Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Sistani's Office Response to His Thighing Fatwa

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Hello everyone. So I just got off the phone talking to Sistani's office about the Thighing fatwa.

Just so we are on the same track I asked a few days ago about Sistani's fatwa on thighting (more specifically why it was removed) and you can check it here

I began by asking why the Fatwa was removed in the newer editions on Minhaj Al-Saleheen and the response was that they are NOT sure and it is surely for the benefits of Shia as Sistani sees fit.

As for why it was allowed in the first place, they answered because in Islam the rule of (جلب المصالح ودرء المفاسد) bringing the good and warding off the bad is in play, since Arabs used to practise female infanticide because females were seen as very undesirable for many reasons including economical reasons. They continued to explain that it is then better to marry off those girls to men who can spend money on them as their wives instead of burying them alive but since disallowing coitus without allowing other sexual acts would discourage men from marrying those girls, thighing was allowed alongside other non-penetrative sexual acts. I mentioned the age difference or the fact that this might have a lasting psychological effect on the minor girl but that didn't change anything and the ruling still stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Salam brother,  You have hit alot of good points in your post. I have thought many times about leaving the site because I think 'What's the point ? '. I do one post, which gets quickly spammed ov

Many people have responded to this thread saying it is haram due to x or due to y. If you are convinced that it is haram, then you already have your answer. For matters which are not clear t

Hello everyone. So I just got off the phone talking to Sistani's office about the Thighing fatwa. Just so we are on the same track I asked a few days ago about Sistani's fatwa on thighting (more

  • Advanced Member

Sounds like nonsense to me personally. What about consent which is a pillar of Islamic marriage? And some of them aren't even girls, but toddlers and babies. 

So in other words they say you can sell your baby daughter to perverts, because there are men who bury their babies alive. That's human trafficking paradise fatwa to me! 

I lost all respect for these scholars. 

Instead of saying you are not allowed to bury them or give them to perverts under the supposed "marriage" term. What kind of a marriage is that? Id say it's a satanic marriage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Ok. Let's put it in simple words.

To prevent men from murdering little girls, men are given permission to molest little girls with their penises. 

Murder or molestation! 

And we are being told that this is in fact for the sake of little girls to help them? 

Should we now be thankful about this?! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Ok. Let's put it in simple words.

To prevent men from murdering little girls, men are given permission to molest little girls with their penises. 

Murder or molestation! 

And we are being told that this is in fact for the sake of little girls to help them? 

Should we now be thankful about this?! 

 

It is for you to choose, do you want your daughter dead or do you want her mentally damaged for life

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
11 hours ago, pisceswolf96 said:

They continued to explain that it is then better to marry off those girls to men who can spend money on them as their wives instead of burying them alive but since disallowing coitus without allowing other sexual acts would discourage men from marrying those girls, thighing was allowed alongside other non-penetrative sexual acts

This does not quite make sense to me. Isn’t it usually the fathers that buried the girls alive (and we know in Islam you can’t marry a mahram)? 
Also did they mention that the fatwa was based on any narrations? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

This does not quite make sense to me. Isn’t it usually the fathers that buried the girls alive (and we know in Islam you can’t marry a mahram)? 
Also did they mention that the fatwa was based on any narrations? 

No. The man answering me was quite bothered by the question to begin with and he sounded rather anxious. I kinda want to call again or maybe call Sayed Rasheed Al-Husaini on T.V just to ask again because this is really bothering me to no end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, pisceswolf96 said:

No. The man answering me was quite bothered by the question to begin with and he sounded rather anxious. I kinda want to call again or maybe call Sayed Rasheed Al-Husaini on T.V just to ask again because this is really bothering me to no end.

Read this fatwa: 

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/63911-the-fatwa-of-ayatullah-khamenei/

It's a case of allowing a thing because there is no evidence to disallow it (a bit like the tatbir rulings). Someone one the forum quoted Ayatullah Khoei who said that. However I do think these unconditional rulings caused harm. They should have been conditional (like tatbir some scholars give conditional rulings).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Read this fatwa: 

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/63911-the-fatwa-of-ayatullah-khamenei/

It's a case of allowing a thing because there is no evidence to disallow it (a bit like the tatbir rulings). Someone one the forum quoted Ayatullah Khoei who said that. However I do think these unconditional rulings caused harm. They should have been conditional (like tatbir some scholars give conditional rulings).

My problem is that there isn't any situation where such sexual acts would be in the favor of the girl especially since her husband might be much older. Children can be psychologically scarred for life if they view any sexual material let alone being acted upon them when they can't even comprehend what's going on. Don't the Marjaa consider this and are they really that out of touch?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
35 minutes ago, pisceswolf96 said:

My problem is that there isn't any situation where such sexual acts would be in the favor of the girl especially since her husband might be much older. Children can be psychologically scarred for life if they view any sexual material let alone being acted upon them when they can't even comprehend what's going on. Don't the Marjaa consider this and are they really that out of touch?

I agree with your view that the ruling should disallow it. I don't think the maraja are out of touch on the issue of this being harmful, they are probably just presenting the fatwa in the manner that they are used to. This happens with other issues too and I think it needs to change. This is a very extreme example and it repulses most people but there are other rulings which use the same style (allowing things without mentioning frequently occurring conditions that would disallow them) which can mislead people who don't know how these rulings work.

One thing I will add is that spirituality can be a covering over bad actions. A bit like adding sugar to bad tasting food. If you tell people that something is allowed, mustahab etc then they actually start to think the act is no longer bad - or at least they get mixed feelings about it. If you mix an evil act with a spiritual experience, it confuses some people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, pisceswolf96 said:

No. The man answering me was quite bothered by the question to begin with and he sounded rather anxious. I kinda want to call again or maybe call Sayed Rasheed Al-Husaini on T.V just to ask again because this is really bothering me to no end.

Yes. You should.

Because the answer above is not satisfactory.

To be extremely honest. If I would give such an answer that means I don't know what I am talking about. 

A lot of scholars today, try to justify things so that it doesn't sounds weird. And that is what I think he did. But my concern now is that how can scholars so close to Sayyid al Sistani be so lame.

I mean, the answer is extremely simple and it was given by Sheikh Zakariyya and I shared the video also in previous thread. 

I would just say that the person who answered you this himself was unaware of it. And in order to save his face, he tried to give a justification.

But don't know if I am right.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) forgive me if this is not what the Sheikh said or he meant something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mango boy

I don't know how you would successfully manage to do this as it is haram to harm an innocent person both physically and psychologically. Some things are plausible, but they won't happen. Like a chimp randomly typing out the complete works of Shakespeare. I imagine this fatwa is meant to see where the line is drawn, as it only applies to ancient Arabia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
14 hours ago, pisceswolf96 said:

Hello everyone. So I just got off the phone talking to Sistani's office about the Thighing fatwa.

Just so we are on the same track I asked a few days ago about Sistani's fatwa on thighting (more specifically why it was removed) and you can check it here

I began by asking why the Fatwa was removed in the newer editions on Minhaj Al-Saleheen and the response was that they are NOT sure and it is surely for the benefits of Shia as Sistani sees fit.

As for why it was allowed in the first place, they answered because in Islam the rule of (جلب المصالح ودرء المفاسد) bringing the good and warding off the bad is in play, since Arabs used to practise female infanticide because females were seen as very undesirable for many reasons including economical reasons. They continued to explain that it is then better to marry off those girls to men who can spend money on them as their wives instead of burying them alive but since disallowing coitus without allowing other sexual acts would discourage men from marrying those girls, thighing was allowed alongside other non-penetrative sexual acts. I mentioned the age difference or the fact that this might have a lasting psychological effect on the minor girl but that didn't change anything and the ruling still stands.

I rarely lurk into SC lately, but logging in just to see this is the latest thread is crazy...

This shows the unability of Islamic authorities (and I fear Islam itself) to allow very coherent and needed revisions. To not be able to openly and clearly condemn this barbaric, cruel and dirty practice, and moreover to accept it and consider it halal from a fiqhi perspective is the perfect example of dogmatism's failure at a moral level.

I'm not a moral relativist in its most essential form (because of many of its unevitable logical flaws), but there are morally good things humans cannot speak against, and morally bad things humans cannot speak in favour of, in any circumstance and in any way, and will never find any justification, globally, universally and historically, for this. Thighing is the perfect example of this.

Killing babies is bad, and to allow other atrocities to avoid that isn't morally justifiable. Merelt because by that rule of thumb, you can justify almost anything. Let's make anything that isn't worse than killing babies halal. Nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

Yes. You should.

Because the answer above is not satisfactory.

To be extremely honest. If I would give such an answer that means I don't know what I am talking about. 

A lot of scholars today, try to justify things so that it doesn't sounds weird. And that is what I think he did. But my concern now is that how can scholars so close to Sayyid al Sistani be so lame.

I mean, the answer is extremely simple and it was given by Sheikh Zakariyya and I shared the video also in previous thread. 

I would just say that the person who answered you this himself was unaware of it. And in order to save his face, he tried to give a justification.

But don't know if I am right.

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) forgive me if this is not what the Sheikh said or he meant something else.

The problem is that I might have to call live on T.V to get my answer from Sayyed Rashid Al-Hussaini

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 minutes ago, Bakir said:

I'm not a moral relativist in its most essential form (because of many of its unevitable logical flaws), but there are morally good things humans cannot speak against, and morally bad things humans cannot speak in favour of

Offtopic:
So do you believe in objective morality?  Also, do you realise there is no objective morality without a Moral Lawgiver (God)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

By the way, this male-oriented gratification mentality is everywhere in Islamic communities, that goes very well with the capitalistic systematic oppression of women. Prostitution is already in many aspects justified with the same mentality.

In that sense, we can't even start to talk about reciprocal permission if people aren't really free (especially women). It's not just about babies that can't even talk. There are others who can't talk, like the poor or like the orphans. Marriage IS NOT the way to help women. Public laws to ensure people have a minimum wage and basic human rights is. Sex in exchange for basic human needs isn't even prostitution, it's exploitation. Instead of calling this and that halal, the harshest condemnation should be done. But that's evidently not a priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

A question comes to my mind now. 

Is zulm (oppression) not Haraam in Islam?

Isn't it zulm to treat a child like that?

If that is established through rationality, then this practice can be banned by Marjas.

@pisceswolf96 If you have a good access to scholars then please try to have a discussion and bring all of this. Please mention that fatwas like these are outrageous and should be discussed deeply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

Offtopic:
So do you believe in objective morality?  Also, do you realise there is no objective morality without a Moral Lawgiver (God)?

Start another topic about moral relativism and I will happily get into it during the next days god willing. The topic is way more complex that it may seem, as moral relativism is a broad term for approaches that are very different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
40 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

A question comes to my mind now. 

Is zulm (oppression) not Haraam in Islam?

Isn't it zulm to treat a child like that?

If that is established through rationality, then this practice can be banned by Marjas.

@pisceswolf96 If you have a good access to scholars then please try to have a discussion and bring all of this. Please mention that fatwas like these are outrageous and should be discussed deeply.

If you know Arabic then you can ask here. If you want me to ask for you because I might not be really articulating myself clearly then write your question in English and I'll ask them on your behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I have finally gotten around to understand how people like @Ashvazdanghe defend this act.

Basically:

- Marriage before puberty (like suckling babies according to Khomeini sexual exploitation fatwa) is not allowed, but if it happens, then it's OK to have sexual pleasure with them. 

How can that make any sense? Why not say "marriage is not halal, therefore sexual pleasure is not halal."?! 

Instead they say marriage is haram, but if you do this haram, then the sexual pleasure suddenly become halal. 

Why would this not apply to anything else? Steal things, and if you do, you can keep it and enjoy it! 

Or marrying your sister or neighbors wife? If it happens? Then why not, or? Isn't it the same logic? 

 

Shameful!!!!!! 

 

- Then there is argument number two used by apologetics :

There is no proof that it is not haram. What? Didn't the same people say that marriage before puberty is haram? What nonsense is this? What proof does one need more than that? Other than the consent issue of course? 

- so basically the likes of Khomeini say that women should be punished for not wearing veil in public (even though there is no shred of evidence that the prophet ever issued such a law), and the men executing the punishment against those women, can go home and rub their penises against their baby "brides" . To me this is nothing but sickness of heart and hypocricy. Of course those men might also have just hung consenting homosexual men who had sexual pleasure together. If they get caught humping some baby, they are doing halal aren't they? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I want to add one personal thing. I'm not perfect and I have shameful sides to me, but I thankfully don't have, and never had the desire to rub my privates against babies, and I think it's OK to have weird thoughts and shameful desires, as long as one didn't act on them, and even if one did, and repented for them, then it's OK if course. 

But to make a fatwa as a scholar and spiritual leader is something else. Once people claim to speak on behalf of Allah and the prophet, one has to be extra careful, and this is just the worst fatwa that can be done. Why? Jurists are defenders and protectors (Wali) of the weak and helpless. This fatwa is the most hurtful and undignified and shameful normalization of serious oppression against the weakest of the weakest of society. The voiceless, the unwitting, the helpless children, toddlers and babies. So that is why I personally do not accept it, and reject it in the strongest terms. And by this I mean the actual scholars who says this and dies without having defended the kids from this nonsense sex slave practice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
19 minutes ago, Allah Seeker said:

Didn't the same people say that marriage before puberty is haram?

Salaam bro, Where has this been said? From what I know we only have ages for consummation like 9 for women.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

:salam:

@Allah Seeker I didn't defend this act as you told above , you just see it from deviant feminism viewpoint  of 20th century without knowledge  about history & traditions  & cultures of muslim countries  from westerner  viewpoint  wich before 20th century & rise of feminism  women in western countries had lesser right than women of ignorance  era of Arab community  before Islam but now westerners & feminists are accusing  muslims to violation  of women rights which the Shia fatwa about thighing fixed loophole of women rights between sunnis which allows them rape any female from chilage like accepting  of marriage  of 9 years girl which allows them to rape them after marriage  which even wahabists have extended it to raping of lower age girls like 4 or 5 years old girl even their  new born daughters also your accusation  against  Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) is a great lie which brakes your today fast also previously you show bizzare supporting  of anti hijab agenda in older threads about Hijab.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

Salaam bro, Where has this been said? From what I know we only have ages for consummation like 9 for women.

Waslaam bro, 

Here is @Ashvazdanghedefending this practice, and he also uses the argument here that some suni think its OK as well. There are other users who used similar arguments, in other posts. [EDIT]

He said things like

Quote

that Imam Khomeini in conclusion knows marriage with minor girl is problematic  but if it happens only allows thighing until she reaches to puberty 

 

Edited by Hameedeh
EDIT: Language insulting other members.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

A little off-topic:

Seeing certain posts on SC (Not only on this topic but on many other topics) reminds me of a saying of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in Nahj ul Balagha:

Quote

Amir al-mu'minin, peace be upon him, said: When this world advances towards anyone (with its favours) it attributes to him other's good; and when it turns away from him it deprives him of his own good. 

No further comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
34 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

:salam:

@Allah Seeker I didn't defend this act as you told above , you just see it from deviant feminism viewpoint  of 20th century without knowledge  about history & traditions  & cultures of muslim countries  from westerner  viewpoint  wich before 20th century & rise of feminism  women in western countries had lesser right than women of ignorance  era of Arab community  before Islam but now westerners & feminists are accusing  muslims to violation  of women rights which the Shia fatwa about thighing fixed loophole of women rights between sunnis which allows them rape any female from chilage like accepting  of marriage  of 9 years girl which allows them to rape them after marriage  which even wahabists have extended it to raping of lower age girls like 4 or 5 years old girl even their  new born daughters also your accusation  against  Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) is a great lie which brakes your today fast also previously you show bizzare supporting  of anti hijab agenda in older threads about Hijab.

This is not anti-veil campaign, this is anti - bidaa/innovating. You know very well - as we discussed it before - that this public law never happened under the prophet or Imam Ali, and then you complain about Omar making existing punishments more strict than the prophet? You guys invented brand new punishment against women, and if you want to call oppression against the weak feminism, then maybe in this topic you can call this topic todlerism, suckling babyism, or childrenism. 

You are defending it as you defend a fatwa that says there is nothing wrong with this act. You should condemn it, 

It didn't surprise me that you are a champion defender of toddler sex slavery fatwa, after having fought with you about similar issues like supposed hadiths in circulation claiming Imam Ali said that all women are stupid, and you should never obey your mother, I think, or? From nahjul balagha, remember? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Zainuu said:

A little off-topic:

Seeing certain posts on SC (Not only on this topic but on many other topics) reminds me of a saying of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in Nahj ul Balagha:

No further comments.

It didn't surprise me either that you dislike my post about defending the weak and abiding by the limits of Islam, because you also were such a big fan of the nahjul balagha hadith labeling all women as lacking intelligence. Disrespecting women and their kids goes hand in hand. 

And another thing @Ashvazdangheyour whole talk and parroting Khomeini socialist lingo of west being bad is another reason why I personally can't stand this man. Where in Islam is there ever talk about west being bad? If anything there is talk about the prophet pointing towards najd saying the era of the shaytan will rise there, and that's east. I hate it when people claim to represent Islam while they innovate nonsense.

And as for the Islamic revolution. Even if Khomeini was literally sent by the French freemasonic republic to follow the lead of freemasonic sayid Qutb, the people of Iran who supported him had to a very large extent true Godly Islamic intentions. So even without Khomeini for me personally, I think the Iranian people will get rewarded for their efforts, and judged according to the best of their actions. But without those who throw babies under the train. And this is not only a feminism issue, but masculine as well. Wasn't it Khomeini who said "death before dishonor?". What about the honor of the fathers, brothers, future husband of those babies? That is an infringement in masculinity as much as feminity. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 4/14/2021 at 1:05 PM, pisceswolf96 said:

Hello everyone. So I just got off the phone talking to Sistani's office about the Thighing fatwa.

Just so we are on the same track I asked a few days ago about Sistani's fatwa on thighting (more specifically why it was removed) and you can check it here

I began by asking why the Fatwa was removed in the newer editions on Minhaj Al-Saleheen and the response was that they are NOT sure and it is surely for the benefits of Shia as Sistani sees fit.

As for why it was allowed in the first place, they answered because in Islam the rule of (جلب المصالح ودرء المفاسد) bringing the good and warding off the bad is in play, since Arabs used to practise female infanticide because females were seen as very undesirable for many reasons including economical reasons. They continued to explain that it is then better to marry off those girls to men who can spend money on them as their wives instead of burying them alive but since disallowing coitus without allowing other sexual acts would discourage men from marrying those girls, thighing was allowed alongside other non-penetrative sexual acts. I mentioned the age difference or the fact that this might have a lasting psychological effect on the minor girl but that didn't change anything and the ruling still stands.

These set of fatwas in addition to many other things, really do bother me as well, and I've reached the conclusion that Islam as we have received it is not infallible. 

The above bothers me. What they are also not telling you is that according to fiqhi laws, the guardian CAN marry off a minor (someone who hasn't reached puberty) girl without her consent. Please research and look this up for yourself.

This follows in line with the idea that owning another human being is not an issue (slavery), it's just considered normal and there are laws created for it. Owning a slave girl and sleeping with her is also not an issue. Capturing girls after war / as war booty and enslaving them, and sleeping with them, all just normal and well within Islamic sharia, and practiced during the time of Prophet and Imams. No one really talks about these things and when they do the answers just make the problem worse like above. 

 

Edited by skinee
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, skinee said:

These set of fatwas in addition to many other things, really do bother me as well, and I've reached the conclusion that Islam as we have received it is not infallible. 

The above bothers me. What they are also not telling you is that according to fiqhi laws, the guardian CAN marry off a minor (someone who hasn't reached puberty) girl without her consent. Please research and look this up for yourself.

This follows in line with the idea that owning another human being is not an issue (slavery), it's just considered normal and there are laws created for it. Owning a slave girl and sleeping with her is also not an issue. Capturing girls and enslaving them, and sleeping with them, all just normal and well within Islamic sharia, and practiced during the time of Prophet and Imams. No one really talks about these things and when they do the answers just make the problem worse like above. 

 

I don't want to talk about Slavery because as I understand it, it was meant to be temporary just like drinking Alcohol and was to be phased out gradually because banning it out right would've caused instability (e.x: the American Civil War). However, those that came after the prophet didn't really attempt to continue phasing it out since it was quite profitable and thus it continued for a quite long time.

Having sex with your slave(s) was meant to encourage people to take even better care of their slaves and so I excuse it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

@pisceswolf96

I think this might be relevant to this thread. Ayatollah Sistani (ha) himself is discussing this ruling here, and why it was rescinded in the latest edition of Minhāj üs Sāliheen. Refer to the third point.

https://www.sistani.org/english/archive/26348/

From what I can glean from the response, the Sayyid (ha) means to say that the ruling was made keeping in mind the conditions of the old societies, and is not relevant to our times.

But I can't understand why an office staff would say something that is not in line with the written statement of the marjā himself. Are the office staff not supervised closely?

Edited by AbdusSibtayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

@pisceswolf96

I think this might be relevant to this thread. Ayatollah Sistani (ha) himself is discussing this ruling here. Refer to the third point.

https://www.sistani.org/english/archive/26348/

Thank you so so much. You put my mind to peace with this, May Allah grant you Jannat Al-Furdus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, pisceswolf96 said:

I don't want to talk about Slavery because as I understand it, it was meant to be temporary just like drinking Alcohol and was to be phased out gradually because banning it out right would've caused instability (e.x: the American Civil War). However, those that came after the prophet didn't really attempt to continue phasing it out since it was quite profitable and thus it continued for a quite long time.

Having sex with your slave(s) was meant to encourage people to take even better care of their slaves and so I excuse it.

Who was supposed to phase it out? And where do you get this idea that it was mean to be temporary? There is nothing in Islamic laws/history which indicates that slavery wasn't acceptable. The imams them selves owned slaves, no matter how much they were loved and taken care of, the point is that Islam accepts the idea of owning another human, it isn't considered "evil" or morally unacceptable. Like there is actual fiqh related just to slave ownership and the right of a master over his slave, but you won't find these laws in our "updated" law books. 

Capturing woman during war and having sex with them is rape.... I don't see how it falls under taking "even better care". This is besides the point, the point is that human owning another human is legal and acceptable, regardless whether they sleep together or not. I take issue with a man owning another man, much less owning a woman and then essentially sleeping with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...