April 29th, 2012, 05:24 AM #1
April 29, 2012 Egypt may soon allow men to have sex with dead wives
Egypt | Sexual Intercourse | Death | Laws | The Daily Caller
The Islamist majority in Egypt’s parliament introduced a bill this week that would legally allow husbands to have sex with their deceased wives up to six hours after their death, the Daily Mail reports.
Really some SICK Mo Fo's over there.
April 29th, 2012, 07:33 AM #2
Wonder how many perverts will kill their wives so they can try this outThe propeller is just a big fan in front of the plane used to keep the pilot cool. When it stops, you can actually watch the pilot start sweating.
April 29th, 2012, 12:36 PM #3
Andrew Sullivan points out that there is zero evidence that such a bill ever existed. One reader comments,Regarding the necrophilia story - apparently there is zero confirmation that this is true. Numerous people, including Sarah Carr, a journalist who I respect and trust, wrote into the Daily Mail to contest the reporter's story (see her comment on the article time-stamped 11:06):
If Lee Moran had troubled himself to do a little bit of research beyond translating an op-ed and a TV talking head, he would have discovered that in fact, a draft law to allow men to have sex with their deceased wives does not exist. If Mr Moran's googling had been more thorough he would have discovered that this rumour was started by a local wacko who, alas, has a public platform by virtue of the fact that he owns a satellite channel.
There is no evidence that such a bill exists or was under discussion in parliament at any point. Where's the video? Apparently this rumor was started by a TV personality famous for not being particularly accurate, the sensationalism of the story led it to be passed around on Twitter as if it were fact, and the Daily Mail - a true paragon of journalism - picked it up as well. (To be fair, so did Jezebel.) Please don't propagate this unsubstantiated crap.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
April 29th, 2012, 12:54 PM #4
Puts a new spin on "Honey, I have a headache"..."The world burns while Obama Tweets."
April 30th, 2012, 09:34 AM #5
The Daily Mail hed now reads:Egypt's 'plans for farewell intercourse law so husbands can have sex with DEAD wives' branded a 'complete nonsense'Alleged proposals to allow Egyptian husbands to legally have sex with their dead wives for up to six hours after their death have been branded a 'complete nonsense'.
The controversial new 'farewell intercourse' law was claimed, in Arab media, to be part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.
They reported it would also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to14 and the ridding of women's rights of getting education and employment.But sources inside the Egyptian Embassy in London have said the claims were 'completely false', 'forbidden in Islam' and 'could never imagine it happening'.
The source said the proposal, if it even existed, had not reached the parliament - although it was also admitted it could be the work of an extremist politician.
Although not officially rebutted, the claims that someone inside Egypt could introduce such a law provoked widespread scepticism.
Last edited by Theophylact; April 30th, 2012 at 09:38 AM.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
April 30th, 2012, 10:00 AM #6
Hell, even if it were true, it may be creepy but harmless.
April 30th, 2012, 10:52 AM #7
But the story isn't harmless. It was crafted by Al-Ahram to screw the anti-Mubarak forces, it was picked up by Al-Arabiya to help aid the military oligarchy in Egypt, it was spread by the Daily Fail to make Muslims look weird, and it was trumpeted by every right-wing moonbat in the US to beat up on the ragheads.
Maybe the Fail has corrected its story, but don't expect Chuckiechan's loony friends to.I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. --J.S. Mill
April 30th, 2012, 01:46 PM #8
Oh, I agree with you theo.
I am just talking about those who believe the story is fact. Were it even fact it would not matter one little bit to the body.
The political ends have an impact but even there it shouldn't.
Really some SICK Mo Fo's over there.
Women are treated like second class citizens when it counts (when they are actually alive) Whether their husbands make their lifeless corpse endure 6 hours of indignity pales by comparison to the 80 years of indignity they endured in life.
April 30th, 2012, 11:11 PM #9
I guess it's not much different than what our politicians put out which is, eventually ,proved to an exaggeration or just complete BS.
May 1st, 2012, 07:17 AM #10
May 1st, 2012, 07:19 AM #11
May 1st, 2012, 08:53 AM #12
If you see an article or web post about something truly weird and/or disgusting, and it happens to fit in perfectly with all your prejudices and/or political opinions, check it out before you pass it on. It makes you look bad when it turns out to be phony.
May 1st, 2012, 07:58 PM #13
May 1st, 2012, 08:57 PM #14
May 1st, 2012, 10:37 PM #15
May 2nd, 2012, 09:25 AM #16
Note that there has never been a published text of the supposed bill, nor even its number or author's name.
With Arizona's horrible "Ihre Papiere, bitte" law we know its author (Russell Pearce}, its source (Kris Kobach), its name (Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act), its number (SB1070), and all its provisions.
(You're not alone in this. David Brooks recently had a column in which he relied on a study that simply has never been published anywhere in a peer-reviewed journal, although it's referred to in a book by its self-praising author. But unlike you, Brooks gets big bucks for flogging misunderstood third-hand accounts of "scientific studies" and other unverified stuff.)
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By no1_vern in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 12Last Post: January 19th, 2009, 09:43 PM
By TrendyMartini in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 144Last Post: March 30th, 2007, 10:40 AM