The Ultimate Betrayal

sajal,

a well-written piece. i was frankly not quite ready to read another piece about molestation here (and no matter how some want to frame this, this story is about molestation and manipulation), but the story and some of the comments are worth responding to.

first of all, fiction, and literature are not outside the realm of social commentary. some of the finest works of fiction have social commentary as an element, if not intended by the author, then from the reader. elie wiesel`s ``night``, dostoevsky`s ``the brothers karamazov``, ismat chughtai`s ``lihaaf``, manto`s works, these are seen as fictional works that involve social commentary. if there are people who want to call this an article rather than story, then that is their choice, but it is not entirely accurate to say that fiction is just for literary criticism and beyond the realm of social commentary. edward said was among many things, a literary critic, and he examined works from a sociopolitical vantage point.

we could argue forever about incest as taboo, or not taboo, and while everyone looks at the subject of incest from their own prism (or a collective one based on ``collective`` values), we are not all going to agree on the nature of incest. and the parameters of incest vary from culture to culture. having said that, i do not wish to be mistaken for speaking in favor of incest. i don`t know what people involved in this argument are trying to establish, but if we look at this story, and other similar stories (if this is a deja-vu, it`s because it is not an entirely unfamiliar one, just one we ignore sometimes), this is a story of molestation and manipulation. calling it incest and not molestation does not change the fact that the two children , sara is molested, and maryam is about to experience the manipulation. many daughters want to be daddy`s special girl but not like this, and the ultimate betrayal in this story is not just the incest, it is the love and the special feeling that shakeel destroys by his actions.

Re: # 63 Mr. Dots

I am glad that you brought in the age of consent in this discussion. The fact of the matter is that the age of consent is again arbitrarily chosen and in the present world even in secular societies it is chosen to satisfy some pre-existing religious value. For example, in West 8-9 year old girls routinely get pregnant. The sexual act between pre-adolescents start way before the onset of puberty. The point is that human beings are capable of performing way before any arbitrarily set ``age of consent``. The individuals who do that do it with their consent. The phrase ``koi aa jai gaa`` is used not only to express ones consent but its real purpose is to save oneself from social stigma. So the question is, that if a child consents to have sex with an adult then what is wrong with that. That is the point I raised with Amrita which HP further elaborated.

#63
Dotman,

You know the answers! What is the relavence? The issue is what governs the incest relationship? Liberals have contradictory stand on this issue. They approve of gay marriages but disapprove of incest even though both prohibitions are derived from the religions and all religions regard them sexual as well as moral offences and pervert behavior.

As Hindvi pointed out the Law deals with incest as child molestation or Rape if both are adults.

#66 So the question is, that if a child consents to have sex with an adult then what is wrong with that.

Urstruly sahib, I dont want to answer this question. I leave it to you to answer it yourself.

Let me leave with with the third category to the two in #63

(c ) sex between to people aged 10 years respectively.

I will cut and paste the previous here you give the full range

(a) sex between a 35 year old and a 10 year old

(b) sex between a 35 year old and a 20 year old

(c)sex between to people aged 10 years

- on a personal note: what is your personal preference here.....you dont need to answer this...

Urstruly,
you are running wild with it. Incest would remain incest with or without consent. As incest has no age limit on it.

I agree that age is arbitrarily chosen and it is done to satisfy the law and intervention. From religious POV, sex after puberty is fine and there is no age limit on that. The problem with religion is that it can declare something wrong but it has no way of enforcing or punishing the wrong. Local laws intervene at this time and define the age limit. Law argues whether the consent is legal or illegal.
I totally agree with you that except religion there is is nothing that can forbid incest but religion has to rely on the society to find the appropriate punishment.

Or I will put it this way. The religion provides direction/lead to the society in this matter.
There is no other justification for opposing the incest.

Re: # 69 HP

I agree with your post. But the issue of consent is also important. For example, a secular society can only prohibit sex with minors because a minor, especially female, may not be able to bear the consequences of the sexual encounter. For eaxmple a nine year old girl, might not be able to support a baby all by herself unless her family or state takes responsibility of that child. But again family is a religious concept and you want to preserve the institution of a family then we must remove all factors that threaten its existence; and if abortion or birth control can protect her from having a baby then it takes away the burden from the state as well. Therefore, I see no problem with having sex with a minor. What if the sexual partners are an adult male and a minor male - no problem there; and if it is between an adult female and a minor male. no problem there either. Similarly a case can be made in case of every possible combination.

#70 Urstruly, for a moment there I thought you were talking about the physical and psychological consequences of being pregnant at age 10 when you said `` because a minor, especially female, may not be able to bear the consequences of the sexual encounter``.

But you outdid yourself by following up with ``For eaxmple a nine year old girl, might not be able to support a baby all by herself unless her family or state takes responsibility of that child.``

and then hop onto family being a religious construct.

You are not connecting the dots properly. Your jumping and missing major issues. A 9 or 10 year old giving birth to a baby - when this 9 or 10 year old is not even out of nappies, and has no maturity to tak ecare of the baby emotionally. Not to talk of the actual physical stress of child biorth - the poor girl will not be able to take it all. That is why AGE OF CONSENT comes in. And yet you talk of everything else....
It is based on sound science - and for a man of science to talk such pure goobledegook and to take mind numbingly obscrutantist positions - is an indication of failure of education more than anything else.

I think for my own sanity I will quit at this point.......

Re: # 69
you are running wild with it. Incest would remain incest with or without consent

A sentiment I will agree with ....(T)

Re: # 71

In my post I took care of the issue of child birth either by contraceptives or abortion provided by state. The point is, other than pregnancy, there is no problem with having sex with a minor girl. As far as the emotional and psychological trauma of minors are concerned, these are the societal constructs and it has nothing to do with what we call `human nature``. A society that is permissive of incest and child sex will have no such issues. But if a daughter finds her father, physically repulsive and do not want to have sex with him, even then society may or may not intervene. It is also arbitrary.

I would like to highlight a couple of points.

1.Consent is important. Any minor who is unable to forsee the consequences of his/her actions cannot consent- be it surgery/sex /buying alcohol, cigarettes or casting a vote.Such children are under the care of their guardians/parents and unfortunately betrayed some times as in this case.This is abuse whether an insestous realtionship or baby battering. There can be no difference of opinon about this.

2.A question arises if in an incestous relationship the involved parties are adult.They
havent violated law by doing so.But still this is unacceptable.why? The answer is beacuse of religious/social reasons.
But the point is if these people were to come up with the aurgument of exploring their sexualities and saying that they were mature adults, what would one be able to do about it.
The religious group could argue that this was not permisible by religion.What kind of arguement can the seculars provide?
And finally if the religious group can criticise this relation,should they not by the same argument be able to criticise gay/lesbian relationships?

Are we moving towards a society where adult sexual relations are not abnormal irrespective of whether they are same sex or incestous.While some people would call such a society degenerate, others would call it a free society.

---

here is the story of child molestation i had mentioned earlier:

Toronto police have helped crack another international child abuse and pornography case, this time in Spain, where police have arrested five men suspected of raping babies and peddling images of the abuse on the Internet.

Madrid police yesterday announced they had smashed an alleged pedophile ring of five men, two of them computer specialists, and charged them with abducting, raping and abusing nine children between 11 months and 6 years old.

``I have been a judge for many years ... and I have seen many things and really, never have I seen images of such abject brutality,`` Spanish Interior Minister Jose Antonio Alonso said in Madrid.

click for full report:
City police help crack Spanish child porn ring

---

brother urstruly:

islam zindabad!...

keep weaving your web of deceit around little saras of this world with your mental gymnastics

Honestly, is it so difficult to understand that in Sajal’s story there’s an issue of a power dynamic (i.e. one party (the father) has all of the power)? The girl is unable to give informed consent and is thereby rendered powerless. It is the same argument that arises with rape. It is quite simply a sexual crime. There should be no ifs, ands, or buts on this issue.

So, then my religious friends counter, what about consensual incest, is that ok? Because if liberals permit homosexuality due to its’ consensual nature then by extension they should also allow incest. In other words, liberals can’t scream that incest is unnatural because by that token so is homosexuality (unnatural that is). If you’re going to embrace one then better be prepared to embrace the other. Wow, what a cohesive argument.

You know I’m personally not an atheist, in fact far from it. Although why I need to explain my faith or lack thereof is beyond me. Last I checked, a girl’s faith/imaan was between she and her God.

However, I say this to make a point: Inspite of my faith I refuse to look at the World with those glasses…you know the ones I’m talking about….the sanctimonious ones…the ones through which everything appears either black or white and people are either good or bad. Perhaps it’s my naïve idealism speaking but on an issue of this magnitude do we really need to be intransigent on ideological differences while buggers like Shakeel are destroying more lives!

Not everything has to be about religion. Sometimes it just is what it is.

``Not everything has to be about religion. Sometimes it just is what it is.``

That may be the most important revelation in the history of (wo)man.

Urstruly,
Okay, a couple of things –

First of all, however much religion may come into play here, to say that secular society has no morals is the height of bigotry and ignorance. Secular society disapproves of a number of things including robbery, murder, rape, etc. Their thought might be derived from religion [although it is never just one religion and is also based on legal, philosophic and mass movements in other states], but their execution is based on the effect it has on citizenry.

I was plenty sure that homosexuality is coming into the picture, and I have addressed that in post 50. pls refer and also understand the last three sentences of that particular para.

Urstruly, pls look up that list of words – no, I really mean it – and then we can have a discussion. Also when you answer the questions posed in post 48, pls try and answer from a human perspective not a religious one and let’s see where that takes us.

As for the “innate” human behavior – I have already addressed that issue and have explained why humans should and are capable of incorporating learned behaviors. Unless you feel diapering has a religious base too?

The dismissive attitude towards psychology is a little more puzzling – from “a man of science”, Dotty said? – because childhood trauma goes on to affect adults. If this is news to you, let me be the first to inform you. You can learn more in detail by visiting your nearest book shop.

Also, I don’t know where you have seen 10 yr olds regularly having sex in the West, but I hope you immediately informed the authorities even if you felt that was the norm.

this article is interesting at many levels. Interesting in that it is extremely disturbing. Interesting in that is is describing the power shakeel has over the kid - read that last line.
But it doenot answer any issue associated with child molestation, child pornography, incest or whatsoever.

If this hadnt appeared on Chowk, I woud I would say that this is what paedophiles of this world write and read (even that damned last line, can change its meaning) and we would all be arrested for this.

But, hey, these 78 posts indicated otherwise. It should have been expected that Urstruly would have taken this line, and the others lining up on the other side. Both respectfully circling each other, waiting for the other to slip up.

Re: # 51

Temper, temper, temper.... lol

Like I said in #38: ``Let`s see how many of them it takes to figure out the question and compose an intelligent answer without starting another tangent.``

FOCUS, babe.....FOCUS!



#52 by HP

``#51 by temporal
That was not necessary!``

I`m much obliged, Sir!

tasleemaat :-)~~



#54 by ShoreSahib

``Temporal Bhai,
Your question was brilliant and poignant considering NtfakeSyed`s perpetual cranial flatulence.``

Mehdi Hassan: ``ye dhuan sa...khaaan se uth`ta haaaaaiiiii...``

siiiiigh....I couldn`t have found anything so befitting SS`s state if good old Mehdi Hassan hadn`t crooned it so magnificently.

Kyon Bhai-Bunno, cigar pe baith k huqqa p rahay thay kya?
ya huqqay ki chilum pe baith k cigar?

AGAIN:
Like I said in #38: ``Let`s see how many of them it takes to figure out the question and compose an intelligent answer without starting another tangent.``

:-)~~