A'Merka

[Jack Cade]

It is innate. Pull somebody's pants down, and they will hide behind the nearest tree. Why? Because modesty is natural. We were created with an inherent modesty and shame.

Firstly, I don't think it is innate; it's socially conditioned. How many tribesmen of various continents walk around wearing next to nothing? Isn't the person hiding behind the tree doing so because they're afraid they don't look 'normal' naked, that people will think their tits are weird or their knob is too small? And isn't that because our cultures are actually *too* modest, too afraid to be open about what we look like naked, to the extent that the images of nudity we are most familiar with are photoshopped, plastic-injected, unrealistic? Isn't that destructive to people's self confidence?

Secondly, even as far as it is natural and normal to be modest, why should that then be enforced? You only enforce something where the alternative can be shown to have a detrimental effect to people's quality of life. Where's the rationale behind the idea that we'll all suffer if we wear less? It strikes me that you're using exactly the same logic that is used to persecute homosexuals - saying it is natural and normal to be one way, because most of us are, so therefore it needs to be enforced ie. deviation not tolerated.

I think it very hard for some to understand the concept of doing something for the love of God vs. love of self. For example, right now, I'm fasting for the sake of my Creator. You would not believe me if I told you the level of peace and strength I feel right now. It is unlike any peace I feel the rest of the year, knowing that my Lord is pleased with me for giving up something I love to do in the way the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed me to do so. That strength comes from the pleasure of God.

This is all very well, but theists are likewise in the position of not being able to understand or appreciate how much enjoyment and peace and strength atheists get by simply living genuinely for other human beings and knowing that nothing - no god or religion - actually obliges them to do this, believing in no reward outside of the act itself.

You'll have heard this argument before but theists often strike me as in need of the crutch of belief - only because they find it so hard to grasp, in my experience, the idea of not having a god that the only way they can confront atheism is by imagining it merely replaces god with something else - like science or money, or the self. It doesn't. Atheism = no god, no god replacement, no stand-in. We get on fine without.

I think you're also missing the point that no one here has a problem with a muslim woman choosing to wear the hijab (the burka is different). We have a problem with a community that *demands* that of her, to the point where she apparently 'chooses' to largely because she feels people would look poorly on her if she didn't. It's not a demonstration of faith if her family would look down on her for making any other choice; it's a demonstration of intimidation.

Now, I'm not claiming this goes on in every single case, but be reasonable - it must go on to some extent within religious communities. There simply must exist that pressure to conform in a group where so many are of a single mind on the matter. The real freedom in Western society comes from the fact that there's much less we all agree on.

Are we progressing? Yes, we are. At what rate? Not fast enough. But having the ideal in place that people make their own choices and don't *have* to choose to be modest is progress beyond the position where a society believes modesty is innate and non-negotiable.

[Shanti418]

Modesty should be choice, not a cultural imperative.

Most people, whether they believe in God or not, are self-inclined towards modesty. It is innate. Pull somebody's pants down, and they will hide behind the nearest tree. Why? Because modesty is natural. We were created with an inherent modesty and shame.

Listen, I'm happy that you've been indoctrinated to feel shameful of your body, but I don't think that's the case universally. You always do this, Yaya. You're like, "We all agree on A, so then B," when in actuality, A is a particular opinion that you have. I could just as easily go, "I can't keep clothes on my toddler. He keeps trying to take them off. Why? Because all of humanity detests clothes!"

I mean, it clearly rises from the fact that I think human beings are biological evolutionary creations that, like most animals, do not come with clothes. Whereas you appear to think that God had a more active role in homo sapiens, and decided to add 2 cups of modesty and shame for shits and giggles. We were created with inherent shame??? I really can't describe how riled up that sentence makes me. Luckily, Jack has already elaborated for me above.

Why, sprunkabeemusus, is the stripping away of this modesty acceptable, but re-inenforcing it is considered extremism and an infringement of one's individual rights? Why do many Christians also say it is extreme, yet when the manger scene of Jesus' birth is placed in the front yard, Mary and the other women are all wearing Islamic dress?

Depends on what you mean be re-enforcing. I'm sure there are extreme methods of re-enforcing, just as there are less extreme methods. "You're not wearing that skirt out tonight, missy!" on one end, "Is that your belly button? Stone her!" on the other. Many Christians say a lot of things, and the things they say are primarily based around making their religions look cool and others stupid, a state your comments sometimes devolve into. Although considering it's Ramadan and you're on a fast, I can totally understand you being on an Islam high right now.

You say, "well, there should be a choice and it should not be forced", but the vast majority of Muslim women who wear hijab choose to wear it.

But those Christians running around in bikinis, they're being FORCED to deny their God given right to modesty and shame!!

And those women who do so in the West that I have met? They have a strength of character and purpose unlike any women I know, a dedication that makes me bow my head in shame, making me reflect on the weakness of my own faith. They are constantly the target of hate and ridicule because they have become symbols of the faith they represent, yet they go to work and carry on with their life knowing their fate depends on a greater Power than any human being.

First of all, the Christian wearing a bikini in an Islamic country would seem to have more strength of character than a woman wearing a hijab in America, because except for a few nutsos, we're a freedom of religion loving country who doesn't glorify or condone people based upon the clothes on their back. Whereas I think sharia law would be less understanding of our bikini model.
Secondly, that woman in the West to me has no more or less strength of character than someone wearing a yarmulke. I can't speak for Europe, or even America, but here deep in the heart of Texas I see women wearing hijabs all the time, and these women are just walking around living their lives like anyone else. Perhaps it would be cooler in your view if they lived life proudly despite the constant slings and arrows of bigoted people trying to keep them down, but that's not the case where I live.

In Islam, modesty is a command by God, the choice being whether to obey or not.

Wait, is modesty innate or a command by God? Either way, the point is that your view of modesty is YOUR view of modesty.

I think it very hard for some to understand the concept of doing something for the love of God vs. love of self. For example, right now, I'm fasting for the sake of my Creator. You would not believe me if I told you the level of peace and strength I feel right now. It is unlike any peace I feel the rest of the year, knowing that my Lord is pleased with me for giving up something I love to do in the way the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed me to do so. That strength comes from the pleasure of God.

I understand that. But do you understand that people can find love and peace, wear lots and no clothes, create morals that make sense, feel no shame in their genitals? And that people can do this godlessly, and this doesn't make them any more right or wrong in these opinions than you yourself are? Listen, you're a Muslim. You've found a personal truth that works for you. GREAT! But when people have opinions that directly contradict your beliefs, you have responses that come of as condescending pats on the head to people who, despite your best efforts, STILL don't get it.

This is probably the most politically incorrect thing I've said in awhile: There IS this strain of intolerance in SOME Muslims towards secular society and liberal social policy. Christianity overplayed that card a long time go (Thanks, Catholicism!) and has had to play ball for many a century now, but because of the popularity of theocracies in Islamic countries, Islam really hasn't had to deal with this. If you live in a country with a hegemonic religious denomination and with a state apparatus that enforced religious law as federal law, it's only natural to treat this state of affairs as natural. As such, some always expect others to understand their point of view and they do nothing in attempting the understand the views of others (NOT you Yaya, trying to make a larger point). That's why, IMHO, Sharia law is such a hot button issue where some (video gets a little wacko at the end) Muslims are like, "So the government passes some laws based on holy texts, no big whoop," and countries like Switzerland and France are getting worked up over nothing.

Except for MV. He has no respect for those kind of women, obviously, or he wouldn't post condescending comments about them as picture captions.

MV's point was that covering their mouths is symbolic for silencing their voice in common society (granted, there could have been less combustive ways of saying that) I'm not defending MV's extra small sized comments, but just like you have been influenced by fasting and finding peace and love in God, MV has been influenced obviously by the work that he's done. Any trust or power can be abused, and so I'm sure there are plenty of Muslim men like the one above who silence the wives, just like there are plenty of Christian men who want their wives pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPp64a6olFM&NR=1

[Metal Vendetta]

Except for MV. He has no respect for those kind of women, obviously, or he wouldn't post condescending comments about them as picture captions.

MV's point was that covering their mouths is symbolic for silencing their voice in common society (granted, there could have been less combustive ways of saying that)

True, internet message board humour perhaps isn't the best way to make a serious point, but I'm glad somebody got it.

I'm not defending MV's extra small sized comments, but just like you have been influenced by fasting and finding peace and love in God, MV has been influenced obviously by the work that he's done.

Though the funny thing is, they really do talk just like Kenny from off of South Park. Well, I find it amusing, anyway.

And to address Yaya's point directly: I have enormous respect for women. I just have no respect for islam or any other system that treats them as inferior. That goes for certain flavours of feminism too.

[bumblemusprime]

It is natural to want to cover up. In the Middle East. Because the environment there will kill anyone who walks around without any protection from the sun.

In contrast, the Cherokee went around buck nekkid with no problems in the summer, because Tennessee and the Carolinas get really stinking hot. Smear a little bear grease on your boys to keep mosquitos away and you're good.

I respect people who want to wear certain things and behave in certain ways that are either helpful or harmless. But I agree with Shanti; the burka is neither helpful nor harmless. If wimmins don't want to emphasize their luscious curves, there's lots of non-clingy dresses and there's even a hijab for guys who get off on long hair. But seriously, asking a woman to go around with no face is just turning her into an expressionless robot. It's a denial of her humanity.

All that said, I gots to give props to a guy who can fast every day for a month. One day of going without food and just a little water kills me.

[Brendocon]

One day of going without food and just a little water kills me.

Dude, that's like the lamest weakness ever.

[Yaya]

It is innate. Pull somebody's pants down, and they will hide behind the nearest tree. Why? Because modesty is natural. We were created with an inherent modesty and shame.

Firstly, I don't think it is innate; it's socially conditioned. How many tribesmen of various continents walk around wearing next to nothing?

That's debatable. Even those tribesman have some level of modesty, enough to cover their privates anyway.

And I don't know about you, but when someone pulls my pants down, I hide behind a tree so as to not make others feel inadequate.

In all seriousness though, modesty, whether innate or socially created, is a normal part of human existence. Islamic dress is simply another expression of that.

What amount of clothing is acceptable to you on a woman in public? MV might say, "whatever she wants, it's her right to do with her body as she pleases". But then, that's not what we have here in this 'free' America or 'free' Europe, is it? How about if she wants to go naked completely? She would be arrested. How about just a bikini bottom? Is that the 'correct' level of dress in the 'free' society you strive for? Again, it would be deemed unacceptable now. Maybe add a bra? The point is, others like MV can trash Islamic dress all they want and call it an infringement of human rights, but in the end, no society on Earth has or ever will fit the standard which is deemed "ideal" by everyone because "ideal" is different for different societies.

Westerners see Muslim women in hijab, and they instinctively think "oppression" or "we must free those poor, poor women! Look how their men have trapped them in layers of clothes!", without even considering that maybe those women choose to wear it. That line of thinking stems from a subconcious ethnocentricity. Maybe it's because they're afraid of Islam, that someday, they too might be forced to wear clothes that way. But as I said before, had Islam truly taught that religion must be forced upon others, you would all be crying "Allahu Akbar!" right now, as there are over one billion people who hold Islam as their faith. Greater than one-fifth of the world's population. That has not happened. But it's a great scare tactic, isn't it, if a government wants to achieve some underhanded aim? Muslims have lived with Jews in Spain as a majority. With Hindus in India as a majority. With Buddhist in China or Singapore. And Christians and atheist in America.

Isn't the person hiding behind the tree doing so because they're afraid they don't look 'normal' naked, that people will think their tits are weird or their knob is too small? And isn't that because our cultures are actually *too* modest, too afraid to be open about what we look like naked, to the extent that the images of nudity we are most familiar with are photoshopped, plastic-injected, unrealistic? Isn't that destructive to people's self confidence?

That is one possible reason, but not the only reason. If you gave all women the same figure and all men the same size dick, I still don't believe they would feel numb to having their pants pulled down. But that's just me.

Secondly, even as far as it is natural and normal to be modest, why should that then be enforced? You only enforce something where the alternative can be shown to have a detrimental effect to people's quality of life.

So you see no detrimental effect in having naked women and men roaming around in public? You don't think it would astronomically increase the rate that women are being raped? How many relationships and marriages do you think would last in that milieu? How many people do you think would remain faithful to their significant other if that were the case? MV would say"Hey! I could resist!" (sure ya could MV, you could throw a football over Mt. Everest too, couldn't cha?)

But then you might say, "but I'm not calling for complete nudity, as that also is extremism". Which goes back to my prior point? How much clothes does one have to wear for a society to be considered 'ideal'?

Take a poll in a society, and every one of them will give you a different answer. But it will only be the Muslim one that's said to be infringing on the rights of it's women.

I think it very hard for some to understand the concept of doing something for the love of God vs. love of self. For example, right now, I'm fasting for the sake of my Creator. You would not believe me if I told you the level of peace and strength I feel right now. It is unlike any peace I feel the rest of the year, knowing that my Lord is pleased with me for giving up something I love to do in the way the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed me to do so. That strength comes from the pleasure of God.

This is all very well, but theists are likewise in the position of not being able to understand or appreciate how much enjoyment and peace and strength atheists get by simply living genuinely for other human beings and knowing that nothing - no god or religion - actually obliges them to do this, believing in no reward outside of the act itself.

To each his own, I don't begrudge them that. In fact, Islam teaches that atheists too are given reward for their good deeds. I know many atheist who have done much in the service of humanity. They shall have their reward, which is the personal satisfaction that they have assisted their fellow human beings.

You'll have heard this argument before but theists often strike me as in need of the crutch of belief - only because they find it so hard to grasp, in my experience, the idea of not having a god that the only way they can confront atheism is by imagining it merely replaces god with something else - like science or money, or the self. It doesn't. Atheism = no god, no god replacement, no stand-in. We get on fine without.

I don't pretend to understand the atheist experience. It is foreign to me, as no second in my mature life has passed where I believed God did not exist. But my being Muslim does not prevent me from believing that an atheist can achieve personal satisfaction in this life without belief in God. After all, Muslim or atheist, we are all still human beings built on the same template with the same emotions and feelings. The difference comes in the fulfillment of the rights of the Creator. And that right is that He should be worshipped. In this relationship, it is only between that person and God. There is no intermediary.

We have a problem with a community that *demands* that of her, to the point where she apparently 'chooses' to largely because she feels people would look poorly on her if she didn't. It's not a demonstration of faith if her family would look down on her for making any other choice; it's a demonstration of intimidation.

How is it that Muslim societies, in your estimation, are the only societies where social pressures seemingly infringe on the rights of it's citizens, and that in other societies, intimidating social pressures that spurn one to behave a certain way are nonexistent?

Where is this utopia you speak of, I'm curious. We are social creatures. We don't live in a world of our own. I don't believe there will ever be a society where, because of social pressures or peer pressures, an individual doesn't have to do something they don't want to do just to maintain peace and order in the society.

Now, I'm not claiming this goes on in every single case, but be reasonable - it must go on to some extent within religious communities. There simply must exist that pressure to conform in a group where so many are of a single mind on the matter. The real freedom in Western society comes from the fact that there's much less we all agree on.

I don't deny that, within Muslim communities, there truly is extremist tendencies. For example, in some communities in Africa, due to cultural innovations, female circumcision has been practiced. Some erroneously tie this to Islam itself, which forbids genital mutilation, yet still it occurs amongst those who are Muslims in those few parts of the world. This is certainly a gross infringement of human rights. So yes, there are women who truly are oppressed by Muslim men. Muslim men who obviously are not familiar with the ways of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his treatment of women. Another example would be enforcing the burka on a women. In some Muslim societies, this is occurring and it shouldn't.

[Jack Cade]

That's debatable. Even those tribesman have some level of modesty, enough to cover their privates anyway.

Neither of us know why, who and in what circumstances native tribesmen do even this, and I think protection of one of the more vulnerable parts of the body is an immediately more obvious explanation. It just seems laughable to me that if the wind happened to whip up a flimsy piece of hide, the victim would go red and his or her fellow tribesmen would gasp in shock.

In all seriousness though, modesty, whether innate or socially created, is a normal part of human existence. Islamic dress is simply another expression of that.

Dressing, in some form or another, is an innate part of human existence. Modesty is a personal quality, and easily forgotten when you're a child, or starving, or in any extreme situation.

While we're at it, I don't actually accept that modesty has anything to do with how much or how little you wear but whether or not you flaunt what power or advantage you hold over other people. A women jiggling her boobs to get attention is behaving immodestly only in the same way as a person waving their wads of cash or bragging.

What amount of clothing is acceptable to you on a woman in public? MV might say, "whatever she wants, it's her right to do with her body as she pleases". But then, that's not what we have here in this 'free' America or 'free' Europe, is it? How about if she wants to go naked completely? She would be arrested. How about just a bikini bottom? Is that the 'correct' level of dress in the 'free' society you strive for?

For a start, Yaya, there is no 'correct' level of address, there is no 'ideal' and there is no 'acceptable' level. The idea is that people dress how they want because it's nobody else's business. The fact that people are still arrested for nudity is a hangover of old values that are on their way out - hence why you'll only ever really receive a slap on the wrist for it. Here in London, we've had mass nude bike rides passing through, nude festivals and - heck - a masturbation marathon. There is a clear tolerance of nudity, and unopposed encouragement from some areas.

So I repeat again - we do not have an 'ideal'. What we do have is widespread - but not state-enforced - disapproval of certain modes of dressing, like, for example, wearing a Nazi uniform. And sometimes we take the piss out of each other's clothing when they think it's extreme or silly. But people do not expect the police or the government to get involved.

Westerners see Muslim women in hijab, and they instinctively think "oppression" or "we must free those poor, poor women! Look how their men have trapped them in layers of clothes!", without even considering that maybe those women choose to wear it.

That is simply not true. We only respond the same way we do to anyone who appears to be dressing according to a strict code of conformity - by suspecting that some of them are pressured into it by their close community or peer group. That goes for skater boys hanging round the park as much as it does women in a hijab. The exception is the suit, which is so ubiquitous and universally regarded as sartorially elegant that it's impossible to tell whether the wearer is part of some community or in work uniform, or dressed up for an occasion, or just likes wearing suit.

But as I said before, had Islam truly taught that religion must be forced upon others, you would all be crying "Allahu Akbar!" right now, as there are over one billion people who hold Islam as their faith. Greater than one-fifth of the world's population.

That assumes that this one fifth truly have the means to do it. Tyranny is no easy game - you need leadership, a real ruthless streak, control, discipline, power. It's nowhere near as easy as one billion people believing they should oppress four billion others.

So you see no detrimental effect in having naked women and men roaming around in public? You don't think it would astronomically increase the rate that women are being raped?

Uh, no. I think that's utterly ridiculous, about as believable as the rapist's excuse that their victim was 'asking for it' with their body language. That goes for the notion that it would profoundly affect the number of lasting relationships and marriage as well. Seeing frequent nudity would have the effect of making it seem less extreme and extravagant, and so not particularly special/desirable in itself. It would also make many people less attractive, since body parts tend to sag, and genitals are regarded by many as being aesthetically unpleasing when they aren't already primed and in the mood.

How many rapists do you think cry, "Oh crap, she's got at least two layers covering her crotch - too much for me to deal with and such a turn-off"?

I mean, if you honestly think that you'd be prone to go round raping women or cheating on your wife if you happened to find yourself trapped a nudist beach, I'd be very worried indeed. How do you think people actually cope in nudist communities? Do you think they all the men go round with raging erections or something?

Which goes back to my prior point? How much clothes does one have to wear for a society to be considered 'ideal'? Take a poll in a society, and every one of them will give you a different answer. But it will only be the Muslim one that's said to be infringing on the rights of it's women.

That would be because the Muslim one will be the only one that (a) attains any significant level of agreement, and (b) takes the very idea of an 'ideal' seriously. Most people you would ask here would say: "What's the weather like? What's the occasion? How old/attractive is the person in question?"

How is it that Muslim societies, in your estimation, are the only societies where social pressures seemingly infringe on the rights of it's citizens, and that in other societies, intimidating social pressures that spurn one to behave a certain way are nonexistent?

Where is this utopia you speak of, I'm curious.

I think I've made this clear already - I do not hold up my own society or any other to be the ideal. I agree that there are always social pressures. The reason Muslim societies get singled out is to the extent that they think those social pressures to conform to a dress code are desirable. Liberal Westerners generally do not think pressure to conform is a good thing in any situation where non-conformity does not harm people's quality of life. We recognise it as a part of human nature that is impossible to extricate, but at all levels, we try to teach resistance to it, and we hold up as role models those people who go against the grain.

But a neater way of putting it is that in Muslim societies it is more likely to be the state and an overwhelming majority that enforce conformity - and the states definitely do so by intimidation and threat. In Western civilisations it is smaller communities and social groups that exact the pressure on individuals, and their right to do so is not recognised.

We have inequality over here. We have infringements on women's rights. We have serious issues. I have never denied that. We have a long way to climb out of the hole of gender inequality. But the crucial difference that I see is that we have started that climb and struggle to continue that climb, while you and other Muslims I have talked to seem to simply want to justify continuing to sit in the hole.

[Metal Vendetta]

Seriously, try to imagine a society where a group of women decide that men can only appear in public wearing a black tent. Just try and imagine that happenning anywhere.

Yaya, why don't muslim men wear headscarves again?

[Jack Cade]

MV - just to interject there, Yaya's already with us on the burka. The hijab is the generally more colourful thing that wraps around the head, leaving the face uncovered.

Although there seems to be some confusion over this - check out this hilarious web page, especially the picture at the bottom of a 'modest' Muslim woman! http://www.religiousfashion.org/muslim/

[Yaya]

While we're at it, I don't actually accept that modesty has anything to do with how much or how little you wear but whether or not you flaunt what power or advantage you hold over other people.

I would say modesty takes many forms, in appearance and behavior both. I only focused on the dress part. Modest behavior is an even more stressed issue in Islam.

The fact that people are still arrested for nudity is a hangover of old values that are on their way out - hence why you'll only ever really receive a slap on the wrist for it. Here in London, we've had mass nude bike rides passing through, nude festivals and - heck - a masturbation marathon. There is a clear tolerance of nudity, and unopposed encouragement from some areas.

Did you say 'public masturbation marathon"?

If that's the future of the West, then I think you are right. Islamic societies and the "new West" won't tolerate each other and will be unable to coexist in the same place. Honestly, I would not permit myself to live in such an environment and would have to leave. Perhaps it will come to that some day. For the time being, as a Muslim who has lived their whole life in America with very little impediment to practicing my faith, I will stay the course for now.

But I would encourage you, before wholeheartedly accepting this society you strive for as a superior way, to consider all consequences, all circumstances, that can arise from this level of 'liberation'. The society which you hope to see likely has existed before, in Rome, for example. But they eventually destroyed themselves. It might be a good idea for you to debate this with a sociologist about this issue. If you ever get the chance, let me know what he or she says, and I will do the same.

So I repeat again - we do not have an 'ideal'. What we do have is widespread - but not state-enforced - disapproval of certain modes of dressing, like, for example, wearing a Nazi uniform.

So if masturbating marathons are permissible, should the wearing of Nazi uniforms also be?

And in this not-yet-achieved ideal society, who determines what is "best" for the society as a whole? What would be the grounds upon which this society would be based?

Westerners see Muslim women in hijab, and they instinctively think "oppression" or "we must free those poor, poor women! Look how their men have trapped them in layers of clothes!", without even considering that maybe those women choose to wear it.

We only respond the same way we do to anyone who appears to be dressing according to a strict code of conformity - by suspecting that some of them are pressured into it by their close community or peer group.

If you join a private school in the States, you might be forced to wear a uniform. If you join the British military, you will certainly be forced to wear a uniform. At Wimbledon, if you don't wear white, you can't play at Wimbledon. That's all acceptable. But if you willingly join the religion of Islam and are pressured into having to give up the way you like to dress for the sake of your Creator, it is viewed as oppression.

Do I suppose wrong, then, in thinking that you hope for a time when cadets of the British military can carry their gun whilst showing off their other 'gun' without reprimand or a time when private schools will allow you to come to class dressed as a clown because they choose to?

I think in the end, it all comes down to this. Atheists see God as a figment of one's imagination. And like all figments, they are undeserving of being taken seriously, undeserving of being allowed to play by the rules of human constructs and entities, like schools, or militarys, or countries.

That is why Islam can never be fully understood by one who does not believe in God. Because to the Muslim, this life is almost a figment, or at least, insignificant in the face of the next.

So you see no detrimental effect in having naked women and men roaming around in public? You don't think it would astronomically increase the rate that women are being raped?

Uh, no. I think that's utterly ridiculous, about as believable as the rapist's excuse that their victim was 'asking for it' with their body language. That goes for the notion that it would profoundly affect the number of lasting relationships and marriage as well.

Gotta wholeheartedly disagree with you. It would have a statistically signficant impact on increasing the numbers of these events.

How many rapists do you think cry, "Oh crap, she's got at least two layers covering her crotch - too much for me to deal with and such a turn-off"?

Probably more than you might think.

I mean, if you honestly think that you'd be prone to go round raping women or cheating on your wife if you happened to find yourself trapped a nudist beach, I'd be very worried indeed. How do you think people actually cope in nudist communities? Do you think they all the men go round with raging erections or something?

No, but I believe all communities have their share of deviants. And the thing about deviants and sexual predators is that it doesn't take much to get them to commit their crime. Sometimes, just an internet connection is all they need.

Which goes back to my prior point? How much clothes does one have to wear for a society to be considered 'ideal'? Take a poll in a society, and every one of them will give you a different answer. But it will only be the Muslim one that's said to be infringing on the rights of it's women.

That would be because the Muslim one will be the only one that (a) attains any significant level of agreement, and (b) takes the very idea of an 'ideal' seriously.

That is because we take the idea of 'truth' seriously. If there is a religion out there that actually is true, then does it not follow that it's adherents should take it seriously and not alter it? Hence the perceived rigidity to change in Islam.

But the crucial difference that I see is that we have started that climb and struggle to continue that climb, while you and other Muslims I have talked to seem to simply want to justify continuing to sit in the hole.

Again, that is because the Muslim believes that he can do no better or obtain better than what he or she has been given now, in the Quran and the sunnah (ways) of the Prophet (PBUH). If we stay "in the hole", we stay "in the hole".

Despite being in this hole, the Muslims throughout history have made major scientific and artistic contributions to the world. Some might argue the Rennasaince might never have happened. Despite a theology based on belief in a Creator, the scientific contributions of the Muslim world have been staggering.

We do not, nor will we ever, consider ourselves "in a hole" when it comes to what we have to offer the world. Not to brag, but as a Muslim, I have offered my surgical skills to a population that is 99% either Christian, atheist, or agnostic. I like to think I have contributed in making my community and my country a better place to live, both through my profession and through my faith.

If I have done this from my hole, then in the hole I shall stay.

Seriously, try to imagine a society where a group of women decide that men can only appear in public wearing a black tent. Just try and imagine that happenning anywhere.

Yaya, why don't muslim men wear headscarves again?

You know, MV, Jack is essentially saying the same thing you are, but in a very polite, intelligible, and non-threatening fashion.

Would it be so hard for you to do the same?

[bumblemusprime]

How about just a bikini bottom? Is that the 'correct' level of dress in the 'free' society you strive for?

YES.

[Yaya]

Honesty. Gotta love it.

[Jack Cade]

Did you say 'public masturbation marathon"?

Yep. And while it's not my thing (I didn't actually go to it!) I fully support this kind of thing taking place for people who want to do it. It promotes openness and understanding of sexual health and functions in a society still climbing out of a state where enforced ignorance through 'shame' has led to countless avoidable sexual and mental health issues which have wrecked families, destroyed lives. The very fact that masturbation is still regarded by some as wicked or, somewhat perversely, unhealthy, is outrageous when it's proven to be normal behaviour, to carry health benefits and to result in no unpleasant side effects. Any society that represses it is fostering an atmosphere where people will carry round secret guilt and shame for most of their lives, thinking themselves 'deviant' when who knows how many others are in the same boat - also a world in which these individuals may not go to a doctor with a sexual problem or illness because they're afraid it will expose them as deviants.

The cast iron fact, as far as I'm concerned, is that your version of modesty is far more dangerous.

The society which you hope to see likely has existed before, in Rome, for example.

No, Yaya - you're being silly now. There is a huge way to go between a liberal society that allows people to be open and public about sex in a sensible fashion, and sheer hedonism - indulgence and gluttony all the way. I have no wish to live in a new Rome, and neither do most other people, because they would want to balance a sensible, liberal, intelligent attitude to sex with a sensible, liberal, intelligent attitude to running a country, raising children, earning a living, enjoying other pursuits etc.

The idea that seems to be driving your views here seems to me to be based on an extremely cynical view of humanity that presupposes people will immediately devolve to psychotic sex fiends as soon as the threat of punishment for sex in non-marital bed situations is lifted. Just because I said I knew of a single masturbation marathon that took place doesn't mean that they happen every night on every street, any more than Mardis Gras means that people in New Orleans are slipping towards a state of constantly littering the streets with beads.

In Japan, they have a penis festival, I believe. And good on them. I'm not going to pretend that, being English, I'm not naturally prudish about this sort of thing, but here is where my rationality has to outwit my social conditioning. I approve of it. I don't think I want to be involved in any of this stuff, but I approve.

So if masturbating marathons are permissible, should the wearing of Nazi uniforms also be?

Well, (a) both are permissible, by law, and (b) wearing Nazi uniforms is frowned on by many because it's considered to thoughtlessly make light of a very dark era and still real evil at the core of humanity. Unless the wearer is serious about they're Nazi ideology, in which case that's even worse. But in either case, the disapproval is a reasoned moral disapproval, not a case of pressuring conformity because there is only one 'right' way of dressing.

And in this not-yet-achieved ideal society, who determines what is "best" for the society as a whole? What would be the grounds upon which this society would be based?

Don't understand the question. Everything continues to work the same as it does now. The government and legislators serve the population and through the matrix of culture, of intelligent and open discussion and debate, the population aims to bring about what's best for everyone (and hope to fail less and less spectacularly).

If you join a private school in the States, you might be forced to wear a uniform. If you join the British military, you will certainly be forced to wear a uniform. At Wimbledon, if you don't wear white, you can't play at Wimbledon. That's all acceptable. But if you willingly join the religion of Islam and are pressured into having to give up the way you like to dress for the sake of your Creator, it is viewed as oppression.

Crucial differences: you make the choice to joint the military as an adult and you consciously accept its conditions. You make the choice to play at Wimbledon as an adult and you consciously accept its conditions. And you go to school for a set amount of time, during which you are forced to do many things you would rather not do on the basis that it will prepare you for an adulthood where you make choices for yourself, including as to what you want to wear.

Many, many Muslims - and Jews and orthodox Christians, for that matter - are born into families who have already decided their religion for them. They don't make that choice and they are not simply being prepared for making that choice later in life. They're upbringing is loaded with a bias towards that faith (ie. they are told it's not to be questioned). They are taught to believe that there is no real choice - just Islam or the savage wilderness. When they are then expected to dress in a particular way for the rest of their life because of that faith they have been brought up into, when the deal was never on the table for them to weigh up, that is oppression.

Atheists see God as a figment of one's imagination. And like all figments, they are undeserving of being taken seriously, undeserving of being allowed to play by the rules of human constructs and entities, like schools, or militarys, or countries.

You're off-track because of this issue of choice. I fully accept that if an adult chooses, in their own time, to enter a religion knowing all the rules of that religion, then it is not oppressive to expect them to follow those rules. So Islam is being treated exactly like any other organisation in this respect.

But children are not brought up being told that a life in the army is the correct or ideal, and dressed in miniature military uniforms and given a gun to carry from a young age. They are not made to wear school uniforms because it is the 'correct' way for them to be seen by anyone, anywhere, throughout their life.

No, but I believe all communities have their share of deviants. And the thing about deviants and sexual predators is that it doesn't take much to get them to commit their crime. Sometimes, just an internet connection is all they need.

Well, really, I think you're defeating your own point. They only need the internet, or their imagination, or the urge. They don't need nudity or even the suggestion of nudity. Given the choice of a fully clothed woman walking home alone on a darkened path and a woman in a scanty dress walking along a well lit street with friends, which will the rapist go for every time? It's vulnerability that is the huge, huge factor in rape, not levels of nudity.

Again, that is because the Muslim believes that he can do no better or obtain better than what he or she has been given now, in the Quran and the sunnah (ways) of the Prophet (PBUH). If we stay "in the hole", we stay "in the hole".

Well, we're back to the main point, which is that this attitude will lead to clashes with liberal societies because it's just not good enough to validate gender-based inequality with religious doctrine. When religious rights collide with basic human rights, the path is that the latter trumps the former. The Catholic adoption agencies lost - they have to take on gay couples or cease business. It has to be this way, otherwise any jerk who claims to believe in any radical interpretation of a Holy Book would be untouchable.

Of course your position doesn't stop you making major scientific and artistic contributions to the world but tell me, what proportion of them would you estimate are by women?

My hope is that future generations of Muslims born in the West will become increasingly liberal, discarding the stuffier, more socially conservative aspects of their religion as outmoded and not in the right 'spirit' in the same way many Christians have done. I don't think this too unrealistic a scenario either, because I think the power of rationality and reason, coupled with core human senses of balance, fairness and empathy, will result in a drift towards rational liberalism wherever there is relative prosperity and freedom of expression. That is exactly why so many conservative or autocratic governments are so keen to limit freedom of expression and to ensure most of their population remain in relative poverty.

[wideload]

**** me what year is this? 2001?

No, but I think oversimplification can lead to that conclusion. The Israeli people are a lot more diverse, and the conflict is a lot more complicated than that.

Whenever you oversimplify and generalize people it leads to racism. The same can be said for generalizations of the Palestinian people or muslim people as a whole.

Right - so people can comment on Israel as long as they write an essay that you personally judge to be of a level of complexity that suits you.

Otherwise you'll be on hand to pop up and accuse them of racism.

My how convenient.

No but comments like:

"Hey, here's an idea: when you use your own persecution as an excuse to move in, marginalize, kill and steal land from an ethnic group that has neither your resources nor your powerful allies, maybe you ought to QUIT ******* WHINING ABOUT YOUR POOR PERSECUTED SELVES, ISRAELIS."

...are clearly out of line. Even if you ignore the fact that Israelis are under threat of constant terror attack, it clearly shows total ignorance of what an Israeli is. It's bascially a substitution of the word Israeli within an old Jewish stereotype.

Most Israeli Jews are safardic Israelis so they aren't a different ethnicity from the Palestinians at all (at least in terms of race in the way it is implied in this post). And most of these safardic Israelis were forced out of their former homes in arab and muslim lands...... but oh no wait. All Israelis are white people who control America.

[Yaya]

Did you say 'public masturbation marathon"?

The cast iron fact, as far as I'm concerned, is that your version of modesty is far more dangerous.

I think the majority of human beings might disagree and find your call for this degree of sexual liberation a ticking time bomb. One that would blast you right back to hedonistic Rome.

The society which you hope to see likely has existed before, in Rome, for example.

There is a huge way to go between a liberal society that allows people to be open and public about sex in a sensible fashion, and sheer hedonism - indulgence and gluttony all the way.

You're being silly now. Do you really have that much faith in your fellow man? It is my belief that your line of reasoning would almost certainly lead to worse hedonistic behavior. I would already classify public masturbation marathons as hedonistic. But hey, that's just me...and most of the world.

If there's one obsession, yes obsession, with Western culture, it's sex. Sex is probably the biggest money maker of all, hence the widespread sexualization of every genre of entertainment: movies, magazines, Internet, television, even billboards. If there isn't enough sex out there to make your loins tingle now, you need to have your testosterone levels checked.

Just because I said I knew of a single masturbation marathon that took place doesn't mean that they happen every night on every street, any more than Mardis Gras means that people in New Orleans are slipping towards a state of constantly littering the streets with beads.

But you just said that we need to move more towards focus on losing the shame we have of sex. Which brings me back to Rome. What made them hedonistic? I mean, they were educated. They were intellectuals. What happened? What went wrong? I'll tell you. They lost control. Lost control of the classic vices. Sex. Alcohol. Splurging.

Don't get me wrong. I see sex as a right of every human. Celibacy is strictly forbidden in Islam too.

I have no shadow of a doubt, though, that what you're calling for would bring us back to Rome. And that version of modesty I find scary.

In Japan, they have a penis festival, I believe. And good on them. I'm not going to pretend that, being English, I'm not naturally prudish about this sort of thing, but here is where my rationality has to outwit my social conditioning. I approve of it. I don't think I want to be involved in any of this stuff, but I approve.

I would like to hear from Smooth about the status of sex in Japan. I have been there, and from my experience, it too is an overly sexualized society that likely has lead to deleterious effects. Smooth?

So if masturbating marathons are permissible, should the wearing of Nazi uniforms also be?

Well, (a) both are permissible, by law, and (b) wearing Nazi uniforms is frowned on by many because it's considered to thoughtlessly make light of a very dark era and still real evil at the core of humanity. Unless the wearer is serious about they're Nazi ideology, in which case that's even worse. But in either case, the disapproval is a reasoned moral disapproval, not a case of pressuring conformity because there is only one 'right' way of dressing.

You're being too fair. In my society, such a thing would be disallowed. As would KKK rallies. Yeah, I'd be called extreme. I'd be labelled 'oppressive'. But some things all rational human beings should be able to decipher, and open displays of racial violence is one of them. Certainly, in a truly Muslim society, this would not be allowed to happen. Incidently, neither would Mardi Gras.

In Islam, sex is an intensely private affair, something that happens in the home.

And in this not-yet-achieved ideal society, who determines what is "best" for the society as a whole? What would be the grounds upon which this society would be based?

Don't understand the question. Everything continues to work the same as it does now. The government and legislators serve the population and through the matrix of culture, of intelligent and open discussion and debate, the population aims to bring about what's best for everyone (and hope to fail less and less spectacularly).

And if that population is made up primarily of Muslims who decide through majority rule what's best for everyone?

See, I have no problem with the West. I chose to live here and I still do. As such, whether Muslim or not, I have to play by those rules. It's a choice I make.

I think non-Muslims in Muslim lands also must make that same choice. Again, the world is a big place.

If you join a private school in the States, you might be forced to wear a uniform. If you join the British military, you will certainly be forced to wear a uniform. At Wimbledon, if you don't wear white, you can't play at Wimbledon. That's all acceptable. But if you willingly join the religion of Islam and are pressured into having to give up the way you like to dress for the sake of your Creator, it is viewed as oppression.

Crucial differences: you make the choice to joint the military as an adult and you consciously accept its conditions. You make the choice to play at Wimbledon as an adult and you consciously accept its conditions. And you go to school for a set amount of time, during which you are forced to do many things you would rather not do on the basis that it will prepare you for an adulthood where you make choices for yourself, including as to what you want to wear.

So being raised a certain way as a child makes it impossible for that human being to think as a rational adult, to make his own choices and to choose his or her own path? I guess Jeffrey Dahmer shouldn't be held responsible for eating those people then. I mean, he was abused as a child, and therefore, could not have been in his right mind to murder. His parents made him do it.

Many, many Muslims - and Jews and orthodox Christians, for that matter - are born into families who have already decided their religion for them.

Again, being raised a certain way does not prevent one from making a choice as an adult. There are people who are raised as Muslims, but as adults, choose a different path.

But children are not brought up being told that a life in the army is the correct or ideal, and dressed in miniature military uniforms and given a gun to carry from a young age. They are not made to wear school uniforms because it is the 'correct' way for them to be seen by anyone, anywhere, throughout their life.

Guess you don't live in the U. S. South.

Again, that is because the Muslim believes that he can do no better or obtain better than what he or she has been given now, in the Quran and the sunnah (ways) of the Prophet (PBUH). If we stay "in the hole", we stay "in the hole".

Of course your position doesn't stop you making major scientific and artistic contributions to the world but tell me, what proportion of them would you estimate are by women?

A small percentage. Because there is something far more important than scientific discoveries: raising and caring for children. Far more important.

How many men do you reckon are responsible for that?

My hope is that future generations of Muslims born in the West will become increasingly liberal, discarding the stuffier, more socially conservative aspects of their religion as outmoded and not in the right 'spirit' in the same way many Christians have done.

[/quote]

As I say, Muslims have done just fine for themselves, and for their society, in the past living amongst people very different from themselves. I don't think their contributions will every be considered unimportant or "outmoded", when the chips are down.

[bumblemusprime]

**** me what year is this? 2001?

No, but I think oversimplification can lead to that conclusion. The Israeli people are a lot more diverse, and the conflict is a lot more complicated than that.

Whenever you oversimplify and generalize people it leads to racism. The same can be said for generalizations of the Palestinian people or muslim people as a whole.

Right - so people can comment on Israel as long as they write an essay that you personally judge to be of a level of complexity that suits you.

Otherwise you'll be on hand to pop up and accuse them of racism.

My how convenient.

No but comments like:

"Hey, here's an idea: when you use your own persecution as an excuse to move in, marginalize, kill and steal land from an ethnic group that has neither your resources nor your powerful allies, maybe you ought to QUIT ******* WHINING ABOUT YOUR POOR PERSECUTED SELVES, ISRAELIS."

...are clearly out of line. Even if you ignore the fact that Israelis are under threat of constant terror attack, it clearly shows total ignorance of what an Israeli is. It's bascially a substitution of the word Israeli within an old Jewish stereotype.

Most Israeli Jews are safardic Israelis so they aren't a different ethnicity from the Palestinians at all (at least in terms of race in the way it is implied in this post). And most of these safardic Israelis were forced out of their former homes in arab and muslim lands...... but oh no wait. All Israelis are white people who control America.

See, your posts keep going "sense, crazy, sense, crazy." I never said Israelis were white people who controlled America. You keep doing this exact thing that Zionists are known for doing--"look, look, you are anti-Semitic, and you, and you, and the whole world is anti-Semitic..." And then "it's more complicated," another classic dodge around the fact that Israel is just plain wrong.

Dude, you are creating a ******* straw man the size of the Statue of Liberty. The Israeli government won't even ban illegal building in the West Bank long enough to have peace talks with the Palestinians. The Israeli government is using tax breaks and income raises in order to create an artificially high quality of life in the settlements.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/isra ... ent-freeze

Where does this go? What is the logical end of Israel building in Palestinian land? What happens when Israel builds all the way through the West Bank? There is no more Palestine. That's what Israel's leaders want. That's what their actions have always testified to. "Defending yourself against terror"--what the [composite word including 'f*ck'] did you expect when you're committing slow genocide?

The man most responsible for all things Israel, including Israel's policies toward the Palestinians, was born in Poland and raised in Israel among Palestinians and was entirely familiar with how Jews and Palestinians might live in peace as they had for generations. The majority of immigrants to Israel BEFORE 1948 were not Sephardic, they were Ashkenazic, fleeing European and Russian persecution, and they were Zionists creating conflict. The entire creation of Israel and persecution of the Palestinians and thus the birth of modern Zionism was a deliberate attack in the name of religion. And the "Oh We Suffer So" as a distraction from acts of terror is a classic Zionist tactic. Herzl cheered on anti-Semitism as a way to drive the faithful to Israel, and Sharon said in 2003 that "the best defense against anti-Semitism is to move to Israel."

Why do Zionists want more anti-Semitism and thus more Jews in Israel? Because they want the end to come sooner and Messiah to show up. Therefore Zionism is whacko religious fundamentalism at its greatest. And yet the West has never openly condemned the State of Israel, to the point where Obama remains "dedicated to the security of Israel." According to the Red Cross, the UN Office For The Coordination of Human Affairs, and the foreign ministry of Israel itself, Palestinians casualties just since 2000 have been at least six times those of Israeli casualties. Israel doesn't want peace. The numbers are on Zion's side. At this rate, the West Bank could be cleaned out by 2050.

The "persecuted Sephardic Jews fleeing Arab lands" is a classic whitewash of history. I saw it all the time when I was growing up Mormon. Do you know how many convenient lies are floating around about LDS polygamy? "It was sexless, it was only financial, it was a burden imposed by God..." these people I grew up with did a great job of lying and lying and lying to themselves to ignore the fact that their ancestors liked to get it on with lots of women.

I can only hope you'll realize that real history doesn't obey the convenient needs of your doctrine.

By Israelis I did mean the conservative factions in Israel that control the government and the settlements. So I'm sorry to lump all Israelis in with state-sanctioned terrorists. Changing it to "Israel," because there are many Israelis who are working for peace, but none of them seem to ever end up in the government, though, so I'm quite comfortable referring to "Israel's actions."

But like I said, I'm not really bothered by your accusation of anti-Semitism, because as a Zionist, you actually like anti-Semites. I'll bring it up in Torah study this Saturday morning and see what my study group thinks.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

their ancestors liked to get it on with lots of women.

Is it too late to join? I remember there being a pretty hot missionary who would come by my house often.

[Shanti418]

I think the majority of human beings might disagree and find your call for this degree of sexual liberation a ticking time bomb. One that would blast you right back to hedonistic Rome.

You're being silly now. Do you really have that much faith in your fellow man? It is my belief that your line of reasoning would almost certainly lead to worse hedonistic behavior. I would already classify public masturbation marathons as hedonistic. But hey, that's just me...and most of the world.

When Jack posits that you have little faith in your fellow man, then it's quite obvious that he has "that much" faith in his fellow man. That question is unnecessary.
Furthermore, your line of thought is like poor drug policy. "It's a slippery slope, society! One minute you're having casual sex, then you're in a cirlce jerk, and then you feed people to lions." Again, you make basic assumptions about the nature of man, your assumptions are steeped in your religiosity, and you don't admit any bias.

If there's one obsession, yes obsession, with Western culture, it's sex. Sex is probably the biggest money maker of all, hence the widespread sexualization of every genre of entertainment: movies, magazines, Internet, television, even billboards. If there isn't enough sex out there to make your loins tingle now, you need to have your testosterone levels checked.

You forgot about money. And crass materialism. Secularism probably did push the sexualization of society snowball originally down the hill, but IMO, the pursuit of profit and sales is what's really exacerbated the situation.

But you just said that we need to move more towards focus on losing the shame we have of sex. Which brings me back to Rome. What made them hedonistic? I mean, they were educated. They were intellectuals. What happened? What went wrong? I'll tell you. They lost control. Lost control of the classic vices. Sex. Alcohol. Splurging.

Again, describing a massive historical process by a single causal mechanism takes the wind out of your point before you start. The fall of Rome was a complex historical event with multiple factors, one of which certainly was decadence, but so was Christianity, monetary trouble, military problems, and even the rise of Islam.

Don't get me wrong. I see sex as a right of every human. Celibacy is strictly forbidden in Islam too.

And that's a really important point. Celibacy is forbidden in Islam for the same reason that masturbation was frowned upon in Christianity: because in the time the holy rules were written, societies viewed not having sex or "spilling your seed" as wastes if not insults to a community that depended upon rapid replenishment due to shorter lifespans through lots of productive procreation. But we're in modernity now, and until our impending global catastrophe, we have plenty of people. Yet people still follow the echoes of old pragmatic rules.

I would like to hear from Smooth about the status of sex in Japan. I have been there, and from my experience, it too is an overly sexualized society that likely has lead to deleterious effects. Smooth?

YET in Japanese porn, they have so much modesty that they pixelate all genitals. (Yet yes, there are certainly deleterious effects, ones I too would be interested in hearing) Here in America, we suppress the **** out of our sexuality in public and then half of us go put ball gags in our mouths and look at pron for seix hours. In Europe, you accidentally bump into porn or phone sex ads on the TV all the time and some countries (recently) have literal cubicles for prostitutes to work out of on the street. Yet I would agree that when it comes to sex, the US and Japan are way more obsessed. We could argue about the reasons for this, but the point is that "overly sexualized society" has no clear definition, and that it's not a straight line from there to deleterious effects.

You're being too fair. In my society, such a thing would be disallowed. As would KKK rallies. Yeah, I'd be called extreme. I'd be labelled 'oppressive'. But some things all rational human beings should be able to decipher, and open displays of racial violence is one of them. Certainly, in a truly Muslim society, this would not be allowed to happen. Incidently, neither would Mardi Gras.

But this is what I was talking about in my last post. The government can't make moral judgments in a secular society on what people do unless it's allowed based upon the rules laid out in the Enlightenment. That's where we really got this whole democratic, church and state, individual freedom thing we've got going here in the West. Your perspective deals with the state making moral judgments in things that cause no injury, and that will never sit right, because each individual can choose or create their own morality (like you have chosen one based upon Islam).

Don't understand the question. Everything continues to work the same as it does now. The government and legislators serve the population and through the matrix of culture, of intelligent and open discussion and debate, the population aims to bring about what's best for everyone (and hope to fail less and less spectacularly).

I think that's giving our whole arrangement a bit TOO much credit. Legislators serving the population? Intelligent discussion? I think that everything works OK, but ultimately, virtually all systems of government are set up to primarily benefit the already powerful and/or monied.

So being raised a certain way as a child makes it impossible for that human being to think as a rational adult, to make his own choices and to choose his or her own path? Again, being raised a certain way does not prevent one from making a choice as an adult. There are people who are raised as Muslims, but as adults, choose a different path.

I could make a point, but as you called to Smooth, I now call to bumblemus for his knowledge of social institutions based upon religion and how easy/hard it is for a rational individual to escape a hegemonic religious community. I would guess it's not impossible, but it's not the light switch you make it out to be.

But children are not brought up being told that a life in the army is the correct or ideal, and dressed in miniature military uniforms and given a gun to carry from a young age. They are not made to wear school uniforms because it is the 'correct' way for them to be seen by anyone, anywhere, throughout their life.

Guess you don't live in the U. S. South.

I live in the US South. There are some people like that. There are people who overdose/obsess on things everywhere. Military. Nation. Star Trek. Religion. But when you live in a heterogeneous society, that social policing/propaganda stops at the family. When you live in a homogeneous society, there is no end to the "correctness." It's the difference between The Real World and The Truman Show.

Of course your position doesn't stop you making major scientific and artistic contributions to the world but tell me, what proportion of them would you estimate are by women?

A small percentage. Because there is something far more important than scientific discoveries: raising and caring for children. Far more important.

OK, OK, women should go back to popping out babies. Self determination is for people with cocks. Yaya tells me this. Conservative Christians tell me this. If my daughter tells me "Daddy, I want to be a scientist," I'll tell her, "Why don't you stop with your ******** and get pregnant already?" I'm not saying kids aren't great, I'm just saying that I'm not going to tell a woman what's important to her or what to do with her life because I believe she has a right to personal agency. To paraphrase, "I guess that's just me.....and the rest of the world."

[Metal Vendetta]

You know, MV, Jack is essentially saying the same thing you are, but in a very polite, intelligible, and non-threatening fashion.

Would it be so hard for you to do the same?

Honestly? I'm just here 'cause Bumblemus asked me and I thought there'd be some lulz. Prime Rib offered me hookers and booze, so I kinda stuck around.

Hey, I've kept the kid gloves on this time, out of respect for the fact that it's Ramadan and you're probably not up to your usual level of intellectual prowess. I've let loads of points go which I would normally have jumped on like a fox on a neglected baby, but in answer to your question above, I'd have to say that while Jack is a very polite, intelligible and non-threatening person, I'm an anti-religious über-bastard who just enjoys watching you try to defend the indefensible and, having argued with you before, has no realistic expectation that you'll even try to address my points in a satisfactory manner.

Anyway, that said, I'll leave you to it. I've already enough gems for my Little Book of Yaya Quotes* from this discussion that I don't think there's much point winding you up any further

*Available from all good bookstores, the perfect gift for a loved one this Christmas.

[Brendocon]

Speaking from personal experience, Emvee is a very polite, intelligible, and non-threatening person.

But he refuses to lose arguments, so is always equipped with thought and rationale, masked with humour. It probably stems from his early days, spent in the notorious Walsall Debates To The Death. Something he will one day be forced to return to. He cannot escape his destiny.

Midlander: There Can Be Only One.

[Metal Vendetta]

Speaking from personal experience, Emvee is a very polite, intelligible, and non-threatening person.

Lies! Lies, I tell you! I'm an über-bastard really.

Actually this is something Mrs. V brought up the other week after I made a Canadian girl cry - she said "I'm a Christian, but I've never read the Bible" and I was drunk, which is pretty much a combination for disaster. Mrs V's been reading The God Delusion lately and she said if I'd made my points in a rational manner instead of essentially just laughing this girl out of the pub, I might have stood a chance of changing her mind and getting her to think things through properly. I'll admit she's probably right, but at the same time it's not necessarily my job to try and convert the delusional over to the side of rationality. Hell, I've even made atheists cry and storm out because they imagined how their religious friends might feel if they heard me talking smack about religion.

Midlander: There Can Be Only One.

Gaaaaah *shakes fist*

[Jack Cade]

I think that's giving our whole arrangement a bit TOO much credit. Legislators serving the population? Intelligent discussion? I think that everything works OK, but ultimately, virtually all systems of government are set up to primarily benefit the already powerful and/or monied.

That's the practical reality because the system is flawed, we're flawed and power corrupts. But the general idea, and the reality we're striving for, is what I said. As an ideal it will never be realised but that doesn't mean that knowing how things are *supposed* to work doesn't make a very real difference to how bad it gets. All the simpering and lying and manoeuvring politicians do to convince themselves and us that they're public servants results in some good some of the time.

When I've spoken to Muslims in my area, there's been the argument: "Your system doesn't work. Your leaders are corrupt. You have homeless people. You have inequality. Therefore Islam is better."

And my answer is: yes, it's horribly flawed, but goddamn is it better to live in a society where the ideals are in place, rather than one that doesn't even believe in the notion of gender equality or a government serving its people.

Obviously, I'm with you on the rest of your post!

I think the majority of human beings might disagree and find your call for this degree of sexual liberation a ticking time bomb. One that would blast you right back to hedonistic Rome.

Shanti's done most of the work for me on this re. the far, far apart dots you're joining. But one thing I'd also point out is that you seem to think this masturbation marathon was a case of encouraging *more* masturbation. It wasn't; it was a case of encouraging *openness* about masturbation.

Maybe this is my fault because I've used entirely the wrong phrase and given you the impression that there was some kind of competition or aim to jack off as many times as possible. In actual fact, from what I heard, it was simply a case of celebrating something people usually do in private, in public. I think they erected tents that people go into if they were embarrassed or something. I'm a bit hazy on it, because I wasn't really that interested, but it wasn't a case of: "Hey, let's all down tools and start masturbating more than we ever had before!"

In any case, your ticking time bomb analogy is the wrong way round. Time bombs happen when pressure builds that eventually has to be let out. They are what happens in a society that represses sexuality, not one that is open about it. Do some people get unhealthily addicted to sex? Sure. As they do alcohol, tobacco, video games - anything pleasurable. Are we on the brink of any kind of epidemic? Uh, hardly. Our problem is with obesity and drinking, not the occasional sex addict.

I mean, I just do not know what goes on in the privacy of one's own home in strictly Muslim countries, and neither do you. With respect, Yaya, you simply have no idea what monsters are secretly evolving in places where the idea of discussing/expressing sexual deviance openly is unthinkable. If there was a paedophile in the family, would it ever get out? Is there even a word for it in Islamic languages? Has the concept dared to be imagined?

Forget Rome; Victorian Britain is your model - the shocking distance between the appearance and the reality caused by a culture of repression and rule-making.

It is my belief that your line of reasoning would almost certainly lead to worse hedonistic behavior. I would already classify public masturbation marathons as hedonistic. But hey, that's just me...and most of the world.

Only if most of the world are lying to themselves about what they do in private. The publicness of an act can't possibly have a bearing on how hedonistic it is.

Don't get me wrong. I see sex as a right of every human. Celibacy is strictly forbidden in Islam too.

Well, I find that just as oppressive and ridiculous. What if some people *don't* want to have sex? I mean, you say we're the society spiralling out of control, but within Islam people are forced to have sex?

Is the white elephant in the room here homosexuality? What does Islam have to say about men who like other men? Spend your life pretending to be something you're not?

I have no shadow of a doubt, though, that what you're calling for would bring us back to Rome.

Funny how it's not actually happening then, because what I'm 'calling for' is what is actually happening, and yet somehow the streets are still filled with people shopping for shoes rather than banging, and millions of people are still able to enter and sustain monogamistic relationships and raise normal, healthy children.

You're being too fair. In my society, such a thing would be disallowed.

Our limit is when something counts as 'incitement to racial hatred'. This means that, unlike you, we wouldn't waste time arresting some idiot going to a fancy dress party, but we would arrest someone stirring up violence.

The difference in attitude is because our rules are based around stopping people destroying quality of life, while yours are based around destruction of choice, or things that are 'different', because a freer, more multifarious, more colourful society is harder to control and keep repressed. I'm sorry but I do believe that's the case - your religion, like many others, has, over time, become mixed up with the forces of tyranny, who are traditionally very good at making people believe that they have to act a certain way not because it makes them easier to control and dominate but because it's religiously 'correct' or 'modest'.

In Islam, sex is an intensely private affair, something that happens in the home.

Yeah, and the non-treatment and death from venereal diseases is probably also an intensely private affair that happens in the home. And the crying with guilt over giving in to 'deviant' urges, and eventual suicide from being unable to avoid acting on these urges.

And if that population is made up primarily of Muslims who decide through majority rule what's best for everyone?

Well, now, that's interesting, isn't it? What happens in a democracy if the majority want an autocracy? What happens in a free and progressive society if the majority opt for a repressed and regressive society? If Muslims aren't more moderate by then, the reality is that they will have to put up with a society where people don't obey their rules or else there will be civil war. Cos I, for one, ain't going back to the dark ages. The moment you start bring the kind of rules you're talking about over here is the moment I start fighting for my freedom.

Again, being raised a certain way does not prevent one from making a choice as an adult. There are people who are raised as Muslims, but as adults, choose a different path.

My belief - again, leaning on what Shanti has already pointed out - is that this takes a strength of character far and above that of women wearing a hijab in a Western society. One requires ignoring the occasional disapproval of strangers; one requires ignoring the disapproval of, and possible expulsion from, your close family and community. I know which I'd find harder.

A small percentage. Because there is something far more important than scientific discoveries: raising and caring for children. Far more important.

Sorry, Yaya, it's not more important. If the woman who, given free choice, would have gone on to make great scientific discoveries that resulted in the saving of lives couldn't do so because the religion she was born into forced her into the role of a wife and mother, that is an atrocity. And I don't use that word lightly.

Raising and caring for the children that already exist is incredibly important. Bearing more children is not. In fact, in this day and age, bearing less children is more of a prerogative for a sensible society.

And there is nothing rational to say the father can't be the one who takes the main role of raising and caring, or to say that duties can't be shared.

So there is absolutely no excuse for all or 99% of your scientific and artistic contributions to the world being made by men. That rough statistic is a huge black mark on Islamic societies. I don't pretend that it's a much better statistic over here, but again, the problem here - the gulf between is - is that I recognise it in both our cases as a sign of oppression and you don't.

I don't think their contributions will every be considered unimportant or "outmoded", when the chips are down.

It's not the contributions that will come out in the wash as unimportant and outmoded; it's the socially conservative doctrine, which your offspring will realise was nothing but a negative force, working against what advances your culture did make. They will come to believe, I think, that these notions of 'modesty' and sexual privacy are absolutely nothing to do with Islam, are part of the more hazy or ambiguous bits of the Koran, and are actually an age-old hijacking of the religion by a patriarchal culture fearful of true fairness and equality.

[bumblemusprime]

their ancestors liked to get it on with lots of women.

Is it too late to join? I remember there being a pretty hot missionary who would come by my house often.

You can always join; unfortunately you can't join in 1851.

Set flux capacitor to sunburnt chicks in wool dresses and bonnets!

Forget Rome; Victorian Britain is your model - the shocking distance between the appearance and the reality caused by a culture of repression and rule-making.

There is a great argument, no more clear than in Victorian Britain, that a frenzy over societal mores and gender roles is a great way to distract from classism and ill-treatment of workers.

We live in countries where every damn thing we buy is made in China. Where often workers are treated and paid like dirt, and there are no environmental regulations. Do a few boobies really matter?

[Professor Smooth]

Let me just say this.

I disagree with a LOT of things that both the Koran and Yaya say.

However, freedom of religion is a right that people have in the US. Regardless of how I feel about said religion. So, if Muslims want to build a mosque, then they've got the right.

"I don't like anything you say, but I support your right to say it," and all that.

[Metal Vendetta]

If there was a paedophile in the family, would it ever get out? Is there even a word for it in Islamic languages? Has the concept dared to be imagined?

Oh Jack, you're miles behind. Of course there's a word for paedophile in islam, it's "Mohammed":
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm
And islamic cultures in the middle east have been following his "good example" ever since:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8493402.stm

[Yaya]

If there was a paedophile in the family, would it ever get out? Is there even a word for it in Islamic languages? Has the concept dared to be imagined?

Of course it has. And it certainly would get out. And when it did, that person would likely be executed or castrated. I don't know the Sharia rules on that, but it certainly would be something you would think harsh.

It is my belief that your line of reasoning would almost certainly lead to worse hedonistic behavior. I would already classify public masturbation marathons as hedonistic. But hey, that's just me...and most of the world.

Only if most of the world are lying to themselves about what they do in private. The publicness of an act can't possibly have a bearing on how hedonistic it is.

What exactly are you expecting people to become? To me, it sounds like you are expecting persons who are nonjudgemental, hold no biases whatsoever, and are unemotional. To me, that sounds like a nation of robots.

In Islam, there is the ideal for which you strive, but there is something even greater than that. And that is the acceptance that human beings are flawed in their constitution and will fall short of their aims every time. Islam does not ask people to be angels or force people to become angels. It is for this reason that Muslims have been able to coexist with the West and other myriad of civilizations in history. We are human beings too with the same flaws, emotions, needs, desires, etc.

Do you know what the most common description of God is in the Quran? He is Ar-Rahman, ar-Rahim. The most Beneficent, the most Merciful. Every chapter in the Quran, save one, begins with this description of the Creator.

Mercy and beneficence, if I take your account of Islam, seems alien or foreign to me. Your description of Islam doesn't remind me of my faith at all. It reminds me of Nazi Germany. Or Attila the Hun.

So there is some disconnect. Either you know my faith better than me, or you do not understand Islam. You view Islam as constricting, I view it as liberating. You view it as an infringement on human rights, I view it as an institution that protects the honor of people, both men and women.

Is the white elephant in the room here homosexuality? What does Islam have to say about men who like other men? Spend your life pretending to be something you're not?

One could argue that, as all public sexual expression is forbidden in Islam, that homosexuals might find more peace knowing that what goes on in the home is between that person and His Creator, leaving them less likely to be judged by their fellow man publicly. It's the reason the U.S. Army instituted the "don't ask, don't tell policy", but persons such as yourself saw this as an unfair ruling and are trying to shoot it down. Even the U.S. Army undertands there is a time and place for everything, and sometimes, things are private affairs that should not be delved into, and that no matter how much you ask or expect your fellow human being to be objective, it isn't going to happen.


Gotta catch a plane home now. Last ten days of Ramadan are the most important. Nice talking with you guys.

[Best First]

Oh Jack, you're miles behind. Of course there's a word for paedophile in islam, it's "Mohammed":
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

Because there is something far more important than scientific discoveries: raising and caring for children

hmm.

[Yaya]

Just saw the MV comment above, so I think for me, I will end this here.

[Yaya]

Actually, saw BF's post too.

I think this will be it for me on these boards. It's just that those comments really cut deep, especially now, when I'm particulary spiritually inclined during this holy month.

Take care all and I wish you all the very best. I have learned a lot.

Watch Clone Wars!