Edible Underwear!

If anyone out there is reading this- DON'T WORRY! My account hasn't been hacked and I haven't suddenly decided to change my blog into a porno. Instead (for class!) we read an article about edible underwear and other sexy lingerie in Syria. It was pretty interesting. Unfortunately, it said Jordanian woman prefer the plan old cotton version (I kid!). I thought it was actually pretty great at first, that Syrian woman could feel secure feeling sexy in a society we think of as unspeakably strict. Then the article mentioned that the main customers are mothers buying underwear for their daughters to bring to the marriage bed so that their husbands don't lost interest and get another wife and it made me really sad. I hope that there are woman who buy them for themselves in order to feel sexy, but it seems to me to be another case of women doing things in order to capture or hold men's interest, not because it's what they actually want (except, apparently, for Palestinian women). At least it's not playing to stereotype in one way: it's an article about Middle Eastern men who (at least in the bedroom) don't seem to want passive, respectful wives.

I wonder what it would be like to live in the middle east and be bombarded with images from the West, especially when it comes to marriage. I don't know if it's any better to be in a monogamous marriage, then a plural one necessarily. There would be jealousy, of course. But if you knew you were well and truly loved and you loved your sister-wives? I think maybe it could be beautiful. It would be tough (very, very tough) and very, very rare, but I think there might be examples. In one of her books our teacher talked about a plural marriage where the husband divorced one of his wives, but one of his sister-wives let her live with her family, because she considered her family just as much. Obviously that marriage didn't work out since the first woman and the husband divorced, but I think sometimes the women in the middle east must make it work, because otherwise it would've died out as an institution. I truly think if plural marriage was just always misery and then more misery then it would've stopped happening, because people need something to hope and to strive for.

Does that make sense or does it just sound hopelessly naive? I understand that they grow up thinking it's God's way for men to do what they want and I know a great deal of plural marriages must be hell. But a signifigant number of western marriages end up hellish too.

I don't know. I think I'm just in a strange mood brought on by a full moon and too many episodes of HBO's Big Love (I'll miss you cable television!). Forgive me for my foolish thoughts! Sleep well everyone else! And if anyone out there reads this and happens to be a student, I wish you much better luck than I got on your finals schedule; may whatever deities you deem worthy of belief bless you with good grades!