From: vprasad@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Respect for women in India/Pakistan/Anywhere: "solution"?
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:34:07 GMT
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:

> What makes you think that some amount of legislation will make
> people respect others or prevent women from being raped ? Death
> penalty doesnt prevent people from murdering others. My point is
> that to *PREVENT* rape or other criminal behaviours, fundamental
> change in the way men and women think must occur. Punishment
> can *LIMIT* criminal behaviour of only those capable of thinking 
> beforehand what consequences their acts can bring forth.

	You have provided the answer yourself - legislation *is*
	meant to *LIMIT* criminal behavior and discourage it. *If*, 
	as a result of strict enforcement of the legislations, the 
	problems can be prevented, it is only well and good; but 
	the primary purpose is to limit crime to manageable levels.
 
	If *any* two people can have sex, you can bet, legislation or
	not, there is going to be *a lot of* rancor between people.
	I am, not without reason, afraid that existence of such a rancor 
	is a healthy breeding ground for crime to increase. I can foresee
	women and men taking to arms and killing each other - no one
	can prevent its progress to a point where men and women [or,
	in the case of homosexuals, (men and men) or (women and women)]
	are divided into two camps with unending animosity between
	each other.

	A government's primary purpose is to provide for the welfare 
	of its people - thus it has and must have a genuine stake in
        the health (physical as well as psychological) of its subjects. 
	It has to take all the necessary steps to prevent disasters such 
	as the ones I described above, by legislating (restrictions, if 
	you want to term it that way) and addressing the root cause of 
	such crimes. In this case, it happens to be the availability of 
	free sex, so stamp it out and make sexual exclusivity enforceable.

	By the way, just how much of credibility are you willing to give
	to a person who advocates free availability of narcotics to
	whoever wants it? One, who along your lines, says that a person
	is a "free, thinking" individual and if one wants it, hey, let him
	have it? And, as you said, "if I have a son, I will treat him
	as a free_thinking_individual (sic), and if he decides that he
	wants to have drugs, I would let him"? I can only see a nation of
	zombies in such a case. 

	These are NOT rhetorical questions. My point is, restricting 
	somebody isn't always a bad thing. Presence of a given crime
	even in the face of legislations to stamp it out, *does not*
	undermine the value of legislations and *does not* warrant to
	do away with such legislations completely. Am I really being
	too vague to understand?

> Any path that divides people into categories (believers and non
> believers, as in Islam) and treats sexes unequally (as in Islam)
> is not a solution to any problem. This world has people of many
> colors, beliefs, customs, hopes and desires. We must learn to
> coexist.  
 
	I have taken issue with particular statements in your followup
	to Khalid. My response has nothing to do with Islam - I am not
	knowledgeable about Islam and I don't care to know either. But
	I agree with you that people should learn to coexist with each
	other.

> I dont have a wife. If I ever have one, I will consider her a
> thinking, living human being and not as a possession.

	You are being too idealistic. I suppose, in you idea, thinking,
	living human beings do not have any committment to each other!!
	Treating a person as a human being and not as a possession, 
	is not mutually exclusive with trying to impose few restrictions
	on that individual, as you seem to imply. Try the father-son-drug
	scenario again here. However, it is hypocritical to restrict
	somebody while NOT practising what one preaches; so I would
	advocate restricting one's own sexual desires too.

> Without quoting religious texts, can you explain why incest
> is an unlawful behaviour. Haven't you heard of societies where
> incest was practised not long ago ? 

	I will give it a shot - genetics have shown us the ill-effects of
	inbreeding (which incest is). Don't try to tell me that absolutely
	no children would be born of such intercourses; and I say that a
	child with defective organs, has a right not to be born. Your (Not
	you, Prasanth, this is a generic pronoun) half-an-hour pleasure is
	risking the whole life of a completely different individual who
	is NOT involved in *your* decisions to have incestual intercourse.

	Plus, modern psychology has shown that incest causes considerable
	psychological damage to one of the partners involved in such
	actions; even when consensual; women are affected to a greater 
	extent than men.

	Third, I keep repeating this point, it causes jealousies within the
	family set up itself. We will now have a situation where a son is
	against his father, a daughter is against her mother etc. And the
	sad fact is, all of them *need* one another - all of them are feel
	cheated out of something, which they desperately need to lead a
	healthy life.

	Lastly, NO, I haven't heard of any societies which practised incest
	not too long ago - the only instance I have heard is that of
	Pharaohs of Egypt where brothers and sisters married each other;
	that was atleast 2000 years ago, which is *too long ago*. The only
	thing which approximates this 'incest' is the marriage between
	cousins in South Indian families - point two and three above are
	invalid, but point one remains! If you can come up with any info.
	regarding your claim, I'd be interested. I'd also be interested
	in how the general health over the generations in such a society
	was. I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that there will be some
	serious and crippling health defects affecting all people of such
	a society.

	You can refer to any genetics and psychology books on this subject	
	from your library.

>> With all its defects, I think sexual exclusivity is darned good idea.
> 
> Fine. Would you characterize that as an idea belonging only to
> Islam ?

	As I said, my replies have nothing to do with Islam.

	Siva Prasad.