"The image hardly fits our idea of the happy couple�??s wedding picture - but this haunting photograph taken in Afghanistan graphically captures life for millions of girls given in marriage while under age. It shows Mohammed, 40, with his new 11-year-old wife, Ghulam. Taken by US photographer Stephanie Sinclair, it was named Unicef Photo of the Year yesterday.
Some 60million girls worldwide are married while still under age, according to the children�??s rights agency."
"The image is startling �?? a 40-year-old groom sitting beside his 11-year-old future bride. Photographer Stephanie Sinclair, who took the photo last year in Afghanistan, asked the pre-teenage bride what she felt on the day of her engagement.
�??Nothing,�?? said the girl, according to Sinclair. �??I do not know this man. What am I supposed to feel?�??"
So sad that little children have to put up with this shit.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
So sad that little children have to put up with this shit.
[/quote]
Sex isn’t an inherently damaging attack, like getting stabbed in the foot.
This has been going on since humans evolved from apes and there’s no reason why it should stop now. It’s just part of reality.
The girl in question is likely under no threat of physical or emotional harm, provided she grows up in a society where such practices are considered the norm.
People are capable of making full recoveries from horrendous physical injuries.
The way to harm someone irrevocably is to get them to believe that they’re a victim. Once you have them thinking that, they’ll never be anything else for the rest of their life.
If this is his first wife, then he’ll have to explain the whole thing about tampons, PMS, and all that chick crap that goes along with puberty. Have fun with that Mohammed.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
dk44 wrote:
So sad that little children have to put up with this shit.
Sex isn’t an inherently damaging attack, like getting stabbed in the foot.
This has been going on since humans evolved from apes and there’s no reason why it should stop now. It’s just part of reality.
The girl in question is likely under no threat of physical or emotional harm, provided she grows up in a society where such practices are considered the norm.
People are capable of making full recoveries from horrendous physical injuries.
The way to harm someone irrevocably is to get them to believe that they’re a victim. Once you have them thinking that, they’ll never be anything else for the rest of their life.
Mind over matter.
Nominalism.[/quote]
If it’s not inherently wrong would you oppose a move in the US to this type of practice? Sure, it’s not very likely, but would you?
I’m not defending the practice, but I want to point out that just because they are married it does not mean they are having sex. You must remember that these women are considered property, and the marriage is there to symbolize the transfer of the property. It is fully possible that Mohammed will not have sex with her until she is older. For now he just wants her to cook and clean and stuff.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If it’s not inherently wrong would you oppose a move in the US to this type of practice? Sure, it’s not very likely, but would you?[/quote]
If society began to accept this as the norm eventually we would be asking ourselves how unnatural it would be to marry 25-30 year old women.
It’s all a matter of cultural/religious evolution, those unfamiliar with the practice may oppose it at first but eventually it would become second nature. (As it is in Afghanistan evidently.)
Look back at our own culture, in the 19th century it was fairly common to wed girls as young as 14. Granted, a lot takes place ina girl’s life between 11 and 14, but it’s still pretty damn young by today’s standards(for us). If/when Afghanistan evolves and industrializes like we have over the last century, then you may see a shift in certain practices, such as the one in question.
Not trying to justify it, just pointing out that we only think it is wrong due to our societal norms. Most of the Muslim world claims to hate America because we do a lot of stuff which is forbidden by the Koran–alcohol, promiscuity, etc.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t endorse any of this crap. The guy is clearly abusing his position of power. I wouldn’t consider it rape though.
Anyway, the little girl’s fate is still a lot more dignified than the following:
[/quote]
This coming from the resident pedophilic rapist. I bet you got quite a chubby thinking about a holiday in Australia, huh? Then again, you can’t have the little girls arrested so it probably doesn’t hold the same charm as ass raping a little girl you can have thrown in prison.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
How nice that relativism can be used to justify raping children.
I am simply amazed.[/quote]
The occurrence of “adult-child marriage” was somewhat similar to the norm even in recent US history, surprising as that sounds. A more well known example of this came in the form of baseball great Ty Cobb, born on December 18, 1886. His mother (Amanda) was a mere 12 years old and his father (William) 20 years old upon marriage to one another. Two years after wedlock Amanda moved in with William at age 14 and Ty Cobb was born the next year. This appears to have been a very common practice during this period in American history. Considering society was experiencing a form of puritan social mores at the time such a practice would appear completely contradictory and of course shocking.
Yet this begs the question of whether or not, despite the puritanical atmosphere in late 19th-century America, were a plethora of Americans simply pedophiles or has modern Western culture over-extended childhood, creating the extreme immaturity now observable in teenagers today?
Admittedly, discovering the very young ages as well as the differences in ages among many newly weds during that period was quite a surprising jolt. Under the present circumstances, given the “extension of childhood” (brought on by a number of factors), it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to see what a 20 year old individual could see in a 12 year old. Perhaps the early mental and emotional maturity of individuals during that period, due to necessity under the then socio-economic circumstances of the time, would make a, say, fourteen year old of then appear as a twenty-three year old today in relation to their mental and emotional makeup?
Individuals within very era, with the knowledge that human beings are flawed creatures, appear to bring forth their own frailties and weaknesses. The differences in culture and mores of the period appear to only shift the direction of existentially questionable practices rather than completely extinguish them.
If someone grows up around this norm how is it wrong?
Is it not more wrong, as Nominal states, to turn people into victims and make them believe they are being wronged?
This has been going on for centuries and no one that posts on this board has any understanding of the practice and can only come at it from western norms – you are tainted.
Yes, it is all relative and you have no control over it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If someone grows up around this norm how is it wrong?
Is it not more wrong, as Nominal states, to turn people into victims and make them believe they are being wronged?
This has been going on for centuries and no one that posts on this board has any understanding of the practice and can only come at it from western norms – you ate tainted.
Yes, it is all relative and you have no control over it.[/quote]
If someone grows up owning slaves how is it wrong?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If someone grows up owning slaves how is it wrong?
[/quote]
Exactly. Its only when people learn that humans have a right to their own life that slavery is understood to be morally unjustifiable. Before that happened slavery was perfectly acceptable and was indeed the norm.
