex starvation(not that it justifies his behaviour)
I find it hilarious when some posters on this board try to dissect a topic and adress only a part there off.Social issues are all interlinked and the need to understand links is vital in adressing them.
When I talked about homosexuality or adult incest,my purpose was to highlight the direction that the society is headed in,and this is all important in the context of the topic in discussion

oof, i meant in my last sentence to say that incest IS childhood sexual molestation, but hopefully you got that sajal.

sajal,

i do hope that you recover soon from your surgery. . . and hope that it wasn`t too serious. :)

baat ye hai, i wonder if we should say that incest IS childhood sexual molestation, rather than childhood sexual molestation is a painful facet of incest? the incest taboo aside, i think a large part of the debate here has been arguing for incest as being a reality of certain people`s existence, and ignoring the issue of childhood sexual molestation altogether. and when we have spoken of incest as childhood sexual molestation, we have ignored the difference. no matter how we personally feel about incest -- revulsion, disgust, denial because our parents, siblings should play the roles we`ve decided they should play on this world stage, as parents, siblings, and friends, but not lovers. and this denial of allowing incest in our own lives has much to do with being part of an ethical world which has been in existence before the great religions, a world that has been shaped by both. i wonder if we should say that incest IS childhood sexual molestation, because incest happens between adults as well, and two adults who choose to do it in spite of the taboo, and the world that surrounds them?

i`m not articulating myself very well here. . . but the intent is not to divorce them from each other, just to point out that CSA has been completely ignored by many by saying that it IS incest. . .

HP #334 I agree that seeing things through the religious (or any other ideological) prism distorts our understanding of reality. We are nevertheless stuck with the need to distinguish between right vs. wrong.

This is where common sense comes in. Common sense tells us that incest is wrong (contrary to the muddle-headed romair`s rationalizations). Just as common sense tells us that eating rotting flesh is wrong. Killing or maiming innocent people is wrong (contrary to the mullah philosophy that calls for chopping off hands and necks).

The reason these things are wrong goes far deeper than ``religious ideology``, imho. It is based on 4 billion years of life on earth, the wealth of experience thus gained being reflected in our very genes. This experience is what we call ``common sense``.

All I have been harping about on chowk all these years is that the Quran ALSO places clear responsibility on the INDIVIDUAL (NOT the ummah, not the damned maulvi, and not some damned pir) to use his/her common sense to distinguish between right and wrong.

It is this common sense that is notably absent in the muslim world.

These ar some figures I found, I dont know how accurate they are:

According to a study released in 1997 by the Sakshi Violence Intervention Centre, based on a survey done with 350 school girls in New Delhi, India:

* 63% of the girls had experienced child sexual abuse at the hands of family members.
* 25% of the girls had either been raped, forced to masturbate the perpetrator, or forced to perform oral sex.
* early one-third of the girls said the perpetrator had been a father, grandfather or male friend of the family.

In a 1999 report by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, a study done in 1994 and 1995 with 150 minor-age girls in Bombay, India showed:

* 58 of the girls surveyed had been sexually abused before age 10.
* Of this number, 50 had been abused by a family member or friend of the family.
http://www.shaktiproductions.net/isa_stats.html

I did not find any figures on ``Sahil`` which is working in Pakistan on child sexual abuse.

``Sahil is the only organization in Pakistan that works exclusively on the issue of child sexual abuse and exploitation. Our work involves research, awareness raising, legal advocacy, intervention training, crisis intervention, free legal and medical aid for victims, publications and the resource center.``

Sahil was established in 1996 as an NGO, to ensure the protection of children.
As stated in Article 34 of Child Rights Convention (CRC)
``State parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.``

a) Drug Abuse and CSA in Street Children

This study was carried out with one hundred and eighty street children from Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Peshawar, Karachi and Quetta. The sample was taken from Federal capital and all the four provincial capitals.

The objective of the study was to assess the plight of street children, who are all the time at the mercy of their circumstances; to see the traumatic causes for using drugs; and to know whether they are the victims of sexual abuse and need any help to prevent it.

The study results showed that 78% of the street children are sexually abused. The results also show that there is a direct relation ship between drug abuse and CSA, as 53% of the children use drugs before getting sexually abused. While the other 47% use drugs after this heinous crime. According to these respondents drug use helps them to overcome the trauma of CSA.

Sahil published this research in its quarterly magazine: July- September 2003 issue.

b) Male prostitution in Pakistan and its relationship with child sexual abuse

This study was carried out with 100 male prostitutes from Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

The objective of the study was to uncover the relationship of male prostitution with CSA.

Findings of the study show that 90% of the prostitutes were sexually abused in their childhood and this incident contributed in their decision of selecting this profession.

The most startling information revealed from this study was that 26% of the respondents personally abused children and 74% became pimps.

http://www.sahil.org/index.htm

I appreciate everybody reading and posting their valuable comments on this post.

Ana:
I didn`t disappear and I apologize for not writing earlier. I just had surgery and am still recuperating.

As to everyone who wants facts and figures in the article, as I said earlier it is a story therefore there are no facts available. I wrote this piece just to express the relationship, and the turmoil and confusion it creates for a little girl and to shed some light on the taboo subject of incest.

Incest is child sexual molestation, it is more harmful because the victim is forced to face the abuser day in and day out with no escape out of the situation.

Some have argued consent....... for what? For the young child to say, yes Dear Abbu, I am ready, lets have sex!!!! You must be kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can I protect my child from sexual abuse?

This is what we need to tell our children:

1) Communicate, communicate, communicate.
2) Speak to your children using the proper names for their body parts. Armed with information, children are better able to report abuse to you.
3) Teach your children about safe and unsafe touches, as well as what is appropriate physical affection.
4) Let your children know that respect for elders doesn`t extend to an adult that has made your child uncomfortable. It`s OK to say no and it`s OK to leave the situation.
5) Trust your own instincts. If your instincts tell you something is wrong, follow-up.

The only way we can protect our children whether it be boys or girls from sexual exploitation is acknowledging that it happens.

the spin-doctors here know exactly what they were doing. they were not interested in discussing childhood sexual abuse AT ALL. what they wanted was to get into a debate about defining what is aberrant behavior and what is not. . . they wanted to point out to us that one cannot be seen as such ``behavior`` and not the other. no one here has denied a link to homosexuality and incest, but the spinners (yes, i am aware that even i am using labels) want excuse the term ``black & white`` answers here, they want these two issues to fit into one very nice category, and these issues don`t. which is why what is good for the goose should be good for the gander as well doesn`t really work here.

abusing ``liberals``, and having such failure of the imagination as to keep referring to them as loony, loonier, looniest is not going to get one very far, and neither is attacking those ``of faith``. either way, what has lost out here for the most part, is what temporal keeps referring to, it is the pain and confusion and the tears of a child. . . over so-called human beings wanting to prove themselves as being in the right and the ``loonies`` in the wrong (and vice-versa). and it hasn`t been completely lost, because there are some who are still talking about childhood sexual abuse here, and how to stop it from happening. in which case, the failure of the imagination in regards to derailing the focus from damaged children and damaged people has been noted. some of us do care about how what some parents would consider to be acceptable ``love`` has affected their children. and we hope that you do too.

adios.

Beej:
#304

“cruel and unusual punishment”

What are you, the point man for ACLU!?

“….it’s time you stop thinking that the standards of law enforcement practiced in Saudi Arabia are being eagerly awaited with outstretched arms by the rest of the world!”

You sir, are a killjoy!. There’s just no nice way to say this :).

Us lowly grad students have precious little fun as it is without having to deal with reality checks thank you very much.

But seriously, on January 1 1996 California mandated the law for 2nd time offenders. Others have followed but not mandated it I think.

Speaking of Saudi Arabia that’s exactly where we should ship the sickos off. I bet my
friends there won’t think chemical castration is ``cruel and unusual``.

#326
tahmed,

It is not a matter of Looney this or Looney that. The issue is how you look at the problems in any given society. The conventional approach is to find a religious, dogmatic or inhuman solution such as lashes and sangsaar and sub ko aik lathi say haank doo. The liberal and of course level headed approach is to understand the problem and tailor a solution based on facts and take a case by case approach.

Societies have not stopped progressing since the last Prophet of God. Everything is moving forward and for the last hundred years or so, it is moving at a breathtaking pace. When things change so fast, people who think about solutions sometimes do make mistakes but at least they continue to work towards correcting errors and helping the society.

The rigidity in dealing with human problems- that is advocated by the other side- does not solve problems but actually aggravates it. It is very easy to say that religions supported outlawing incest but religions provided no framework for stopping it all together or somehow eliminating it. No religion ever provided any help to the victims of incest. In fact, religions did not even suggest any way of punishing the guilty party or the child molester except for stoning the heck out of everyone who was involved in any perceived sexual crime.

The question is; can we in this day or age stone or lash people out of their existence for any crime? Yes! in Pakistan where the army would lash every political opponent or the Sugar hoarder but would never lash the mullah caught sodomizing little kids in his maddrassa. We can do that in Saudi Arabia, where peoples hands have been chopped off for petty stealing.

Do we want any society be it Pakistani, Indian, or the US to take that route?
That is the fundamental difference between the Liberals and the real freaks!
I will refrain from calling these freaks conservative, because conservatives understand social issues and often support pragmatic solutions.

Jang #330: ``it IS legal in most countries if between consenting adults. only marriage is not legal.``

I didn`t know this. I always thought it was illegal; specifically when it comes to brother/sister, father/daughter etc. Do you have any references. I checked on the Internet, and it seems to indicate that it is illegal.........

mariamk #329: If you trace back the strengths, weaknesses, faults and virtues of any society, they will eventually lead back to the legal system. The reason people don`t speak out in certain societies isn`t because they don`t want justice. It`s because they know they will never get justice, and thus it becomes pointless for them to publicize the event. However, it countries where people know they will get justice, they are willing to publicize the event.

The former creates a culture where it becomes counter-productive to publicize the event. However, under an efficient legal system, this will change.......

Dear Dionysus aka Bacchus from whom is derived the word bacchanalia whose definition is freely available on the net if not in dictionaries that you might find in your own home….

Am I really losing all credibility??!! Curses!! All these weeks and months of sleepless nights worrying about it and all of a sudden it is going, going, gone! Woe is me! Goodbye cruel world! … etc, etc.

I was hoping that sooner or later you would realize the point Ana has been trying to make in her posts to you and in her ilog, which is that a. some of us prefer to respond to civil queries and b. to use this discussion about CSA to further your own homophobic agenda is distasteful. But…before I “freakin” answer pls answer these two questions, which will help me answer your question better:

1. Have you read all the posts on this board?
2. Are you asking this question because a.you really want to explore this idea or b. are you asking it because you really can’t stand homosexuality and this seems like a good opportunity to underscore that especially to people who’ve apparently been getting in your face about that fact?
3.What is it about homosexuality that you find detrimental to society if you discount the fact that your religion prohibits it?

These are all simple, non taxing questions that will take us further towards 2. a. Thanks.

Re: # 332 Amrita

Dear Amrita, what makes you think I follow any religion? The article is about to go off the front page now so you`ve successfully managed to evade Urstruly`s questions. But at the end of the day the loss is only your own.

Re: # 339

Dionysus - the article will still be around for a few more days... looking forward to your replies.

HP you have hinted at something crucial, in countries where the majority of the population cannot afford to live as civilised human beings the debate between secular/religous, hindu/muslim etc is secondary.

Europe progressed out of this stage through two avenues, one was inter religous bloodletting on an unprecedented scale, the second, which followed, was economic growth. We certainly shouldnt aspire to the former but the latter is open to us.

Poverty imposes many more and far greater evils on the dignity and well being of an individual than incest or homosexuality.

romair
``I think eventually incest will be legal in various countries. ``

it IS legal in most countries if between consenting adults. only marriage is not legal.

anyhoo, i dont think it will be an issue for a long time, since there is no evidence that its widely practiced (as gayness is). i.e. there is no ``market`` for it.

Romair:
#303

I concur; laws do have to be institutionalized to protect children.

All I’m saying is that we can legislate CSA all we want but until the cultural silence is broken on this issue, no one is going to seek refuge in those laws. We are a culture which can’t even talk about heterosexual sex between a married couple. To bring CSA out in the open in such an environment is a challenge.

Amrita:
#309

Thanks for giving me that information. It seems the laws around this issue are rather nebulous. I will try and catch Rahul next time he is around.

Romair #327

Latest gem from Romair: ``I think eventually incest will be legal in various countries. ``

The fun never stops
As romair licks his chops

Jang #324: I think you have made a very valid point. A point that should be debated more, since it hits at the heart of the whole incest, consent etc. debate. In the end, the ultimate protection offered to anyone, including children, is through the legal system of a country. And that is where people should make their stand…………

I think eventually incest will be legal in various countries. For the reasons, you mentioned. Much like homosexuality and gay marriage is legal. A few decades ago, it would have been impossible to imagine gay marriage would be legal. But it is, now, in various countries……….

The basis of Western legal system is giving preference to individual liberties and rights over social, religious etc. customs and norms.; even if those customs are practiced by the majority. So, even though a majority of the people oppose homosexuality, it is legal. The ruling is based on the protection of the right of the individual homosexual, regardless of the majority view. Similarly, the protection of the individual rights will be upheld in incest also………

I think you are correct in stating that Western society does eventually adjust to those rulings. In a way, this is its strength. It morphs and transforms, as required. I think most of it will adjust to any ruling on sexuality. However, some countries will be the exception. I think they are about to draw the line on how much they are willing to morph.

For example, Canada will fully legalize gay marriage. Gay civil marriage is already legal in seven provinces and one territory of Canada. However, I think the USA may introduce a Constitutional amendment to ban it. This issue is a watershed for Western society, because it hits at the heart of the basic fabric of the society. So far, people had been living in a relatively comfortable place, where religion was out of the State, in all issues, other than family and marriage. The State gave you tax breaks if you married a woman. But not if you married a man. However certain European now countries allow your male partner to get citizenship now. Will they extend that to one’s incestual partner? Under the same argument used to legalize homosexuality, they will have to. One cannot oppose homophobia and promote incest-o-phobia or any other kind of sexual partner phobia………Apparently all of us are hypocrites when it comes to this…….For example I oppose gay marriage and homosexuality and incest……..But I support the right of marriage between first cousins, which is considered incest in half of the USA………

I think if people want to understand this fully – specifically those of very liberal and secular beliefs – they need to get into this debate, rather than try to stifle it. They should realize that many of the people debating this aren’t doing so, just to get more religion into politics (though many, like the Religious Right and Republican leadership in the USA, are into it for this reason). They are debating it because they oppose incest and want a legal framework, where it remains illegal………

HP#320 Cain killed Abel, so I doubt if there was anything else going on between them. And the Genesis does mention his wife and omits to mention where the hell she came from. So, we have a little problem with the story here. :-)

The Bible, btw, focuses a lot on the prophets stories - and there is some real racy stuff there. The Quran refers to those Biblical prophets but does not get into their story-telling so much - its focus is on concepts (which, of course are ignored by both the ``looney liberals`` as well as by the ``looney mullahs`` of Pakistan, since those concepts call for a certain level of character that neither possesses).

#320 by tahmed32

“I was pointing to a more basic problem: If Cain was the son of Adam and Eve, then who was Cain`s wife?? “

There is a possibility that they were reproducing via sodomy! May be baba and bibi’s sons were doing hanky panky behind their parents back and God smiled on them?
Is there any mention of boys’ age in the scripture?
So if sodomy was okay then, why poor gays are being bashed here.

They wanna lock up gays in jails, kill women for having sex before marriage, and punish all for opposing the religious wars but would insist that incest was outlawed by religions, still have no word for what baba, bibi’s sons were doing when God smiled on them.

Hindvi,
Who needs more help then the kids-many under 13- who watch there poor parents having sex in the same bedroom where kids sleep. This story is repeated in pretty much 1/4 of subcontinent’s homes where whole family has access to one room only.

boy, the liberal seculars are taking a real beating here .. all becuse of their support of the gays...

#314 by dionysus
i think the western society has kind of adjusted to the gays becuase there is a sufficient number who are commited enough to be out of closet in face of public ridicule if not violence, and are otherwise good citizens. if there a large enough number incestuous adults who over dacades make their case, sure, the society will adopt. this is what is interesting about liberal secular society. you can make a point, and press your cause, and you will less likely be shut-out (or beheaded) due to a illogical outdated book. i mean, as is obvious, bible itself seems to hide incest among gods children.

so adult incest is discussed in books by famous authors (in fiction) with no big outcry in the liberal west. the author continues to have a table for himself in barnes and nobles. adult incest is just too uncommon, its that simple (unlike adult gays). if it becomes common, we shall argue it out and once a case is made, we will get used to it. but we shall cross that bridge if we have to. untill then, just hope that some of your family dont come out of the closet ;-)

Ntsyed Sahib:
#316

Of course the U.S. can address this issue. Contrary to the myth developing here, a secular system does have Laws in place to protect minor children. Child advocacy groups abound in this Country to make sure that the rights of children are served.

Had someone reported this family, DCS (Department of Child Services) would have immediately been there to investigate child neglect. In the case of drug or alcohol abuse which detrimentally affects a child, DCS would mandate rehab. on part of the parent.

I do appreciate the point you are trying to make but please let’s not forget that children are an underclass the World over. In the purported Islamic Republic of Pakistan child labor exists in Dickensian proportions. Not to mention sundry other trespasses against children.

I`m not saying that children have it great here (U.S.). I`m just saying we should acknowledge that as adults we have failed children the World over. I don`t think any one country or culture is doing better than others.

Sari raat kahani sun`nay k baad subh ko ahmeq poochhta hai k Zulekha mard thi ya aurat tha.

Secular men are still scratching their heads and nuts to come up with a viable solution to save the children, and their feminine colleagues ... it never seemed like their cup of tea to begin with. The only tangibles out of this board have been the statistics, as if one child abuse wasn`t one too many and punishable.

Someone wondered at the beginning of this thread how many seculars does it take to answer a simple question: (religions allegedly being irrational myths) how could incest be rationalized in a secular setting. In the last 8 days and 367 posts later (minus few mad mullahs` posts), 39 seculars have either given up, obfuscated, or are still at it without an answer in the offing.

As per the statistics, if the question had been to see how many of them would it take to screw in a light bulb, most would still be arguing about whether the question refers to installing a light fixture or intercourse with it. If it is latter, then is it about `doing it` while bulb`s ON or OFF? Or is one supposed to do it with the holder first? Just like some are wondering if today`s human beings are products of homosexuality.

HP #306 Actually, it is not impossible (thanks to exponential growth) to have 6 billion people being born of a single couple.

I was pointing to a more basic problem: If Cain was the son of Adam and Eve, then who was Cain`s wife??

And indeed, one could add to this: And who gave birth to these people of the land of Nod that that Cain went to live with (again per Genesis), if Adam and Eve were indeed the first couple?

Further investigation on google indicates that the church boys dont have a good answer to this question. They claim they have a logical answer (of course!), but basically wander all over the map with their ``logic``, dragging in poor Jesus as being the ``last Adam``, referring to lengthy life spans of Adam and Eve and that they must have produced whole armies of babies, and so on - even Romair would appear the master of the succinct writing compared to the gibberish I found from the church boys on this. They do stop short of claiming that the bakri ate up selected sections of the Genesis on this.

Anyway, as the brits would say - there we are. Adam got his wife from his rib, and Cain got his wife out of thin air.

Nt Syed

My father had a middle class saudi friend who at 50 or a little more divorced his two older wives and sent them to their brothers while taking two 23 year old brides. I am assuming like the 13 year old his children didnt like that either. now who is going to help them?

In the case of the 13 year old help may or may not come (if he lived close to his relatives it probably would have) but in the muslim case no one can help them, because no body can change a word of the Quran (for all times to come) and the Quran permits this.

all kinds make this world, neither secularists nor the religous have a ``theka`` on morality.

Re: # 319 by hindvi

Nice try, but you`ll have to do better to dodge the question.

:-)~~

I`m a 13 year old Pakistani American boy. My parents are divorced and I live with my dad.

I see him on this website all the time, and he says it`s a good place to meet PAMs. So, I`ve decided pop in.

Since you guys are debating child abuse, I have a small question.

You see, being a single parent my dad often brings his females friends home. It doesn`t matter on weekends, because I usually visit my friends then. But on the school days, it bothers me too much. I don`t like most of the women he brings home because I have to hear their stupid laughs instead of my mom`s.

In the last two years I`ve learned to live with that. But I can`t handle the noise from bedroom or living room or bathroom when they`re having sex.

I don`t want to go to the CPS, because I`m afraid they`ll put me in a foster home and I`ll lose my father too. Although, sometimes I wish he was dead. He`s a nice guy and good father too, I guess. But sometimes his drinking and having noisy sex with his gfs while I`m missing my mom makes me want to either kill them or myself.

Please tell me what should I do?

I see some of you guys talk about Allah, and some of you hate Him. But I have no one and nothing. And I don`t understand the secularism either.

Please tell me how I can be a normal 13 year old?

bye

Re: # 316

ntsyed,

..... what is the point of your silly story ?....... you want stories ?......... i will give you some real true life cases :

............... in 1940 something my 14 year old mamoon ran away from home in quetta and took the train to see some actress in bombay (i think it was nargis ).......... he did send a telegram once he got there and came back after a few months once he ran out of money ....... they say my grandfather whopped his butt so hard that he couldn`t sit for a month ...... but he grew up to be a fine young man with a successful business and seven lovely children and performed the hajj three times and umrah many times ....... but he never lost his passion for the performing arts and continued to patronize the ladies in heera mandi lahore well into his seventies !............ so what is the point ? ...... that`s what i asked ?

................ in 1980 something my younger brother ``ran`` away from home because he didn`t do too well on his ninth grade exam and was afraid to come home ...........we found him after twenty four hours at a neighbour`s house; a few years later he ran away with the same neighbour`s daughter, but we found him again and threw a big party (actually two or three) with hundreds of guests to welcome him home ........ now it is his wife`s job to make sure he doesn`t run away again - the guy is a habitual runner .............. no point here either, but it is just another runaway story .....

............. but here is a runaway story which does have a point and, maybe, even a moral for you ....... one of my first cousins is a man of your ilk - a oxford graduate mullah who lives in the uk ...... he is married to his first cousin who also happens to be his niece (go figure that one !) and has a nice steady government job which allows him to spend most of his time at the local masjid with the boys from raiwind .......... once every other year or so he takes off for a couple of months with his boyfriends to tour africa, south america and visit the brothers imprisoned in american jails ......... this god fearing man has four children who he claims to love dearly but they still keep on running away .......... his youngest son was the first to run away from home when he was twelve - he called in the social services people because his father was abusive and ended up in a foster home for six months while the professionals evaluated his father ......... then he took his eldest daughter to pakistan and tried to tried to marry her off to a friend`s son from bradford - of course the girl didn`t want anything to do with it because she is a manchester united fan ! ........... so, she ran away and sought protection in the british consulate - trust me, it was quite a scandal and took many months to resolve ............. my father, god bless his soul, summarized the whole thing for us with, `` is ulloo kay pathay ka mun kala kar kay, gadhay par betha kar saray shehr mein ghumana chaihaiya ``.............. but then the worst thing happened - his eldest son, a successful barrister and a nice young man, gave up a promising career and ran away to pakistan to get away from his father ............ ``the bloody chap is bonkers - if he wasn`t my father and my cousin`s and aunt`s husband i would beat the crap out of him `` ............

............so be careful ........

Re: # 316


the story is of a real boy in real america whom I had met in the US during my days of jahiliya through some mutual family friends when he was 13. I`ve changed the venue for the sake of relevance to this board.

The last I heard of the boy, he ran away when he 15 and whereabouts are unknown. The divorce was due to his father`s drinking and philandering. His father, a well to do engineer, is still looking for him whenever he`s alone... as I hear.

The point is: how do we classify this boy`s case? Child abuse, CSA because of sex involved, although it wasn`t with him...not that he told us.

As per American, the father committed any crime, but is being punished for his deeds; at least at the time he didn`t consider it immoral. He had just as little regard for religion as some upholders of seculars here.

What did the boy get punished for?

Can the Secular system address this issue without infringing upon one`s right to drink, fornicate, divorce, etc...more importantly, outside the context of religion? Because, whatever we told the father back then about the morality stuff, he`d reject it as derived from religion and was quite sure that the boy will be fine as soon as he gets his own gf and stuff.

Re: # 317

CORRECTION:

As per American law, the father hadn`t committed any crime, but is being punished for his deeds in the form of losing his family; at least at the time he didn`t consider it immoral. He had just as little regard for religion as some upholders of secularism here.

Hellooo Dio ji

How are you and where have you been?
You land up on this site after ages and then start firing on all sides. What happened. You were never too keen earlier on religious issues and here you are showing your sourness too explicitily. Were you brushing up your religious knowledge during the break you had from chowk? Please bring back that old nice, gentle dio whose only agenda was saving Kashmiris and counting numbers of those who died because of Great Indian presence there.
Come on now! Smile and tell how many kashmiris have suffered because of Indian forces inclination towards perverted kind of sex?

But seriously, stop using bad language for people who are concerned about children safety. Issue being discussed here is serious as well as revolting. So please don`t mix up with other less revolting issues. Mind you I have stated less revolting and not non revolting. So, don`t try any of your wisecracks on this.

Now for a change, just relax and say hello like a well mannered person.

dotty, you are an even bigger idiot than temporal. I am not equating ANYTHING. You are unable to read english and/or are extremely stupid. Liberalism is a system thought. I want to understand how a system of thought that permits, in fact celebrates, homosexuality views incest between consenting adults. And I want to understand why, too.

If you can answer the question please do. Otherwise stop cheerleading the looney liberals. They already have enough cheerleaders without you joining in and it isn`t doing them any good. And it makes you look like such a sad fuddu.

#312 is it an issue about two consenting incestual adults or one of child molestation (incestual or otherwise)?

Between two consenting adults who cares where they are both men, women, man-woman, related or not - do you? I dont and couldnt careless.

But when one party is a kid as in man-boy, woman-boy, man-girl, woamn-girl, then it is something to think about....you dionysus are trying to equate two unequal things. The spin you are trying to apply is silly and visible to all.

This spin is making you lose your Credibility So Fast, that it makes Light look like a bleeding tortoise!

amrita #309 ``I was beginning to get really bored with this board until a guy called ``Dionysus`` showed up to argue on the side of the conservatives!!! LOL!!! Irony is alive and well, I see.``


I`m full of surprises. Now why don`t you surprise me by answering the freaken question. I hope you realize you are losing crediblity fast.

and so after 310 interacts people are still dicussing whether to screw a baby is right or wrong.

Are you people sick or something? Think you really need to check in with a shrink. This is way beyond just rhethoric and debate. This from a bunch of people who claim to be fathers or soon to be fathers. God bless you all. My god! A clear indication that many are wrapped.

310 interacts, and we still wonder ...

hamidm2: “……Order, order! (banging the gavel on his knee for an instant jerk)”

temporal: “yoohoo, Mr. Bailiff? Please bring some udders for QJ hamidm2. He`s horny...err...I mean, hungry”

”pronto please”

rgds

lve

t

tahmed32: “t bhai, he’s busy doing something with the sandpaper”

hamidm2: “…….what’s that for bailiff?”

Bailiff: “sir, thasma re-useable toilet paper……I can’t use water, ‘cuz it’s the mullah stuff. Quite frankly, I like this heavy guage `un, ‘cus I kin use it for otha pappasus too, if ya know whota mean”

hamidm2: “…..let’s proceed………shakeel mian, do you understand you’re being charged with two counts of incest with your two daughters?”

Shakeel: “hey, I’m a secular. I don’t need no-goddamn-body to tell me such simple things”

hamidm: “…….sir, you need to mind your language in this court….just because we vilify religions, gods, prophets et al, it doesn’t mean we’re “uncivilized”….besides, we have to compile a dictionary of your profanities before we can allow you to use those words”
…..so, why did you commit incest with your daughters?........ Don’t you know it’s a quote NO NO unquote? ........That it’s wrong to have sex with your own daughters?``

temporal: “nice one sir”

tahmed32: “definitely! I love your directness, sir”

Shakeel: “why is it wrong to have sex with my own daughters?”

hamidm2: “…..shakeel mian, because for one thing she’s your own child….a part of you, for crying out loud….then she’s a child…..thirdly, at her age, her consent doesn’t count, even if she had consented….”

Shakeel: “says who? I don’t need no thunder in the clouds or a goddamn scripture or an old man in 7th century Arabia to tell me what’s wrong and what’s right!”

hamidm2: “……..we don’t care about those either……..but as adults with professional degrees and jobs, we just know that it’s wrong……..”

Shakeel: “okay, if not the holy scriptures, then who died and made you the authority on ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ and ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’. I have my own definition of these. Who are you to say I`m wrong?”

hamidm2: “....only a moron would ask a question like that……..”

tahmed32: “yeah, only a moron”

Shakeel: “for a whole bunch of people, you`re the morons to say what you say?”

hamidm2: “….shakeel mian, I see where you’re going with this……..ask the social workers, NGOs, child psychologists, gynecologists, criminologists, statistician….they’ll all tell you that it’s wrong…..………it hurts them physically, traumatizes them emotionally, and if there’s pregnancy, then the gene pool gets messed up….again, they’re your own children – a part of you and your wife….”

Shakeel: “oh BULLOCKS! It`s none of your business what happens me kids or me genes.

1. None of your goddamn physicians can prove that they were physically hurt, because they’re not.

2. None of your psychologists can prove that the “revulsion” she felt was due to my actions. She may very well have had PMS. Since it was her PMS, she couldn’t describe the feeling. It couldn’t have been fear and anxiety because we had been doing it for years, and as sajal pointed out in her report: ‘she had gotten used to making out with me…and grown confident about her body. She knew THAT feeling!

3. Your criminologists can’t prove that I’ve hurt anyone.

4. I don’t believe your statistics;