why does Ms. al-Mutairi think that foreign sex slaves are better than foreign mail order brides?

In My Humble Opinion
1

this is in reference to this article Men should be allowed sex slaves and female prisoners could do the job - and all this from a WOMAN politician from Kuwait | Daily Mail Online about a not-so-pretty lady from Kuwait who thinks that importing enslaved non-Muslim female “prisoners of war” (lol…) would be a good solution to the problem of adultery in Kuwait.

Yeah, so why doesn’t she instead advocate having Kuwaiti men so inclined import free Muslim “secondary wives” from poorer countries (up to a total of 4, all legit) for a similar purpose? Perhaps with a nice contract saying that the children are not Kuwaiti citizens and so on.

2

EEEWWWW that is SICK-O.

She isn’t all that bad-looking, aside from bad skin. It’s the inside of her head that’s damn ugly. I’m not atheist, but I swear to Goddess the atheists are right most of the time. I mean, why is it always the religious folks with the ultra-crazy? Of course, the vast majority of Muslims don’t buy that sick shit, like the vast majority of Christians don’t buy that Camping guy’s end-of-the-world schedule. But when you see the major crazy, somehow it’s always due to somebody’s fringe take on religion… Dammit, I *like *religion, but these types give it a bad name.

3

Because she’s a monster? Assuming this isn’t something like Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, she should be shot.

4

The amusing part of all this is that the idea of multiple wives and sex slaves is perfectly OK according to the Old Testament.

5

Sex slaves aren’t the potential competition secondary wives would be and as such don’t threaten the small scraps of power wives are able to have in their society. A free Muslim secondary wife would be entitled to equal threatment in the family. Yeah, people are evil, but a lot of evil is basically self-interest in extreme situations.

6

even more amusing is your ignorance of the subject. OT does not allow “sex slaves”, it allows “forced marriage”. Which, upon divorce, requires granting the woman freedom.

That’s in sharp contrast to the practice of sale of female slaves/concubines from owner to owner and even of hiring them out as prostitutes, practiced by people whose scripture is not as related to OT as they would like to think.

7

got it, that makes sense.

8

Same thing. :rolleyes:

9

In a word, bullshit. I refer you to Leviticus 25, 44 through 46.

OK, maybe you prefer it in the prettier language of the KJV:

…but it means the same damn thing.

Have you read the Bible?

10

The woman’s clearly a fundamentalist moonbat, and a dangerous one at that, but seriously, what do her looks have to do with anything?

11

no shit, Sherlock, OT allows female slaves. It doesn’t allow you to have sex with them, though. To do so, as per Leviticus 19:20, meant to commit a mild form of fornication for which the man got heavily fined, having to sacrifice “a ram for a trespass offering”.

ETA: but yes, the owner of a female slave could forcibly marry her to himself or to somebody else. At which point she stopped being a “female slave” and became a free, lawfully wedded wife.

12

if she were prettier, she might have had found it easier to keep her husband’s attention. As is, maybe she should just demand that any female servants in their home get personally approved by her. To help her out in this endeavor, resumes of the 90 year old one-legged, hunchbacked survivors of skin cancer of the face should be placed to the top of the pile :wink: