The Instigator
Dianna
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
marjie93
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Did the husband rape his wife in the documentary "Bride Kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan" ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 54027
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Dianna

Pro

In rural Kyrgyzstan it is overwhelmingly popular for men and women to conduct bride kidnapping: a practice that entails the men to abduct a woman, bring her home, and, ultimately, force her to marry him. Although it is an illegal practice- that not only goes against the law, but against the moral, ethical values of their Islamic religion- citizens of Kyrgyzstan justify this practice by claiming that it is an "ancient" tradition. The documentary by VICE, "Bride Kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan", follows a young man named Kubanti as he prepared for and succeeded to surprise his young girlfriend Nazgul with the ancient Kyrgyzstan tradition of bride kidnapping and marriage. This documentary evidences a circumstance of non-traditional rape, whereby Nazgul was raped by her husband Kubanti.

This argument addresses the rape of Nazgul through an analysis of what is
classified as rape as follows:

1)Everyone in Kyrgyzstan follows the "ancient" tradition of abducting a bride because they understand it is a tradition that cannot be changed. ( 3:29-38)
2)It is illegal to kidnap and abduct a bride in Kyrgyzstan, but most cops and officials are unaware of this; and if they are aware they believe it is an old tradition that should be followed. (3:00-22)
3)The problem with rape law does not lie within the statute itself, but within how we interpret, define, and understand the words used in it. (161.2)
4)In law there is a distinction based on male force between rape proper and non-traditional rape. (161.1)
5)Rape cases almost entirely disregard the defendant, and focus on the behavior of the victim, which is based on a male standard of what is appropriate behavior of a woman. (162.2-3)
6)95% of women who are kidnapped to be married in Kyrgyzstan stay, regardless if they know the man or not, because they are taught from childhood to be obedient. (28:59- 29:10)
7)Kubanti claims that his bride to be was crying during the kidnapping because she was afraid for two reasons: it was her first time 1) being kidnaped and 2) being at his families house. (18:51-56)
8)The standard of physical force, or threat of it, to constitute sex as rape allows men to make mistakes on whether or not the women gives consent to the act. (164.3)
9)A woman must physically rather than verbally fight back in order to prove that she did not give consent for sexual intercourse. (175.4)
10)If a woman does not fight her defendant with force, predefined by the courts as physical force, then it is she that acted unreasonably. (171.2)
11)The two understandings of force are a) a schoolboy understanding that involves physical contact and b) that protects bodily integrity and holds power with out the existence of physical force and violence. (167.4)
12)The latter form of force is unrecognized in rape law and does not protect a women"s bodily integrity. (167.5)
13)As Nazgul cries and tries to fight off her abductors holding her down, she repeatedly screams for her mother and to be let go. (13:50-14:35)
14)Nazgul did not want to get married yet, but accepted the scarf- a symbol of marriage consent in Kyrgyzstan tradition- from the Kubanti"s family quickly because she thought that since she was already kidnapped they wouldn"t leave her alone unless she allowed for the scarf to be put around her head. (26:55-27:07)
15)The requirement of consent in rape law does not promote autonomy for women because a verbal signal, such as a simple no, does not suffice for non-consent. (177.4)
16)"No means yes" philosophy- A male perspective that understands a women"s verbal signal "no" to actually mean "yes". (177.5)
17)If society seizes to frown upon single, willing women who engage in sexual intercourse, it will help get rid of the stigma of saying yes to intercourse and ultimately rid of the "no means yes" philosophy. (177.6)
18)In Kyrgyzstan mentality, if a woman does not negatively reject a man"s marriage proposal- through abducting the bride- then she is desperate to get married. (16:00-21)
19)Kubanti seeks the help of his prospective wife"s best friend" he informs her that he will take her and her friend into the car and laughingly tells her that if she wants to she can cry or fight back. (11:09-24)
20)The law of rape must challenge norms of male of aggressiveness and female passivity in order to establish liability. (179.6)
21)Regardless of the differing perceptions male and females have with regards to sexual relations, men ought to be required to act with reason- no means no- and when they don"t act accordingly they should be held liable. (166.4)
22)Purposeful acts may cause greater injuries than negligent acts however, when these acts involve sexual penetration without a women"s consent, both equally worsen dignity and autonomy for women. (166.5)
23)Kubanti promised Nazgul he would not marry her by abducting her. (26:15)
24)According to Kubanti, Nazgul knew that she would marry him, but was under the impression he would bring his family to her and had no knowledge that she would be kidnapped. (4:42-51)_______________________________________________
25)Kubanti raped his wife.

Thus, given that Kubanti promised Nazgul he would not abduct her and that she had no knowledge of the kidnapping, it is clear that - regardless of how rape is mistakenly recognized by law, or the "ancient" Kygyzstan traditions of bride kidnapping and how a women should react to it- Kubanti raped Nazgul.
marjie93

Con

Kyrgyzstan is a place where in certain parts of its society traditionally kidnap women and make them their wives. Now not everywhere in Kyrgyzstan does everyone follow this tradition, some places get married the modern way. One of the main persons Kubanti in this video is the Groom who is planning on kidnapping his close friend whom he is going to marry. However, Kubanti does realize that he promised his friend he would not humiliate her by kidnapping her, and that she did not want that. Even though she does get kidnapped by Kubanti and his fellow mates she agreed to get married with him. Since bride kidnapping is tradition the husband still has to do his part in kidnapping the bride he does not seem into it and is nervous about the situation. The bride seems to consent quite quickly, she does hesitate for a few minutes but the families of the husband seem to convince her so fast. The bride does not reject the husband and gives consent to marriage; although she did get kidnapped it is tradition. So this proves Kubanti not guilty of committing rape because she had already accepted the marriage, and did not stop the sexual intercourse because they were on the course of being married and she accepted that they were going to get married. She accepted that it was tradition and even though she did not want the kidnapping to occur does not necessarily verify that she wanted this marriage or not. Just because she was kidnapped does not necessarily mean she was raped, and because of her small resistance and no claim of not wanting to get married, just because some of her actions indicated she did not want this does not mean it is rape. Or necessarily mean it is him to blame for the kidnapping.

1) Kubanti is friends with the woman he and his friends are planning to kidnap, however she knows she is going to be his wife, but not that she is going to be kidnapped.(4:50-5:20)
2) Even though she knows she is going to be his wife, being kidnapped is not necessary but for tradition and culture they do it. (5:20-6.00)
3) When the lady that Kubanti and his friends kidnap come back with him she resists but then calmly excepts the candy and cookies given to her , and does not fight back making her accept it. (16:00-17:00)
4) There was no rape here just kidnapping, the bride knew she was going to marry him and that was his friend and she obviously accepted the marriage. (31:00-32:00)
5) Even though she did not know about the kidnapping she resisted only for a little while and then went along with it with all smiles in the marriage as if everything was ok (32:10)
6) Kubanti"s soon to be bride accepts the marriage just at first she panics and resists but then accepts that she is marrying the Kubanti and does not fight back as you see in 32 minutes of the video.(32:24)

The video does not show any sign of rape men practically just kidnap women because well they can is culture, tradition, and some women supposedly get kidnapped because they do not want a forced marriage with someone else(29:24). Most women do not disobey and continue with this man because of the way they were raised.It is tradition to kidnap a woman of their choice and marry them, and that they cannot do anything about it to change it, unless the cops do, in which this case they don't
Debate Round No. 1
Dianna

Pro

You mention that Kubanti was aware, before the bride kidnapping, that he already established with Nazgul that he would not marry her using this method; however, he decided to follow through with the kidnapping knowing that she did not want to get married this way. If person A from category M wants to do something with person B from category F, but person A knows person B does not want to participate, then person A should not make them. For example, if Jeff wants to commit murder with Sally, but he knows Sally does not want to commit murder, he should not make her commit murder. Further more, you mention that he seemed nervous about the situation (kidnapping Nazgul to be his bride), like he was not into it. If this is the case, that he was nervous about the kidnapping and didn"t seem into it, then that might suggest he knows he was wrong to do it. Kubanti knew that Nazgul did not want to be kidnapped and he promised her he would not, so it would make sense for him to have hesitations about following through with the kidnapping. He could clearly be uncomfortable because he knew it was not right to do if she didn"t want it.
As for Nazgul"s reaction to the bride kidnapping, it was extremely obvious that she was resisting. You say that she gives her "consent" quickly as if it is a sign she wanted to get married, assuming you are referring to when Kubanti brings her back to his house for the women of his family to hold her down and try and put a scarf around her head, but she states after the ceremony that the reason she accepted the scarf so quickly was because she thought that since she was already kidnapped they wouldn"t leave her alone unless she allowed for it to be put around her head (26:55-27:07). Also, before Nazgul arrives to Kubanti"s house, she was in the car crying and trying to fight off her abductors by kicking, screaming, calling for her mother multiple times, as well as asking to be let go multiple times (13:50-14:35). This kind of behavior is not suggestive of someone who wants to be kidnapped and get married. According to Kubanti she knew she would marry him, hence she knew whom her abductors were and what was about to happen (4:42- 51). All of Nazgul"s behavior is extremely suggestive of non-consent, and she admits to feeling as if she had no other choice but to accept the scarf and the marriage.
According to our author there is a form of force that is unrecognized in rape and law, and that is the one that protects bodily integrity and holds power without the existence of physical force and violence (167.4-5). In other words, Nazgul did not have to physically fight back Kubanti and the women of his family in order prove she did not want to get married. Understanding this definition of force proves that Nazgul not wanting to get married by being abducted is sufficient evidence to prove rape. Nazgul did not consent to the bride kidnapping- she was forced to partake in the marriage. Therefore, any sexual penetration that happened afterwards, regardless of the bond of marriage, is rape.
marjie93

Con

In regards to your argument you say he was nervous about the kidnapping meaning he knew what he was doing was wrong. Just because kubanti was nervous for committing the kidnapping does not necessarily mean that he knew it was wrong, he was raised in believing and influenced into doing this tradition. Also just because the bride did not want to be kidnapped does not necessarily mean that she did not want to get married. She accepted the marriage but not for that moment and she did the acting now than later into just getting married. His soon to be wife was aware that it is tradition to be kidnapped to be his wife, even though she did not desire this, he still did it for his family. Just because she resisted quick as you say and cried about being let go and sent to her mom does not mean she was being raped.
If person A victimizes person B however Person B is victimized by condition C then Person A is also circumstance of condition C , therefore person A is not responsible for their actions, if it is not verified that he meant to victimize Nezgul . Kubanti and his friend kidnap his soon to be bride to marry her, he does it for the tradition not because he wants to rape and that makes the statement of Rape not being the case. This would be a traditional claim, according to (161.1) law makes a distinction based on male force between rape proper and non-traditional rape. That indicating that just because he kidnapped her unintentionally does not necessarily mean he raped her. Even though Kubanti knew Nuzgal did not want to be kidnapped she still accepted to be his wife, and when it came to tradition matters it doesn"t matter at the end because in his mindset he had too. Necessarily he did not have to kidnap her but the other way necessarily just because she did not want to be kidnapped does not necessarily mean he did not have to kidnap her. She did not resist the sexual intercourse during the course of getting married and after getting married, just because she does not consent the bride kidnapping does not make it rape.
Even though she resisted she still did not fight long enough to make believable that she wanted to leave. Also just because she did not show she did"t want to get married does not necessarily mean she did want to get married, but that still does not prove rape. If she said yes to the marriage but not the kidnapping it does not necessarily mean she was raped at least for the fact that it was done for tradition, she respected that. And just because her consent might have not seem believable does not mean she did or did not want to get married, we cannot prove if she really wanted to get married or not, just because of bride kidnapping so that part is not clear. You say she knew who the guy was her future husband and also the abductors which were his fellow mates, so since she knew she was going to be kidnapped she did not resist so much when his family tried to convince it was ok because she was not being raped, she knew by tradition it was for her to be kidnapped.
Just because Nuzgal was being forced to be kidnapped due to tradition acts does not necessarily mean she did not want to get married, she did get married with him as she planned just earlier and she accepted that. In this case proving that this act committed was not necessarily rape. Also you say violence is put into this situation which is not because she is not physically hurt, and she seems fine after the kidnapping, did you mean for all cases or just this one?
Debate Round No. 2
Dianna

Pro

It seems as if your whole argument in round 2 surrounds the notion that because this practice is considered an ancient "tradition" in Kyrgyzstan, it makes it okay to kidnap brides. This claim is false.

To begin with, while many of the Kyrgyzstanis have said in the documentary that bride kidnapping is an ancient tradition, it is not. Kyrgyzstan used to be under control of the Soviet Union and during that time this was an uncommon and unacceptable practice, even though it happened sometimes (18.19-26). During the 19th century, however, there was a tradition of stealing, whereby tribes would ransack other tribe"s villages to steal cattle, horses and women; Of course, this was not an acceptable practice, and it would cause conflict between the tribes. (23:31-45). In fact, this practice can actually be traced to the late period of the Soviet Union"s influence over Kyrgyzstan when they attempted to bring equality for men and women. As kidnapping started to continuously increase, the Soviet Union made legislative policies to combat it- the ban of marriages to females under the age of 15, women were allowed to attend schools and universities, and they would collectivize the wealth so there was no money being made off of dowry (23:51-24:06). As the women were becoming older before marriage and venturing out to attend universities, they would often find someone in school they wished to marry. If the parents had already planned on arranging a marriage from their own village and did not want their daughter to marry this individual, she would spend a night at the man"s house to be considered by her parents "unclean" and they would have to let her marry him (24:11-41). Hence, this so called "ancient tradition" that Kyrgyzstanis have come to believe is deep rooted in their culture, is not so much of an ancient tradition as they believe but a practice that has mistakenly revived itself after the fall of communism.

It can be assumed that Kubanti and Nazgul, or, for that matter, many Kyrgyzstanis, are unaware of the history behind their region and supposed tradition of bride kidnapping. You stated in your argument in round 2 that "If person A victimizes person B however Person B is victimized by condition C then Person A is also circumstance of condition C , therefore person A is not responsible for their actions." For the purposes of this argument, condition C is bride kidnapping. Even if person A is not responsible for their actions because they are a circumstance of condition C, it does not change the fact that they victimized person B. Just because Kubanti and Nazgul are victims to believing that bride kidnapping is part of their culture, and they have to follow their culture, it does not make it right for Kubanti to kidnap Nazgul to be his bride. Just because he is a victim of circumstance C, does not excuse him from victimizing Nazgul. For example, lets say Johnny sells crack to Mary, and both Johnny and Mary are victims of poverty. It is 100% illegal to sell crack in the US, therefore, Johnny is still responsible for selling the crack to Mary. He cannot use his circumstance of poverty as an excuse for his actions at trial. If this were the case, many criminals in the US, and for that matter around the world, would have to be let go from prison. As you mention in (2.2.2) "he does it for the tradition," but this is no excuse. In Kyrgyzstan it is illegal to kidnap and abduct a bride (3:00-22), ergo Kubanti is responsible for his actions whether or not he "unintentionally" kidnapped Nazgul or if it was not in his intentions to victimize her (2.2.1-4).

As for Kubanti raping his wife Nazgul, the fact that she did not want to get married is directly linked to the rape. You are correct when you assert that "Just because Nuzgal was being forced to be kidnapped due to tradition acts does not necessarily mean she did not want to get married." However, this does not mean much in the case of rape. Nazgul may have wanted to be married one day, and maybe to Kubanti - as HE suggests she knew she would marry him (4:42)- but, she clearly states that she did NOT want to be married at the time she was kidnapped to be married (26:55). Nazgul"s grandmother stated that she needed to finish school before the marriage (22:08), and Nazgul herself states that she would have liked to finish school but now does not know if that will happen ( 27:34-47). To Nazgul"s knowledge she had no idea she would be kidnapped to be married at the time she was (4:42-51), so if it were up to her she would not be married. You state that "just because Nuzgal was being forced to be kidnapped due to tradition acts does not necessarily mean she did not want to get married," which contradicts yourself . The very definition of force is the complete opposite of consent. If she was forced by tradition, or anything else for that matter, she was still pushed into doing something . Furthermore, she resisted the kidnapping and the scarf leading to what she had come to realize would be marriage, and - while she may have not, as what you claim, fought "long enough to make believable that she wanted to leave"- she did fight it. The problem with this idea of "she didn"t fight long enough" or "she wasn"t believable" is : What is qualified as long enough to make it believable? A simple "no" from a woman should be sufficient for non-consent (177.4.1). In addition, there is danger in the notion that bride kidnapping is an ancient custom of Kyrgyzstan. Even though Nazgul ultimately agrees to the marriage, she is forced to do so, not because she wants to, but because she believes she has to follow tradition. It is dangerous to assume that because a women says "yes" that she means it; From the perspective of a woman, she is not saying "yes" because she wants to, but because she feels a lack of power to say "no" (177.5.1). This is evident when Nazgul accepts the scarf- a symbol of marriage consent in Kyrgyzstan tradition- from Kubanti"s family quickly because she thought that since she was already kidnapped they wouldn"t leave her alone unless she allowed for the scarf to be put around her head (26:55-27:07). In conclusion, if the marriage never was forced to take place, Nazgul would have never spent a wedding night with Kubanti taking her virginity- as seen by the blanket hung the next morning (30:35). Therefore, Nazgul was raped by Kubanti.
marjie93

Con

In your argument you bring in information from the past having to do with the fact that religion or tradition cannot play part in this act. Even if there was an act of stealing traditions, traditions are always taken away or borrowed or learned from , back to history where Europeans would go to China to learn from their cultures and borrow their discipline and sophisticated way of life in the fifth teen century( the ways of the world chapter 13( 575.4-5)). You say it can be assumed that Nazgul and Kubanti have no knowledge of their past religion and tradition, meaning that since A they as in the family did not realize that condition C tradition was the blame for what happened, than that leaves to Kubanti not being the victim in this situation.
You say "women were allowed to attend schools and universities, and they would collectivize the wealth so there was no money being made off of dowry (23:51-24:06). As the women were becoming older before marriage and venturing out to attend universities, they would often find someone in school they wished to marry. If the parents had already planned on arranging a marriage from their own village and did not want their daughter to marry this individual, she would spend a night at the man"s house to be considered by her parents "unclean" and they would have to let her marry him (24:11-41)." Meaning if women were allowed to attend schools and marry after or during schools Nuzgal could have married Kubanti and still gone too. Just because Nuzgal married Kubanti does not necessarily mean she could not attend school and reach her goal to still succeed and do what she wanted to do.
In the video is does not necessarily show that Kubanti raped his wife, they were in the course of their marriage she already had accepted the marriage and after that there was no proof of physical force to have sexual intercourse with him. Just because Nuzgal did not want to be kidnapped she was still aware that she would be one day because she agreed on marrying Kubanti one day. Assuming that she did realize that his family followed that tradition and would make him do it so she can marry him is out of the question because she accepts and respects it is what they do(5:20-6.00). She still does not resist for long, they are cases where women do not even know the guy and they are complete strangers like it states in the beginning of the video a guy just takes a girl according to what he sees and likes, that is not the case here(3:00-4:00). In this situation she knows him and is aware they are agreeing to having this marriage in the future, I know I said future but if its already happening assuming she already accepts sooner than later (31:00-32:00).
You also say if a woman does not fight her defendant with force, predefined by the courts as physical force, then it is she that acted unreasonably. (171.2) which is in your first argument you contradict yourself here because it is assumed she fought back if he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her when she already had accepted the marriage, it would show her being physically hurt or depressed about having sexual intercourse with him when it shows (30:35) a blanket hanging and it is their wedding night. Her reaction after the sexual intercourse is nothing but a blank smile on her face; she does not seem to have rejected that situation. She accepted the marriage with all smiles as you see in (32:24) it might have not been real but we do not necessarily know if she was okay with the whole marriage and sex, or not okay with it. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean he raped her if she was kidnapped to be put into a marriage that she knew she had accepted beforehand, and it does not show her being physically hurt or her rejecting the sexual intercourse therefore it is not rape.
Debate Round No. 3
Dianna

Pro

I do acknowledge in my argument from round 3 that Kyrgyzstanis use tradition as a justification that , as you worded, "play(s) a part in the act." I do, however, claim that this is not a valid justification. It makes no sense to say it is part of their tradition, or their culture as Kyrgyzstani"s, because history is evidence enough that this is not a practice as ancient and deep rooted in their culture as they believe.

Also, I think you are confusing the term religion with tradition. Although Kyrgyzstan is an Islamic country, they put their culture, or tradition, above religion; They place it at a greater importance (17:50-52). In other words, religion is not considered in Kyrgyzstani cultural practice. I never once bring up religion as a justification or reasoning to the practice of bride kidnapping, because they are two separate ideas. Bride kidnapping goes completely against the values and practices of the Islamic religion. Furthermore, I do not state once that bride kidnapping is a stolen tradition. There is no denying that, as you stated, religions are transferred, passed on, and "stolen" from culture to culture. But I did claim that there was a tradition of stealing in Kyrgyzstan, during the latter period of the Soviet Union"s control over them.

You then bring up the facts I brought up concerning the increased phenomena of bride kidnapping- happening after the Soviets attempt to bring equality to men and women. Yes it is true, both men and women can attend school and get married. However, the facts I presented cannot be used to justify the excuse that Nazgul could have married Kubanti and still attend school to succeed in what ever she may like. In my argument I brought up the fact that women would find men they would like to marry in Universities, and, only if their families would disapprove of the marriage, they would find an alternate way to marry him. The difference here is that the women has the free choice to determine whether she wants to be married or not. There is no real abduction in these cases, like there is in the practice of bride kidnapping in modern day Kyrgyzstan. In the case of bride kidnapping, a women is forced into a car to marry this man abducting her. She may have no knowledge that this is about to happen, she may not want this to happen, and she may not even know this man. Take for instance, the couple in the beginning of the documentary, Madiev Tynchtyk (the kidnapper) and Ormonova Elmira ( the kidnappee). They met one time, and he immediately asked if he should abduct her. She replied, " Don"t do it, I have a boyfriend." The second time they met, he abducted her.( 3:42-54). In addition, if Nazgul continues school or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that she wants to finish school ( 27:37), and even her grandmother wanted her to finish school before marriage (22:07).

You also mention in round 3, as well as round 2, that there is no proof of physical force for Nazgul to participate in the sexual intercourse. You fail to mention, however, that there is no evidence that there is no physical force as well. All we as viewers of the documentary witness is the sheet hung the morning after the wedding with the alleged blood, which proves Nazgul was a virgin (30:35). The events leading up to the sexual intercourse, and also the sexual intercourse, is not seen. Neither you nor I can determine whether Kubanti forced the sex because there is no filming proving either side of the debate. Yet, we can base the claim of rape on weather or not the marriage was forced. If it were not for the marriage to have taken place, then Nazgul would have never been in Kubanti"s house to have sex that night. You state in round 2, "Kubanti and his friend kidnap his soon to be bride to marry her, he does it for the tradition not because he wants to rape and that makes the statement of Rape not being the case. This would be a traditional claim, according to (161.1) law makes a distinction based on male force between rape proper and non-traditional rape." This actually is false. A traditional rape claim would be accurate if Kubanti was a stranger with a gun to Nazgul"s head, who proceeds to rape her ( 160.7). This is not the case, obviously. According to Kubanti, this was his long time friend of his (4:37-42). This would be considered a non-proper rape, or non- traditional. Non traditional rapes differ from the clear-cut picture of traditional rape, whereby there is possibly there is less force, no physical injuries, unarticulated threats, the two individuals know each other, the place of the rape takes place in a bedroom, and if the women says no but does not fight (161.1). This is clearly the situation in which Nazgul was placed. She knew Kubanti, the rape took place in a bedroom, and the claim you made against no evidence of physical force is irrelevant. You would not have seen, as you claim in round 3, " her being physically hurt or depressed." This rape is different, it is shown through the fact that she did not want to be married. She was forced to accept the marriage because of the tradition, not of her own free will. This is non-proper rape. Kubanti raped Nazgul.
marjie93

Con

I do realize that religion and tradition are two different concepts especially that is tradition that plays mostly a part in this act not religion. The fact is that I am saying that tradition is the important priority for these people and that is why they do this act of bride kidnapping the fact is that just because the kidnapping happened does not necessarily mean she did not want to get married with Kubanti she might have wanted to but not then and if she accepted is because she changed her mind of wanting to marry him now instead of later. And yes women have a free choice of getting married to whomever they want to get married with, and if she did not want to get married with him she would have showed some type of signs after the sexual intercourse happened to show she did not want this she could have left.
You say "The events leading up to the sexual intercourse, and also the sexual intercourse, are not seen. Neither you nor I can determine whether Kubanti forced the sex because there is no filming proving either side of the debate. Yet, we can base the claim of rape on whether or not the marriage was forced" exactly there is no proof that he really had sexually raped her, even if he did kidnap her does not necessarily mean he raped her, just because she was a virgin does not mean she was raped. We have no proof of the rape just because she did not out of her own free will want to marry him yet she knew him she just wanted to wait (4:50-5:20). There is no physical force, for the fact of the sexual intercourse taken place because we do not see that happen. We do not sincerely no how sincere she was about this marriage she could have lied and said she did not want to get married yet. There are cases like the video show that women are not genuine, play and act the part of having been kidnapped because they want to be (20:00-25:00). So who is to say that she did not really want this, just because she showed resistance for a few seconds does not mean she did not want to get married meaning maybe she did or did not. This video does not have enough proof to show she got raped, yes it clearly does show her getting kidnapped, and her saying no to let her go but it does not show necessarily that she did not want the sexual intercourse it does not show her being physically hurt or put into force to have sex. Even if Kubanti was not a stranger to Nuzgal that makes even less of a reason for Nuzgal to less resist their marriage, because even though she did not consent to the kidnapping she accepted the marriage therefore, allowing the sex to happen assuming because it does not show that she allowed or not, we know it happened according to the scene (30:35).
She was forced to get married at that moment, and then accepted the marriage she did not show sincerity, hurt, depression, or denied wanting to get married, meaning that we do not have the knowledge of her really wanting to get married or not. So proving the fact that we are not informed enough to prove that this is really non-proper rape then we cannot just justify that it is rape. Meaning that Kubanti did not rape Nuzgal, he might have kidnapped her but does not necessarily prove he raped her because they did not show him raping her, just a towel with blood and just because she was a virgin which I repeat does not necessarily mean Kubanti raped Nuzgal.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Dianna 2 years ago
Dianna
If you read the whole sentence, you would see that is exactly what I was saying. This practice goes completely against the Islamic religion, but they justify it by claiming it is part of their tradition ad culture.

This is the whole sentence:

"Although it is an illegal practice- that not only goes against the law, but against the moral, ethical values of their Islamic religion- citizens of Kyrgyzstan justify this practice by claiming that it is an "ancient" tradition. "
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
"thical values of their Islamic religion- citizens of Kyrgyzstan justify this practice"

Its totally forbidden in Islam, is cultural not religion. in this areas Kavkaz in russia and surrounding, this practice is happening and its happened before Islam reached there. so dont follow how its sounds, just explore the situation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.