or something

was done to them, (or to a family member)? or hire someone else to do it, under state supervision. I realize this is not a realistic option in Iran, at least unless you leave out the sex, but in principle...

it is taken seriously and there is a lack of certain kinds of opportunity, but rape is EXTREMELY COMMON anytime a woman is alone and there are no witnesses. Since it will be her word against his and she will be held responsible for the sex (even by her own family usually) it is never reported or acted upon.

that the stereotypical feminist "caricature" who believes EVERYTHING is ALWAYS ENTIRELY the mans fault, and that men can NEVER had legitimate complaints about anything involving women is no fantasy. People sometimes forget.

men "pay" in a variety of ways for having "too much" interest in sex; do women (in Sweden and America, not Iran and Afghanistan) "pay" for having "too little" interest. Based on the gloating the answer would appear to be no.

it seems the problem of torture is completely solved: it never exists-by definition.

this is probably why the impulse to engage in it is so deeply rooted. Not a good thing, maybe, but not something that people are going to be rationally talked out of, either. I'm not saying societies shouldn't give up torture, I am saying that it probably is going to take more than rational argument for them to do so.

the fewer and more manageable problems all other things being equal.

rape.

by a man who genuinely gets off on it, in order to maintain true equality of crime and punishment. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

or any other insane medieval shithole. The US thanks to 51% of the population voting sanely, was able to save the world from Hitler and Stalin. Hopefully Europe can return the favor, in a cultural, economic and political sense.

a wife has no more right to force her husband to be faithful, with the help of the "police" (formally or informally i.e social disapproval) than a man has to force his wife to have sex with him. The relations, or lack of them, between consenting adults are their OWN BUSINESS and NO ONE ELSE'S. Theocratic sexual police states at least have the virtue of an absence of hypocrisy.

many of the proponents of criminalizing prostitution between consenting adults in the west deny that they are motivated by a desire to control sexuality and instead claim to be only trying to prevent abuse, etc.

in Moslem countries, or at least the traditional backwards parts of many of them, this is indeed the case: no "decent" woman is ever in this position AND if she is and is raped she can never say anything since she will be punished for the sex unless she can PROVE, with witnesses, that it was forced. The comment referred specifically to this situation and is accurate.

Actually it is, reconstruction was an attempt to force the south to grant blacks some civil rights, the south resisted and the north gave up. The fantasy of reconstruction oppressing southern whites is confederate propaganda which has been almost totally accepted, apparently.

just makes you sound irrational. There is a mountain of evidence, from a variety of sources, that women in conservative Moslem areas who decline to accept male offers of supervision/chaperoning are frequently subject to sexual abuse both as punishment and because they make themselves a target of opportunity due to the fact that they can be punished for sex and rape can't be proved without witnesses. If criticism of female supremacist insanity depends on total denial of reality then they will win.

Conservatives think they have the right to use force to compel everyone to do the right thing, and that any attempt to interfere with their right to do so is an attack on them. How do you split the difference on this? That said, we have to work towards our goals in the world as it is, so maybe Obama is doing the smart thing. Time will tell, I guess.

Because people think that when a man has sex, gay or straight, for money or not, he is an adult making a choice, not a persecuted victim unable to make a choice.

or who are bitches, should be barred from political office/partipation in public life/whatever or is it only men whose ability to function in any public role should be dependent on whether the opposite sex finds their behavior entirely pleasing.

The north invading the south to keep the country from breaking up is imperialism, but defending the right to hold half the population of your "invaded" "country" as slaves is self determination. I don't know what the south needs but there is still clearly something wrong with it.

Yeah that's right, blacks liked being slaves. It suited them, not good at rational planning and self control, need guidance and supervision, you know how it is(I think you are making my point better than I could).

The only reason the North did anything about slavery was because the south tried to break up the country because the north wouldn't stop hurting their feelings by calling slavery immoral. It turns out, actually, that their fears about anything practical actually being done about slavery were proablbly groundless given that after the war the south was allowed to establish a slavery-in-all-but name system without any interference from the north which lasted until the 1950s. It's interesting that the irrational sense of pride and obsession with rank and status that is probably both a necessary condition and an inevitable consequence of a slave system is what caused to the south to act in such a way as to bring about the end of (formal)slavery.

If it hadn't been for the federal govt they might still not have paved roads and electricity in poor areas...oh wait...