004.034 YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a wa
Comments
If you have sex with some bloke and expect something from him, apart from the pleasure of his company for the night, you are a kind of prostitute, aren't you?
You are just choosing to have your pay-off later when he marries you perhaps, or at the divorce settlement or when you inherit his property as his widow.
I am not saying there is anything bad in any of the above as long as both of you are getting what you thought you bargained for.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with equal bargaining, but I don't see how each position is limited by one's gender.
You may not think that one is superior to the other, but the very reason the woman is labeled a prostitute and the man the purchaser is because the negative connotations given to prostitution.
Women are expected to be filthy and low, just like prostitutes are seen as; men are expected to be the ones with money and the power, just like the johns are seen as.
In practice, both punter and prostitute are criminalised.
I am in favour of the legalisation of brothel-keeping.
At least prostitutes have the virtue reminding men that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Imagine if a prostitute came up to a punter and said: "You know when we last did some, er, "business" a few months back? Well, I'm now up the spout and knocked up. You better help me look after it or pay a contribution towards its upkeep."
He'd tell her where to go, wouldn't he?
"What we transacted was an ad hoc bargain for sex," he could point out. "If I am not your husband, the presumption should be that whatever I meant to transact was a bargain for sex. It was certainly not to assume the burdens of fatherhood."
So why the hell should the taxpayer pay up like lambs?