posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
"Marriage".... requires the woman to consent to it. Which means it is not rape at all.
Can I ask a logical question and jump in here?
Living in the west, (not sure where you are) women consenting to marriage takes copious amounts of courting from a man. Copious amounts of time,
effort, dating, living together, knowing each other...and if you're lucky, she'll say yes after 2-5 years. There is nothing temporary about it at
all. And I'm speaking from a non-religious stand point.
Now let's put extreme sharia law into the equation. It would be safe to assume sex out of wedlock is blasphemous correct? Punishable by death or
forced marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong. The middle east doesn't have the luxury of westernized liberal sexual relations. However, one thing we
both have in common is this. Women are selective no matter what country they are from. It's part of natural selection and this can not be refuted.
Women are picky and this is fact.
Women are selective because they weed out the men with genetic imperfections in hopes of conceiving a child with the best possible genetic donor.
Keeping this in mind, how in a million years could a middle eastern woman bound to sharia law agree to a temporary marriage? It makes no sense and
defies the basic fundamental rules of natural selection. Women are not like men in terms of what causes attraction. Trust me, they are not picking you
out based on the size of your shlong. They want to know what you can offer on the table. They don't have the sexual freedom in sharia countries to
explore their physiological needs like they do here. I doubt the phrase one-night-stand means anything to them and wouldn't understand even if you
tried to explain.
So with that said, considering the gravity of having sex out of wedlock, it only makes logical sense that "temp" marriages means one thing. Sex.
And who made the fatwa? A man. What women in the middle east wants or would agree to temp sex? No one.