The Ultimate Betrayal

beejay:

thanks for your words. i am very thankful that the perpetrator did not get much further than he did, but it was very confusing and frightening for me. and i have put it behind me, insofar as it is not a constant memory that haunts me. it was more the aftermath, the reaction to what almost happened that afternoon that still boggles the mind at times.

hamid:

i know you are deadly serious about the subject, which is why i expressed my concern. we all know from our lengthy and not-so-lengthy tenures here at chowk how slippery words are and how easily they can be twisted around. more than a few of the 200 + posts here are a prime example of that. :)

Hamidm mian #various: You really need to get out of your knee-jerk habit of rising to the defence of Uncle Sam, everytime someone points out something in the USA, which is going on the wrong track. You will be doing yourself and Uncle Sam a great favor by doing so. At the very least, don`t try to justify things by stating it is equally bad in Pakistan.

It is hard to say whether it is equally bad in Pakistan, or in India, or in many places. Because no one has statistics. Maybe it is worst. Maybe it is not. But you live in the USA, as do your kids. You are not doing anyone a favor by coming to the defence of such statistics, and watering them down, by trying to portray other countries in a worse light.

As I have pointed out to you many times earlier. you are not the only one who knows anything about the West. Some of the rest of us, though far less, ``with it`` and hip as you, may have picked up a thing or two........

Open and excessive sexuality and promiscuity is a huge problem in the USA. Huge. You can stick your neck in the sand, like an Ostrich, and not accept it. Or try to push it into the background by making fun of Islam or Pakistan or anything else. But that will not solve the problem.

One out of every five girls in the USA is date-raped. Check the FBI`s statistics. There are two ways for you to look at this: you can say, ``So what, I bet 1 out of every 2 is date-raped in Pakistan.`` Or you can accept this as a problem and critique it.........Believe me, critiquing it will not lower your credentials as a loyal Republican........

So, please get out of your obsessive Uncle Sam love-affair. You are starting to sound like Naqshbandi and his love affairs with his Shiekhs..........Neither of you are ready to hear anyything against your respective beloveds...........

#223 urstruly:

is that what caused the dislocation?


Romair #225:

how many of the previous 224 interacts have you gone through?

have you read the story?

what are your thoughts on incest?

and do you have any children of your own? if yes, what ages and sex? (think i asked you this once before)

rgds

t

The guidelines of who can get married to whom, have generally been based on ethical lines defined by religion. All the medical facts that have been presented weren`t even known, when these guidelines were set-up. In some societies, these lines are drawn at cousins, i.e. in 24 US states, it is illegal to marry your first cousin. While in Canada and Pakistan it is legal. In fact, cousin marriages constitute the highest percentage of marriages in the world.......

I am not a doctor, so don`t take my word for it, but I believe, in cousin marraiges, as long as it doesn`t happen generation after generation, and a mixture with non-cousins occurs (like Pakistan) things turn out ok.

There is, thus, no biological reason to make an ethical boundary on incest. In fact, it is common amongst animals. The only non-religious ethical boundary is placed on adults and minors.

This is why, although I don`t have anything against secularism, I am not for it completely either. In a purely 100% secular society, any consenting adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult, or any gender, as many times as he/she wants. Since, religious restrictions would not be a factor.

A father could marry his son or daughter. A brother his sister (or brother). etc. A society could enforce laws against it. But what would they be basing them on. Religion.....

So, Urstruly has a point, if I am understanding it correctly. The ethical basis of sex and gender relationships in present-day Western and Eastern society is heavily rooted in religion. Take that away, and it will actually be a free for all. Because, by law, ``consent`` of, ``adults`` will be the only restriction.

This is why there is so much hue and cry over the gay marriage issue. It is the begining of the unraveling of the concept of marriage, as practiced today. And this concept is rooted solely in religion. People are not afraid of gay marriage, as such. They are afraid, that once the courts rule in favor of gay marraige, they will have to rule in favor of any other kind of sexual relationship between consenting adults........

Hence, ridiculing relgion, while simultaneously drawing one`s ethics on gender and sexual relationships from religion, is an anomoly............If there was no religion, brothers and sisters (and sisters and sisters) would be getting married left and right. In fact, that would probably be the norm..........

romair #227:

The ethical basis of sex and gender relationships in present-day Western and Eastern society is heavily rooted in religion.

with this broad stroke you have effectively ruled out china and russia...both `secular` by your definition...

neither of them allow for marriages between fathers and daughters or mothers and sons

so the ethical basis has to be more than religion...

t

romair:

i don`t think you`ve really understood what the issue is here. this story, or article is not about whether incest is permissible or not. it is what most of us have been saying all along. this story has a lot to do with whether we can recognize child sexual abuse. and who determines what is consent and what is not. and are children who know what pain is, but do not understand what sex is all about in a position to consent among other things.

i`m glad that you can find much to agree with urstruly on, and i`m sure he is too, but once again, you`re spot off.

i meant to say this article is NOT only. . .

Temporal #226: ``how many of the previous 224 interacts have you gone through?``

I only read the interacts of certain individuals on Chowk. I rarely read the interacts of every interactor. So I have gone through the interacts of the people I am addressing.......But not of those, I am not addressing......

``have you read the story?``

Yes. I have. It is a pretty small story, hence it can be read quickly...........

``what are your thoughts on incest?``

This is an odd question. What do you think my thoughts would be? The dictionary defines incest as:

1. Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
2. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative.

I think, ``near relative`` is defined differently by different societies. Primarily based on the dominant religion in the culture. In Pakistan, the line is drawn at brothers and sisters and first uncles and aunts. In the USA, it is drawn and cousins. So marriage between cousins would be considered forbidden in the USA. At the same time, in Pakistan, one can marry one fathers first cousin, and one`s mother`s first cousin also. While I assume in USA, that would be wrong............Hence, so many of Pakistan`s married couples and their relationships would be considered incestual by US customs and cutlure..........

However, I believe all societies do consider brother/sister, father/daughter relations taboo. Within the context of this article, the age factor also needs to be considered. Although that is defined differently in different societies, also...............

I think the concept of incest should be tackled and debated, specifically within the boudnaries of the society one is living in. Which is why I can never understand the logic of individuals who keep trying to point out faults in other societies, the moment one highlights faults in the society they are living in. I think they are harming themselves, and the societies they are living in, by doing so.

The, ``It happens in USA, but happens far more in Pakistan,`` is not a valid argument...... It is more of a knee-jerk and overly-defensive reaction.........

``and do you have any children of your own? if yes, what ages and sex? (think i asked you this once before)``

Yes you have asked me this before. And I have answered it, in quite a bit of detail. A bit of advice: It is not a good idea to keep asking people the ages and genders of their children, again and again..............

romair # 231:

Yes you have asked me this before. And I have answered it, in quite a bit of detail. A bit of advice: It is not a good idea to keep asking people the ages and genders of their children, again and again..............

forgive me if i asked again....i do not recall your reply...er your detailed reply or else i would not have brought it up again here...if you don`t want to reply again can you direct me to the link or the thread please?

Ana #229: I know what the article is about. I have actually done some work with a child in a similar situation (though it wasn`t parent/child incest). Which involved days discussing this subject with an experienced psychologist, over two years. So believe me, I do have some idea of what this applies to. I tend to try to comment only on issues, where I have some knowledge..........In addition, this kind of topics are part of my wife`s area of academic study.......

So perhaps, while you may disagree with me, I many still be spot-on and not spot-off. As I highlighted in another reply, other people also may have some information on issues, where people consider themselves experts......

This is one of the main reasons, why I am such an opponent of the, ``open`` sex in various Western socieites. As well as my anger (if you can call it that) at individuals whose only reply to the highlighting of such points is, ``Pakistan is worse.``

As far as, ``consent`` is concerned, it is almost impossible to define what the correct age is. Personally speaking, I think it should be after a binding contract of marraige. Now what is the correct age for marriage? That is another question that is hard to answer. I suppose it would be different for different people and cultures............

“so the ethical basis has to be more than religion...”

from Temp’s post #228

Social Contract Theory says that a people’s moral and political obligations are predicated upon a contract between them to form society.

Socrates in Crito uses Social Contract Theory to argue why he must accept his death sentence.

And since Socrates, many philosophers have expounded upon this theory adding to it their two cents. Some of them include Thomas Hobbes, Rousseau, John Locke, and more recently John Rawls.

This doesn’t mean that religion has to be side-stepped. But it is perhaps a better way to appeal to people who have trouble accepting the idea of the Divine in their lives.

The two can exist side by side. They are not mutually exclusive.

Just some thoughts….nothing written in stone…in the spirit of inclusion....

Re: # 225

captain clueless,

......... i think you missed my post where i agreed with the horrible statistics quoted by hp - child molestation and incest is a plague that afflicts all societies and is not a western phenomenon as you and your murshid urstruly like to think ...........

............ and i don`t have anything against people marryng their cousins although i do know one person who divorced his cousin because she looked just like his mother ! ........ the poor guy is still recovering from the trauma ............ but knock yourself out if you want to - after all there are people in salt lake city and gujranwala who are married to two sisters and their brother`s widow and their mother`s aunt third removed ...............

temporal #228: ``with this broad stroke you have effectively ruled out china and russia...both `secular` by your definition.......so the ethical basis has to be more than religion...``

I am not too familiar with Russia and China. My referal to, ``East`` was primarily towards desi lands. I believe China is athiest. Hence not secular. There is not Church. Russia is Orthodox. So I assume secular..........So China must be using some criteria, other than consenting adults. But in China, it is the executive and not the judiciary which defines such laws..........

The definition of gender relations, from a legal point of view, are rooted in religion, in the West and Desi Lands (I will use this term, instead of Eastern). Why else aren`t gays allowed to marry, in the USA? They can live together, legally, but they cannot get married. The laws passed against such marraiges are solely because none of these societies are 100% secular. As they move towards 100% secularism, such issues will start popping up.

I think, due to this, many of these societies will draw the line at a certain point, and stop secularism. America seems to be drawing it at gay marriage. It is secular uptil gay marriage, after which it becomes religious. Canada, at some point beyond gay marraige.
I read somewhere that there are court cases being prepared for allowing polygamy, in the USA, if and when gay marraige is approved.

In secular law, there are only three issues that define what can and cannot be done, between individuals. As I understand them, they are:

- adult (i.e. not a minor)
- consent
- there is no negative affect on society, in general

Religion allowing or disallowing it, is not a factor in secular law. Or should not be one. Yet, in the case of marraige, it is religion, which is used to draw an extra boundary. This is why two consenting adult gay men cannot get married........

The re-definition of marraige, along secular lines, is going to open the floodgates of consenting adults wanting to get into all kinds of unions. I don`t see anything legally that could stop that, other than Constitution amendments, which themselves, will be based on religion.

This does not mean incestual relationships will become the norm. But under a 100% secular system, there is nothing that can restrict consenting adults, from forming such unions......Any many probably will..........

To add to what miriam #234 has said(with apologies to ana, I know this is being done to death,and then some)
According to Bertrand Russel,any theistic framework presupposes(believes)
1- There is a God.
2.God is good(intentioned).So whatever he says has to be followed / believed.
3. God is perfect. So whatever he says has to be always believed.
#2 is a value decision,which implies an ethical framework which conceptually precedes religion. Believing in religion is an ethical decision. Its after this that one assumes the ethical framework of religion. It may be implicit for a believer but for an atheist it is important that the notion of bad and good can exist on its own,without religion.

romair #236:

if anything this article is not about consenting adults

in most articles threads assume a life of their own...meaning they veer off the articles main thrust...this one here is more of an exception where by and large most interactors have struck faithfully to the central theme...with minor course corrections...for that my public admiration for all those interactors

rahul# 237:

It may be implicit for a believer but for an atheist it is important that the notion of bad and good can exist on its own,without religion.

who is arguing with it here? ( no don`t tell me;))

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

miriam #234

go back to your studies;)

t