“Yes, we knew they were screwed up. But some Shiite Islamists in Iraq are allegedly killing shepherds because they have not put modesty “diapers” on their goats! The goats are too tempting for Muslim males, it appears. Well, compared with the walking black tents they force their women into, goats are indeed quite fetching. The logic of religious fundamentalism is nothing if not relentless.” – Andrew Sullivan
“What most male-run religious fundamentalisms include is a major exception for the hetero-male sex drive. Sex outside of missionary-position reproduction with legal wife/wives is officially verboten; but when frail male flesh gives in, the blame is almost always the object of desire – not the guy actually responsible. Hence: it’s the goat’s fault. The way they were dressed, they were asking for it.
So it’s not the men buggering the goats who need monitoring: it’s the goats and the shepherds for not covering them up sufficiently! As we know, holding straight men accountable for anything sexual is very tough in fundamentalist circles, be they Islamic or Christian. So Catholic priests and bishops were granted church and moral immunity for the rapes and molestations of thousands of minors for decades. The history of wayward pastors and priests getting away with sexual abuse and harassment is long and colorful. In many Islamic cultures, Women are deemed responsible for their own rape or molestation if they haven’t dressed modestly enough. Gay soldiers are to blame if straight men cannot help themselves and start buggering them in the shower. It’s never up to the straight guys to restrain themselves from getting a blow-job; it’s always up to the gay men not to offer temptation. Adultery, likewise, is almost always the woman’s fault in Islamist circles – and the women are the ones most often punished. The goat diapers are funny. But they are a function of a sexual pathology, maintained by religious norms, and all for sustaining the immunity of heterosexual males from the consequences of their sex drives – and the subjugation of women into near-slavery throughout many enclaves in the Muslim world. I don’t see much progress toward democratic culture in the Middle East until their deeply disturbed sexual culture gets healthier.”
I’m confused. The NPR article that refers to the diaper killings is firewalled, of course. But even if it were not, and I knew the details which the remainder of this post identifies as not within the grasp of my knowledge, the logic of the mullahs escapes me:
1. WHICH males do the mullahs believe will bugger the goats so as to make the mullahs issue the diaper edict? Sullivan’s posts identify two possible classes: Muslim males in general, and a given shepherd’s flock (wrong word?). How, exactly, though, do the mullahs believe that a non-shepherd Muslim male will manage to penetrate (so to speak) a shepherd’s flock, get the shepherd’s goat (so to speak), and bugger it? Do the mullahs believe that ALL Muslim men are capable of succumbing to undiapered buggery, or just that shepherds are? If the former, then why aren’t non-shepherds, upon coming into contact with an undiapered goat, required to diaper it themselves? If a non-shepherd buggers an undiapered goat, to punish the shepherd but not the buggerer seems a little…. strange upon strange.
2. Andrew’s second commentary claims, correctly, that the “non-deviant” (i.e. heterosexual, supposed to be chaste, etc) male is, in fundamentalist culture, not held responsible for the sins of the flesh – the object of the temptation is. If that is the case, then why should the mullahs, presuming they are ordering the execution of straight shepherds, require the shepherds to diaper the goats in the first place? Like Andrew said, “It’s the goat’s fault. The way they were dressed, they were asking for it.” His contradictory conment that “it’s the shepherd’s fault for not covering them up sufficiently” runs counter to Muslim norms that dictate that a heterosexual male is not to be held responsible for sins of the flesh. After all, as strict as the laws regarding how Muslim women are to be dressed are, the women are not to be dressed with Everlast chastity belts or diapers by their husbands upon pain of execution should their husbands fornicate with them on a non-sanctioned occasion, right?
Andrew says that the logic of fundamentalism is relentless. In this case, it is relentlessly nonexistent. And here’s another, more obvious question: are there actually ANY laws in Muslim countries against bestiality? The mere fact that an edict requiring DIAPERING of goats to cover up their private parts suggests that, shall we say, there have been issues with man and beast before where Sharia has not entered the field. And, if there still is no law directly prohibiting the buggery, consider the fascinating resulting legal and practical anomaly: you can put to death for not diapering your goat, but you can bugger it all you want through the diaper hole!
Truly unbelievable. The word “pamper” has just gained a new definition.