Gang-Raped Victim in Saudi Arabia gets 90 Lashes, Some Rapists get 10 Months

Yes that happens in the U.S. The difference is that it isn't culturally acceptable.

In the incidents I was talking about it certainly wasn't socio-economic. It was because of the customs, and what was expected in that culture. I call it enslavement when the woman can't walk around because the man of the house is taking a nap, and footsteps might wake him. She has to prepare his meals, address him formally at all times, bow down to his wishes, and place her own desires down in favor of his at all times. Maybe in the lower socio-economic rungs of the society it was different. But in the middle to upper rungs, that was normal. It wasn't 100% of course, but it was definitely accepted and cultural.

 

so you are saying this is typical in Saudi Arabia? Most women can't walk around their houses when the husband sleeps? I'd lke to know if this is the norm....

That is a bit much. In fairness, until very recently, even here the woman was expected to cook the meals, take care of the kids, and sacrafice her career for the family. And ya know, I still think that's mainstream american culture - and only in urban areas do you see that there is some difference.

 

Do you get out much?



What happens to the family that tries to get by on a single income today? Their expenses would be a little lower because they can save on childcare and taxes, and, if they are lucky enough to live close to shopping and other services, perhaps they can get by without a second car. But if they tried to live a normal, middle-class life in other ways—buy an average home, send their younger child to preschool, purchase health insurance, and so forth—they would be left with only $5,500 a year to cover all their other expenses. They would have to find a way to buy food, clothing, utilities, life insurance, furniture, appliances, and so on with less than $500 a month. The modern single-earner family trying to keep up an average lifestyle faces a 72 percent drop in discretionary income compared with its one-income counterpart of a generation ago.

Combine changes in family income and expenses, and the biggest change of all becomes evident—on the risk front. In the early 1970s, if any calamity came along, the family devoted nearly half its income to discretionary spending. Of course, people need to eat and turn on the lights, but the other expenses—clothing, furniture, appliances, restaurant meals, vacations, entertainment, and pretty much everything else—can be drastically reduced or even cut out entirely. In other words, they didn’t need as much money if something went wrong. If the couple could find a way—through unemployment insurance, savings, or putting their stay-at-home parent to work—they could cover the basics on just half of their previous earnings. Given the option of a second paycheck, both could stay in the workforce for a few months once the crisis had passed, pulling the family out of their financial hole.

But the position today is very different. Fully 75 percent of family income is earmarked for recurrent monthly expenses. Even if they are able to trim around the edges, families are faced with a sobering truth: every one of those expensive items—mortgage, car payments, insurance, childcare—is a fixed cost. Families must pay them each and every month, through good times and bad; there is no way to cut back from one month to the next, as can be done with spending on clothing or food. Short of moving out of the house, withdrawing their children from preschool, or canceling the insurance policy altogether, they are stuck.

In other words, today’s family has no margin for error. There is no leeway to cut back if one earner’s hours are cut or if the other gets sick. There is no room in the budget if someone needs to take off work to care for a sick child or an elderly parent. Their basic situation is far riskier than that of their parents a generation earlier. The modern American family is walking a high wire without a net.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010682.html



D&D. Unbalanced.

 

I am saying that it is wrong to lash a woman 90 times for getting into a car with a man.

You keep going back to saying it is ok to challenge the law but not that punishment. Yet at other times you will say that the law may have reason for preventing rapes etc.

You seem to be arguing just to argue and don't have a clear cut idea what you are really arguing for.

She can challenge the law, or not. But a law might be ok given the differences of culture. But certainly the severity of punishment is not ok.

Laws against murder might be ok. But I don't have to like the death penalty.

 

Yeah cause that's exactly what I was saying. Show me where I said we need to do something about them? We needto make them like America? Where? Oh that's right...I didn't.

They live in their own world, and as barbaric as it might seem at times. It's how they live. There's worse things happening in other places of the world. But this, is really bad.

Saudi can just be...imo, too extreme. But I love living there.

 

Uhh, that doesn't mean a thing to this conversation. We're saying that if a joint is 4 years in Saudi, then rape should be way more than 5 years.

 

hotballa,

Let's assume for your sake that this girl is an innocent little thing and was forced a a baseless threat. She was presented with two options:

1) An empty threat with no evidence could go to her family. Authourities can NOT do anything to her if there is no evidence. What's the absolute worst thing that can happen to her? Her brother beats her... Which is not good, until you compare with option #2...

2) Get in a car with a guy who threatened you. You don't know him... or you know him through the internet. Right now, the most important piece of info about him is that he blackmailed you into getting into a car and, as things go in Saudi, no one can know of you're whereabouts..

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........?

I'm not trying to pin down how many lashes she deserves or how many years or whatever.... I'm just saying this girl's story just doesn't add up to "I'm an innocent little girl who was forced into the car."

Oh and whether you like the law or not, that IS the law in Saudi and YOU breaking it when you think it's wrong doesn't mean it will or should be ammended. These people are not forced to live in Saudi and they are not forced to break the rules. She accepted the risk and she KNEW she was accepting a risk. To illustrate... if I'm in a theatre and chewing gum is not allowed... I will probably chew gum, but I know I'm taking the risk of serving the punishment of chewing gum (being thrown out). I may not like the rule, but there was a sign at the door and I chose to buy a ticket. So boo-hoo if I get kicked out.

 

I've only skimmed the last two pages of this thread, but are you for real? Oh wait, that's right. You're not. We've been through that.

You did lie, NewYorker. You said you were Indian and then you said you weren't. And then you said you were and haha! weren't we stupid for believing you. Somewhere in there you lied.

You act like you want to have serious discussions and then when someone takes you seriously you tell them to "chill" because it's only an internet forum. And you act like your signature about ignoring you somehow absolves you of the most stupid behavior we've ever seen on these boards. And I'm here to tell you that that is quite a feat.

You're an ass.

I'm not jomama's "girlfriend." In fact, I find his obsession with Jeff Gannon to be among the most annoying things that ever happen here, regardless of how good a joke it was the first time.

But you're a stupid ass. You're seriously worse than Jorge or basso and that is really, really freaking bad.

You either really care about the stuff you post here and then retreat into this "chill, it's a forum" thing when you get whipped or you just pretend to care about the stuff you post here and then b**** about the almighty evil of "PC" when you get whipped. Either way, both ways, you get whipped. Always.

And regardless of anything you say now, you DID lie in the Macaca thread and you made an incredible fool of yourself in the process. And you've been a laughingstock ever since. I do, however, think it is awesomer than hell that this site's greatest George Allen apologist also believes it is racist to question Saudi Arabia's policy of beating rape victims.

I've been wondering why this thread which I never bothered to click on before was so long and kept coming back. Color me disappointed.

 

Well - at least you aren't saying i support rape and resorting to name calling like many other posters.

Why am I taking these positions. Well, I think most people aren't really interested in finding out - but would rather just assume it's because I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing - what that really means I have no idea, and perplexes me probably more then I do you.

Anyway - there's no point in me defending my stance - I've tried to explain but i think people here have already made a judgement they are comfortable with and not interested in debating that. If you are, we can certainly talk....but I think you've already made your judgements.

By the way - you say it's wrong for a woman to get 90 lashes, what about the guy she got in the car with (who didn't rape her) and was sentenced to 90 lashes as well.

Why is it ok for the woman to not get 90 lashes but no one complains how her companion (or as she calls it - her "blackmailer) got 90? Some reports show he was raped as well. Seems inconsitent to me.

 

Mike Tyson got sentenced for 6 years for rape and served only 3.

And a joint in the U.S. can be 15 years.

So what's your point again?

 

What has convinced you that the rape victim deserved 90 lashes? Stop repeating your bull**** arguments with your fuzzy logics now. Would you please explain to us why you are so sure that the woman has committed a crime? Were you at the crime scene? You must be there since you are so sure that the woman has voluntarily jumped into the car to have fun with the rapists, right? So why were you there and what have you done there on that night? Be a man, don't dodge the tough questions anymore.

 

You called them a bunch of camel herders! That's hilarious. But what's it like living with a bunch of camel herders? Do they smell? Do they carry whips around to whip the ladies?

Every world is barbaric. That's all I'm saying. If you don't think so - look at houston - was the murder capital of the nation at one point. And that's not barbaric?

What's barbaric?

Ya know, people are people. We're no better than the Saudis, the Chinese, or anyone else for that matter - except the Irish - we're definitely better than them. Now those guys are goat-herding barbarians!

 

Look jo mamma's byiatch - no reason to drag basso and jorge name's through the mud here.

I'm sorry my messing with you left such deep scars. Really - who knew people would think I was white - guess I'm the one who got colored wrongly. Anyway, I really didn't mean to mess with your mind. I formally apoligze to anyone who got confused and felt foolish and has lingering bitterness about me saying I was white as a sarcastic remark to those who said I was a twinkie or must be half-white for my views.

Now, let me help you out. Do you know that people resort to personal attacks ("you're a stupid ass") for instance - when they have no other way to bring them down????

You see, you think I'm an imbecile. That's fine. But if you really felt that way deep down inside - you wouldn't have posted. You would just ignore me and shrug your shoulders. But know, you can't do that. You see - people like macgreat is on my ignore list....because that's what you really do with the imbeciles - you just ignore them unless there isn't any other way. But you're post - it shows how much you really do respect me. You admire me - because if you didn't, and you really truly thought I was an ass, you'd have me on ignore or at the very least, just ignore anything I write.



.

 

Stop lieing douchebag. Do you seriously believe that anyone here still buy your ignore list bull**** now? How funny that you whinned about other people calling you names and then you called those people 'imbeciles' in your next paragraph. Do you admit that you are the definition of a hypocrite now? Don't hide behind the ignore list bull**** anymore. Be a man and answer my questions for once. I have a lot of tough ones for you in this thread.

 

I love this whole 'if you are interested in debating, we can certainly talk' but 'if you really truly thought I was an ass, you'd have me on ignore.'

You are defending the idea of beating a rape victim. First, that makes you an ass. And second, no I will not ignore it. That's freaking repulsive. I was being polite by just calling you an ass for it.

And you're totally lying about the macaca thread. Nobody thought you were white through some kind of misunderstood sarcastic comment and you know it. You wanted everybody to think you were Indian so you said you were. Then you wanted everybody to think you were white so you said that. Then you called lying about your race some kind of weird internet experiment. It didn't "mess with me." It just made you look like an idiot.

 

I guess I am an a$$ too.


You have got to be able to separate the two events in this case, the guy who was blackmailing this girl was NOT one of the rapists, in fact he got raped himself. I'm sure if he was the guy who had kidnapped/forced her into a secluded area and raped her then the sentencing may have been different, then if this woman got lashings the situation would be one of a rape victim getting punished for being a victim.

Example: A woman gets raped in an alley, a paramedic comes to help after being called in, the woman mad at men in general, kills the paramedic. If the woman gets convicted of manslaughter, she's not being punished for being a rape victim…

Case facts: (based on the little info i got on the net)
The guy who also got raped said he was just there at the scene and tried to help the woman.
The woman said he was blackmailing her; therefore someone was lying.
The courts ruled they were having a relationship out of marriage so they both got lashings for being in a car alone.

You have to be able to separate the two different sets of circumstances in this case...

Even the woman herself is not upset on the lashings she might get…rather she is furious over the light sentencing of those rapists.


I would think that the statement that this woman is getting punished for being a rape victim is false, based on the facts in the case..................…am I correct?

 

You guys came into that macaca thread all high and mighty that George Allen was a racist because of the macaca thread. I said hey, it's just one comment - how can you judge a man on one word? People make mistakes.

The response was that I must be white. How ironic that those who would judge a man as racist on one word would also judge the color of another's skin based on stance they were taking. Showing my race was to show that hypocrisy and how racist it was.

The reaction was to say I was half-white, not to believe me at all. Amazing. And these same people were calling some a racist? Talk about repulsive. So yeah, I decided to have some fun.

How is it that you can not be repulsed by that? Maybe you were one who also felt that I wasn't Indian because of the fact I was taking the stance that George Allen wasn't a racist, and to acknowledge the fact that I am - would show your own dicriminatory thinking - which you are unable to handle. So hey, why not attack me and debase me - that's much better than to face the prospect that you aren't riding such a high horse after all.

My target was those who were doubting my race in the first place - to me, it was pretty clear what I was doing. But I guess if you didn't get it, if you failed to comprehend it, you'd have the reaction you are having.

Frankly, my race shouldn't matter - but it does, and that's what is really sad. Think about it Mr. Jones.

 

He is not interested in debating the case - only in spining it to attack me. It's some sort of personal hang-up he has from a previous thread.

 

Yes its wrong for any person to get lashed 90 times for getting into a car with someone of the opposite sex.

 

After 14 pages this is what we figured out?