funny, but i don't find this funny

"terror suspect claims torture by way of sex." (from the boston metro)

"fahmin ansari says an fbi woman tortured him with sex."

"an alleged terrorist captured in the aftermath of the mumbai bombings is complaining of the worst kind of intense interrogation tactic: torture by sex. according to a report from the times of india, fahmin ansari, a suspect in the mumbai terror attacks that killed 173 people last november, claims he has been tortured by a female fbi agent who forced sex acts on him despite his devout muslim faith, which forbids sex out of marriage. because he was devoutly faithful, the sex acts performed by the woman were a form of torture, he alleged. according to ansari, the fbi agent stripped him of his clothes and tortured him all night long. ansari claims the involvement of pornographic movies, and serious foreplay. his lawyer, ejaz naqvi, filed legal papers in mumbai court, alleging that the "white woman" and two other foreigners sexually abused him, leaving bruises on his private parts."


now, is it just me, or does this sound like rape? i thought rape was forcing sexual acts on someone who doesn't want them. one's faith has nothing to do with the issue. we don't draw distinctions between the rape of atheists and the rape of religious people. nor should it matter that it was a woman who was performing the acts on a man. in this case, the power dynamic favored the woman, and allowed her to do things she would not have been able to do if they were both free. therefore, this is both torture and rape. the forced sexual contact would never have occurred if the fbi didn't see it as an act that would be deeply humiliating and hurtful to the person experiencing it. why is this funny? would we find humor in it if it was a woman being so disgraced? (by the way, the u.s military disgraces women in this manner all the time. it occurred at abu ghraib, but only pictures of men being degraded by female soldiers were made public. i'm sure those disclosing the photos had a hunch that all those laughing at the abused men may have had a harder time excusing the rape of female prisoners. therefore, let's all just ignore it, as we hold hands and congratulate ourselves for being the greatest nation on earth.) or our husband, father, or brother, for that matter? surely, much thought by the fbi has gone in to using such practices. forced sexual contact is obviously an integral aspect of an enveloping regime of torture practiced by the american national security state. that it should be laughed at says much about the lack of compassion and decency within our culture.

this man is not weak, he is imprisoned, and an imprisoned man can not stop a figure of authority, man or woman, from doing what they choose to do. furthermore, it is inherently sexist to argue that all forms of sexuality should be enjoyable to a man, as long as they are "shared" with a woman. are the bruises left on this man's private parts a cause for laughter? is being forced to watch pornography a laughing matter? is being touched against your will a laughing matter? if so, then why are we forced to sit through tedious trainings on the subject?

as i stated earlier, the piece makes much of the fact that the man was a devout muslim, and that this is why the forced sexual contact (ie, rape) bothered him so. surely, it made it worse, but aren't we all entitled to the integrity of our bodies? isn't it so that no one can touch us sexually against our will? shouldn't we be free from foreplay, porn, bruises, and other indignities, unless we willingly choose to partake in them? and of course, such choice is denied an imprisoned man. the power dynamic guarantees that such situations are paramount to rape.

this is a serious manner, and should be treated as such. that the metro didn't says much about our infantile understanding of torture, rape, gender, and sexuality, as well as the fascistic strain that runs through our media.

war on terror?

try war of terror.