Burkas, modesty rhetoric and where do we go from here

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Below is a post from Tacenda on another thread that I believe if is to pursued should be done on this thread. The following (italics added) -

"I'll stick with this one.

https://www.cfbjs.com/our-blog/2020/december/how-might-i-be-charged-with-indecent-exposure-/

• exposing their private parts;
• engaging in sexual conduct or masturbation; or
• engaging in conduct that to an ordinary observer would appear to be sexual conduct or masturbation."

____________________________

This leaves quite a wide margin for tastes in what one wears! Are you sure this is your standard for a youth dance conducted in one of our chapels? Interestingly, your link excludes a woman's breasts as being a 'private part' and therefore not something considered against the indecent exposure laws (and not something you would consider beyond the pale?).

Of course, we can all imagine myriad examples of 'attire immodesty' from both our young men & women that would make us blanche at the prospect of having these styles at a dance or at church for that matter - styles that have nothing to do with your aforementioned standard you claim to be sticking with. I don't understand why we haven't dedicated more bandwidth to how we address these issues. Instead, the vast majority of the posts simply complain about others' efforts at enforcing standards we disagree with, without any real, practical direction on what the new standard should be beyond your suggestion that as long as our youth are not exposing their private parts or engaging in behavior that looks like sexual conduct! Yikes!

The fact is someone will be tasked with being on the front lines of enforcing something (who knows what that is now!?). What should be the direction for them? Or will we forever sit back in our armchairs and complain with platitudes about their decisions? : (

You put me in a tough spot with your continued questioning and I really found it difficult to answer something that is so all-encompassing, and then I thought of what would be counted as indecent exposure and found that link, I wasn't even thinking of youth dances. I was thinking that people will make their own minds up on their attire. But I'm sure for those that attend events, they would dress accordingly.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Below is a post from Tacenda on another thread that I believe if is to pursued should be done on this thread. The following (italics added) -

"I'll stick with this one.

https://www.cfbjs.com/our-blog/2020/december/how-might-i-be-charged-with-indecent-exposure-/

• exposing their private parts;
• engaging in sexual conduct or masturbation; or
• engaging in conduct that to an ordinary observer would appear to be sexual conduct or masturbation."

____________________________

This leaves quite a wide margin for tastes in what one wears! Are you sure this is your standard for a youth dance conducted in one of our chapels? Interestingly, your link excludes a woman's breasts as being a 'private part' and therefore not something considered against the indecent exposure laws (and not something you would consider beyond the pale?).

Of course, we can all imagine myriad examples of 'attire immodesty' from both our young men & women that would make us blanche at the prospect of having these styles at a dance or at church for that matter - styles that have nothing to do with your aforementioned standard you claim to be sticking with. I don't understand why we haven't dedicated more bandwidth to how we address these issues. Instead, the vast majority of the posts simply complain about others' efforts at enforcing standards we disagree with, without any real, practical direction on what the new standard should be beyond your suggestion that as long as our youth are not exposing their private parts or engaging in behavior that looks like sexual conduct! Yikes!

The fact is someone will be tasked with being on the front lines of enforcing something (who knows what that is now!?). What should be the direction for them? Or will we forever sit back in our armchairs and complain with platitudes about their decisions? : (

I'm encouraged that instead of Jesus telling women they needed to dress modestly, He instead told us that if we couldn't control our lust we should pluck out our eyes.  To me, that's a great lesson in where our time, energy, and worry should be focused.

(And that's also why I don't think it's appropriate to "dedicate more bandwidth" to policing people's clothes).

[bsjkki]

This is not about protecting women. The scriptures make it pretty clear where the problem lies.

[MustardSeed]

37 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This is not about protecting women. The scriptures make it pretty clear where the problem lies.

That is a very difficult image to look at. 

[bsjkki]

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

That is a very difficult image to look at. 

It’s dehumanizing.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

It’s dehumanizing.

All I can think is there must be a lot of anger and weeping going on under those burqas. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Peacefully

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

This is not about protecting women. The scriptures make it pretty clear where the problem lies.

This is what can happen when women’s attire is policed in the name of religion. 

[Peacefully]

Protest by Afghan women wearing burqas was probably orchestrated by the Taliban. They are marketing themselves as a kinder, gentler regime but I think they’ve just gotten smarter about how to go about repressing women. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/11/world/europe/afghanistan-women-burqas.amp.html

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/4/2021 at 1:21 PM, Stargazer said:

What inequality do you wish to eliminate? Pick one. 

🙃I want to be Itzhak Perlman. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/4/2021 at 5:17 PM, bsjkki said:

But, my humor tolerance level around burka wearing is pretty low...to be honest.

 

Same ol’, same ol’. We spent billions of dollars and suffered thousands of casualties in part for this cause, but apparently it was all for naught. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

It’s dehumanizing.

Erasure at its finest. Black holes where women used to be. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Erasure at its finest. Black holes where women used to be. 

That's the first thing I thought of is they're being erased.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

That is a very difficult image to look at. 

Alleged "modesty" used to objectify.

That reverses the whole concept.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Same ol’, same ol’. We spent billions of dollars and suffered thousands of casualties in part for this cause, but apparently it was all for naught. 

Add one more to the list

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Same ol’, same ol’. We spent billions of dollars and suffered thousands of casualties in part for this cause, but apparently it was all for naught. 

Did we though?

If 9-11 had never happened, would we have invaded afghanistan to help free women?  There's not a lot of evidence to support that.

[Bernard Gui]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

Did we though?

If 9-11 had never happened, would we have invaded afghanistan to help free women?  There's not a lot of evidence to support that.

That wasn’t my point.…..I said “in part.” IMO we are in a long term cultural and religious war. We are now at the same point we were 20 years ago.

Our concept of modesty is an affront to them. We are the enemy partly because of the freedom women are given in our culture and religion. They see it as exploitation and oppression, not freedom. One of the Taliban’s first acts was to restore their strict modesty standards that were loosened during the war. Hence, same ‘ol, same ol’.

This was part of their reasons to attack and thus became enmeshed in our reasons to go to war. The hope was that our sacrifices would benefit all Afghanis including women and children. This photo is evidence of our failure. Bin Laden made these condemnations against the US:

Quote

The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

..

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

…

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

That wasn’t my point.…..I said “in part.” IMO we are in a long term cultural and religious war. We are now at the same point we were 20 years ago.

Our concept of modesty is an affront to them. We are the enemy partly because of the freedom women are given in our culture and religion. He saw it as exploitation and oppression, not freedom. One of the Taliban’s first acts was to restore their strict modesty standards that were loosened during the war. Hence, same ‘ol, same ol’.

This was part of their reasons to attack and thus became enmeshed in our reasons to go to war. The hope was that our sacrifices would benefit all Afghanis including women and children. This photo is evidence of our failure. Bin Laden made these condemnations against the US:

 

Do you agree with him? 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Do you agree with him? 

Hmmm. That could be a loaded question, but I don’t think that is your intention. I can answer assuming it is asked in good faith.

I agree that Western culture is in serious moral and spiritual decay. I don’t think that is debatable. As he hypocritically noted, the exploitation of women is a significant portion of this corruption; however, Bin Ladin and his radical brethren also do that in their own twisted abusive way. I lament both. 

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

On 9/11/2021 at 9:55 AM, Tacenda said:

You put me in a tough spot with your continued questioning and I really found it difficult to answer something that is so all-encompassing, and then I thought of what would be counted as indecent exposure and found that link, I wasn't even thinking of youth dances. I was thinking that people will make their own minds up on their attire. But I'm sure for those that attend events, they would dress accordingly.

I was figuring out a way to say how it's probably not a good thing for women to go topless like men do. Or how you mentioned that in the indecent exposure law I shared, it left out not showing breasts for women as for the private areas. This is what I read while searching on the internet on Quora's question and answer's site...and believe it's the answer to your question:

Why is it OK for boys to be shirtless but girls can't be topless?

Because we as a society have decided that women’s breasts are sexual objects. The same as how we used to decide the women’s ankles and calves were sexual, breasts are now the new sexual.

I think, eventually, we’ll get to the point where women’s breasts are simply treated as a part of their body, and not as something innately sexual, but that day is not today. Until then, women can’t be shirtless because it means exposing ‘sexual’ parts, whereas men are not doing the same, because men’s pecs/nipples are simply not considered sexual in the same way.

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hmmm. That could be a loaded question, but I don’t think that is your intention. I can answer assuming it is asked in good faith.

I agree that Western culture is in serious moral and spiritual decay. I don’t think that is debatable. As he hypocritically noted, the exploitation of women is a significant portion of this corruption; however, Bin Ladin and his radical brethren also do that in their own twisted abusive way. I lament both. 

 

Thanks- 

One thing I really dislike about this site is the tendency for people to play “gotcha”. This is not my style and I’m glad you recognize that and were willing to answer. 

[Bernard Gui]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Thanks- 

One thing I really dislike about this site is the tendency for people to play “gotcha”. This is not my style and I’m glad you recognize that and were willing to answer. 

Do you agree with him?

[bluebell]

This article is of women sharing stories about how a "nice guy" turned on them when they weren't interested (or didn't respond with interest soon enough) in a romantic relationship.  Most women have had similar experiences and I'm sharing it for those men who truly want to understand the world that women live in better, so they can help be an advocate for the women in their lives that they care about.

I think that for most genuinely nice guys, it's hard for them to fathom that there are so many men like this out in the world, so it can make it difficult to believe women when they talk about how these kinds of interactions affect them.

*Warning* some moderate language.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/women-sharing-creepiest-nice-guy-031609263.html

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I was figuring out a way to say how it's probably not a good thing for women to go topless like men do. Or how you mentioned that in the indecent exposure law I shared, it left out not showing breasts for women as for the private areas. This is what I read while searching on the internet on Quora's question and answer's site...and believe it's the answer to your question:

Why is it OK for boys to be shirtless but girls can't be topless?

Because we as a society have decided that women’s breasts are sexual objects. The same as how we used to decide the women’s ankles and calves were sexual, breasts are now the new sexual.

I think, eventually, we’ll get to the point where women’s breasts are simply treated as a part of their body, and not as something innately sexual, but that day is not today. Until then, women can’t be shirtless because it means exposing ‘sexual’ parts, whereas men are not doing the same, because men’s pecs/nipples are simply not considered sexual in the same way.

Honestly, I would love it if no one could go topless.  I hate the fact that because I'm a man, I'm expected to go topless in some situations (swimming, some sports, etc).

Also, is there any good literature that actually discusses the history of the "objectification" of women's breasts?  This requirement for women to "cover-up" spans a lot of cultures so it has either got to be very old or something innate in how human's function.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

Honestly, I would love it if no one could go topless.  I hate the fact that because I'm a man, I'm expected to go topless in some situations (swimming, some sports, etc).

Also, is there any good literature that actually discusses the history of the "objectification" of women's breasts?  This requirement for women to "cover-up" spans a lot of cultures so it has either got to be very old or something innate in how human's function.

I have no clue, but if it became the norm I wouldn't be on board. Hope that day would never come in the society I was brought up in.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Honestly, I would love it if no one could go topless.

I'm deeply grateful you're not in charge!

Quote

This requirement for women to "cover-up" spans a lot of cultures so it has either got to be very old or something innate in how human's function.

It's actually not as common as you might think, and definitely not universal (and therefore not innate).

And even when cultural norms were that women wore tops, publicly feeding babies and children has been generally accepted in most non-Islamic societies.

I love this illustration of a Latter-day Saint sacrament meeting from an 1871 issue of Harpers Weekly that shows not one but two women nursing during the service:

Edited September 13, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[MustardSeed]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you agree with him?

I can't bring myself to align with any Taliban quotes!  I will say that I believe our country is weaker now than I have known it to be before, no CFR, no stats, no proof.