Covering up women

[Brahma's atheist]

Someone asked me why this muslim woman was wearing a scarf. I said if I was being cynical I would say it was to stop her being raped but it's actually for modesty( I'm sure someone will correct me).
So what is the wearing of veils and covering up, in any society, for.
Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women? It stops men from having the shame of being a rapist and it stops there being the shame of a rape victim in a mans family.If a religion says that people should dress modestly then why is it that only the women seem to do it? Do women not also get infalmed by men?
In Islam the clothes that the women have to wear seem to be like torture devices. Black cloth in hot climes. Heavy looking coats regardless of the conditions. Are they being punished for their existence? For the power they hold over men. In other societies do the women just wear plain ordinary dresses?
In one way though it might be good thing as my friend said because there is no need to do make up and all that grooming, just throw on a burka and that's it. Just dowse yourself in deoderant because it must get horribly hot.
As I said to my freind," If your god won't protect you from being raped then a scarf certainly won't"
Is rape more prevelant in sociteties such as in the West where women don't have to cover up?What about 'primitive' societies where people just go about in the altogether? Are they immoral?
This may be a bit incoherent but I just hate misogyny and institutional misogyny. It gets me so mad

[meritocrat]

There are some aspects of Western culture that Muslims may be offended by.

For example, most Muslims I know are offended by pornography and the consumption of alcohol. Are these things inherently immoral?

In my opinion, people who oppose Islamic values simply wish to push their own morality onto Muslims.

[MollyMac]

Can we please dispense with this idea that rape is caused by men’s uncontrollable sexual urges? Men are human beings, not animals. It is not the sight of naked female flesh that makes a man force himself on a woman – if that were true we would all cover ourselves from head to foot every waking minute. In fact we wear what we want to and we mostly don’t get raped. When we do we can be wearing anything or nothing, we can be any age (I’ve personally worked with countless rape victims in their 70s and 80s) and our attackers can be strangers, acquaintances or partners. Rape isn’t a sex crime, it’s a hate crime - and rapists KNOW that.

How can we know which cultures rape is more prevalent in? Most women don’t even report rape - and with good reason. Even the definition of rape changes according to time and place. Until a few years ago a husband couldn't, according to the law, rape his wife in this country.

Forcing women to cover themselves up (as opposed to allowing them to choose what to wear) is not about protecting them – it’s about controlling them.
posted by meritocrat
In my opinion, people who oppose Islamic values simply wish to push their own morality onto Muslims.
And in MY opinion, anyone who doesn’t oppose the ‘Islamic value’ of dictating how women must dress and behave, would seem to have a callous disregard for basic human rights.

[meritocrat]

So?

What makes your morality superior to Islamic sensibilities?

Some might argue that there ARE no universal rights!!

[yguy]

Originally posted by Brahma's atheist
So what is the wearing of veils and covering up, in any society, for.
Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women?

Yes.

[Arken]

Let me state now that I, for one, am in favor of women wearing as little as possible. :D

[MollyMac]

meritocrat,

Is it really beyond your capability to present a reasoned, well-thought out argument backed-up by evidence? If not, please do so and I will respond accordingly. Petulant retorts like
‘So?’
And non sequiteurs like
What makes your morality superior to Islamic sensibilities?
are a waste of time and space.

Let me give you a hand: You said

Some might argue that there ARE no universal rights!!
Is this your personal opinion or not? Why/why not?

As for yguy and Arken:

Sorry but has this thread been moved from a higher forum to elsewhere without me noticing?

[beth]

I do think the covering are a way to suppress and dominate women. It also seems to be a very cruel thing to expect out of women in the heat of summer and fall. Also, the thought that women are protected from men by them being covered is false. I think that it is man's way of justifying rape and taking the blame from themselves. I think this logic is in the NT also when women are told to cover their hair to keep the angels from falling.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by yguy
Yes.
Another profound argument - how can anyone fail to grasp his point after such excellent explanation?

:rolleyes:

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by MollyMac
meritocrat,

Is it really beyond your capability to present a reasoned, well-thought out argument backed-up by evidence? If not, please do so and I will respond accordingly. Petulant retorts like

And non sequiteurs like

are a waste of time and space.

Let me give you a hand: You said

Is this your personal opinion or not? Why/why not?


Well it was you who stated that Islamic values are absolutely wrong. Why are they?

Also you cite human rights. In response to that I stated that it's possible for rights not to be universal in nature (a traditional rebuke of natural or human rights).

Now can YOU offer a 'reasoned' argument as to why you think Islamic values are absolutely wrong?

[MollyMac]

posted by meritocrat
Well it was you who stated that Islamic values are absolutely wrong. Why are they?
Please quote the line in my post where I state this.

[yguy]

Originally posted by MollyMac
As for yguy and Arken:

Sorry but has this thread been moved from a higher forum to elsewhere without me noticing?

I was being quite serious, ma'am.

[MollyMac]

I'm not suggesting you weren't being serious, yguy, I just thought the point of this forum was to discuss things. A monosyllabic response to one line in a post isn't discussion. Why don't you elaborate?

[yguy]

Originally posted by MollyMac
I'm not suggesting you weren't being serious, yguy, I just thought the point of this forum was to discuss things. A monosyllabic response to one line in a post isn't discussion.

Indeed. In this case it was a way to see if anyone was interested. ;)

Why don't you elaborate?

Attractive women have a psychological advantage over men, which is why such women tend not to get traffic tickets, for instance. When women dress provocatively, they increase that advantage to the detriment of both men and women, as it encourages men to look at them as sex objects. Burkas are obviously going way too far in a misguided attemt to protect men from their own weakness, but western civilization has gone way too far in the opposite direction, in my view.

[Buddrow_Wilson]

Originally posted by yguy
Attractive women have a psychological advantage over men, which is why such women tend not to get traffic tickets, for instance. When women dress provocatively, they increase that advantage to the detriment of both men and women, as it encourages men to look at them as sex objects. Burkas are obviously going way too far in a misguided attemt to protect men from their own weakness, but western civilization has gone way too far in the opposite direction, in my view.

Interesting, what manner of dress and behaviour would you instill on females in order to maintain the male's dominance and avoid feeling weakness?

---------

I think more than an attempt to avoid rape (to protect men from their "weakness"), islamic women are forced to dress that way to keep them anonymous and marginalized.

[Roland98]

So what is the wearing of veils and covering up, in any society, for.
Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women?

I've always been under the impression that it was the latter--as women in the Abrahamic religions are generally viewed as inherently sinful tempters of men (thank you, Eve).

And though the burkhas and other such head-to-toe coverings may be the most extreme examples, there are plenty of Christian sects which also have strict dress codes for women: high collar shirts, long skirts (no pants allowed); bonnets in some cases; long hair; no make-up (very "plain" appearance, again, to reduce the "temptress" effect), etc. These types of dress codes certainly aren't limited to Islamic fundamentalists.

[Arken]

Originally posted by MollyMac
As for yguy and Arken:

Sorry but has this thread been moved from a higher forum to elsewhere without me noticing?

Aww come on... every thread could use a little levity.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson

I think more than an attempt to avoid rape (to protect men from their "weakness"), islamic women are forced to dress that way to keep them anonymous and marginalized.

Very good point, Buddrow.

WHy should women have to change to help men overcome their weaknesses yguy? Should the Giants play worse baseball because the Padres (my home team) have a weakness in that area? No, it is incumbent upon the group with the weakness to overcome it. We've already helped out by making rape illegal and set a guideline and role model for what is expected of men. If they still can't overcome their weakness, it's not women's fault.

Anyway, I disagree with your premise about protecting men because they are weak. As humans, we all have strengths and weaknesses, but I put a lot more faith in men, as a sex, than you apparently do. Most men I know can control themselves as a whole, even if their penises might betray the truth.

[yguy]

Originally posted by cheetah
WHy should women have to change to help men overcome their weaknesses yguy? Should the Giants play worse baseball because the Padres (my home team) have a weakness in that area? No, it is incumbent upon the group with the weakness to overcome it. We've already helped out by making rape illegal and set a guideline and role model for what is expected of men. If they still can't overcome their weakness, it's not women's fault.

I have no problem with any of this. However, if men did start to overcome these weaknesses on their own, many women who use their sexuality as a weapon would be disempowered. That kind of woman has a vested interest in maintaining her advantage - even to her own detriment.

[yguy]

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
Interesting, what manner of dress and behaviour would you instill on females in order to maintain the male's dominance and avoid feeling weakness?

The question appears to be based on a false premise. A woman who gives a man a feeling of dominance and strength is in fact the dominant and strong one.

As to how women dress I would merely have them realize that by dressing in a sexually provacative manner they are making an unconscious choice to attract the the kind of man who will focus on her sexuality rather than her personhood.

[MollyMac]

As to how women dress I would merely have them realize that by dressing in a sexually provacative manner they are making an unconscious choice to attract the the kind of man who will focus on her sexuality rather than her personhood.
I'm inclined to agree with this.

But to return to the points made in the opening post: - what explanation can there be for children as young as five having to be covered from head to foot. I live in a neighbourhood with a large muslim community and amongst my own children's classmates at primary school were little girls wearing hijab, long sleeves and long trousers whatever the weather. WTF is that all about?

[yguy]

Originally posted by MollyMac
But to return to the points made in the opening post: - what explanation can there be for children as young as five having to be covered from head to foot. I live in a neighbourhood with a large muslim community and amongst my own children's classmates at primary school were little girls wearing hijab, long sleeves and long trousers whatever the weather. WTF is that all about?

I didn't realize that children were subjected to this, but I agree that there is an implicit misogynistic degradation of women in the practice of wearing burkas. That children are thus dressed makes me wonder if there are repressed pedophilic urges in Islamic men which they're trying to apply the same solution to that as they do to their weakness for women. Just a thought.

[Buddrow_Wilson]

Originally posted by yguy
The question appears to be based on a false premise. A woman who gives a man a feeling of dominance and strength is in fact the dominant and strong one.

Even if this is true, it enforces the premise. Manners of dress and behaviour are placed on women in order to prevent them from gaining this dominance.

MORE: As to how women dress I would merely have them realize that by dressing in a sexually provacative manner they are making an unconscious choice to attract the the kind of man who will focus on her sexuality rather than her personhood.

True to an extent, but so in the same way is a women who is naturally beautiful in face, mind, and body. Shall we blame her for her attractiveness? I hope you are not argueing that women who dress "provocatively" are in part to blame if they get raped?

[Roland98]

Originally posted by yguy
I didn't realize that children were subjected to this, but I agree that there is an implicit misogynistic degradation of women in the practice of wearing burkas. That children are thus dressed makes me wonder if there are repressed pedophilic urges in Islamic men which they're trying to apply the same solution to that as they do to their weakness for women. Just a thought.

And again, I'll point out that this is also done in some Christian denominations as far as girls only wearing collared shirts and floor-length skirts and head coverings. Are there "repressed pedophilic urges" there as well?

I think it's just something they are taught from young childhood: that this is how females dress and act, irregardless of age.

[yguy]

Originally posted by Roland98
And again, I'll point out that this is also done in some Christian denominations as far as girls only wearing collared shirts and floor-length skirts and head coverings. Are there "repressed pedophilic urges" there as well?

I believe so. In fact, I don't believe there ever was a father who didn't at least once feel the faintest wisp of a sexual attraction for his own daughter, though I've only heard one (who was not a pedophile by any stretch) admit it.

[yguy]

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
True to an extent, but so in the same way is a women who is naturally beautiful in face, mind, and body. Shall we blame her for her attractiveness?

Of course not.

I hope you are not argueing that women who dress "provocatively" are in part to blame if they get raped?

I didn't have that in mind, but they may be. To pose an extreme hypothetical to illustrate the point, no woman has any business absent-mindedly sauntering through a bad section of town in a slutskirt. Not that that reduces guilt on the part of the perp, but the victim is not blameless.

I think the idea that the rape victim is always blameless is based in great part on the current conventional wisdom which says that rape is a crime of hate and not of sex, as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive. I don't buy it.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by yguy
Attractive women have a psychological advantage over men, which is why such women tend not to get traffic tickets, for instance.

The general differences in the way men and women drive may play a role.

When women dress provocatively, they increase that advantage to the detriment of both men and women, as it encourages men to look at them as sex objects.

It is entirely possible, not mutually exclusive, and infact quite normal and healthy, to be sexually attracted to someone and also respect that person as a person. Good relationships are founded upon sexual attraction and respect, not just one or the other. What yguy terms "provocative" may likely be what many healthy men consider attractive.

There's nothing wrong with male sexuality, and it's hardly a weakness. I like seeing attractively-dressed women, and I never rape any of them.

Burqas are obviously going way too far in a misguided attemt to protect men from their own weakness, but western civilization has gone way too far in the opposite direction, in my view.

So attraction to women is a male weakness, yet on other threads it's been made quite clear that yguy considers male attraction to males a perversion.

Gosh, what's a righteous boy to do? Talk about your no-win situation...

I have no problem with any of this. However, if men did start to overcome these weaknesses on their own, many women who use their sexuality as a weapon would be disempowered. That kind of woman has a vested interest in maintaining her advantage - even to her own detriment.

"Maintaining her advantage...to her own detriment".

George Orwell would be proud. It's really not clear what yguy is advocating here, but I have a really bad feeling that it's neither pleasant, normal, nor natural.

That children are thus dressed makes me wonder if there are repressed pedophilic urges in Islamic men which they're trying to apply the same solution to that as they do to their weakness for women. Just a thought.

On other threads, we've seen attempts to somehow connect homosexuality with pedophilia, but here we have an attempt to connect a religion to it.

If homosexuality is connected to pedophilia, and Islamic men are repressing pedophilic urges, then these men must have some connection to homosexuality, which would make the wearing of Burqas by women to protect them from the lust of males unnecessary, afterall. :D

[beth]

Yguy, your post sounds rather sexist to me. Perhaps a guy should act like a man instead of being a brute, he should, instead, go wack off in a corner somewhere if he can't control himself. She still isn't to blame.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Brahma's atheist
This may be a bit incoherent but I just hate misogyny and institutional misogyny. It gets me so mad

Your post is a little incoherent, therefore, I ask the following question: Are you equating Islam with institutional misogyny? If so, then I don't think that you have proved your point.

[yguy]

Originally posted by blondegoddess
Yguy, your post sounds rather sexist to me. Perhaps a guy should act like a man instead of being a brute, he should, instead, go wack off in a corner somewhere if he can't control himself.

Have I said otherwise? As far as I'm concerned, rape should be a capital crime, whether the victim wore a slutskirt or a nun's habit.

She still isn't to blame.

I don't think one can properly make a blanket statement to that effect. I'm not sure one can do so for any adult victim of any crime, for that matter.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by YGuy
Burqas are obviously going way too far in a misguided attemt to protect men from their own weakness, but western civilization has gone way too far in the opposite direction, in my view.

Originally posted by Dr. Rick
So attraction to women is a male weakness

I don't see how you got from point A to point B here. Where did he say in the above post that attraction to women is a male weakness? Moreover, you didn't address the point that he was raising, namely, has Western society gone too far?

[yguy]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I don't see how you got from point A to point B here. Where did he say in the above post that attraction to women is a male weakness?

He doesn't usually get much of what I say right, but he pretty much got that right. Men, to varying degrees, have the weakness of tending to look at women as objects of sexual gratification, as the NOW crowd pointed out decades ago.

[Buddrow_Wilson]

A provocatively dressed women is as much partially to blame for being raped as someone who is murdered for making a rude gesture would be partially to blame. You can argue that the action 'provoked' the act to some extent, but to assign blame to the victim is grossly inappropriate imo.

[Timberline]

In my opinion, people who oppose Islamic values simply wish to push their own morality onto Muslims.

Well, yes. In this instance, the values being 'pushed' are empathy for others and 'treat others the way you'd like to be treated.'

The problem with traditional Islamic dress is that it makes many healthy outdoor activities, sports and games impossible or impractical--or, at the very least, so uncomfortable that no one would want to do them.

I love the outdoors. I like to hike, rock climb, bicycle, swim, play tennis, feel the breeze on a summer day, and wear comfortable, sensible clothes in hot weather. Would I want to be forbidden from doing these things? No. Therefore, I shouldn't forbid women from doing these things.

Seems simple enough. Unfortunately, whole Muslim countries and communities, plus backward pockets of Christianity, still don't get that simple concept. Hard to believe this is 2003.

[Daleth]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Moreover, you didn't address the point that he was raising, namely, has Western society gone too far? What exactly might you consider "going too far"?

[MollyMac]

Well said Timberline. Forcing people to wear clothes which are hellishly uncomfortable, making them view the outside world through a burkha (anyone ever tried this?) under threat of punishment - beatings, imprisonment, ostracism - is a matter of cruelty. How does one justify this cruelty?

The discussion of rape on this thread seems to have focussed on the stereotypical rape victim as an attractive young woman. My experience as a Victim Support worker suggests otherwise and I'd like to try and show why we reject the term 'sex crime'. We feel it perpetuates the myth that rape is a result of men not being able to control themselves in the presence of female beauty. This is a myth which is very pervasive and very dangerous - I believe it has been responsible for countless aquittals of rapists in English courts.

Over an eight year period I worked with hundreds of rape victims. A minority were attractive young women and not one of them had been immodestly dressed by Western standards at the time of the assault. This might sound awful but if you had seen what some of these women looked like you would have been amazed:

A five foot tall, 200 lb woman aged 50 and with learning difficulties was frogmarched over a mile to her home (a single rented room) by a stranger who then raped and tortured her.

A widow in her 70s was found asleep in her bed by a burglar. He dragged her to the floor, stripped and raped her then covered her with the mattress from her bed and jumped up and down on it until he thought she was dead. (The thing that really haunted this woman afterwards was the fact that she'd been married 50 years and her husband had never seen her completely naked but her rapist - a kid of about 20 - had).

A woman in her 80s was forced by a stranger to suck off and swallow. Her attacker then stabbed her vagina with a knife and sliced through her perineum. She recovered surprisingly well from her physical injuries but I've not doubt the trauma of the experience hastened her death some months later.

I would add that in the majority of rape cases I've seen, some attempt at anal penetration was made.

The only thing that made these victims attractive was their extreme vulnerability and the ease with which they could be dominated and abused - that's how their attackers got their kicks. And this horrendous cruelty and disregard for the humanity of their victims is why we prefer the term 'hate crime'.

[Goober]

Shouldn't women have the right to dress provocatively, or indeed any way they want. If you think that western society has "gone too far", do you think the freedom to dress as you please should be taken away from them?

But this is what happens is some muslim countries. As I understand, the really fundamentalist muslim countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have legislation that FORCES women to cover themselves. Do you (meritocrat) seriously think that this just as moral as western values that allow freedom in this area?

As a side note, I've also heard that it leads to a very high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among women as the body needs sunlight to synthesise vitamin D.

Finally, yguy:

He doesn't usually get much of what I say right, but he pretty much got that right. Men, to varying degrees, have the weakness of tending to look at women as objects of sexual gratification, as the NOW crowd pointed out decades ago.

Do you think that men in societies where the women are forced to wear head to toe clothing don't have the same weakness?

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
...has Western society gone too far?

Did Polynesian, Tahitian, and Native American societies "go to far"?

Many Western societies have "gone too far" in oppressing women and human sexuality, though some Muslim-dominated societies have done much worse.

Notably absent from the "let's cover-up women and tell them how to dress to protect them from rape" argument is the lack of evidence to support such an effort or any refutation of the evidence against such an endeavor.

There is no reliable evidence that covering women from head to toe will decrease the incidence of rape, and that's because rape is a crime of dominance, power, and hate, not passion. Some Muslim countries report lower rape rates than Western societies, but the statistics are so skewed as to make them unreliable. In the US, rape rates are recorded as reported by victims, but in many ME countries the reported rape rate is based upon actual convictions, which are very difficult to get; a woman's word in many cases is not adequate evidence, and must be corroborated by male witnesses. Furthermore, women in Muslim dominated countries are often strongly discouraged from ever reporting rape.

Rape has no known correlation with dress; it is correlated with the perpetrator's feelings of anger and inadequacy, however, and there is no evidence that oppressing women or forcing them to dress a certain way is going to have an impact upon such motives. That's also why suggesting "Perhaps a guy should act like a man instead of being a brute, he should, instead, go wack off in a corner somewhere if he can't control himself" won't work as a solution, either; rapists masturbate as much or more than normal men.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by yguy
He doesn't usually get much of what I say right, but he pretty much got that right. Men, to varying degrees, have the weakness of tending to look at women as objects of sexual gratification, as the NOW crowd pointed out decades ago.

NOW did not point-out that how males look at women is a "weakness;" the twisted concept that sexual attraction is somehow dirty or a weakness has it's origins in the repressive doctrines of some religions, notably Christianity and Islam.

NOW and the Women's liberation movement fought against using “physical attractiveness and charm as the primary measures of a woman’s worth," not against human sexuality.

[yguy]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NOW did not point-out that how males look at women is a "weakness;"

Balderdash. They may not have called it that, but the rhetoric of the time made it clear that they resented having men undress them with their eyes. They spoke more truly than they knew.

[yguy]

Originally posted by Goober
Do you think that men in societies where the women are forced to wear head to toe clothing don't have the same weakness?

Of course - and probably worse. Thus the attempt to overcompensate. However, calling the weakness a virtue - as the Dr Ricks of the world would have us do - would lead us to undercompensate.

Societal dress codes are properly imposed not by men upon women, but by the older generation upon the younger.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by yguy
Balderdash. They may not have called it that, but the rhetoric of the time made it clear that they resented having men undress them with their eyes. They spoke more truly than they knew.

The fallacy of equivocation:

"Resentment" is not identifying a "weakness;" many people resent the power, money, and looks of others but do not label them as "weakness."

Societal dress codes are properly imposed not by men upon women, but by the older generation upon the younger.

Then why aren't you wearing a codpiece?

However, calling the weakness a virtue...

Strawman

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by yguy
Balderdash. They may not have called it that, but the rhetoric of the time made it clear that they resented having men undress them with their eyes. They spoke more truly than they knew.
From the NOW (http://www.now.org/organization/info.html) website:

"The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society."

I'm curious as to how your condescending interpretation of the "rhetoric of the time" serves to support your position in any way.

Is it your belief that women wish to be undesired? As far as I can tell, their wish is for equal rights and an end to discrimination. And I'm inlined to take their word over yours.

[yguy]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Since its founding in 1966, NOW's goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women.

I'm not interested in NOW's official statement of purpose. I was referring to the rhetoric of the 70's, which had a kernel of truth embedded in it, as I have pointed out.

[yguy]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
The fallacy of equivocation: <snip>

Forget it, Doc. Having a conversation with a machine is boring.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by yguy
I'm not interested in NOW's official statement of purpose. I was referring to the rhetoric of the 70's, which had a kernel of truth embedded in it, as I have pointed out.

You mean, which you have "falsely asserted" and you're "not interested" in the truth; neither substantiation for your post nor refutation of the evidence against it has been provided by you.

You're not interested in explaining or supporting your revisionist falsehoods because you can't. When facts interfere with your prejudice, you just ignore them, but don't expect reasonable people to do so, as well.

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by Timberline
Well, yes. In this instance, the values being 'pushed' are empathy for others and 'treat others the way you'd like to be treated.'

That's irrelevant. You have no right to force Muslims what to believe.

The problem with traditional Islamic dress is that it makes many healthy outdoor activities, sports and games impossible or impractical--or, at the very least, so uncomfortable that no one would want to do them.

I love the outdoors. I like to hike, rock climb, bicycle, swim, play tennis, feel the breeze on a summer day, and wear comfortable, sensible clothes in hot weather. Would I want to be forbidden from doing these things? No. Therefore, I shouldn't forbid women from doing these things.

Seems simple enough. Unfortunately, whole Muslim countries and communities, plus backward pockets of Christianity, still don't get that simple concept. Hard to believe this is 2003.

I dislike it when people say that. Why should progressing times equate with more progressive attitudes?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by yguy
I'm not interested in NOW's official statement of purpose. I was referring to the rhetoric of the 70's, which had a kernel of truth embedded in it, as I have pointed out.
Then your answer to "how does your condescending interpretation of NOW's purpose actually support your position?" must be "it doesn't".

And of course you are uninterested in NOW's official statement of purpose. Factual information that opposes your position is of no interest to you, I understand.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by meritocrat
That's irrelevant. You have no right to force Muslims what to believe.

I do believe it is their actions which we oppose. Rather relevant, since they abuse basic human rights.

I dislike it when people say that. Why should progressing times equate with more progressive attitudes?
Why shouldn't they? Why should attitudes not progress to keep pace with the progressing times?

[MollyMac]

posted by Nowhere357
I do believe it is their actions which we oppose. Rather relevant, since they abuse basic human rights.
posted by meritocrat when I made exactly the same point earlier in this thread
Some might argue that there ARE no universal rights!!
I thought I'd save you the trouble, meritocrat. Now are you going to develop your line of argument? Or are you going to resort to your favoured diversionary tactic of making a blatantly untrue assertion like this one:
Well it was you who stated that Islamic values are absolutely wrong.
or a non-sequiteur like this one:
You have no right to force Muslims what to believe.

Hmm?

[yguy]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
When facts interfere with your prejudice, you just ignore them, but don't expect reasonable people to do so, as well.

Neither you nor N357 have distinguished yourselves in my mind as particularly reasonable, to say the least; so pardon me if I fail to find disagreement from either of you particularly noteworthy.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by yguy
Neither you nor N357 have distinguished yourselves in my mind as particularly reasonable, to say the least; so pardon me if I fail to find disagreement from either of you particularly noteworthy.
Identify anywhere, in any thread, where you believe I've been unreasonable.

Anywhere, in any thread, on any forum, at any time, in any place.

That was a direct challenge to you - back up your claim.

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by MollyMac
I thought I'd save you the trouble, meritocrat. Now are you going to develop your line of argument? Or are you going to resort to your favoured diversionary tactic of making a blatantly untrue assertion like this one:






Well I think you are?

Who are you to say Muslim women covering themselves is wrong?

[yguy]

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Identify anywhere, in any thread, where you believe I've been unreasonable.

Anywhere, in any thread, on any forum, at any time, in any place.

That was a direct challenge to you - back up your claim.

I did that weeks ago, and you know it. It's why the topic of homosexuality can no longer be discussed between you and me. You wanna call me out, start another thread. Maybe I'll show up, and maybe I won't.

[MollyMac]

You think I'm what, meritocrat?

Whatever it is - don't bother unless you can quote the evidence.

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by MollyMac
You think I'm what, meritocrat?


I think you have a problem in accepting this debate is about subjective ethics.

[braces_for_impact]

Attractive women have a psychological advantage over men, which is why such women tend not to get traffic tickets, for instance. When women dress provocatively, they increase that advantage to the detriment of both men and women, as it encourages men to look at them as sex objects.

<Scantily clad woman waves hand> "You don't want to give me a traffic ticket officer."

<Officer Dick Peters> "I don't want to give you a traffic ticket, move along."



:D

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by yguy
I did that weeks ago, and you know it. It's why the topic of homosexuality can no longer be discussed between you and me. You wanna call me out, start another thread. Maybe I'll show up, and maybe I won't.
No you didn't. And no I don't it. Where's the evidence? I asked you to back up your claim, you have not done so. And I've already called you out, plain as day, how could you pretend not to notice this?

Whatever. :rolleyes:

Edited to add: it just occured to me - "unreasonable" to yguy means "anyone who disagrees with me and won't allow me to play my evasion games effectively."

Yes, I'm very unreasonable, by this definition.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by meritocrat
Who are you to say Muslim women covering themselves is wrong?
Who has said that Muslim women covering themselves is wrong? I haven't seen anyone make this claim.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by Roland98
And again, I'll point out that this is also done in some Christian denominations as far as girls only wearing collared shirts and floor-length skirts and head coverings. Are there "repressed pedophilic urges" there as well?

Originally posted by yguy
I believe so. In fact, I don't believe there ever was a father who didn't at least once feel the faintest wisp of a sexual attraction for his own daughter, though I've only heard one (who was not a pedophile by any stretch) admit it.

I don't suppose I should bother asking for a source for this other than your own opinion. Or perhaps your personal experience as a father with a daughter? Oh, wait...

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
NOW did not point-out that how males look at women is a "weakness;" the twisted concept that sexual attraction is somehow dirty or a weakness has it's origins in the repressive doctrines of some religions, notably Christianity and Islam.

Allowing a Muslim man to marry up to four wives and making the act of love between them an act of worship to the Abrahamic God contradicts your assertion that Islam views sexual attraction between men and women as dirty. You are seriously mistaken.

There are left wing radicals and right wing extremists in all of the Abrahamic religions, but I see no reason to believe that the radicals and extremists should define religion for everybody else.

[Dr Rick]

Polygamy is not a demonstration of sexual liberation; in Islam, it is just another tool of repression. If sexuality is "love" in Islam, why can't women practice androgeny as at least one of Mohammed's wives did? Why have women been condemned to death by the torture of being bombarded by rocks just for engaging in "the act of love?"

Islam and Christianity both seriously and detrimentally constrain sexuality, particularly female sexuality, but also male sexuality, and simply labelling copulation "an act of worship" does not mitigate the repressive nature of either.

Islam represses sexuality for most as it wields promises of unbridled sexuality in return for obedience to some. Sexuality is a tool to be manipulated, repressed, and redirected in Islam. It condemns non-virginal brides and forces women into hideous garments as it promises an afterlife eternal hard-on to male martyrs. It twists and perverts sex into an unnatural system of rewards and prohibitions. Sex is filthy under most circumstances in Islam, to be enjoyed and explored only under specified conditions, that for some divine reason, only seem to favor men.

Islam makes sexuality a constrained, sinful trait. The millions of women in the world today confined to their homes and burqas is a compelling refutation against any assertion to the contrary.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by meritocrat
Some might argue that there ARE no universal rights!!

In that case, then Islamic societies have no right to force women to cover up.

[Goober]

Who are you to say Muslim women covering themselves is wrong?

-meritocrat

Nice strawman, but nobody is arguing this. Try and stick to the point.

Meritocrat, you seem to have a problem with ethics. You seem to think that 'subjective' means 'arbitrary'. An ethical code would be a code of behaviour designed to increase the well-being of a society and its members. An unethical action is one that damages another persons well being for no good reason (or something along those lines). But it is pointless to take any action and say 'there is no way to tell if this is ethical or not, it's all subjective' as that would render ethics totally useless.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Polygamy is not a demonstration of sexual liberation; in Islam, it is just another tool of repression.

I don't agree. I objected to your implication that Islam views sex as something dirty. If sex is something dirty, then why are the martyrs of paradise promised beautiful companions in the hereafter? You are wrong, face it, Dr. Rick.

Do you want to tell me that polygamy isn't more liberal than monogamy? How about sex with concubines? Your assertion that Islam is equally as sexually repressive as Christianity is nonsense.

If sexuality is "love" in Islam, why can't women practice androgeny as at least one of Mohammed's wives did?

What do you mean by androgeny here? Which wife of Muhammad practiced androgeny? Who said that sexuality is love in Islam?

Why have women been condemned to death by the torture of being bombarded by rocks just for engaging in "the act of love?"

I am assuming that you are referring to adultery here. Why don't you just say so? Islam isn't as liberal as you are, Dr. Rick, but that doesn't mean that it's as sexually repressive as Christianity is. Secondly, who appointed you as the arbiter to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive?


Islam and Christianity both seriously and detrimentally constrain sexuality, particularly female sexuality, but also male sexuality, and simply labelling copulation "an act of worship" does not mitigate the repressive nature of either.

Simply asserting that Islam and Christianity are equally sexually repressive doesn't make it so either.

Islam represses sexuality for most as it wields promises of unbridled sexuality in return for obedience to some.

Listen to what you are saying, Dr. Rick. How can Islam make promises of unbridled sexuality, yet at the same you claim that Islam views sex as dirty in the same manner that Christianity does? You are talking nonsense.

Sexuality is a tool to be manipulated, repressed, and redirected in Islam. It condemns non-virginal brides and forces women into hideous garments as it promises an afterlife eternal hard-on to male martyrs.

Again, if what you say is true, then how can you say that Islam views human sexuality as dirty? Secondly, where does Islam condemn non-virginal brides? Thirdly, right wing extremists may force women into hideous garments, but they don't speak for everyone in Islam.

It twists and perverts sex into an unnatural system of rewards and prohibitions. Sex is filthy under most circumstances in Islam, to be enjoyed and explored only under specified conditions, that for some divine reason, only seem to favor men.

Islam makes sexuality a constrained, sinful trait. The millions of women in the world today confined to their homes and burqas is a compelling refutation against any assertion to the contrary.

I don't confine my wife to our home, nor do I force her to wear a burqa. I am far too liberal for that. However, I am far more conservative than you appear to be. Therefore, I come back to my original question: Who appointed you as the final arbiter to determine where to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive? Why don't you just get off of your high horse?

[Dr Rick]

“No one is allowed to wed more than four women, but he is permitted however, in addition to them, to buy (women), as many as he wants.” Ibn Hazam, vol. 6, part 9, pp. 441, 467.

Mohammed is estimated by scholars to have had somewhere
between 15-25 wives. Almost all agree that he had more that the Quran permits for other Muslims.

He married Aisha when she was just 6 years old and had intercouse with her when she was at the ripe ole' age of 9.

One of his first wives had two other husbands at the time she married him.

Allowing oneself to engage in pedophilia and hypocrisy is hardly a sign of sexual liberation; nor is blindly following the teachings of such a pervert an indication of free or decent thoughts.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am assuming that you are referring to adultery here. Why don't you just say so? Islam isn't as liberal as you are, Dr. Rick, but that doesn't mean that it's as sexually repressive as Christianity is. Secondly, who appointed you as the arbiter to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive?

I'm desperately hoping you're not trying to justify killing a woman just because she had sex. Please, in the name of humanity and all that is decent, tell us that's not what you're defending. Screw the rest of your nonsense; just show us a sign that you have some ability to judge right from wrong, and tell us you find this kind of horror abhorrent.

[Timberline]

That's irrelevant. You have no right to force Muslims what to believe.

Who mentioned force?

It's in my self-interest to encourage the people around me to share the values of 'empathy for others' and 'treat others as you'd like to be treated.' It's in my self-interest to oppose societies, ideologies and individuals that do not share those values.

Whether I have the right to do so is irrelevant. Did abolitionists have the right to 'push' their values onto Southern states? Did Southern states have the right to push their values onto slaves? A lot of people with conflicting values are crowded onto the same small planet, and, whether we like it or not, we’re going to push against each other at times. We're going to have to interact with each other.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
He married Aisha when she was just 6 years old and had intercouse with her when she was at the ripe ole' age of 9.

From the primary sources (such as they are) a strong case can be made that AIsha was around 19 when the marriage was consummated.



Thus, since it cannot be established that Muhammad did indeed marry a child, your argument is pointless.

Allowing oneself to engage in pedophilia and hypocrisy is hardly a sign of sexual liberation; nor is blindly following the teachings of such a pervert an indication of free or decent thoughts.

You haven't established that Muhammad engaged in pedophilia. Therefore, you are doing nothing more than assassinating the character of the messenger because you don't like his message.

It's ironic that you call Muhammad a pervert since the west is filled with so many sexual perverts, given the liberal sexual attitudes. You should look at your own society before you start attacking someone else's society. Does Pee Wee Herman whacking off in a movie theater ring a bell with you? How many guys in America whack off to pornography on the internet? Pornography on the internet is the crack cocaine of sexual addiction - millions of guys are addicted to it. Does that sound like sexual liberation or sexual enslavement to you? Moreover, the young teenage girls that get lured into that lousy business don't even get health care benefits from the porn industry when they contract STD's. They are used like toilet paper and then flushed down the toilet. Why is it that we don't hear liberals screaming about women being abused by the porn industry, but they make a big deal about Muslim women dress? Clean up your own society before you go out trying to clean up everybody else's society. You are talking nonsense, Dr. Rick, and I am still waiting for you to answer my question: Who appointed you as arbiter to draw the line between sexual liberalism and repression? Get off of your high horse, Dr. Rick.

[Dr Rick]

With various strawmen, non sequiturs, and ad hominem tu quoque ("you too") fallacies, NC is lamely arguing one should not criticize torturing a woman to death since she had sex when she wasn't married, the hypocrisy and oppression of Islam is justifiable in part because Pee-Wee Herman masturbated in a movie theater, and forcing millions of women to wear burqas is not an issue simply because he has the decency not to "force" his own wife to wear one.

In the name of religion, some people can rationalize anything.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
A provocatively dressed women is as much partially to blame for being raped as someone who is murdered for making a rude gesture would be partially to blame. You can argue that the action 'provoked' the act to some extent, but to assign blame to the victim is grossly inappropriate imo.
I disagree on a technicality, though I understand the point you are tryign to make. A provocatively dressed woman is not directing her provocatively dressed body at one person (the rapist) or anyone in particular, really. The rude gesturer who gets murdered most likely made that rude gesture to the person who murdered him. So, IMO, the rude gesturer contributed more significantly to the result (his own murder) than the victim of the rape. Of course, neither would in any way deserve anything of the sort.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by MollyMac
Well said Timberline. Forcing people to wear clothes which are hellishly uncomfortable, making them view the outside world through a burkha (anyone ever tried this?) under threat of punishment - beatings, imprisonment, ostracism - is a matter of cruelty. How does one justify this cruelty?

The discussion of rape on this thread seems to have focussed on the stereotypical rape victim as an attractive young woman. My experience as a Victim Support worker suggests otherwise and I'd like to try and show why we reject the term 'sex crime'. We feel it perpetuates the myth that rape is a result of men not being able to control themselves in the presence of female beauty. This is a myth which is very pervasive and very dangerous - I believe it has been responsible for countless aquittals of rapists in English courts.

Over an eight year period I worked with hundreds of rape victims. A minority were attractive young women and not one of them had been immodestly dressed by Western standards at the time of the assault. This might sound awful but if you had seen what some of these women looked like you would have been amazed:

A five foot tall, 200 lb woman aged 50 and with learning difficulties was frogmarched over a mile to her home (a single rented room) by a stranger who then raped and tortured her.

A widow in her 70s was found asleep in her bed by a burglar. He dragged her to the floor, stripped and raped her then covered her with the mattress from her bed and jumped up and down on it until he thought she was dead. (The thing that really haunted this woman afterwards was the fact that she'd been married 50 years and her husband had never seen her completely naked but her rapist - a kid of about 20 - had).

A woman in her 80s was forced by a stranger to suck off and swallow. Her attacker then stabbed her vagina with a knife and sliced through her perineum. She recovered surprisingly well from her physical injuries but I've not doubt the trauma of the experience hastened her death some months later.

I would add that in the majority of rape cases I've seen, some attempt at anal penetration was made.

The only thing that made these victims attractive was their extreme vulnerability and the ease with which they could be dominated and abused - that's how their attackers got their kicks. And this horrendous cruelty and disregard for the humanity of their victims is why we prefer the term 'hate crime'.

MollyMac, thank you for sharing this. You are right, discussion of rape too often focuses on hypothetical victims that don't really exist, possibly as a way to reduce the impact of the perceived crime. The ones you describe here are heinous and hateful.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by yguy
Neither you nor N357 have distinguished yourselves in my mind as particularly reasonable, to say the least; so pardon me if I fail to find disagreement from either of you particularly noteworthy.

Where's that jawdropping emoticon when I need it? To say Dr. Rick has not distinguished himself as reasonable, and N357, who makes very good points here, is just unimaginable. It's like telling Gandhi he hasn't distinguished himself as a person who is very passionate for his cause.

:eek:

[Buddrow_Wilson]

Originally posted by cheetah
I disagree on a technicality, though I understand the point you are tryign to make. A provocatively dressed woman is not directing her provocatively dressed body at one person (the rapist) or anyone in particular, really. The rude gesturer who gets murdered most likely made that rude gesture to the person who murdered him. So, IMO, the rude gesturer contributed more significantly to the result (his own murder) than the victim of the rape. Of course, neither would in any way deserve anything of the sort.

We could extend the analogy to a situation such as "date rape" where the woman does dress that way to impress a particular individual.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Buddrow_Wilson
We could extend the analogy to a situation such as "date rape" where the woman does dress that way to impress a particular individual.

A better analogy, though I think there is still wriggle room, like the woman dressing to feel HER best. Anyway, I really don't disagree and I feel increasingly uncomfortable discussing anything having to do with a victim of either of the crimes asking for the result they get. I think, as you pointed out, that people should view it this way: No one would say, "That guy deserves to get murdered because he flipped the other guy off and called him a cocksucking pig." and no one should say that a woman deserves rape based on what she's wearing. Of course, in light of MollyMac's info, this is probably largely a moot point for non-acquaintance rape.

Acquaintance rape is a whole different animal though. Men should be taught that no matter what a woman is wearing, even if she's naked, does not indicate a final answer on sex with him. I mean, not all women at nudist camps are saying yes to sex to any guy, right? Whoever said it was ok to judge someone's sonsent based on their clothes? To not acknowledge that consent should come out of the mouth is something cloe to treating a woman like an object rather than a human being, IMO. Whoever starting using clothing as an excuse for rape was a total asshole.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by cheetah
Whoever starting using clothing as an excuse for rape was a total asshole.

And completely wrong, as well. I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no good evidence that the way a woman dresses affects her chances of being raped; MollyMac's experience with rape victims is consistent with this observation.

[Calzaer]

if God had meant for us to run around naked, we'd've been BORN that way!

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
And completely wrong, as well. I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no good evidence that the way a woman dresses affects her chances of being raped; MollyMac's experience with rape victims is consistent with this observation.

Good point, and, as is unfortunately typical of those blinded by religion, other types of extremism and those with unfounded preconceived notions, totally ignored.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
With various strawmen, non sequiturs, and ad hominem tu quoque ("you too") fallacies, NC is lamely arguing one should not criticize torturing a woman to death since she had sex when she wasn't married....

The only one here who is arguing lamely is you. The fact is you don't even have an argument, Dr. Rick. Firstly, Islam doesn't condemn unmarried people to death for having sex with each other outside of marriage, but that isn't the main issue anyway. The question is, as I have posed it before, who appointed you to draw the line here?

Certainly, most people would object to a fine of $25.00 for someone convicted of murder - most people are not that liberal. Similarly, most people would object to executing someone convicted of stealing a loaf of bread - most people are not that far right.

The prescribed punishments in Islamic law may seem harsh to you, coming from a liberal society as you do, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong. An argument can be made that America has been too liberal with convicted criminals. How many criminals have been returned to the streets by liberal judges, only to commit more crimes against innocent people?

It's amazing to me how dogmatic liberals have become. If someone isn't as liberal as they are, then they label them "repressive". You can assert that Islam is repressive and oppressive, but it's merely an assertion on your part unless you can successfully argue that you are the one who should be drawing the line. Good Luck trying to do that.

the hypocrisy and oppression of Islam is justifiable in part because Pee-Wee Herman masturbated in a movie theater

This is such a mischaracterization of what I have said that it doesn't even deserve a comment.

and forcing millions of women to wear burqas is not an issue simply because he has the decency not to "force" his own wife to wear one.

I am to the left of the Taliban and to the right of Dr. Rick. Unless you learn to make these kinds of distinctions, Dr. Rick, you will never understand what I am saying to you. Get off of your high horse.

In the name of religion, some people can rationalize anything.

Yes, and in the name of liberalism, some people can rationalize anything. Just don't condemn me for not being as liberal as you are, and I won't condemn you for not being as conservative as I am.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
I know I'm repeating myself, but there is no good evidence that the way a woman dresses affects her chances of being raped; MollyMac's experience with rape victims is consistent with this observation.

The real issue here, Dr. Rick, is who draws the line for the way a woman dresses? We have completely naked on one end of the spectrum and the burqa on the other end. In between those two extremes, we have gradations. The problem with the far left is that they keep moving the line, always testing the laws against obscenity.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
[B]The real issue here, Dr. Rick, is who draws the line for the way a woman dresses?
Is there some reason they need to be told how to dress?

[pilaar]

NonContradiction:
It's amazing to me how dogmatic liberals have become. If someone isn't as liberal as they are, then they label them "repressive". You can assert that Islam is repressive and oppressive, but it's merely an assertion on your part unless you can successfully argue that you are the one who should be drawing the line. Good Luck trying to do that.


IMO a good way to figure out how oppressed certain part of humanity is, is by looking at the readiness other sections of humanity have to trade places. Eg. I doubt that any free human would gladly exchange the place with a slave during the time when slavery was accepted, even thought they claimed that slavery was 'good and proper' for those who were slaves to justify their own position and benefits they got from other peoples oppression.

In the society and the time in which I live, I would have no problem with being either a male or a female.
However, the last thing in the would I would want to be born as is as a muslim woman in a muslim country and I have so far not met anybody who would trade places with muslim women living in muslim countries. I have also never heard of muslim men being eager to trade places or exchange their positions with muslim women. Women's lives there obviously can't be all that good.

Also, my observations have lead me to believe that in the places (or within religious groups or whatever), where one section of the humanity is oppressed, most of the people are affected anyway. I would rather be a woman in a free western world than a male in a muslim society any day. The groups which are harsh & oppressive to one part of humanity within their own circles are normally harsh, cruel & oppressive to all members of that society, because these attitudes can not really be contained to only one section of society. Places where women are severely oppressed also oppress males, eg harsh authoritarian control of all, severe punishments & harsh bringing up of children at home & in school, harsh and authoritarian rule & social laws, harsh practices at work etc. So even though males have an advantage over females within these groups of people (whether they are nations or religious groups or whatever), neither gender (in general) can really have a quality of life at the level that a person of any gender can have in a group which is freer and where people try not to oppress either gender.

pilaar

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The only one here who is arguing lamely is you. The fact is you don't even have an argument, Dr. Rick. Firstly, Islam doesn't condemn unmarried people to death for having sex with each other outside of marriage...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2023502.stm

"Amina Lawal, 30, was sentenced to death for becoming pregnant after her divorce, which is considered as adultery under Nigeria's interpretation of the Islamic law, or Sharia.

On the same day, another Nigerian woman, Safiya Huseini, who had been convicted for adultery and sentenced to be stoned, was freed on appeal after pressure was exerted by the international community and the Nigerian government."

[Amen-Moses]

I had a quick scan through but didn't read every post so excuse me if someone has already said this but the argument against the showing of bare flesh is not that women who do so are more at risk but that it inflames the ardour of the younger men in society to the point where women in general are at a greater risk, i.e the ugly weak guy who spends a few hours at the disco watching scantily clad girls strutting their stuff is later likely to spend his frustrations on a weak victim (like those mentioned by MollyMac).

I don't know if this is completely rubbish or even how one would go about proving it either way but that is the argument that I have heard from Muslim friends (yes even women!).

They always point out the extremely low rape figures within their cultures as proof that it works but one could equally point out that there are far fewer weak victims around due to the way their culture is organised, i.e to get at any of my friends female relatives a rapist would have to get past him, both his brothers, 2 brother in-laws, his father and several grown sons as everyone lives together (neighbourhood watch on a grand scale) and he is not unusual in this. (He is an Omani btw, just in case anyone wondered)

Amen-Moses

[cheetah]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
The real issue here, Dr. Rick, is who draws the line for the way a woman dresses? We have completely naked on one end of the spectrum and the burqa on the other end. In between those two extremes, we have gradations. The problem with the far left is that they keep moving the line, always testing the laws against obscenity.

I'd take obscenity over oppression any day. At least in a liberal society both men and women have a say in what obscenity means to them. The women who are forced to wear burqas, by definition of the word forced, do not have a choice in their lifestyle, and that's what's wrong about it, that's what's oppressive about it. You can use subjective morality all you want to paint a picture of rosiness, but the fact is, wearing burqas is just a symptom of the general idea that women are worth less and should not have the final say in their own lives. As mentioned before, this succeeds in keeping them marginalized and anonymous.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
I had a quick scan through but didn't read every post so excuse me if someone has already said this but the argument against the showing of bare flesh is not that women who do so are more at risk but that it inflames the ardour of the younger men in society to the point where women in general are at a greater risk, i.e the ugly weak guy who spends a few hours at the disco watching scantily clad girls strutting their stuff is later likely to spend his frustrations on a weak victim (like those mentioned by MollyMac).

I don't know if this is completely rubbish or even how one would go about proving it either way but that is the argument that I have heard from Muslim friends (yes even women!).

They always point out the extremely low rape figures within their cultures as proof that it works but one could equally point out that there are far fewer weak victims around due to the way their culture is organised, i.e to get at any of my friends female relatives a rapist would have to get past him, both his brothers, 2 brother in-laws, his father and several grown sons as everyone lives together (neighbourhood watch on a grand scale) and he is not unusual in this. (He is an Omani btw, just in case anyone wondered)

Amen-Moses

The point was made, several times, though that clothing has not been shown to affect rape. If one woman's clothing encourages a man to rape a different woman who is not scantily clad, well, who knows, but that's a little bizarre and certainly there is no evidence for it. I think it is a stupid argument, which again rests on the idea that men are incapable of controlling themselves and women must be responsible for men's weaknesses. As I ahve said before, I have a lot more faith and confidence in the male gender than that. It's sad that those other people do not.

Also mentioned was that Muslim countries have very low rape figures because of the great discouragement in reporting it. Even greater than in our own Western Societies.

[Bad Kitty]

The point was made, several times, though that clothing has not been shown to affect rape. If one woman's clothing encourages a man to rape a different woman who is not scantily clad, well, who knows, but that's a little bizarre and certainly there is no evidence for it.

As I recall, this is the argument often used against pornography. That it make all women into potential victims of the uncontrolled male libido.

And yet, I hought studies had shown repeatedly that rape was not a crime of "passion".

Michelle

[Dreamer_87]

Initially this thread showed a lot of promise because it touched on sensitive but important ideas in ethics - like sexuality and rape and the idea of dominance etc. but it didn't take long for the thread to be ruined by some posters' dislike for each other and ad hominems and empassioned replies that sidetracked whatever little debating was going on.

Amen moses makes a good point - see? Even though I disagree with most of the things he says I don't feel the need to bring those other, irrelevant disagreements into the discussion because I recognize that it's possible that he's 'correct' when it comes to some issues and 'incorrect' when it comes to others - in that he mentions the very different structure of this other society and some of its advantages (which I understand to be the increased safety due to larger number of males on the look out so to speak); how about someone coming up with a list of pros and cons of each system? How does a woman's appearance affect the people around her (and let's not limit the discussion to rape) and is it true that wearing very little creates a negative impression?

Apologies if I'm not too coherent, I'm tired and sleepy and grumpy at the moment but I hope that post made sense.

[Ab_Normal]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
They always point out the extremely low rape figures within their cultures as proof that it works...

Since rape brings disgrace on the family, it's much less likely to be reported; in some cases, the family will kill the victim to save their "honor". Here's a news story (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/07/22072003165316.asp) from Iraq.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
Since rape brings disgrace on the family, it's much less likely to be reported; in some cases, the family will kill the victim to save their "honor". Here's a news story (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/07/22072003165316.asp) from Iraq.

That is not just a Muslim trait it happnes in western societies as well.

Mind you it is interesting that you think of "their culture" and post a story about the most non-muslim Arab ME country which happens to be full of western soldiers, I do believe that the rape figures for Vietnam also went through the roof during occupation as well. It probably has much to do with the desparation of the people and the lack of any hope.

I'd be interested in comparisons btween Oman, Jordan, Iran, Brunei, Qatar, Syria and Egypt with western (read christianised) cultures of equal economic standing. Would you for example expect the rape figures for California to be higher or lower than Qatar and why?

Amen-Moses

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by cheetah
I'd take obscenity over oppression any day.

That is your choice, and there are many other people in Western society who feel as you do, but don't condemn others if they don't feel the same way as you do. Why should I be labeled "oppressive" or "repressive" if I am not as liberal as you?

The conservatives have typically defined the center. The liberals, on the other hand, have been constantly moving the goal posts, so they now no longer know what center is anymore. When we say that somebody is on the right or the left, what do we mean by that? Right of what? Left of what? Where is the center?

At least in a liberal society both men and women have a say in what obscenity means to them.

Yes, but it's not a numbers game were playing here. Simply because the masses feel the same way about something doesn't make it right. The masses are, typically, sheeple.

The women who are forced to wear burqas, by definition of the word forced, do not have a choice in their lifestyle, and that's what's wrong about it, that's what's oppressive about it.

Most societies have laws against obscenity, including Western societies. Law implies the use of force. Therefore, the question isn't whether or not we should have laws against obscenity, but rather what should those laws be, which leads me back to my original question about where is the center.

Secondly, the liberals like to focus on the burqa for obvious reasons, but the fact is that the Arabs, for the most part, are pretty liberal. Where do you think Shakira learned how to shake her bum for the guys in the west? In fact, during the 60's and the 70's, the Arab world became very liberal as a result of western influence, coupled with the intellectual stagnation of conservative religious figures. What we are witnessing now in the Arab world is a reaction among right wing extremists towards this phenomenon.

In Afghanistan, where the burqa has been made famous, women used to dress liberally while the monarchy was in power. After the defeat of the Soviets and the fall of the monarchy, right wing extremists groups took over and then suddenly women found themselves in burqas. They went from being too liberal to being too conservative. This was, and still is, the problem, but I don't expect the liberals to acknowledge the truth anytime soon.

You can use subjective morality all you want to paint a picture of rosiness, but the fact is, wearing burqas is just a symptom of the general idea that women are worth less and should not have the final say in their own lives. As mentioned before, this succeeds in keeping them marginalized and anonymous.

To understand the situation, you must first rid yourself of all bias. In other words, become an impartial observer and stop being so judgemental.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by NonContradiction


That is your choice, and there are many other people in Western society who feel as you do, but don't condemn others if they don't feel the same way as you do. Why should I be labeled "oppressive" or "repressive" if I am not as liberal as you? Because "you" as in the culture in dispute, is making choices for other people without their participation.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

The conservatives have typically defined the center. The liberals, on the other hand, have been constantly moving the goal posts, so they now no longer know what center is anymore. When we say that somebody is on the right or the left, what do we mean by that? Right of what? Left of what? Where is the center?
Wow, a bunch of statements with no back up whatsoever. Conservatives, by definition, do not define the center, they define the opposite of liberal/progressive, they are more conservative than the center, otherwise we would call them centrists. I really don't care what is meant by right or left, because my point is not about progressives or liberals it is about mandating certain rules for people without those people's participation, even though they, as a group, are fuly mentally and physically competent. And, surprise, surprise, those rules that are made without their participation or consent are usually uncomfortable, painful or detrimental to the individuals that compose that group.


Originally posted by NonContradiction

Yes, but it's not a numbers game were playing here. Simply because the masses feel the same way about something doesn't make it right. The masses are, typically, sheeple.
So, the other system is right because LESS people beleive in it? no. The point is, again, that those rules re: women covering up are made without the benefit of the participation of the women. now, if women were in government, were representatives, etc. in Saudi Arabia, for example, and decided that they wanted to wear those, that might be a bit different. And, of course, as new women came into the scene, they may find that the new consensus is not to wear them and allow for change. It is, rather, the rigidity and uncompromising stance that is, quite simply, inhumane.

Originally posted by NonContradiction


Most societies have laws against obscenity, including Western societies. Law implies the use of force. Therefore, the question isn't whether or not we should have laws against obscenity, but rather what should those laws be, which leads me back to my original question about where is the center. To me, there is still a question of laws against obscenity. Many cultures do not have them, or have entirely different views of them. Polynesian cultures for example would, I guess, be considered even farther "left" than the US by your standards. However, that's just their culture. The point is, they currently have a lot more choice inviolved on the part of the women on how they are "allowed" to dress. There may be "traditions" and such, but when you start placing into law a couple of particular garments that are acceptable without the ability of that group to participate, it is, again, inhumane.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

Secondly, the liberals like to focus on the burqa for obvious reasons, but the fact is that the Arabs, for the most part, are pretty liberal. Where do you think Shakira learned how to shake her bum for the guys in the west? In fact, during the 60's and the 70's, the Arab world became very liberal as a result of western influence, coupled with the intellectual stagnation of conservative religious figures. What we are witnessing now in the Arab world is a reaction among right wing extremists towards this phenomenon.

In Afghanistan, where the burqa has been made famous, women used to dress liberally while the monarchy was in power. After the defeat of the Soviets and the fall of the monarchy, right wing extremists groups took over and then suddenly women found themselves in burqas. They went from being too liberal to being too conservative. This was, and still is, the problem, but I don't expect the liberals to acknowledge the truth anytime soon.
1. I thought Shakira was from South America.
2. You say in Afghanistan they used to dress liberally and now they went from too liberal to too conservative. Are you not making a value judgement, just as you are claiming we are doing? Who are you to say they were too liberal? And I'll say it again, it's not about the clothes, it's about the inhumanity.
Originally posted by NonContradiction


To understand the situation, you must first rid yourself of all bias. In other words, become an impartial observer and stop being so judgemental.

So should you. You obviously are not unbiased. You, though, are defending a way of dress, while I am deriding a way of treating other human beings. Why don't you address the REAL point, and tell me all about why it is ok to marginalize women and prevent them from participating in decisions that will shape their lives? I realize, obviously, that this varies to a significant degree amongst the different countries and cultures of the area, so if you'd like to discuss why Syria is better than Saudi Arabia and why Jordan is better than Qatar, perhaps, go ahead, but I'd like to know why, if you do make that distinction.

[Dr Rick]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Would you for example expect the rape figures for California to be higher or lower than Qatar and why?

Let's see how the stats stack-up and then you can tell us what you expect:

In California, the rape rate is recorded as the number of rapes reported by victims; a conviction isn't necessary for a rape to be used in a statistic.

In Qatar, which incorporates many aspects of Shari'a, rape rates are recorded based on actual convictions; spousal rape is not a crime, the testimony of two women equals that of one man, and leniency for honor killings by male relatives disgraced in some way by a females behavour (including being raped) is part of the legal system there (US State Department Report on Human Rights, 2000; Amnesty International).

[Dr Rick]

posted by NonContradiction
They went from being too liberal to being too conservative...the west is filled with so many sexual perverts, given the liberal sexual attitudes...
and ...
also posted by NonContradiciton...it's merely an assertion on your part unless you can successfully argue that you are the one who should be drawing the line...Secondly, who appointed you as the arbiter to draw the line between sexually liberal and repressive?...Who appointed you as arbiter to draw the line between sexual liberalism and repression?

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by Dr Rick
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2023502.stm

"Amina Lawal, 30, was sentenced to death for becoming pregnant after her divorce, which is considered as adultery under Nigeria's interpretation of the Islamic law, or Sharia.

As we all know, interpretation is one thing and the text is another. If they have that interpretation, then I would be curious to know how they arrived at that conclusion. In general, however, unmarried people engaging in sex outside of marriage are not treated as harshly as married people.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by cheetah
1. I thought Shakira was from South America.

She is also Lebanese.

2. You say in Afghanistan they used to dress liberally and now they went from too liberal to too conservative. Are you not making a value judgement, just as you are claiming we are doing?

Yes, I am making value judgements, just like you and everybody else in this world. However, there is a difference between making judgements and being judgemental. As long as people are judgemental of one another, they will always talk past each other.

Who are you to say they were too liberal?

According to my judgement, they were too liberal. You would probably disagree, but that is fine. I am not going to condemn you for it.

And I'll say it again, it's not about the clothes, it's about the inhumanity.

If you are arguing against the burqa, then you are arguing against a strawman. I would fight against anybody who would want to force women, especially my daughters, into a burqa by law.

It's not about the clothes, and it's not about the inhumanity. It's about where is the center. The liberals have no center.

You obviously are not unbiased. You, though, are defending a way of dress, while I am deriding a way of treating other human beings. Why don't you address the REAL point, and tell me all about why it is ok to marginalize women and prevent them from participating in decisions that will shape their lives?

I am not just defending a way of dress. I am defending a center. Until the liberals get a center, they will have nothing to defend. They will just be attacking everybody to the right of themselves, labelling them oppressors.

Why don't the liberals raise hell about the way the pornography industry treats teenage girls who are lured into the business? Why don't they liberate these teenage girls, first, before they stick their noses into another society half-way around the world? Liberals defend pornography as freedom of speech, but how does pornography treat women?

Of course, the way the West treats women doesn't excuse the way women are treated in other cultures around the world. However, it is very inconsistent for liberals to preach what they don't practice themselves.

[Silent Acorns]

To go back to the OP:
So what is the wearing of veils and covering up, in any society, for.
Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women?
There can be little doubt that the principle rationalization for laws requiring women to cover themselves up more than men is that it is to protect women from men. I can't say whether or not this was a resonable description of male motives 1000+ years ago when these laws were introduced, but I can say that there is little evidence that it is a resonable description of male motives today.

The problem with these laws is that they ignore the fact that if dressing more conservatively really did prevent them from getting raped, women would volunteer to dress that way, with no law needed. The fact that such laws are deemed necessary suggests that either these cultures:

1. are following ancient laws primarily out of custom,
2. think that women can't properly evaluate risk, or
3. are trying empower men at the cost of women

Personally, I think the answer is three. It may not be the reason individuals rationalize these laws, but it is the reason these laws continue through the centuries. It's the age old trade-off: give men the power to control their women and men will give the state the power to control everyone.

We in the west have liberated ourselves from this type of thinking (at least partially), while other parts of the world are still mired in it. No society can be truly democatic until it allows women to decide their daily affairs for themselves.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by NonContradiction

I am not just defending a way of dress. I am defending a center. Until the liberals get a center, they will have nothing to defend. They will just be attacking everybody to the right of themselves, labelling them oppressors. Unfortunately, I still have no idea how havnig a center relates to this discussion. I am still interested in why you think it is ok to marginalize women. I hate to be black and white, but this isn't an issue where there are many gradations. You either support women having a say in their dress or you don't, and the OP was about women who are forced to cover up. FORCED.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

Why don't the liberals raise hell about the way the pornography industry treats teenage girls who are lured into the business? Why don't they liberate these teenage girls, first, before they stick their noses into another society half-way around the world? Liberals defend pornography as freedom of speech, but how does pornography treat women?
Actually, they do. Many, I would venture to say most, women's groups, though typically labelled as left and liberal, but when it comes to pornography, particularly of underaged women, they are against it. This is one of those wacky instances when liberals and conservatives have a common purpose, sometimes for a different reason.

I would also make the point that I PERSONALLY think it is better to err on the side of liberalism, i.e. not taking away people's freedoms unless it infringes on someone else's freedoms, rather than conservatism and tkaing away freedoms because we have some feeling something is inappropriate. The former is a more consistent guiding principle while the latter is more arbitrary.

[JamesKrieger]

Originally posted by yguy
Forget it, Doc. Having a conversation with a machine is boring.

Translation: yguy finds addressing fallacies in his arguments boring.

Of course, this is evident in many threads he is involved in, where he continues to refuse to address the logical fallacies he commits.

yguy, if you would like to educate yourself on what Dr. Rick meant by the fallacy of equivocation, here you go:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Of course, that is, unless you find correct use of logic "boring."

[Silent Acorns]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I am defending a center. Until the liberals get a center, they will have nothing to defend. They will just be attacking everybody to the right of themselves, labelling them oppressors.
Liberals do have a centre. It just happens to be to the left of your personal limits. Why do conservatives always attack everybody to the left of themselves, labelling them as destroyers of cultural tradition?
Originally posted by NonContradiction
Why don't the liberals raise hell about the way the pornography industry treats teenage girls who are lured into the business? Why don't they liberate these teenage girls, first, before they stick their noses into another society half-way around the world? Liberals defend pornography as freedom of speech, but how does pornography treat women?
We've dealt with this on another thread. Generally, conservatives overstate the frequency of such abuses and liberals are just as willing to condemn such abuses when they do happen. In my opinion, exploitation in pornography is more about employers exploiting their workers than society exploiting women.

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by cheetah
Unfortunately, I still have no idea how havnig a center relates to this discussion. I am still interested in why you think it is ok to marginalize women.

I would suggest reading a little bit about deconstruction theory, Jacque Derrida, for a detailed explanation. What is center will marginalize whatever is off-center. Centrism marginalizes. Do you get it now? What does an egocentric person do? Doesn't he marginalize everybody else? You complain about Islam marginalizing women, but what you fail to realize is that whatever you define to be at the center marginalizes everybody else in a like manner. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around completely naked, then you are to the right of a nudist. You are marginalizing nudists.

I hate to be black and white, but this isn't an issue where there are many gradations. You either support women having a say in their dress or you don't, and the OP was about women who are forced to cover up. FORCED.

You are really hung up on the word FORCED. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around naked, then you must acknowledge that the FORCE of law can be used to make people put some clothes on. The issue isn't FORCE, so stop bringing it up. The issue is how much clothing is society willing to FORCE upon people. Where is the CENTER? Where do you draw the line?

Actually, they do. Many, I would venture to say most, women's groups, though typically labelled as left and liberal, but when it comes to pornography, particularly of underaged women, they are against it. This is one of those wacky instances when liberals and conservatives have a common purpose, sometimes for a different reason.

If liberals and conservatives are against it, then what is the problem? Why does it still exist? You are talking nonsense. If liberals wanted to make it a big issue, they would, and I doubt very seriously that the conservatives would try to stop them. Pornography exploits men and women and liberals defend it as freedom of speech. Face it.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
I would suggest reading a little bit about deconstruction theory, Jacque Derrida, for a detailed explanation. What is center will marginalize whatever is off-center. Centrism marginalizes. Do you get it now? What does an egocentric person do? Doesn't he marginalize everybody else? You complain about Islam marginalizing women, but what you fail to realize is that whatever you define to be at the center marginalizes everybody else in a like manner. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around completely naked, then you are to the right of a nudist. You are marginalizing nudists. That's ridiculous. Allowing women to have a say on the shaping of their lives is marginalizing who exactly? IS it marginalizing men's ability to control them? Wah wah. Is you can show me that my definition of women being enabled to shape their future as the center "marginalizes everyone else," I'll be stunned.

Originally posted by NonContradiction

You are really hung up on the word FORCED. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around naked, then you must acknowledge that the FORCE of law can be used to make people put some clothes on. The issue isn't FORCE, so stop bringing it up. The issue is how much clothing is society willing to FORCE upon people. Where is the CENTER? Where do you draw the line?
You are really hung up on the way people dress. I am not, but am hung up on letting people have the power to make decisions and participate in community decision making. A topic which you keep avoiding, only because, I assume, you have nothing valuable to say. We don't force nudists to wear clothing. Nudists participate in the decision making process, so if they want something they aren't getting (i.e. the ability to go nude in public), they should speak up and make their influence known. This topic is totally different in that women in those cultures do not have that opportunity. So, don't bother replying to me about clothing ANYMORE please. The substantive discussion would be why it's ok to refuse women the right to participate in decision-making and instead decision must be made for them without their input.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

If liberals and conservatives are against it, then what is the problem? Why does it still exist? You are talking nonsense. If liberals wanted to make it a big issue, they would, and I doubt very seriously that the conservatives would try to stop them. Pornography exploits men and women and liberals defend it as freedom of speech. Face it. Not all liberals or all conservatives are against it. Pronography is way better than the Muslim cultures we are talking about here, because at least in (legal) pornography, there is consent by all parties. Each person involved has made that decision for themselves and have only themselves to blame if they don't like the outcome. While there is some question about societal pressures and economic facotrs, there is no question that if a woman wanted to get out of the porn industry, no one would be allowed to restrict that freedom, whereas Muslim women that want a different life path for themselves other than not being allowed to drive automobiles and being forced to wear clothing they may not want to are, well, SOL, I guess. That's the distinction, not whether it is obscene or not. In pornography, no one is being hurt, in those Muslim cultures, women's rights are being trampled.

[trekbette]

Originally posted by Brahma's atheist
Is it to protect the women or is it, as I sometimes think, to protect men from being tempted by women?

This is the exact reason as I understand it. A women's hair and skin need to be covered because women are nothing but sexual beings and a man can't help but take what he sees.

I don't agree with this at all and I would bet even money that most Muslim men and women also don't think this is the way. However, it is a small group that make and enforce the laws and some of these laws have been around for 1000s of years and as such, are not flexible.

Try to remember that in the Western world, while these ideas are outdated and even offensive, in those countries, a women would never think of going out uncovered. Not necessarily because a man won't let her, but because that is the only way she has ever lived. We can't always put our morals on someone else's culture.

I am not saying rape is okay. Please don't interpret what I've said to even imply that. Rape is wrong. Always.

[Treacle Worshipper]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
You are really hung up on the word FORCED. If you don't believe that it's okay for people to walk around naked, then you must acknowledge that the FORCE of law can be used to make people put some clothes on. The issue isn't FORCE, so stop bringing it up. The issue is how much clothing is society willing to FORCE upon people. Where is the CENTER? Where do you draw the line?

If I understand British law correctly, there is no "indecent exposure" charge where women are concerned - we cannot be prosecuted for walking around nude, altho' you will not see this very often due to the climate. However, you will see women on beaches on sunny days taking advantage of this.
As far as men are concerned, I understand an indecent exposure charge can only be brought if he was deliberately trying to cause offence or distress to a woman by waving his dick around. This is why male streakers aren't prosecuted, and why it can sometimes be difficult to prosecute flashers.
So, British law isn't forcing clothing upon anyone. And I don't think people should be legally obliged to wear anything that they don't want to. People wander round naked & semi-naked in hot climates & they don't have any problems with it. It's just a body, what's the beef?

Wasn't there some Italian mayor who forced women over a certain weight & age to cover up on the beach because they offended the "beautiful people" or reflected badly on his town by being ugly or something? Pretty disgusting attitude, if you ask me. The other extreme of "women are so attractive we must cover them up or men won't be able to cope 'cos they're incapable of thinking with anything above their waist". Insulting to both men & women, imo.

TW

[Ab_Normal]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
That is not just a Muslim trait it happnes in western societies as well.

Mind you it is interesting that you think of "their culture" and post a story about the most non-muslim Arab ME country which happens to be full of western soldiers, I do believe that the rape figures for Vietnam also went through the roof during occupation as well. It probably has much to do with the desparation of the people and the lack of any hope.

I'd be interested in comparisons btween Oman, Jordan, Iran, Brunei, Qatar, Syria and Egypt with western (read christianised) cultures of equal economic standing. Would you for example expect the rape figures for California to be higher or lower than Qatar and why?

Amen-Moses

That was just the most recent story I could remember, and I only had a few moments to Google it up (posting from work, you know). I will agree that Iraq isn't the best example of a stable Muslim culture. However, I do remember hearing about honor killings in other countries (mostly the 'Stans). Probably won't have time to do much research though - we're gussying up the office for the visit of the company president (yawn).

[NonContradiction]

Originally posted by cheetah
You are really hung up on the way people dress.

Liberals can be very tedious. I will try once again here to be understood. You don't have to agree with me, and you probably won't, but at least try to understand what I am saying to you.

I am NOT hung up on the way people dress. What I AM hung up on is where does society draw the line. If you are to the right of nudists, and believe that we should have laws against public nudity, then you are marginalizing nudists. The fact that nudists can voice their views and participate in the process doesn't change the fact that they will be marginalized if the majority doesn't agree with them. You, and the rest of the liberals, can refuse to acknowledge this point, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true.

You are really hung up on the way people dress. I am not, but am hung up on letting people have the power to make decisions and participate in community decision making. A topic which you keep avoiding, only because, I assume, you have nothing valuable to say. We don't force nudists to wear clothing.


In America, we do have laws against public nudity, which does imply the use of force. Nudists can NOT, by law, walk into a public building in the nude. You are hung up on the use of FORCE.

Nudists can participate in the decision making process, so if they want something they aren't getting (i.e. the ability to go nude in public), they should speak up and make their influence known.

See above.

This topic is totally different in that women in those cultures do not have that opportunity. So, don't bother replying to me about clothing ANYMORE please.

NOBODY has been focusing on clothing. I have been focusing on where to draw the line, and so far none of the liberals here have been able to answer that question.

In pornography, no one is being hurt, in those Muslim cultures, women's rights are being trampled.

What do you mean that no one is getting hurt? Just a minute ago, you told me that teenage girls were getting hurt and that conservatives and liberals should stand together. Now you are telling me that no one is getting hurt. Which is it? The fact that the teenage girls and pornographers are consenting adults doesn't change the fact that somebody is getting hurt.

Your hypocrisy is so obvious here. You raise hell about what you believe to be the oppression of women half way around the world, yet in your own country teenage girls are being exploited and you say that no one is getting hurt. They are getting hurt, and whether they consent to it or not doesn't change the fact that they are getting hurt.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by NonContradiction
Liberals can be very tedious. I will try once again here to be understood. You don't have to agree with me, and you probably won't, but at least try to understand what I am saying to you.
Actually, you are getting quite tiresome in your refusal to acknowledge that there is a significant, qualitative difference between women not being able to participate in their own decision-making and nudists that are simply unsuccessful ni swaying the public to their beliefs (if indeed they did want to go about nude everywhere). If you don't see a difference there, this discussion will never go anywhere.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

I am NOT hung up on the way people dress. What I AM hung up on is where does society draw the line. If you are to the right of nudists, and believe that we should have laws against public nudity, then you are marginalizing nudists. The fact that nudists can voice their views and participate in the process doesn't change the fact that they will be marginalized if the majority doesn't agree with them. You, and the rest of the liberals, can refuse to acknowledge this point, but it doesn't change the fact that it's true.
OK, whatever you say. You aren't hung up on clothing. You are simply using clothing as the straw man in the argument to divert our attention from the real focus, which is women's rights to be involved in decision-making. And you're incorrect about marginalizing nudists. In a democracy it is their responsibility to exercise their freedoms if they want something. We as non-theists do the same. We lament that we are not the majority and we do not get special rights, and often we fight against it. We particularly fight against having the constitution trampled. We have the ability to fight back against being marginalized, which we are having varying degrees of success at. In a culture where women cannot participate, they do not have the ability to fight back against being marginalized. Again, a qualitative difference that you refuse to see.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

NOBODY has been focusing on clothing. I have been focusing on where to draw the line, and so far none of the liberals here have been able to answer that question.
What does that have to do with anything? Why are we talking about drawing the line? We wouldn't have to be talking about drawing the line between indecency and decency if women were allowed to participate in the decision-making in those cultures about what is decent. Then, the people would have their say and the decision would be made. it is fine that different cultures have different standards of what is decent and what is not. What is not fine is forcing those views on fully mentally competent women and not letting them have a say. This discussion is not about drawing a line, but is yet another straw man you are using to accuse us of meddling in affairs we don't belong in and draw attention away from the fact that basic human rights are being violated.

Originally posted by NonContradiction

What do you mean that no one is getting hurt? Just a minute ago, you told me that teenage girls were getting hurt and that conservatives and liberals should stand together. Now you are telling me that no one is getting hurt. Which is it? The fact that the teenage girls and pornographers are consenting adults doesn't change the fact that somebody is getting hurt. Actually, I did not tell you that. I simply told you some groups were working together against pornography. This may happen sometimes, and I don't deny that underage pornography is wrong, and here is why: because girls who are underage are not competent to make consent to those actions. This is not comparable to regular pornography, where everyone is of age and has made consent and, if they were getting hurt, could make the decision to leave. It is also not comparable to those oppressive cultures, because in those circumstances, people of full mental competence are not given the power to consent and are therefore being hurt by having their right to consent or not consent taken away. Full grown women are treated as animals that do not have the mental capacity to take care of themselves.
Originally posted by NonContradiction

Your hypocrisy is so obvious here. You raise hell about what you believe to be the oppression of women half way around the world, yet in your own country teenage girls are being exploited and you say that no one is getting hurt. They are getting hurt, and whether they consent to it or not doesn't change the fact that they are getting hurt. Again, you NEED to recognize the distinction between people over the age of consent and people under it. You say whether they consent or not they are getting hurt? how do you know? And if they are, why don't they leave? They have that freedom here in America, and if they choose not to exercise, am very sorry for them, but it's their own responsibility to exercise their freedoms. Again, in the oppressive cultures we are talking about, women do not have the right to exercise any freedom to extricate themselves from a situation or role they are being harmed by. We cannot hold the government or society accountabel for a person who chooses not to exercise freedoms they have, but we will hold the society or government responsible that strips fully developed women of those rights.

[Timberline]

I am NOT hung up on the way people dress. What I AM hung up on is where does society draw the line.

It's not about the clothes, and it's not about the inhumanity. It's about where is the center. The liberals have no center.

Actually, it's about discrimination. Why are you drawing one line for men and another line for women?

Here's my center: People should wear whatever clothes are practical and sensible for the activity they're engaged in. It's that simple. "People" includes women, and "activities" may include outdoor recreation, sports, and jobs that occasionally involve rolling up one's sleeves. That means I can put on shorts and a t-shirt and play tennis on a summer day--and so can my sister. If you want to discriminate against women like my sister, please explain how that's any more moral than discriminating against blacks...or against Muslims.

[MollyMac]

Cheetah, honey, I applaud your patience and the clarity of your arguments

NonContradiction, I have read and reread your posts in an attempt to make sense of them I have miserably failed to do so. I have extracted from your posts the foll