Thursday, October 09, 2008

Prostitution, disguised.

I've blogged before that there are four different types of marriage available to men and women, here, in the Sandbox. The "misyar" marriage is a temporary marriage and according to this article, "In many misyar marriages the husband usually doesn't live with the woman and tends to visit his wife whenever it is convenient." The definition for a "misyar" marriage according to Wikipedia is here. It is a bit confusing as to how valid or invalid the actual marriage is, as Wikipedia would lead one to believe that it is as valid as any other "marriage contract," but according to today's article in the Arab News the contract for a "misyar" marriage does not have to be registered with the court.

Regardless of what the definition is, it would appear to me that some "misyar" marriages are really nothing more than legal prostitution. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I guess... Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever it is that they want to do. Still, it is somewhat of a surprise that "legal prostitution" would be allowed, here. On the other hand, if there was no "misyar" marriage then unrelated men and women would be guilty of the crime of "being in seclusion," or "khulwa" and we cannot have that, now, can we?!?

You can't tell me that the "minority of women" who "have turned misyar into a business" are nothing more than paid - oh, how to put this delicately - screw it - they are prostitutes. I am certainly not begrudging them that they have decided to engage in the world's oldest profession. Hey, if they are making money and that is what works for them - sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do...

Siham has been married six times (once traditionally, and five misyars). She says, "men who are 'scared to death of their wives' are exactly the type she seeks" for her misyar marriages. "I only marry men who are afraid of their first wives and are financially well off." When she hears that a man is looking for a misyar marriage she checks two things, "whether he is wealthy and whether he is afraid of his wife." She takes nothing less than SR30,000 for a dowery, which is $8042.89, in U.S. currency. Forget the money aspect for a second; I want to know how she finds out that the men are afraid of their wives. What kind of man - a "real man" - would admit to being afraid of his wife? Anyone???

Since the husband doesn't usually live with the woman in a "misyar" marriage, he "tends to visit his wife whenever it is convenient." I guess another way of saying that would be to say he "visits when the urge strikes." Siham convinces that her husband-to-be "that no financial support will be required of him, and that all the marriage will cost him is the dowry." Sucka! After the marriage she "reveals her true color" and when her husband "wants to visit her (once in a week or two) she fleeces anything between SR5,000 and SR7,000 from him." Hmmph. That is some expensive nookie! SR5,000 is $1,340.48; SR7,000 is $1,876.67. Still, it is quite a bit less than what the former governor of New York was paying.

Siham makes her husband - let's call him John - pay all her expenses, and if he won't then he doesn't get any... She says, "I believe men have been taking advantage of women in misyar marriages. [Duh! Ya think?] They take so much from women and give so little, but I've turned the tables on them." Hard to argue with that logic. There are periods of "unemployment" however in Siham's profession. After she gets divorced she has to complete the "waiting period of four months and 10 days" before she can marry the next unsuspecting sucka named John.

9 comments:

  1. You're completely right -- it's societally-sanctioned, completely hypocritical prostitution. Seems only Westerners have that view though.

    XX

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lots of "hypocritical" on this side of the world, Amanda. I tried to get to your site - I can't - it is blocked by Websense. But, of course it is! I've got plenty I could add to this comment, on a personal level, but it would not be wise for me to do so. Thank you so much for stopping by, Amanda. I'll try to remember to check your blog out when I'm in the States, next!

    ReplyDelete
  3. When i first saw an article on misyar marriage in India, i thought the article was an april fool prank...i am not sure this exist in muscat where i live now...

    i dont have any words to comment on this...as the first commentator puts , it is purely hypocritical..

    ReplyDelete
  4. the previous comment was from me...

    ReplyDelete
  5. As Amanda Brooks, put it, Jupiter, "Societally-sanctioned." You cannot have a man and an unrelated woman together - anywhere - but it is okay to let them get married for purposes of sex. It is beyond me. Just beyond me...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sabra,

    Oh yes, lots of hypocrisy over here too! No doubt about that.

    XX

    ReplyDelete
  7. I guess this is what id expect from a government that's built on the desire of a man. Sabra, do women have a voice in your country.

    Also, i heard that there was this woman that was raped by a group of men,but instead of punishing the rapists, they punished her with jail and lashings. Have you heard of this?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I post on all of the women who get raped an then jailed and lashed, Dalton J.

    One young woman is in jail now and getting 100 lashes for being raped by four men. Oh. She's pregnant, too. Nice. The men? What happened to them? Nothing that I know of.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Sabra. I grew up where you're at. In sunny Riyadh, pampered and protected in a compound (read Western oasis designed to create a bit of home away from home). It aint Kansas, but no one says nothin.

    Women were far freer in Saddam's Iraq than even today in Saudi. But hey, they're our allies, right? We've got issues with Syria, Iran etc (all freer than Saudi, by the way), but the good ol' US aint got nothin to say against generous Saudi Arabia.

    Speaking of hypocrisy...

    ReplyDelete

 
Site Meter