Obedient wives club: Good sex to keep hubby happy, curb social ills

A new organisation is stirring up controversy in Malaysia.

 

[The Obedient Wives Club] launched on Saturday, says it can cure social ills such as prostitution and divorce by teaching women to be submissive and keep their men happy in the bedroom. "Islam compels us to be obedient to our husband. Whatever he says, I must follow. It is a sin if I don't obey and make him happy," said Ummu.

Just wondering, but is female submission the only thing that makes men happy and keeps societies afloat? You hear this argument again and again all over the world, and the saddest thing is when you hear it coming from women.

Story

Tags: muslim, obedient wives, submission, women

Views: 329

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

"Settle" is an active verb.  If something isn't moving in the first place, it can't settle.  When you say that a pendulum is settling at the bottom of the swing, you're saying that it's coming to a rest from a previously existing oscillation.

Gravity does not cause this.  Gravity is what causes there to be potential energy to take action, when someone or something releases the pendulum at the top of its arc, and at that point it just oscillates between a state of potential and kinetic energy, enforced by gravity.

If you had a perfect, frictionless machine with no wastage of energy, gravity would keep the pendulum going in perpetuity, and it would never settle.

The same would apply to a pendulum enforced by magnetism.  Gravity doesn't make those settle, either.  It's the energy lost to friction and other mechanical wastage.

Your metaphor sucks.  Face up to it and move on.

A pendulum is the result of an oscilating exchange of potential energy and kinetic energy.It is possible to have an oscilating pendulum without the influence of gravity at all.  Magnets can suffice, as can springs, and even a continuously flowing fluid.
Imagine a pendulum at rest.  Gravity is present, but there is no swing.
Therefore, if gravity is neither necessary for the operation of all pendulums, or sufficient for the operation of any pendulum, how can you claim that pendulums work by gravity?

And by the way, Joseph....stop derailing my thread, you troll!

Can we at least all agree that pendulums require some outside force.
Not only do we agree, but I am going to start an Atheist Pendulum group on the forum, and invite you to become a member!

A pendulum is the result of an oscilating exchange of potential energy and kinetic energy.It is possible to have an oscilating pendulum without the influence of gravity at all.  Magnets can suffice, as can springs, and even a continuously flowing fluid.
Imagine a pendulum at rest.  Gravity is present, but there is no swing.

And as soon as the pendulum gets a nudge from any direction, gravity keeps it in motion.  Gravity doesn't cause any settling.  It doesn't initiate the swing, but it's what makes the pendulum swing what we know it to be.  It's what makes a pendulum act like a pendulum.  We've been over this.

Springs and a continually flowing fluid don't fill the same function as gravity.  They represent an input of energy into the system.

 

Therefore, if gravity is neither necessary for the operation of all pendulums, or sufficient for the operation of any pendulum, how can you claim that pendulums work by gravity?

Easy, gravity is the force that perpetuates the motion of the pendulum.  So, as gravity, you're perpetuating the way that the system swings back and forth from one extreme to the other.

In other words, as gravity, you're not contributing to the neutral position which you claim.  So, maybe that is a good metaphor for what you're actually accomplishing.  If you wish to accept that, then fine.

 

And by the way, Joseph....stop derailing my thread, you troll!

I find this discussion far more amusing than the rest of the nonsense.  You're acting like a Muslim, deliberately going out of your way to find things to be offended at, and you're being obtuse.  End of discussion.  It's not very interesting.

Its a fine metaphor.

Like gravity, I am trying to return things to a neutral and equitable position, in contrast to feminists and chauvinists who keeps pushing the system to one side or the other.

That simple.

Wow, could you be more blind?  Gravity does NOT return the pendulum to rest at the midpoint.  Gravity ensures that at the time the pendulum passes the midpoint, it's traveling past it at the maximum speed.  Gravity is the perpetuating force in the operation of a pendulum.  If you don't understand this, then you understand shit about physics.  You're being a complete buffoon.

This is basic, first-year high-school physics.  If you're that ignorant of the subject matter, we can't have a discussion until you go back and learn a lot more.

Oh, Joseph.  It is so disappointing to see you pushing this.  I'd thought more highly of you.  Unfortunately, you are just plain wrong here.

Physics according to Joseph:

Gravity does NOT return the pendulum to rest at the midpoint.

Physics according to the Wikipedia article on the Pendulum:

When a pendulum is displaced from its resting equilibrium position, it is subject to a restoring force due to gravity that will accelerate it back toward the equilibrium position.

Gravity attempts to bring the system to equilibrium, just as Wikipedia states.  Inertia causes it to move past equilibrium and regain potential energy.  Gravity supplies ABSOLUTELY NO ENERGY TO THE SYSTEM.  PERIOD.  END OF STORY.

Its time to stop now, Joseph, unless you intend to vandalize wikipedia.

Wow, you're just as bad at reading that Wikipedia article as you have been at reading everything else in this thread.  Your ignorance of physics is shown by your inability to fill in what Wikipedia is leaving out.

You really don't understand what equilibrium means, do you?  A perpetual oscillation is one form of equilibrium.  Equilibrium does not exclusively equal a resting state at the bottom of the arc.

You've also missed a lot of the precise wording in that article, and more to the point, you've missed where words are missing.  Gravity accelerates the pendulum back to its resting equilibrium position.  If you understood more about the subject matter, you'd see where the Wikipedia article oversimplifies several points.  A few minutes spent reading on Wikipedia doesn't equal a few years of high school and college classes on the subject.

You also badly misinterpreted/misrepresented what I said earlier.  I said that a spring and a continually flowing fluid represent energy injected into the system.  I specifically left gravity out of that statement, because it's not.  Gravity is just the force which keeps the system moving in perpetuity, without the input of friction, which is energy (negative energy) inserted-into/transformed-within the system.

Equilibrium does not exclusively equal a resting state at the bottom of the arc.

Uhmm...with the exception of a pendulum on a rigid rod which could, theoretically, come to equillibrium at the top of the system, you are completely wrong on this.  Equilibrium in a pendulum by definition means a resting state at the bottom of the arc.  These are the only two possible equilibrium states.

"A perpetual oscillation is one form of equilibrium."

Incorrect.  It is not in any way equilibrium.  It is what is known as a steady state.  They are not the same thing.

You also badly misinterpreted what I said earlier.  I said that a spring and a continually flowing fluid represent energy injected into the system.

Actually, I chose to ignore what you said earlier because it too, was wrong, and I did not want to raise your hackles further.  But since you bring it up, a spring does NOT represent energy injected into the system.  I don't think you understand the concept of energy.  Neither the spring nor gravity contribute any energy whatsoever to they pendulum.  None.  In no way can they be said to "power" the system. Ask any physicist whether a gravity adds energy to a pendulum, and I guarantee 100% that they will say no.

More support from the wikipedia article:

"When released, the restoring force combined with the pendulum's mass causes it to oscillate about the equilibrium position"

THE equilibrium position.  Not "one of the equilibrium positions". Nowhere does the article use the term equilibrium to describe anything other than the pendulum at rest at the bottom of the arc.

And then, of course, there is the wikipedia article on equilibrium which simply defines it thus:  "Equilibrium is the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced."

As you (should) know from physics, when competing influences are balanced there is can be NO acceleration.  The absolute ONLY state of a classic pendulum where there is no acceleration is at the bottom of the arc.

"You've also missed a lot of the precise wording in that article, and more to the point, you've missed where words are missing."

I've missed where words were missing?  You are getting desperate.  Why don't you go back to the wikipedia article to "correct" it, and see what happens to your edits....

Let me try again to bridge the sides of this pointless argument who are yelling past each other:

1. When a pendulum is resting there is no energy in the system. If you lift one side your energy is inputed into the system and converted to potential energy as you pull against gravity, magnetic forces, a spring, or what ever other force is acting on the system.

2. When you let go of it the potential energy is converted to inertia due to the draw of the eternal force.

3. When it passes the balance point the inertia is converted back to potential energy.

4. Small amounts of energy are lost to friction during all points of the process which giving it enough time will draw all of the energy out of the system until it stops at the balance point.

The external force does not add any energy to the system. It's only added when an external agent inputs energy to raise the pendulum to one side against the draw of the external force. The only removal of energy from the system is due to friction.

If you are trying to stop the cultural pendulum swing then you aren't gravity since that force (in this scenario) is required for the system to work, you are trying to play the role of friction.

As a warning to friction agents, you can expect a lot of heat from both sides and don't apply too much friction or you just might catch fire.
TByte, thanks for getting my name right half of the time...

If you made a statement like you propose in an appropriate context, then you probably would have gotten an angry response from a woman or two, just as Sandy got an angry response from you. Again, if it were used in an appropriate context then I would have probably stood up for you in the discussion. Of course I also might not have since I was socialized to think that men can fend for themselves and women need protection.

Sandy's comment did not make me feel any shame or guilt on behalf of my gender. It was made in the context of a story about women in Indonesia who think they have to be completely submissive to their husbands and who think they are commanded by Allah to do so. I feel no guilt for the attitudes and opinions of people who are slaves of Islam half way around the world. I feel sorry for them, but I don't feel guilty because their men are religiously justified assholes.

Women need more access to health care assistance considering the fact that they are the ones who get pregnant and are often left caring for the child alone. Due to anatomy, women are also significantly more susceptible STIs and are more likely to have greater complications if the infection goes untreated.

You are right that there is still some affirmative action that favors women over men. That is an unjust and unfair to men. Of course, considering the fact that men make more money than women in the same job, often have an easier time getting promoted, and are more likely to be taken seriously by their superiors, some leveling of the playing field is warranted.

What has happened in education, where there has been such a drive to help young women go to college and gain advanced degrees, has resulted in men being a minority in most universities, and some some cases a very small minority. I'm glad that so many women are getting an education, but now young men need to be pushed to succeed.

As far as your sugar coating of male stereotypes, it's not very useful. A lot of guys are great, but there are also quite a few who are selfish assholes. That's not to say that all women are perfect...

All that being said, Sandy's statement was pretty innocent, I think you're just being a bit too sensitive.

RSS

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service