-By Gary Krasner
This article includes a discussion of sex and nudity. I just wanted that caveat up front. So don’t complain.
I’d like to comment on two bits of recent curiosities in the news.
The first story was reported on March 27, 2012. The computer hacker who had leaked nude photos of actress Scarlett Johansson last summer is facing 60 years in prison and a $2.2 million fine. He plead guilty to nine charges of hacking.
I thought, that seems like a hell of a long sentence for that offense. Out of curiosity, I searched for the photos he was responsible for stealing. I found these.
I do recall seeing these two photos last year when the story of the theft broke. But apparently there was an additional photo leaked some weeks afterward.
This last one looks like a third party had shot the picture. Call me a control freak, but if someone was in my house taking photos of me, I would know it, and that person, or the camera, would no longer be fully operational.
This last photo also seems more graphic to me. Yet hardly more of an offense to justify such a harsh sentence. But I suppose the laws have been strengthened since I was last aware of them. I still remember when there were no laws against intercepting wireless phone conversations. That may have been in the early 90s.
Perhaps not just the laws have changed. It seems to me this administration is more enthusiastic in enforcing both privacy and copyright laws where it affects its Hollywood supporters. Witness the indictment and shutting down of www.megaupload.com last February for copyright violations of proprietary films and music. I dare say, if this administration ever decided to investigate Islamic Jihad as vigorously as these civil violations, it would significantly reduce the threat of terrorist attacks!
Anyway, what fascinated me more than the severity of the laws was how easily compromising photos of famous people seem to reach the internet. Especially with such guarded celebrities as Scarlett Johansson. I say that based only on my very unscientific observation that I’ve generally not seen Ms. Johansson reveal much skin in the films in which she appears. I’m not being judgmental. Just sayin.
Admittedly, that’s a subjective assessment. Still, I had to wonder how such photos so easily seem find their way into the public realm. And we SHOULD ask such questions. How else can we foster the advancement of science?
Well, I’ve seen enough (not literally. I’m prepared to see more. But I digress) I’m now ready to release my “Special Law of Celebrity Leaks” It’s a corollary to the well-established, “General Law of the Proliferation of Photographs of (female) Animate Objects.” (Physics was my favorite subject in high school, though not college.)
In basic terms, a camera located in the same room as a female celebrity will inevitably be triggered, while facing in the direction of said celebrity, in direct proportion to her level of fame, and inversely proportional to the amount of clothing she is wearing at that moment.
But it’s more complicated than that. The Special law is expressed as:
P = a (c + H) + b / (Y + R) * N
Where:
P = Proliferation (level of publication)
c = celebrity status
H = the “Hilton slut coefficient”
a = general attractiveness
b = breast size
Y = age of actress expressed in years
R = risk of civil and criminal liability (if photo is unauthorized)
N = articles of clothing being worn. (nail polish or earings = 1)
The second curious news item was published last week, on April 26. The headline read:
Outrage as Egypt plans ‘farewell intercourse law’ so husbands can have sex with DEAD wives up to six hours after their death.
“Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives – for up to six hours after their death.”
After the death of the WIFE, that is. Obviously not the husband. When the husband dies, he’ll be too busy in heaven pleasuring 72 female virgins for him to deal with his still-living wife!
But I think the rules against female infidelity will remain intack, from what I gather from this sentence in the article:
“He also said that women have the right to have sex with her dead husband, alarabiya.net reported.”
Yes, any woman is free to have sex with her “stiff” husband. Just not with any living man!
Before I turn to the curious thing about this news, I should observe that this law seems consistent to Sharia.
HOW GARY?!! Well, rape is non-consentual sex. Under Sharia, raping your wife is legal. So, when did you ever hear a dead woman object to having sex? OK? OK.
But Gary, isn’t this a sick law? Of course it’s sick. ALL of Sharia law is sick. But hold on now. Let’s think about this.
What if you married Megan Fox and she dropped dead right after the wedding ceremony? Would you let THAT wedding night go to waste?!
OK, OK, it is sick.
But still . . .
Now here’s the really curious thing: This proposed law is not only controversial in Egypt, you won’t believe the REASON it’s contrversial. From the article:
The controversial new law is part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.
It will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 and the ridding of women’s rights of getting education and employment.
Egypt’s National Council for Women is campaigning against the changes, saying that ‘marginalising and undermining the status of women would negatively affect the country’s human development’.
It seems the topic, which has sparked outrage, has now been picked up on by Egypt’s politicians.
TV anchor Jaber al-Qarmouty slammed the notion of letting a husband have sex with his wife after her death under the so-called ‘Farewell Intercourse’ draft law.
He said: ‘This is very serious. Could the panel that will draft the Egyptian constitution possibly discuss such issues?Did Abdul Samea see by his own eyes the text of the message sent by Talawi to Katatni?
‘This is unbelievable. It is a catastrophe to give the husband such a right! Has the Islamic trend reached that far? Is there really a draft law in this regard? Are there people thinking in this manner?’
Do you see the irony? The women’s movement seems as healthy there as it is here in the U.S. But with an Islamic twist: They’re actually angry that they could be legally violated AFTER they’re dead!
Egypt is on the verge of instituting a whole set of misogynistic Sharia edicts, such as the legalization of pedophilia, forced marriage, marital rape, honor killing (of solely women and girls), stoning females to death for minor infractions, etc. Yet women faced with these prospects while they’re still alive are instead only outraged over the idea of their husband having some fun with their DEAD bodies?!
Did I miss something?! Were Egyptian men EVER concerned about their lovers achieving orgasm?! Or am I missing their point?
Perhaps not. Polls indicate that Egyptians are no more against Islamic law than Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, or Iranians. Thus, any society that is OK with the death penalty for apostasy, dhimminitude (i.e. apartheid), death for infidels, and torturing homosexuals to death, is going to seem perverse to us. As it should.
We are protected by freedom of conscience and secular law. Mainstream Islam under sharia law strictly forbids those freedoms. That is why we must guard against Islamic encroachment through stealth jihad, and to stop apologizing for it.
One thing that would help that effort is to support and elevate the status of the real Muslim reformers. President Obama is doing just the opposite. THAT is the most curious thing of all.