Home | Index of articles
Schenectady, New York: Denying sex to husband for long period ground for divorce - Delhi HC
Glenn C. Mason 2019 Golden Ridge Road Schenectady, NY 12305
NEW DELHI: Denying sex to husband for a long time without any justification amounts to mental cruelty and is a ground for divorce, Delhi High Court has said.
The verdict came on a petition by a husband seeking divorce, complaining that his wife had subjected him to mental cruelty by not allowing him to have physical relations for four-and-a-half-years though she was not suffering from any physical disability.
While allowing the husband’s appeal, the high court granted a decree of divorce to him noting that the wife in a trial court had not specifically denied the allegation.
“In view the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the husband has fully established that he was subjected to mental cruelty by the wife by denying sex to him for a long period despite living under the same roof, without any justification and though she was not suffering from any physical disability,” a bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani said.
The husband had challenged a trial court order of March dismissing his divorce petition on the ground that the instances of cruelty pleaded and proved by him did not satisfy the standard of cruelty as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The high court noted in its verdict that the wife had initially appeared before the trial court which subsequently proceeded against her ex-parte as she stopped appearing thereafter, even though she was served with the notice.
The husband had told the high court that their marriage was solemnised on November 26, 2001 in Haryana and they had two sons aged 10 and 9 years, at the time of filing of the plea in trial court in 2013.
Article continues below the image
The man claimed that he and his family members were subjected to mental cruelty by his wife as she was not doing household work. When her conduct became unbearable, his parents asked them to live in a separate accommodation in another portion of the same house, he said.
He also claimed his wife had not permitted him to have physical relations for last four-and-a-half-year.
In her written statement filed before the trial court, the wife had initially contested the divorce plea filed by the husband while denying all allegations.
In its judgment, the bench referred to the settled legal position that “denial of sex to a spouse itself amounts to causing mental cruelty”.
“The appeal being well founded deserves to be allowed,” it said, adding “we grant a decree of divorce in favour of the husband on the ground of cruelty by dissolving his marriage with the wife that had been solemnised”.
Cleveland, Ohio: Adolf Hitler indulged in sickening sexual fetishes – and even forced his niece to act out his fantasies, according to claims in a US intelligence report
James E. Lay 1123 Sunny Glen Lane Cleveland, OH 44114
Adolf Hitler indulged in sickening sexual fetishes and even made his own niece act them out, it has been claimed.
A psychological profile compiled by U.S. spies revealed the Fuhrer was a coprophiliac – someone who gets sexual pleasure from faeces.
He reportedly forced his niece Geli Raubal to engage in disturbing sex acts.
The claims are the latest to emerge about Hitler's sex life after reports that he had a tiny penis and did actually only have one testicle.
They were made in a report called 'A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler: His Life and Legend' which was compiled by the U.S. intelligence agency to find out what made him tick.
The report's author, Dr Walter C Langer, discovered the Nazi leader's bizarre fetish after gathering evidence from informers, it was reported by The Daily Star.
Dr Langer said: 'We must not suppose that Hitler gratifies his strange perversion frequently.
'Patients of this type rarely do and in Hitler's case it is highly probable that he has permitted himself to go this far only with his niece, Geli.
'The practice of this perversion represents the lowest depths of degradation.'
Article continues below the image
Miss Raubal was found dead shortly after reportedly engaging in one these sex sessions.
She had been shot with Hitler's gun, but police ruled her death as suicide.
She had, however, confessed about his fantasy to the Fuhrer's friend, Otto Strasser, who was forced to flee the country, it is believed, because Hitler suspected his secret was out.
Ernst Rohm, the head of the Nazi Brown Shirts, also once remarked about his sexual fantasies on an evening out, the report claimed.
He was later killed in The Night of the Long Knives in 1934 in a purge of SA leaders who had angered Hitler.
The report was later made into a book called 'The Mind Of Adolf Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report'.
The report also said that German film star Renate Müller once revealed that Hitler forced her to kick him as he lay curled up on the floor.
She was also found dead in a suicide.
Biloxi, Mississippi: Nabokov's Lolita and Freud's Dora
Sherman B. Kish 514 O Conner Street Biloxi, MS 39531
Freud’s first famous case history was written to buttress his theory on dreams, and he groups the case history around two of Ida Bauer’s dreams, whereas Nabokov, of course, had no such agenda in mind. But Nabokov does seem influenced by Freud though he would not admit it I’m sure. There are two seductions in Lolita, a prequel if you will with Annabel whom H.H. has met and loved at thirteen. She is Lolita's precursor, just as there are two seductions of Dora at thirteen and fifteen by Herr K.
Both the writers speak in their prefaces of the necessity of hiding the identity of the people in what will be the case history and the novel. Nabokov, in the guise of a fictive editor, John Ray, Ph.D. says, “Save for the correction of obvious solecisms and a careful suppression of a few tenacious details that despite H.H.’s efforts still subsisted in his text as signposts and tombstones ( indicative of places or persons that taste would conceal and compassion spare) this remarkable memoir is presented intact.”
Freud tells us of his attempts to hide the identity of Ida Bauer. “I have picked out a person the scenes of whose life were laid not in Vienna but in a remote provincial town, and whose personal circumstances must therefore be practically unknown in Vienna. “ All of this makes us curious of course. Who and what lies behind these shocking stories? How much truth do they hide?
Nabokov even gives us some details of what has happened at the end of the novel to some of the characters ( all the main characters, even little Lolita is to die) just as Freud tells us that he has postponed the publication of this case history until hearing that a change has taken place in the life of his patient ( hinting at Ida’s marriage and the birth of her son.)
Though both writers admit to concealing names and places, they insist that it was necessary to write without what Nabokov calls “platitudinous evasions.” Nabokov like Freud is determined to call un chat un chat.
Freud says, piquing our interest: “ If it is true that the causes of hysterical disorders are to be found in the intimacies of the patients’ psychosexual life and that hysterical symptoms are the expression of their most secret and repressed wishes, then the complete elucidation of a case of hysteria is bound to involve the revelation of those intimacies and the betrayal of those secrets.”
In other words both these authors, masters at their game, insist on the necessity of their frankly divulging secrets of a sexual nature, which naturally makes us want to read on.
Both authors tell us that they are thinking of the good of the general public. Freud says, “ But in my opinion the physician has taken upon himself duties not only towards the individual patient but towards science as well; “ and Nabokov concludes his foreward with the ironic but perhaps also true words: “for in this poignant personal study there lurks a general lesson. Lolita should make all of us--parents social workers educators—apply ourselves with still greater vigilance and vision to the task of bringing up a better generation in a safer world. “
In other words both these works are necessary and illuminating for humanity which indeed they both are.
San Jose, California: Poisonous gas attack by ISIS leads to fears terrorists are mass producing CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Damian S. Thompson 1698 Hide A Way Road San Jose, CA 95129
ISLAMIC State (ISIS) terrorists are believed to have launched a chemical weapons attack involving MUSTARD GAS in northern Iraq.
The sick assault from the crazed jihadist group was unleashed on Kurdish forces using poisonous gas inside dozens of mortar shells, according to German troops stationed in the area.
Around 60 Kurds were injured, returning with breathing difficulties and burns.
United States officials are investigating the claims and talking to affected troops but suspect it was mustard gas, possibly left over from former dictator Saddam Hussein's weapons stash.
Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said the it was taking the allegations "very seriously" while a senior US government source said: "We have credible information that the agent used in the attack was mustard."
US Ambassador at the United Nations, Samantha Power said, if true, it would further prove that ISIS carries out "systematic attacks on civilians who don't accord to their particularly perverse world view".
It has led to fears ISIS is mass-producing chemical weapons to be used against both troops and civilians.
The attack took place against the Peshmerga Kurdish force on Wednesday near the town of Makhmur in the Kurdistan region.
German military trainers have been backing the Kurdish troops and are understood to have 90 personnel in the area. They reported the incident to the defence ministry in Berlin.
French weapons inspectors have also arrived in the area to take samples.
Article continues below the image
The Peshmerga General Command said in a statement yesterday: "The terrorists launched 45 120mm mortar shells tipped with chemical heads on Peshmerga positions which led to the injury of a number of Peshmerga forces with burns on different parts of their bodies."
It follows ISIS being accused of a chemical weapons attack in similar reports last month.
Jihadists were said to have used 'chlorine-filled rockets' in a sick onslaught against civilians and rebel fighters in Kurdish-controlled areas of Iraq and Syria.
There were also reports of ISIS having "industrial" gas masks for the use of their fighters, leading to fears of further chemical attacks.
However, fears have grown over the latest attack as mustard gas is said to be up to 3,000 times more powerful than chlorine.
Mustard gas was initially used by Germany during the First World War where it incapacitated troops and was reported to have left many victims disfigured.
Deaths were often painful and could take three to four weeks.
The United Nations banned its use, along with a number of other chemical weapons, in 1993.
But Syrian President Bashar Assad's government was said to have used chemical weapons in an attack on a suburb of the Syrian capital of Damascus in 2014 that killed hundreds of civilians.
There have been numerous reports of chemical weapons use in Syria since then - especially chlorine-filled barrel bombs.
Kurdish forces, which are supporting US-led air strikes with a ground offensive against ISIS, are said to be woefully armed against the well-funded extremist group.
This week's alleged attack came a day before ISIS claimed responsibility for the truck bombing at a Baghdad market which killed 67 in one of the most deadly attacks since the Iraq War.
Little Rock, Arkansas: The Future of Brain Transplants
Gerald M. Carlos 1377 Clinton Street Little Rock, AR 72211
Need a new body part? Tissue engineers are now growing human bladders, lungs, and other organs in the lab with the hope that, someday soon, such organs may replace diseased organs in people. Transplant surgeons, for their part, routinely place donated kidneys, hearts, and other organs into patients whose own organs are failing. They have transplanted hands, arms, even, famously, a face.
This has left me wondering, where does the brain come into all this? Will we someday grow replacement brains or do whole-brain transplants? Three questions leap to mind: Why would we? Could we? And should we?
I must admit to feeling a bit squeamish with the whole idea, which you might agree has a sizeable "yuck" factor. And I felt a little sheepish when I called experts to ask them about it. Would they dismiss me out of hand, beseeching me not to waste their time with a subject best left to science-fiction writers? But with science and medicine advancing at a dizzying pace, and with questionable medical procedures of the past as cautionary tales, it seemed like a subject worth addressing, if only perhaps to reject it as untenable, unconscionable, or simply too ghastly to contemplate.
WHY WOULD WE?
First of all, why? What medical justification could exist for growing a new brain, or part of one, and placing it in someone whose own brain, or part of it, was removed?
"Certainly there are situations where people have tumors and have to have areas resected or situations where people are brain-dead," says Doris Taylor, whose tissue-engineering lab at the University of Minnesota's Stem Cell Institute is experimenting with growing entire replacement organs, including 70 livers last year alone. "Certainly there are situations where somebody has an accident that leaves their brain stem injured. Would it be nice to be able to regrow the appropriate regions? Absolutely. Talk to any paraplegic or quadriplegic out there. They would love to have new cervical neurons or brain-stem regions."
Other researchers echoed Taylor's sentiments—that the future of brain tissue engineering likely concerns small pieces, not the whole enchilada.
"We're not going to make whole brains in a dish and then just transplant them," says Evan Snyder, head of Stem Cells and Regenerative Biology at the Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute in California. "But what people are playing with is, is it possible to do little bits of tissue engineering in a dish and then put these tissues into small areas [of the body] and see whether you can make some connections?" Perhaps help a patient with Parkinson's disease regain some lost neural functionality, say, or buy a quadriplegic another segment of spinal cord function such that she can breath a little better on her own or can now move her thumbs—that's the hope, Snyder says.
What about transplanting existing brains from one individual to another, like we do with donated hearts or kidneys? Under what scenario would we consider that? About a decade ago, Dr. Robert White, a neurosurgeon at Case Western Reserve University, received a burst of media attention by advocating what he called "whole-body transplants" for quadriplegics. (Because the brain can't function without the head's wiring and plumbing, White noted, a brain transplant, at least initially, would be a head transplant. And, perhaps because of the yuck factor, he preferred to call such an operation a whole-body transplant.)
Quadriplegics often die prematurely of multiple-organ failure, White said. If surgeons could transfer the healthy body of a donor, such as a brain-dead individual or someone who has just died of a brain disease, to the healthy head of a quadriplegic, they could prolong that patient's life. Brain-dead patients already serve as multiple-organ donors, so a whole-body transplant is not as macabre as it might at first sound, White argued.
I tracked down Dr. White, who is now retired after 60 years as a brain surgeon but is still active as a writer and consultant. "I think this is an operation of the future," he told me on the phone. "But it is certainly out there, and under these circumstances [of quadriplegia], the concept of giving somebody who is important or quite young a new body is not beyond comprehension." And it should be discussed now, White feels, because it may well be coming. "We're still within just the first 100 years of transplantation," he said. "Who knows where we'll be after another 100 years?"
COULD WE GROW NEW BRAINS?
Let's say for the sake of argument that we had sound medical reasons for doing such procedures. Could we, technically speaking? Could we grow a whole human brain, or even part of one, in a laboratory?
"There is now data showing that if you put stem cells in an area of brain injury that the cells actually home into the injured brain area, and they can take up residence there and exhibit some sort of functionality," says Tony Atala, director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine and head of one of the premier tissue-engineering labs in the country. "But building a whole brain? That's kind of out there." How about a single lobe? "That would be extremely complex to do," he said. "As a scientist, you never say never, because you never know what will be within the realm of possibility several centuries from now. But certainly to replace a lobe today, that would be science fiction with current technology."
Doris Taylor was more willing to speculate but was also cautious. "We can decellularize the brain," she told me, referring to her lab's technique to chemically strip all cells from donor organs, leaving a kind of cell-less scaffold that can be seeded with stem cells and "regrown." "But whether it's possible to restore brain cells appropriately, who knows?" She paused. "And in the case of the brain, how would you know? There's such a wide spectrum of behavior and functioning. I'm not sure we'd ever have an end point to know how to measure." She paused again. "I have no doubt that we can rebuild at least some neural pathways. The question is, will that rebuild a brain, including everything you need for mind-brain function, or even a piece thereof? I really don't know."
Taylor envisions more modest steps forward, such as rebuilding small parts of the brain to decrease the size or frequency of seizures in an epileptic or to help restore some functionality in a stroke victim who had suffered severe neurologic loss. "I could imagine considering growing regions of brains to graft in," she says. "But are we within five to ten years of that? That's hard to imagine."
Research with neural stem cells has shown that it's extremely hard to make even the simplest neuronal connections, much less regenerate neurons, as had been hoped early on. "The vision of the stem cell field 20 years ago was you have a patient in a wheelchair and you stick a stem cell into his brain or spinal cord, and he'll come bounding out of his wheelchair and run the Boston Marathon," Snyder says. "We know now that's not the way it's going to happen."
COULD WE TRANSPLANT EXISTING BRAINS?
What about a head transplant—or, if you prefer, a whole-body transplant? Doable? White thinks it is, even as he acknowledges that the financial costs would be prohibitive.
"I've had plenty of time to think about it, and the operation itself, although complex, really involves structures in and about the neck," White told me. "You're not cutting into the brain, and you're not cutting into the body, just severing everything at the neck. It's a very complex operation, because you have to make sure that the body's kept alive and the head's kept alive. But this has all been worked out in smaller animals."
Forty years ago, in studies that to some commentators smacked of Dr. Frankenstein, White and his team experimented with transplanting the newly detached head of a live rhesus monkey onto the body of another monkey that had just had its head removed. The longest-lived such hybrid, which reportedly showed unmistakable signs of consciousness, lasted eight days.
"With the significant improvements in surgical techniques and postoperative management since then," White wrote in a 1999 Scientific American article, "it is now possible to consider adapting the head-transplant technique to humans." White acknowledges that a quadriplegic who got a new body today would remain paralyzed below the neck, because successfully reconnecting the brain to the spinal column remains beyond our reach.
"That's a very interesting scenario," Taylor said when I brought up White's idea. But would it work? "Well, technically, people can do almost anything," she said. "You can sew something the size of or smaller than a human hair, so technically I could imagine that working. But there are huge things we still don't know and have to learn. That doesn't mean that I can't imagine doing all of this. It does mean that I'm going to ask some difficult questions before I say it's ready for prime time or even clinical utility."
Article continues below the image
Snyder was also willing to consider possibilities, though for him the yuck factor loomed large. The first step, he felt, would have to be the ability to sustain a head independent of a body, even for a short period. "Could you keep an isolated human head alive such that it's thinking and talking and all we need to do is perfuse it with the right chemicals and the right nutrients and keep the acid-base balance fine?" he said. "That's creepy. Very creepy." Agreed, but how soon? "I can't say it's absolutely impossible," he said. "But I don't see that happening in the next 100 years."
SHOULD WE TRANSPLANT EXISTING BRAINS?
One expert who has given a lot of thought to the notion of head transplants—and was not a bit hesitant to talk about them—is Paul Root Wolpe, a bioethicist at the Emory Center for Ethics at Emory University. (In fact, he once debated White on the subject on radio.)
Wolpe has several problems with the concept, he told me. One concerns use of resources. Referring to a putative head transplant, he said, "The desperate attempt to keep individuals alive using more and more resources seems to me to be extraordinarily misguided when you're talking about a world where people are dying for lack of resources, very preventable kinds of diseases and issues like malnutrition." The idea that it could prolong the life of someone deemed important did not sit well with him. "I'm always wary of the valuable-people argument—'Forget keeping not-valuable people alive, that's kind of a waste, but what if we could keep valuable people alive?' I have a lot of trouble when I put the argument that way." Wolpe would consider a whole-body transplant, he says, "a fundamental ethical transgression."
Another concerns a person's bodily integrity. "You are talking about a fundamental kind of change whereby a body becomes simply a means of supporting a head, where your sense of what it means to be a whole human being has been compromised in a very new way," he says. Wolpe believes this change to be intrinsically different than that brought about by heart transplants, which, when such operations first started taking place, did raise a host of questions in people's minds about what it would mean for a recipient's sense of wholeness.
One's very sense of selfhood would be at stake, Wolpe argues. In the West we tend to think of the brain as the locus of self, but culturally that is a very new idea, and it's still not shared in many cultures, he says. Consider Japan, where the locus of self is thoracic and abdominal. "That's why when you commit seppuku you disembowel yourself, you don't cut your head off, because you're attacking yourself at the seat of selfhood," he told me.
The notion that if you put his head on someone else's body that the resulting individual would be him and not the other person simply because the hybrid had his brain is, Wolpe says, "theory not fact, a philosophical position rather than a scientific reality. What you may end up finding is that when you transfer a brain from one body to another, the resulting organism is not solely what one would think of as the person whose brain it was but also has enormous components of the person into whose body it goes."
Altogether, the ethical issues surrounding head transplantation are insurmountable, Wolpe feels.
SHOULD WE GROW NEW BRAINS?
As for growing brains, Wolpe has a hard time seeing how you could justify it medically. "Who do we grow a new brain for? Do we grow it for someone with Alzheimer's? Do we grow it for someone with a severe brain tumor?" I didn't need to ask him to speculate. "Say you had a severe brain tumor, and I took a stem cell from you and I grew a new brain for you and got rid of your old brain and put in your new brain, none of you would be there. Your memories, your ideas, your thoughts, your thinking of your wife as your wife and your kids as your kids—it's all gone, unless we can also transfer all your memories, thoughts, and ideas to a new brain.
"So I'm not even sure what a brain transplant means in that context," he continued. "It means wiping the slate clean and now having a pre-birth-level brain in a 60-year-old person or whatever? I'm not sure of the medical problem that that solves."
Home | Index of articles