How sad that you think girls who are pretty don't need personality or technique. Or that only ugly girls need to develop interests that are beyond the superficial. How about promoting the idea to girls of all looks that the world is an interesting place and they should considering actually "doing" instead of passively providing "looks."

I've always hated this assumption that if you object to the objectification of your gender, then you must be unattractive. This kind of thinking also assumes that if you are attractive, you aren't really intelligent.

I look at the young girls in the article as having their world narrowed to they point they can only see what is in the mirror - or pictures in a magasine. I look at the parents sending their girl children to camps like the one described as the same people who once said that education "ruined" girls for marriage. They are teaching their girls a value system that is skin deep and won't be around for the long haul.

Laurel - you are quite right about the mixed message that women get. Women are pushed to breast feed because if they don't - they are harming the baby. Then women are targetted by the cosmetic, porn and plastic surgery industries which inform not only her, but her partner, that she is now not desirable. Luckily those industries also provide the model to strive for and the mechanism to achieve it! (the mommy makeover)

Damned if we do - damned if we dont.

Sort of like the whole working mom versus SAHM issue.

The thing about rectums is that everyone has one.

Why do so many men seem so interested in accessing their female partner's but are so protective of their own?

I mean, when it comes to sex, we all have an asshole and if you aren't willing to take, should you really be demanding to give?

The article does not state whether sexual congress had taken place - it state that these girls wished to marry males who their own tribe disapproved of for husbands.

Women are NOT "gatekeepers" in any society where they are not at liberty to choose their partner.

The phrase "gatekeeper" implies women, and these girls, had some dominion over their bodies. That they could choose, rightly or wrongly, who they "let past the gate"

I don't mind women, or men, being criticised for the choices they make - but let's be clear - people have to have the right to "choose" in the first place.

As far as who has it worse in these countries? Try the whole society. Repressive societies are deadeningly harsh on their members. However, women in those societies are considered chattel far more than the men are. Keep in mind that it is always the MEN who do HONOUR KILLINGS. To my knowledge, women don't get to kill men and claim it was a honour killing, sanctioned by the traditional culture.

What happened to those girls was inhuman. If the victims were boys, or members of a different religion, or people with a different colour of skin, or people with different political views, it would be just as horrible.

What I don't understand is when these things happen to females, it is categorized as cultural, and when it happens to other groups - it is a human rights violation.

@Asehpe,

The Rwanda and European Jewish Holocaust prove my point. Very few people would argue that those things were simply cultural outbursts. There were a lot of reasons (excuses, ingredients) behind those tragedies, but I believe it is commonly held that this incidents WERE crimes against humanity - human rights violations.

It seems to me, an opinion, that the number of people who argue that genocides against a subgroup are a cultural artifact are very few in comparison to the number of people who want to say that honour killings of females are just that.

However - what if murdering women because of who they want to have sex with, or want to marry, or even if they are victims of rape, if these reprehensible actions are considered "human rights violations", then women, all over the world, might be able to argue for immigration sanctuary, right?

And that would be expensive.

I think this is part of the problem.

I read something about this a while ago. I think the story was in Iraq at the time. It is a regional (older) custom, not limited to just Iran. I doubt it is limited by religion either.

One of the explanations is that, yeah, it is a form of prostitution, but like child labour, it might be the only way women in restrictive environs can survive and take care of their family. A hold your nose and close your eyes solution to destitution (for the women) and immorality (for the men)

In other words, a legalistic way to get around the whole prostitution thing.