I...Agree with the French

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Perfectly normal here to us, every woman bathes topless here. Seeing a woman being covered from head to toe is much more offensive to us trust me.

---

Okay, so you won't mind seeing a Papuan dude cavorting on the streets of Amsterdam with nothing except a tube on his schlong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It was good up to this point, then verbal diarrhoea got the better of you.

~:smoking:

---

So in the absence of any reasoned argument you just go for a cheap dig.

I take that as you formally conceeding the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Okay, so you won't mind seeing a Papuan dude cavorting on the streets of Amsterdam with nothing except a tube on his schlong?

---

I don't care what people wear. Live and let live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Being naked generally goes against the public decency laws almost across the entire globe. Being covered from head to toe does not violate public decency laws.

---

The examples show that modesty and gender vary widely across the globe.

If France had fifteen million Papua and Amazonian immigrants, instead of Africans and Muslims, we'd be having an entirely different debate.

The right to wear less, instead of more, would be contented. The penis sheath, instead of the Burqa, would be central to discussion about immigrant gender roles and their expression through fashion. 'Man must be allowed to show their manly virility', instead of 'women must be allowed to show their female modesty'.

The woman of this story is a French convert. She is challenging the right to wear a stylized, western variant of exotic attire. It is not all that different from me demanding the right to wear the stylized, western variant of New Guinean clothing to a swimming pool. In fact, I am seriously considering getting a couple of guys together and turning up at a swimming pool dressed in penis sheats. I'll make sure to convert to animism too.

It looks bizarre what I posted, but it is not. It serves to illuminate some underlying mechanisms in the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Okay, so you won't mind seeing a Papuan dude cavorting on the streets of Amsterdam with nothing except a tube on his schlong?

---

Ever been to Amsterdam :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:


I don't think Fragony and Rory give a toss about women's rights. They are just scared of the filthy foreigners. <- Idaho

So in the absence of any reasoned argument you just go for a cheap dig. <- Idaho, two minutes later!

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...rdheadeskt.jpg

Scotty, bring him soup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Well, Idaho, frankly, I don't care about whatever non existant religion and silly non existant example you invent to compare the burka with.

Burka = symbol and tool of oppression of women = away with it.

It's just common sense in my book.

---

How about french cinema? That's oppressive to women. 90% of it is about some ugly old bloke getting off with some pretty young woman :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The examples show that modesty and gender vary widely across the globe.

If France had fifteen million Papua and Amazonian immigrants, instead of Africans and Muslims, we'd be having an entirely different debate.

The right to wear less, instead of more, would be contented. The penis sheath, instead of the Burqa, would be central to discussion about immigrant gender roles and their expression through fashion. 'Man must be allowed to show their manly virility', instead of 'women must be allowed to show their female modesty'.

The woman of this story is a French convert. She is challenging the right to wear a stylized, western variant of exotic attire. It is not all that different from me demanding the right to wear the stylized, western variant of New Guinean clothing to a swimming pool. In fact, I am seriously considering getting a couple of guys together and turning up at a swimming pool dressed in penis sheats. I'll make sure to convert to animism too.

It looks bizarre what I posted, but it is not. It serves to illuminate some underlying mechanisms in the debate.

---

If it were my swimming pool, you'd get your penis sheath served for dinner :smash:

Djeez, there is a special occasion for wearing ridiculous clothes in public: carnaval.

The rest of the year you dress properly in public and ridiculous only on private parties with lots of booze.

No burka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

How about french cinema? That's oppressive to women. 90% of it is about some ugly old bloke getting off with some pretty young woman :laugh4:

---

Your application for the Ministery of Fail has been accepted. Third hall, first room on the left, remember it's non drooling area, thank you for your cooperation.

There is another thread here that has a name perfectly suited to this one.

What about bridal veils? Should those be banned too? After all, they serve exactly the same purpose: concealment. Or better yet: gimp suits. Those conceal *everything* under a thick layer of leather.

Instead of worrying about burkas and such, we should be focusing on a much more offensive trend, overweight people in tight clothing. Spandex is a privilege, not a right. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

What about bridal veils? Should those be banned too? After all, they serve exactly the same purpose: concealment. Or better yet: gimp suits. Those conceal *everything* under a thick layer of leather.

---

I really don't care, that's just fashion to me, as I said, but Idaho's mind mentally blocks that I said that. All fresh and fruity for Idaho, oh you marry your 12 year old daughter to a mullah in Childrapistan, how very exotic that just screams for intercultural dialogue since we did that 200 years ago, we can really learn from eachother.

Muslims are like Pokemon to some, they got to love them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I really don't care, that's just fashion to me, as I said, but Idaho's mind mentally blocks that I said that. All fresh and fruity for Idaho, oh you marry your 12 year old daughter to a mullah in Childrapistan, how very exotic that just screams for intercultural dialogue since we did that 200 years ago, we can really learn from eachother.

Muslims are like Pokemon to some, they got to love them all.

---

You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.

---

Yeah, we have that.

In that case people should be free to dress in burqas.

It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.

Cultural relativism is such a cop out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.
__________________

---

So you translate "I don't like it because it denigrates the women" into "I hate and fear the brown foreigners"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.

---

It's not xenophobia as it was never stated that those abiding by different cultural norms are irrationally feared.
It's not racism as no allusion to any specific race has been made.

So, the post is categorically wrong. :laugh4:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

It's xenophobic rascism and that's all there is to it. People fear different, and they're different so they must be assimilated ASAP.

---

I wouldn't call it racism. I think Fragony perceives islam as a threat to the West, and I actually agree with him. I think that islam is the largest threat to the western way of life. However, I do not consider the curtailing of simple personal liberties to be a good way of stopping islam. Yes, it must be dealt with, but let's leave burqa out of this. Burqa is merely a visible symptom of an underlying disease. You deal with the disease and the symptom will go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

You don't get it do you dearest Fraggles. The debate is not about what happens elsewhere. It's about the nature of our society. And fundamental to that society is freedom of conscience, religion and dress.

---

So, when I get a husband directing me as to the healthcare of his wife this is OK? Not yet a statistical sample, but so far only those with one religion appear to be making these demands.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So, when I get a husband directing me as to the healthcare of his wife this is OK? Not yet a statistical sample, but so far only those with one religion appear to be making these demands.

~:smoking:

---

I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It's not xenophobia as it was never stated that those abiding by different cultural norms are irrationally feared.
It's not racism as no allusion to any specific race has been made.

So, the post is categorically wrong. :laugh4:

~:smoking:

---

You can't deny the second half of my post though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.

---

That's right, they had corsets.

This topic reminds me of

http://www.thelocal.se/20250/20090624/

Quote:

---

Women in Malmö have been given the right to bathe topless in the swimming pools of Sweden's third largest city.

[...]

The Bara Bröst network swept to prominence in late 2007 after two bare-breasted young women were called ashore by a lifeguard at a swimming pool in Uppsala. When they refused to cover up, they were asked to leave the premises.

Speaking to The Local at the time, Ragnhild Karlsson, 22, explained the womens' motives for swimming without bikini tops.

"It's a question of equality. I think it's a problem that women are sexualized in this way. If women are forced to wear a top, shouldn't men also have to?"

Outraged by what they regarded as discrimination, a group of women in southern Sweden made a show of solidarity by establishing the network, whose name translates as both "bare breasts" and "just breasts".

---

This should be followed up by a ban, since bikinis reduces women's natural potential to be distinct individuals. :smash:

In many cultures that have never heard about feminism, women walking topless is considered the norm.

-

I think some of the fashion Louis linked to really is as manly as fashion theoretically can get; it's only banned because we live in misandric societies. :beam:

What the :daisy:, I am terrified by some people's attitutude in this thread. What right do secular authorities have telling religious people what their beliefs are? Like the example where someone said covering the face is not in the Koran... I'm still pretty sure it's in the hadiths, which is why we don't see Shi'ite Iranian women wearing these veils... then again I could be wrong, which is why we should ask a Muslim and not try to tell them what they believe. Or if we don't want to go down that line, maybe I can ban Catholics from following their traditions, it's not in the Bible after all, Sola Scriptura everybody. And that's not just me trolling the RCC, this is more or less what we are doing to Sunni Muslims here.

As for Louis example, I don't think it works because the laws demanding you cover your private areas are quite reasonable, there's a reason why (most) native peoples living in exotic jungles still go to the trouble of covering them up, its human nature not a cultural thing that anyone is imposing. So as long as you are dressed in such a manner that you won't terrify people, it's up to you.

And what is with the "burka's are denigrating to women" argument? So, are we going to liberate these women by telling them what they can and cannot do for their own good? Mummy state knows what is best for you, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I would say that has nothing to do with clothing. 100 years ago in this country women were considered chattels of their husbands - and they didn't have burkhas on. You are confusing two issues.

---

Removing the burkhas was often one of the things I wasn't allowed to do. And justifying today by drawing comparison with what we now consider unjustifiable hardly adds weight to your argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

You can't deny the second half of my post though.

---

They want to live here. I think that that it is fair to expect assimilation. If not, move on.

Hadiths? Aren't they the extra bits tacked on afterwards? In public I agree that there is not a right to restrict, but there should be in government buildings, offices, schools, hospitals etc.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

In that case people should be free to dress in burqas.

---

No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.

"Hey, lady. Don't wear that."
"Why?"
"Because no man should be able to tell you what to do."
"What?"
"Yes, that's a good girl. Now wear this skimpy bikini to make you look pretty."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Hadiths? Aren't they the extra bits tacked on afterwards? In public I agree that there is not a right to restrict, but there should be in government buildings, offices, schools, hospitals etc.

---

So....

You want the muslim women to stay away from schools, hospital, government buildings, etc?

Yes, that's a nice way to improve their situation....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

No, because security comes first, if Ali el Hakbar el Boomski comes to town he has 100% freedom of movement and we can't have that. As for the rest, have your way, just don't expect a very sympethatic reaction from me when you are walking around like a relic from whateveritwas.

---

*facepalm*

Terrorist steryotypes? Are you serious?