Carissa Putri & Melanie Putria
Mar 12th, 2008, in Celebrities, by PatungBeautiful young actresses Carissa Putri and Melanie Putria discuss their readiness for polygamy.
Party girl Carissa Putri, left.
One of the stars of the film Ayat-Ayat Cinta, which at least one wit has dubbed “Ayat Ayat Poligami” detik, the lovely Miss Carissa Putri, who plays Maria the Copt-turned-Muslim in the movie, says being in a polygamous marriage would be acceptable to her: kapanlagi
Polygamy can be beneficial to some people.
But
I wouldn’t want to be the second wife.
In general polygamy was OK, she said, provided it was done to help the other woman, and not done out of lust. radarlampung
Melanie Putria
Meanwhile, fellow Ayat Ayat Cinta star, Melanie Putria, who plays Nurul, says in her family there are some polygamous marriages, but for her:
Sorry, no.
Melanie, a former Putri Indonesia, performs daily prayers, or sholat, but says she has no idea of the meaning of doing so. kapanlagi
39 Comments on “Carissa Putri & Melanie Putria”
-
Man Power says:
Hey you guys are talking jive, let them marry twice third, and so on. Why do you insult a religion for this matter, you see all people out there in USA, Aussie or even Indonesia have sex for no reason like animal.
-
Man Power, I guess this means that animals have sex just for fun!
I figured that there was difference between sex in the general sense and the debate on whether polygamy is an acceptable practice and the justification for its practice.
Polygamy in its origins were for the reasons as pointed out by Purba Negoro in his post. If a religion permits polygamy or polyandry then the question is whether the State should become involved in regulating the practice. The US does for certain Mormon sects that maintain polygamous traditions. The State is to some degree involved in the regulation of polygamy in Indonesia. This is not in prohibiting the practice but rather regulating a set of conditions that must be satisfied before a polygamous marriage would be deemed legal.
AA Gym’s case is an interesting one because there were mixed feelings and emotions on whether this was a good move. Where there was plenty of social commentary about the pros and cons of the practice of polygamy. This commentary did not really make arguments for the prohibition of the practice on religious grounds but rather this was the perpetuation of a culture of violence against women. I would need to research and read more on the bases of these arguments to legitimately comment.
Unfortunately, the part about Jews and Gentiles is a little of track for a polygamy debate as it is a topic in itself! Perhaps this could be a separate IM entry?
-
Janma says:
Poor Nigre…..said
you must be Australian or English- as you lack the testes to state something openly and forthright with conviction.
I always wondered why I don’t have testes! NOw the answer!
-
And he also said;
The choice, for most Western women- is between a chaste and childless old maidenhood, or becoming somebody’s mistress,- essentially an unofficial second wife without legal rights or resultant offspring.
Excuse Me????!!!! Number one, since when are womens lives defined by these two meager choices!? Chaste maidenhoods went out with Queen Victoria in case you hadn’t noticed, and womens lives are not defined by their sex lives!
And you are saying there are no lonely childless old men? And as for becoming someones mistress being a choice for women????? What about kept men? Never happens? There are many men mistresses you know!
Oh my God, I don’t know why I even bother to answer such tripe!? What’s wrong with me… (kurang kerjaan kali…..)
*Janma puts on her breathless blonde voice….* “oh thank the Lord for polygamy! I would never get a man otherwise!” -
Janma…
I have always preferred the term “testicular fortitude” when referring to men who lack conviction…I guess the female equivalent would have to be “ovarial fortitude”!
But when it is all said and done, I think name calling and going off on tangents detracts from the overall argument and that is why I did not address them in my post. The points that were made regarding the origins of polygamy are reasons often trotted out for why the practice exists. I am not for or against the practice but feel that what is good for the gander must be equally as good for the goose!
Better a woman defend against those two meagre choices. As a man I figured there would have been more choices for women but then again I guess if men are allowed to dictate the debate then that might turn out to be the only two choices permitted in sime ugly male-dominated world of the future. In any event I think a little research would bear out the facts that some women choose not to get married, choose not to have children, and choose to work, and this does not necessarily make them chaste old maids. Once again if women allow men to dictate the debate this will continue to be the stupid stereotypes that pervade the discussion.
I guess I should be happy that I am a man!
Janma…there has to be a better term than “man mistress”! I know what you mean though! 🙂
Nice posts in defence of modern womanhood! Keep ’em coming!
-
Danny says:
If god intended man and women to be as we say equal he would have only created one sex. The fact that women in modern day dont accept polygamy is due to there western influence. Polygamy has been around since the Dawn of man. I think its ok as long as the partied involved are doing it for the right reasons. My self i could not imagine to women complaining to me. I suggest for those who want to understand polygamy need to also understand nature. Men and women where made to procreate and natural selections doenst exist anymore since its all about the benjamins.
-
Polygami is a syari’ah from Moslem. That is from god. But the implementation of this syari’ah has negatif viewed from some people who doesn’t know how to aplicate polygami.
Polygami in moslem teach us to compliant, obedient, and as examination from god. Look at Mohamed, he do polygami but with a wise way. And many shohabah doing polygami, even ulama. Polygami is a syari’ah.
Even history kings scandinavia, europe, or many country even in Bible, moslem, budha, or hindu their propet has polygami too. Not to degrade women, but to regard and respectfull. In moslem, women is like a flower. Being respect, and decorus.
-
Shloka says:
Actually, quite a few women might find polygamy attractive, especially the gold diggers. Look at Western tycoons like Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump with decades younger wives.Remember George Bernard Shaw’s quote, “Polygamy, when tried under modern democratic conditions, as by the Mormons, is wrecked by the revolt of the mass of inferior men who are condemned to celibacy by it; for the maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one.”
Of course the West, for all its supposed vices has freedom of choice for both sexes and thus older women like Demi Moore can also marry an Ashton Kutcher, or a Madonna a Guy Ritchie. Come to think of it, Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) too can be accused of being a gold digger and Khadija a cradle robber! 😉
Comment on “Carissa Putri & Melanie Putria”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2023
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
Sputjam: yet more bluster from a ignoramus.
Your snide sdie-swipe at Islam in your sentence implies that viz a vs your lack of moral fibre- you must be Australian or English- as you lack the testes to state something openly and forthright with conviction.
Rather pathetic commentary from bules.
Please read a book- illiteracy and total ignorance (aka self-engrossment) may be newly fashionable amongst the G8- but not here.
Though I quote the very humourous Wiliam Monkhouse:
There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, ‘Why the third?’
He replied, ‘One’s absurd,
and bigamy, sir, is a crime.
Actually there is only one phrase in the entire Q’uran about Poligamy.
Furthermore the Quran is the only religious tect to mention- then Marry once.
In Surah Nissah God allows a Muslim to marry, one, two, three or four women as long as he can do justice between them. If the man can’t do justice, the exhortation for him is: “… then marry only once”.
It was revealed to Mohammed after a defeat by Pagans in Medina- where many women were left widowed.
Thus the verse specifically infers poligamy refers in times of war when there are inevitably large numbers of widows and girls whose fiancées and husbands have been killed in the fighting.
The choice, for most Western women- is between a chaste and childless old maidenhood, or becoming somebody’s mistress,- essentially an unofficial second wife without legal rights or resultant offspring.
Globally, most women have always wanted and still do want the security of a legal husband and family.
The compromise therefore is for women under these circumstances to face that if given the alternative many of them would rather share a husband than have none at all.
And of course polygamy must be with full consent of the first wife.
It’s interpretation according to most Islamic moderates- including Abdul A Gymnastiar (who ironically got a leggy 2nd wife) the verse is regarding charity- to take in orphaned children or elderly ugly widows as a means of supporting them financially and avoiding endemic poverty.
This passage is much over-hyped by the West- rather odd considering their Jewish bedfellows dispute the entire basis of their religion, ridicule them as heretics and claim their Messiah never was- and that Christians and non-Jews (aka Goyim) according to Professor Shahak of Israel:
“According to the Jewish religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. . . . When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court. To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.”
Thus,
I am a Kejawen- but I take the Quran as an article of history and it must be read in its’ context.
Can we ever eliminate the bullsh*t and focus on the facts?