I'm posting this here because I wanted to use a throwaway for privacy and I couldn't post to the main thread with this account.

Link to BBC

TLDR: The husband doesn't let his wife who is a member of Iranian national football team to leave the country for an international tournament, because he wants her to accompany their son in his first day of school.

This obviously didn't happen in the west, but in Iran, an Islamic state with a majority of pro-western population. It created a lot of debate on social media. Feminist cried, WKs arose, etc. She obviously didn't get ribbons and TV shows, since she is not in the west (and it would never have happened anyway if she was)

We like to rant about the law being biased towards women in the west and how they can do whatever they want especially when it comes to family law. This is a family case in a country known for the family laws usually biased towards men. A married Iranian woman needs her spouse's consent to obtain or renew a passport.

I'm genuinely interested in knowing TRP's take on this. Here are some points to consider:

  • The wife has worked hard for her career in spite of all the restrictions she has as a woman athlete in Iran e.g. having to wear hijab on the pitch!
  • The husband has a point. He wants his son to have his mother by his side on the first day of school.
  • The husband is not necessarily RP, since he is raised in that system. He may or may not have been aware of the RP dynamics.

TRP is a sexual strategy and is not promoted as a movement to try to change the law, fight for freedom, etc. but to simply provide an answer for a mind who's ready for it. But if you were to decide the law, would you go with something you have adopted as your sexual strategy? Would you consider that fair?

My opinion: In all fairness, that woman should have been legally able to make her decision. If the guy wants his wife to stay, it's his problem. If he is RP, he knows how to do it.