Tuesday, 17 June 2008

Religion and Recreational Sex: sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2130668/Male-priests-marry-in-Anglican-church

Male Priests' Civil Partnership Blessed in Church by Rector

This could never happen in a mosque because the Koran specifically states that homosexuality is a sin to be punished, in rather the same manner as adultery.


HOW EXTRA-MARITAL RECREATIONAL SEX IS PUNISHED IN ISLAM

4 witnesses would be required in the case of gay and lesbian lewdness as well as adulterous wives.

The relevant verses in the Koran are:

4:15 (lewd acts between women)

4:16 (lewd acts between men)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html

24:1 (adultery - punishable by 100 lashes)

Those that defame honourable women and cannot produce 4 witnesses in their defence (who also falsely accused that woman) shall be given 80 lashes.

If a husband accuses his wife but has no witnesses except himself, he must swear 4 times by God that his charge is true, calling down upon himself the curse of God if he is lying. But if his wife swears 4 times by God that his charge is false and calls down His curse upon himself if it be true, she shall receive no punishment.


http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/024.qmt.html

You can't say fairer than that, can you?

In theory extra-marital recreational sex is all forbidden and punishable horribly. In practice, under a liberal interpretation, acts of homosexuality and adultery are tolerated provided it is not flaunted in front of more than 3 witnesses (making a threesome legally unproblematic and, dare I say it, halal, even if any of the three participants were prone to self-accusation). The same could be said of a threesome (of any combination) with no more than three voyeurs, witnesses or observers, call them what you will.

If we now have sharia-compliant investments, then I see nothing haram in organising sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies, whilst adding to the gaiety of the nation and the umma.

It is a shame the Christians didn't quite got round to articulating this sort of thing in a Word of God Book coming from one source, ie Muhammad. Instead, their moral code comes from the Old and New Testament, written by different people over the ages. No wonder schism is endemic and inevitable when Christian ideology is so messily articulated.

Old Testament: Leviticus
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Leviticus&chapter=18&verse=22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Leviticus&chapter=20&verse=13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New Testament: Romans 1:26, 27

http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Romans%201:26-31

It does after all say in the Old Testament that homosexuality is an abomination, but some New Testamenters - such as the gay priests who had their civil partnership blessed in church by another clergyman - seem to think this does not apply to them.

Perhaps it is because New Testamenters like to think that the Old Testament cannot apply to them in any of its literal and illiberal entirety, when so many transgressions we now regard as minor to trifling could lead to the death penalty?

For an impressively long list of sins which Old Testamenters regard as deserving of the death penalty, see http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Bible.html

In contrast, under a liberal interpretation, the Koran is a model of mercy and clemency.

The Koran restates the Ten Commandments and adds a few more of its own. No rational Muslim would argue that an act specifically stated to be a sin in the Koran could possibly deserve the blessing of any Islamic clergy! The most that could be argued in an Islamic context is the "ask us no questions and we'll tell you no lies" principle, which would be the perfect compromise between puritanical censoriousness and the libertarian ideal.

In these circumstances, homosexuality would be tolerated, provided it is not flaunted. How can anyone reasonable, whether religious or atheist (like me) deny that this is the perfect compromise? Or that the Islam of the Koran is structurally sounder, better-drafted, more coherent and sexually liberated than Judaism or Christianity?

Monday, 9 June 2008

"It is the mother's"

The Chinese do not call each other "bastard" as a term of abuse, it is more subtle than that. What they in fact say, literally translated, is "it is the mother's" ("ma te" are the two syllables that convey this sentiment.)


What is the mother's? Filling in the blanks and completing the sentence, the full translation is this: "The problem I am having with you originates from the morals and behaviour of your mother."


For the sake of balance, I quote Shakespeare's apparently sympathetic defence of bastards through the words of the villainous Edmund in King Lear:

EDMUND:

Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me,
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moon-shines
Lag of a brother? Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madam's issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got 'tween asleep and wake? Well, then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our father's love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate: fine word,--legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

The 70:30 Ratio

A message from Jill Rhodes-Harvey, sent 03 June 2008 18:36:


I'm astonished at your blog, or I presume it's your blog, and ask you to remove my name, agency name and url link from it, and any other literature pertaining to my agency, including quote about the imbalance of data-base introductions agencies.

It is quite apparent from further reading this blog, that you, or whoever has written it has absolutely NO idea whatsoever about dating...Perhaps that is why you produced a blog? As for my agency suggesting same sex relationships to my clients..I am fuming that this has been posted on this so called blog!

I have copyright to ALL text on my website and YOU have copied it, if you do not remove it I shall report this matter to the relevant people for copyright in this country.

Jill Rhodes-Harvey


I must say I was a little taken aback by Jill's conclusion that I must know nothing of dating and romance just because I happen to have a blog, as if bloggers are by definition all date- and charm-deficient. My admirers, both male and female, are legion. I just haven't found the right one yet.

As for copyright about her revealing statistic that the male/female ratio is 30/70 in most introduction agencies, I would point her to the following link:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy/c-manage/c-useenforce/c-useenforce-use/c-useenforce-use-exception/c-useenforce-use-exception-research.htm

NON-COMMERCIAL RESEARCH AND PRIVATE STUDY

It is allowed to make single copies or take short extracts of works when used for research that you do not make any money from or from private studying, educational course or even as a hobby.

I will have Jill know that the subject human relationships is precisely what I am studying!

I see no commercial reason why Jill should not turn her introduction/search agency into one that recommends same-sex partnerships for women who don't manage to "pull" a man. After all, if the statistics are so apparently hopeless, then we women must be warned against our profligate practice of mislaying and discarding our male partners, or be faced, on the one hand, with the option of a lonely old age without a loving male partner and, on the other other, the option of embracing another woman just as difficult, critical and demanding as ourselves for the purposes sexual sustenance and companionship.

The Third Way is of course that of paying thousands of pounds to introduction agencies for the privilege of being one of the 70 women competing for the attentions of 30 men or else pay a search fee (which would be extra).

Surely Jill is not wishing to suppress this Ugly and Appalling Truth?

Under 40s women must be prepared for this bleak prospect if they do not appreciate their menfolk - however flawed - properly.

However, if they are that way inclined, they should then be in the fortunate position of anticipating the pleasures of being received into the intimate embrace of another woman ...

We women must, as Baden-Powell exhorted his boy scouts, be prepared!

Tuesday, 3 June 2008

Introduction agencies - a frightening statistic

I came across this frightening statistic today:

"With data-base introduction agencies, there can be an imbalance of male and female members. A split of 70% women to 30% men, which in reality is not ideal, as both men and women will find that kind of split too diverse to give quality introductions."

http://www.rh-i.co.uk/

This sounds uncomfortably like a hint that women in their 40s should consider a same-sex partnership to see if they like it, if nothing else male presents himself.

After all, many women and men do not really like members of the opposite sex and only regard them as a means to an end: a status symbol, a sex object, a provider, cook, companion, servant, butler, housekeeper, driver, nurse, nanny etc. If left to themselves, men might really prefer the company of other men and women the company of other women when they are not thinking of sex, making do with commercial sex from time to time when the urge arises, supplied by gigolos, toy boys, escort girls and hostesses.

The establishment below has been highly praised by someone known to me. If any of you are disposed to sample the pleasures of commercial sex, please do let us know how you get on.

http://www.houseofdivine.com/

It is possible then that women would now be subjected to -

(a) a taste of their own medicine when they have to try getting along with someone as critical and demanding as they had been of their mislaid and discarded male partners

(A misogynist joke: QUESTION: What is the difference between a robber and a woman? ANSWER: A robber says "Your money OR your life?" A woman demands: "Your money AND your life!")

(b) be obliged to resort to a same-sex relationship because there are simply no decent men to be found after women reach a certain age. (It seems they are all taken or interested in much younger women.)

Perhaps it would not be too indelicate for Jill Rhodes-Harvey, contactable on 0845 226 3189, to suggest to her 40+ women that they could make a valid lifestyle choice, ie a same-sex partnership with other 40+ women, for those careless enough to have lost their husbands or discarded them?

Then, more of them could become satisfied customers if they manage to get on with each other better than they did with their lost or discarded male partners.

It is just a thought.

Feminist Chauvinism

Vote: Should men question chauvinistic feminism that allows them to simultaneously claim to be

1) equal to men
(2) superior to men AND
(3) the weaker sex in need of greater protection?

http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=110

If single parenthood has its origins in feminism and female emancipation, is it conceivable that women are partly to blame for the decline and fall of Western civilisation?

After all, they want to mother everything, don't they, and get offended if you point out the irrationality of their emotions?Are we not, as a society, morbidly infantilised and over-feminised? Is not Health and Safety run almost exclusively by bossy, over-nannying safety-obsessed women?

Perhaps there is a connection between the oppressiveness of health and safety regulation and women who wait until nearly the end of their fertility to have children because they had to develop their careers. (The loss of an only child by a woman who has come to the end of child-bearing years is of course a greater disaster for her than a woman still young and capable of having more children.) This is understandable, but what sort of attitude does it create about taking calculated risks? Is it healthy for boys to be tied to mother's apron strings and be seen jogging with their trendy mums?

Should European men be seen wearing baby slings and other baby-carrying implements, just like female peasants in third world countries? Is masculine pride now completely a thing of the past?

Cato: "As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors."

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/lesson10.html

Does a civilisation deserve extinction because it is irrational, infantilised, sclerotic and risk-averse, when it allows the quality of its next generation to be progressively impaired by its continuing tolerance of single-parenthood, illegitimacy and chauvinistic feminism - the kind of chauvinistic feminism that is allowed to claim that women are simultaneously

(1) equal to men
(2) better than men yet
(3) require and demand the financial support of men - such as Alyce Faye Eichelberger - without fear of contradiction?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-562067/Dont-mention-wife-John-Cleeses-amicable-divorce-but.html

Cleese has already agreed to give his estranged wife a £750,000 apartment on the Upper East-Side of New York. But because the warring couple have fallen out over renovation work there, she was this week staying nearby in Manhattan's most prestigious hotel, The Carlyle, where rooms can cost up to £7,500-a-night.The 63-year-old Miss Eichelberger, a psychotherapist, who married John Cleese in December 1992, is demanding half of his earnings since their wedding.

And in the meantime, her lawyers have submitted court documents that specify she needs an astonishing £71,250 a month to live on, this includes £2,000 for clothes, £5,000 on gifts, entertaining and holidays, and £1,000 for eating out.

Cleese has already agreed to give his estranged wife a £750,000 apartment on the Upper East-Side of New York. But because the warring couple have fallen out over renovation work there, she was this week staying nearby in Manhattan's most prestigious hotel, The Carlyle, where rooms can cost up to £7,500-a-night.Not bad for a woman who was living with her two sons in a third-floor London council flat when she met Cleese 18 years ago.

Muslim marriage contract anyone?

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2009/03/muslim-marriage-contract.html