The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sheikh Hilali had a point! > Comments

Sheikh Hilali had a point! : Comments

By Dave Smith, published 14/11/2006

It’s about time we Australians took an honest look at the effect dress codes in our culture have on our society.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All
You haven't captured the point at all Father Dave.

The art of courting involves teasing - by both parties - it is natural and fun. The problem you are attempting to describe is not with this process but with the maturity of some of the individuals involved. You are just looking for excuses if you try and attach the psychological problem of self-control to the way women dress.

Males and females have to recognise feelings of lust and desire and acknowledge that they exist rather than trying to hide them through clothing and cold showers. Being open to, and learning to understand these feelings is the key to a mature society - something the West, and Muslims have yet to grasp.

The only point Sheikh Hilali had was that free speech is a one way street in Australia and whenever a view arises that doesn't wash with mainstream thought we attempt to discredit it. All views should be expressed and heard - in the hope they challenge us and make us refine and hone our own opinion.
Posted by Proust, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 8:56:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe it's our determination to cling to the last vestages of body taboo's that are the problem rather than our having moved away from the extreme positions held by some.

The author asks about rape and marriage in Islamic countries vs our own, has he considered the same question regarding communities with much more relaxed attitudes to the human body?

Does his question take into account the other factors involved? The types of penalties dished out in some Islamic countries - especially to victims of rape who can't prove their claims might have some impact on a victims willingness to make a complaint.

The author does make some good points about those who seek freedom without responsibility and the need for us to consider the risk we take when we exercise freedom. He does not prove his point that an increase in body taboo's is the direction we should move in.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 9:31:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It doesn't matter whether or not a crazed Muslim had a valid point to make, but the much more rational Dave Smith certainly does. Many females these days cross the line between looking good (a natural thing to want)and downright provocation to all a sundry - even if they are not deliberately flogging their wares to all and sundry.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:03:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After reading the article by Father Dave and I could not help but dwell on the remarkable technological achievements of the twentieth century. Mankind has made the most incredible intellectual advances in the last 100 years. But the greatest of all must be;
THE INVENTION OF THE MINI-SKIRT, LONG MAY IT REIGN OVERUS.
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:11:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, in general, the point that you make is valid, but you shot yourself in the foot by referring to the good sheik as a "crazed muslim". If Father Dave (the Christian) had made the speech instead of Hilali (the Muslim), it would have completely escaped criticism. Hilali's only mistake was to choose a rather extreme example. Perhaps he should get together with Father Dave and learn how to be more moderate in his deliverance. A bit more cross-cultural dialogue would not go astray, particularly between older members of the Christian and Muslim communities. If that were to happen, both sides would stop treating the other as "the enemy".
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:42:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Father Dave provides a mish-mash of populist mush: “Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali…allegedly said that if a woman dresses provocatively and gets sexually assaulted, it's her own fault.” The Sheik may have said a lot more than that, says Dave… “and I'm not going to try to defend him.” And proceeds to do. The “Islamic system” works on a “brutal logic”, he tells us, “but you’ve got to admit that the system makes sense.” For Father Dave the “brutal logic” soon becomes “solid logic”.

The logic goes something like this: The whole Islamic community recognises “the potentially destructive force of the male sex drive”. Everyone takes responsibility for “curtailing these destructive effects” (“potential” slides readily into “outcomes”). “Men are taught to pray and to take cold showers when tempted. Women, for their part, cover themselves in public. And the government does its bit by legislating that all rapists get the death penalty.”

Brutal but solid logic! It “makes sense” to Father Dave. And he thinks we could do with a bit of it in our western system “where women can dress and flirt and present themselves in public as they please, and men are expected to pretend that it doesn’t effect [sic] them.” Our under-clad women are playing with fire.

You want evidence to accompany the logic? There’s Dave’s own encounter with a cleavage – “She must have been all of 18, wearing her push-up bra, putting her best assets proudly on display to the rest of the world, in a way that didn’t leave a lot to the imagination.” And having titillated us, Dave feels bad: “I’m expected to pretend that I didn’t notice.” It’s not fair.

And there are more anecdotes (plus the Simpsons and Dave’s daughter’s tempting hors d’ouevres) to show that’s how it works in Australia. “It’s all available. It’s all on display. It appears to be all there for the taking, but God forbid that you should make any sort of tangible response!”

According to Dave, most Australian women are unaware of “the rapacious ferocity of the male sex drive, especially in testosterone-filled teenagers.” Silly women.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:43:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We welcome and encourage dissenting views because it gives us reason to pause and check our course. One of those dissenting views comes from sheik al-Hilali who took time off from his English lessons (a language course which now spans 24 years) to unload his mind on dress codes, especially those that apply to females, and whether those dress codes comport with the Koran. The sheik wants things put right because according to his culture and his religion women should be indoors and covered up.

Maybe the sheik could tell us what it was about 9-year-old Ebony Simpson’s school uniform that attracted her rapist. Does the sheik think there was something provocative about the way Janine Balding negotiated with the ATM that caused her pack rape and murder. Did Anita Cobby appeal to a car load of hoons or just one of those hoons in the car, sheik?

At this point it might be appropriate to tell the sheik that his presence in Australia is predicated on a lie. He can’t claim to be a bona fide member of our society because in return for citizenship he agreed to learn English and engage his brain before he engaged us with the Koran.

Someone – and I don’t’ know who will get that onerous task – will have to load this anhedonic misogynist into his time machine and fire him back to the 7th century where his views will be enthusiastically embraced.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 11:01:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,

Why is it that now what women wear or not wear is becoming an issue?

If it is, we should discuss it in isolation of the 'rape' scare tactics. Rape is a result of a sick mind, bad education, drugs or alcohol, soft criminal justice, etc. Did anyone analyse the June Darling Harbour gang rape in public toilets? (of course no 'public outrage' they were not Lebanese!)

I also think that if we are to discuss dress codes it should also include men.

As for
"where women have to cover themselves in public, at least in part to lower the level of sexual temptation for men"

Not sure if this is your personal opinion but it is a misperception.
While I acknowledge that in some cases women who cover themselves up do it to to please a family memeber, many more do it out of their own conviction.

Peace,
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 11:09:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But I suspect that the statistics on sexual assault and marital breakdown are much healthier over there than they are here."

In Sweden statistics show Muslim men are responsible for 68% [sorry- i wish i could rememebr where i read this] of rape and sexual assaults
Posted by Charlock, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 12:02:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God help us, next the moral police will be wanting me to stop flirting.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 12:18:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To anti-green,

I do appreciate your sentiment. But it's not the mini-skirt that's reigning over us, it's what's inside it that's doing the reigning over us - now I do hope I spelt that word correctly.

And to Keith,

They do want you to stop flirting mate, they've even given it a name and its own legislation, it's called sexual harassment and it's something only a woman can be a victim of, under federal law (Sex Discrimination Act) - at least as interpreted by outgoing Commissioner Pru Goward. True story.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 12:36:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What we seem to be skirting around (sic) here is the issue of the apparent female 'right' to send misleading signals. At it's core, even make-up is a blatant attempt at misrepresenting the truth of a female's visual image. The entire fashion industry is not about decoration but, rather, the presentation of an image that is at varying degrees of divergence from the actual facts.

Men, in contrast, have devised a corporate uniform, the business suit, that minimises the potential for differentiation on purely visual grounds. And this encourages greater focus on the character, skills and attributes of the individual.

But men do not help womenkind by further enhancing female misrepresentation by the application of alcohol in such volumes as to impair sound judgement.

But it does raise an interesting issue. It seems that augmented breasts can cross the line from a dishonest representation of the facts to become a simple statement of a new reality. How, then, is this different to dressing like a slut, especially in a context of alcohol impaired cognition?

If new boobs that can be reversed still constitute a new "reality" then someone would need to explain how dressing like a slut, even temporarily, is still substantially different to actually being a slut. Surely it is just another transient reality?
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 12:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave Smith has managed to transform Hilali's "raw" meat into the more refined and tasty French cuisine's hors d'oeuvres.

His piece is an unsubtle innuendo of shameless apologetics for the Sheikh at its best, that not even Keysar Trad could outdo.

SEE:"The Mufti Of Lakemba is a Great Threat to Australia"
http://www.con.observationdeck.org
Posted by Themistocles, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 1:43:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So what about the example of people owning nice and expensive things - can one steal them and claim that there was an over-riding biological urge to do so? Does this lesser their culpability? Can one steal a fast car and claim that there was an urge to get somewhere and that the fact that someone presented a fast car was tempting fate -

I feel upset about being a man and reading such nonsense that claims men cannot control themselves from those nasty lying temptresses. Get your head out of your porn mag and realise that both men and women dress certain ways so that they may look good - it may show healthiness, self confidence, it may even show an indication that the person is wanting to find a partner - but does it say that they want to be objectified and seen as possessions that remove moral culpability - or pieces of cat food - this is a shameful way to regard a fellow person.
Posted by Michael 06, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 1:49:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Charlock
You write: "In Sweden statistics show Muslim men are responsible for 68% [sorry- i wish i could rememebr where i read this] of rape and sexual assaults."

What are you really telling us? You read somewhere, sometime, some un-named person alleging that some unsourced statistics show Muslim men are alleged to be responsible for precisely 68% of rape and sexual assaults in Sweden. You don't know now where these statistics come from, you can't say whether they are valid or reliable, and we can't check - but the 68% stuck indelibly in your mind. Funny thing, the memory!

A quick google shows me the source of some claims of this nature - extreme right-wing Swedish bloggers, some being so bizarre as to suggest jihad by rape. When challenged, one blogger-author backs right down. See Winds of Change.NET - "Sweden, Rape and Responsible Speech" by Robin Burk March 4, 2005 http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/sweden_rape_and_responsible_speech-print.php

You might also like to read H. Von Hofer, “Crime Statistics as Constructs: The Case of Swedish Rape Statistics”, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Volume 8, Number 1, March 2000, pp. 77-89(13)

Von Hoffer, a criminologist from Stockholm University, Sweden, describes ways different factors affect official crime statistics. He shows that comparing crime levels is extremely hazardous even when based on official crime statistics. He looks at rape statistics in Sweden and explains the statistical, legal and substantive factors that influence statistics. Von Hoffer shows that changes in statistical routines, the legal definition of rape and changes over time all influence the statistics significantly. If you are going to use statistics appropriately, you need a thorough knowledge of these factors e.g. an increase in rape cases reported is not the same as an increase in rapes.

Von Hoffer draws no conclusions about rape and ethnicty, race or religion in Norway (or elsewhere). There's a version of his article at http://www.crim.su.se/pdf/Artiklar/euro12.pdf
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 1:54:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its funny.... since this debate and the shakey sheikh's surreal sermon, I've been reflecting on dress codes and culture.

Does anyone else notice that females generally are showing wayyyyy more skin than we guys ? No, don't panic, I haven't suddenly seen the Sheikh light, but it is quite noticable.

Guys.. suit, trousers...etc.
Girls... Mini-skirt/business combo thingy.. spagetti strap tops.. mid rifs showing, cleavage...shoulders.. etc..

Does it occur to anyone that there might have been some very calculated marketing pushes behind all this ?

But why not to guys as well ? aah.. probably because females have 18 times less testosterone than we blokes :) and they don't think about sex at least 100 times a day.. (I dunno the figure but its high for men)

I've said my piece in other threads about general modesty, on both sides.
But think about this for a moment.

Next time you are at a public mixed company function, just imagine if suddenly you (as a bloke) zipped out to the change room and came back with as much flesh (oops..I mean 'meat') showing as 80% of the girls.

Somehow, I think there might be a bit of a reaction and the word "SECURRRRITY" would be heard from the PA system.

Maybe the increasingly absent female covering is a vicous ploy by we males to re-shape them in ever more enticing wrapping ? aah..ITS OUR FAULT ?

PS. check out Bolts column and blog.. another opportunity to comment our selves into jibbering idiots :)

*wanders off*.......
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 2:01:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hilali overstepped the bounds of courtesy. As a migrant to this country his opinion matters not one bit outside his own society members. His ignorance was well and truelly on display.
My thought is that young women do go to extremes in their dress, that is the fault of the 'fashionistas' who dictate the fashions that young women adhere to.
Much of the blame for bad behaviour of young people can be pointed at the sellers of alcohol and drugs. They are in it for profit and do not give a damn what happens to the foolish young people who are too immature to handle the stuff that kills even older people.
I would hate to see the day that our young ladies...and older were forced to wear ugly sacks and black bags like the unfortunate muslim women. It is an alien and hideous look. I like to see Australian females in their cool fashions . God made our bodies,let us rejoice in them. A little bit of modesty would not go astray.
Posted by mickijo, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 2:01:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THESE PRIESTS ARE IN IT TOGETHER

I find it amusing how priests (Dave and Sheikh Hilali) of opposing faiths share the same misconceptions.

Sheikh Hilali makes firebrand remarks to boost his standing in the Muslim community. His words paint Muslim people, men and woman, into a corner. In many cases it forces them to publicly choose Sheikh Hilali's inevitably devout interpretation of dress codes and the status of women.

Meanwhile Dave gives wet (society to blame) and implicit support for his fellow monotheist’s views.

It doesn't matter what young women wear. There is something called SECULAR LAW which democratically stands above religious doctrine (misconceptions) in Australian society.

Male priests are the last people one should consult about female dress and rape. They have political barrows to push and concepts largely developed in the Middle Ages.

Their shared "boys will be boys" excuse doesn't wash. Sexual assault against woman (or boys...) for whatever excuse is a serious crime under agreed Australian law.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 2:08:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus

Silly law.

I wouldn't flirt with someone with no sense of humour. Oh and I'm adept at recognising those people who prefer to be serious. Which means I'm discriminating too.
So I'm condemned if I do and damned if I don't... You work it out, I can't be bothered...

I'll continue to break the law along with all those other fun-loving dangerous-living flirtatious types.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 2:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most of Fr Dave's argument is sound, but the example of the man convicted for taking a picture of a girl who was walking around topless in public, is a bit shaky.

Suppose she'd been wearing a jacket and pantsuit, and the man (a stranger) still wanted to photograph her? Wouldn't that also be weird?

As a male, I believe that for a woman to show off a *lot* of skin is unfair. Not to the rapist who gives in to his urges and assaults her, because he deserves all the punishment he gets, no excuses. But to the large majority of men, who would never think of touching her, or even of making a comment, whistling, or leering... but who now have one extra distraction to put out of their minds to get on with their working day.

Men can choose how they act. But they don't choose to be stimulated by the sight of women. Suppressing the natural response, which is the right thing to do anywhere outside the bedroom, imposes effort and concentration on men.

Putting aside the fact it involves sex, it's like someone whistling loudly or wearing a very strong perfume or aftershave. Doesn't give you any excuse in law, whatsoever, if you assault them. But it's bad manners.
Posted by Friedrich Foresight, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 2:35:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will repeat a point that I mentioned in another, but related topic: Girls don't dress that way to be attractive to men, or in most cases to try to attract men.

Girls dress that way in competition with each other as to who seems to be more attractive.

Do women have boob jobs and other plastic surgery to attract men? Not the ones that I have either spoken to or heard interviewed. They do it to boost their self esteem. When a woman wears a push up bra and shows cleavage it is to show to other women that she has cleavage, that her boobs are as good as anyone else's.

Many men, unfortunately, don't realise this. They somehow think that women have got some strange desire to attract every male in sight. Hate to tell you this guys, but it just ain't so.

What a woman is wearing is not an invitation for the whole male gender. It is at best a way of telling the specific guy that a woman really wants to be with at the time that she is as good looking as the next girl, so he should stay looking at her, and not at the competition.

There is a reason why fashion models are so skinny. It is to fool women into thinking that if they wear certain clothes they will look, to other women, as good as those skinny models. The other side of this is that I do not know one guy, except the woman hating gay fashion designers, who want to see women looking like these stick figures. Fashion is for women to look at other women.

Once again guys, get used to it: they are not dressing sexily in public for you.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 3:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You may be right, Hamlet, in many (most? all?) cases. But the male reaction is too deeply-wired to be very amenable to reasoning. (And no, I'm not saying men can't control whether they act on that reaction.)

Besides, at some point there must be some overlap between what women consider attractive for women to wear, what men consider attractive for women to wear, and what women think men consider attractive for women to wear, even if these don't always coincide.

As my wife once observed: women choose a black bra over a white one for purely functional reasons - to go under dark-coloured clothing - oblivious to the fact that to a lot of men, for some unexplained reason, the very act of wearing one is a "come-hither" signal.
Posted by Friedrich Foresight, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 3:19:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hands up those who think what Sheikh Hilali said was wrong, but thinks racist and bigot attacking Muslims and Islam is okay?
Posted by Kwv, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 3:22:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm, a little concerned.

Another religious type in Perth said that we women shouldn't also go out by ourselves. I took the message to be, that I should curtail a very enjoyable part of my life (bush walking) in case I encountered a male who would be then take it as given, that as I was by myself I was available to be used for instant sexual gratification.

If the Perth religious guy's idea catches on, I can't say I'm over joyed at the prospect of having to curtail my activities. Personally I'd prefer castration of all of these out of control males myself.

In another forum here, a poster pointed out that men don't seem to be overcome with uncontrollable lust in the presence of a police officer.

Also a few months back I got almost pushed off the walking path at Parliament house by a staring male so I had to take evasive action, that he knew, I was there. For a normal male, a simple hello would have done it. I think it must have been a Liberal staffer, as I was wearing a very attractive woolie cardie, my Great Grandmother would have looked good in.

Rape is about power, not sex or lust. He would have walked me off the path if I was wearing a pair of overalls. Maybe not if I was in cop uniform.
Posted by Amelia, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 3:24:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not sure about Iran (that lovely place where they stone women for adultery, hang homosexuals and women can't go to football stadiums and are segregated on buses), but here's an insight into how things are in Egypt:
http://www.taoofdefiance.com/2006/11/01/egypt-five-hours-of-mass-sexual-assault-by-mob-while-police-stand-by/

Thats Egypt where 89% of people answered in affirmation of the statement "Religion is very important to me in my daily life." in a recent poll, compared to Australia's 41%.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=13764

Rape is about power, not uncontrollable sexual desire.

My message to the youth of Australia: F##k like crazy, we need the babies.
Posted by Popovich, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 4:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for rape as a weapon of Jihad, well, there are Hadiths that state that women taken during Jihad can be subjugated into sexual slavery. Islamist propogandists are not shy about using that as a selling point. The Arab Jihadists in Darfur rape the black women while Arab women stand by and sing songs of encouragement and thank Allah. Or read about what the Jihadists did in Bosnia, Algeria, Chechnya.
About Darfur:
http://www.taoofdefiance.com/2006/09/28/charles-moore-this-is-why-there-is-slaughter-in-darfur/
"While African women in Darfur were being raped by the Janjaweed militiamen, Arab women stood nearby and sang for joy, according to an Amnesty International report published yesterday. The songs of the Hakama, or the “Janjaweed women” as the refugees call them, encouraged the atrocities committed by the militiamen.

The women singers stirred up racial hatred against black civilians during attacks on villages in Darfur and celebrated the humiliation of their enemies, the human rights group said.
[..]
The Janjaweed have abducted women for use as sex slaves, in some cases breaking their limbs to prevent them escaping, as well as carrying out rapes in their home villages, the report said.

The militiamen “are happy when they rape. They sing when they rape and they tell that we are just slaves and that they can do with us how they wish”, a 37-year-old victim, identified as A, is quoted as saying in the report, which was based onmore than 100 testimonies from women in the refugee camps in neighbouring Chad."
(from The Guardian)

So you bet rape is a weapon of Jihad. Islamists believe Allah wishes it so.

The sight of uncovered Western women makes the Jihadists so mad the Taliban uses videos of Western women in bikinis to recruit suicide bombers. Whose fault is it, the uncovered meat's or the psychopath blowing himself trying to kill as many people as possible? Perhaps the suicide bomber also has a point.
Posted by Popovich, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 4:50:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with Boaz on this one. Well, some of the way...

Why is it necessary for women to spend many times more hours, days, weeks and years than men, on their appearance?

I'm not denying in any way the individual's right to do so. I am simply asking the question, why do women in general, as a gender, feel it necessary?

It isn't just the miniskirt, or the decolletage.

It is the lipstick, lipliner, lipgloss. Who on earth told them that putting bright sticky colours on their lips enhanced their appearance?

It is the eyeshadow, mascara, lash lengtheners and thickeners. Where did they gain the impression that painting the surrounding parts of their eyes green, blue, brown, pink or grey makes them look more attractive?

And perfume. Hairspray. Hair dye. Hair mousse. Hair sculpting gel. Depilatories. Hand cream. Face cream. Body lotion. Moisturisers. Salt scrubs.

I am aware that the entire western economy would collapse without these female image-enhancers. But what is the psychology behind them?

What drives it? Is it a personal thing, a tribal thing, a desire to be different or a desire to be the same?

Anyone?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 4:54:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is this another version of the bloated toad theory, or an example of that particular creature, spinadickatus?

the bloated toad theory: that men will swell up like a toad and explode if they don't have sex.
spinadickatus: men are nothing more than a brain, a spine and a dick.

Perhaps we should be asking, what is wrong with men? Why do men rape? Why do men believe that women are there for their use? Why are so many men raised with no respect for the other? Why are men so violent? Why do men hurt and abuse women and then claim provocation as an excuse?

Why is the sexual drive used as a cover for violence?

There is something terribly wrong in the hearts of men, and until this is addressed, women will live in fear and articles such as this will masquerade as logic.
Posted by Chris S, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 5:21:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles

Have you read nothing about the biology of sexual arousal?

The face and body of the human species show certain signs of sexual arousal, and therefore availability.

These signs include a reddening of the lips and a dilation of the pupils, hence the idea that red lipstick is sexy, and the idea of candlelight as romantic because, put simply, when you are in poor light your pupils dilate, as do those of your partner, producing an imitation of sexual arousal. All that eye make up is designed to emphasise the eyes and their sexual importance.

Men find the effects of cold weather on females' nipples to be interesting, because of the simulation (not stimulation) that this effect has in regard to arousal.

High heels, apart from damaging a woman's feet, cause the legs to look longer, (therefore presenting the idea that a woman has good DNA for reproduction and motherhood) and the pelvis to be thrust forward in an imitation of sexual presentation.

None of these, however, is an invitation for unwanted sexual advances.

Jared Diamond talks, in his 'Why is Sex Fun' book about the human species being strange in that it is the only species that advertises itself as being available for sex when reproduction is not possible (bonoboes are one other species that use sex in this way, however).

There is a lot of 'advertising' going on out there, but hopefully we are at the stage of development where we can recognise most of this as just being for show, and not preparation for action.

And this advertising is not for men anyway - it is for a woman's own ego, not to actually attract anyone.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 5:24:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamlet I think you have a point about women competing rather than attracting men. You wonder if the girl in father Dave's story is trying make blokes think about their abseiling ropes or make other girls green with envy. Being a bloke I am not well qualified to answer. Also it would be a bit of a generalisation but I do think it is a good point.

As for men already having a uniform, I visited China in the early 80s and everyone wore a Mao style suit. It was still very easy to pick the workers from the party bosses by their haircuts and wool vs linen suits.
Posted by gusi, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 6:28:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for reminding me about the high heels, Hamlet. How dumb are they!

But I suspect you are simply parrotting the male view. I'd much prefer to hear a female perspective.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 6:40:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Soldiers on leave still look for female company, and while back in barracks they no doubt still talk about all sorts of gals.

So in wartime probably the most popular females are those with the customised ready smile and not looking for a future husband but there to enjoy herself as well as her partners.

While it does become the chance to pick up a sheila good lookin' but just a bit nervous and shy, though still willing to converse, it was said that that's the one worth trying for, the one a soldier might finish up writing letters to, and even finish up marrying.

The girls or woman that do get talked about, however, are what both males and females talk about are the professional teasers, in the old days called by mothers - bold lumps - who get more out of getting men worked up and then deliberately going cold, than a final thrill.

Unfortunately, we still come across these types even in aged clubs, wondering whether it is these teaser-types which has induced Islamic mullahs to preach so much the covering of the feminine flesh
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 6:48:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Late in the discussion I know, but a brief comment on the article:

I agree with this bit of Father Dave’s sermon:

“…the media beat-up over his comments has more to do with an anti-Muslim political agenda than it does with anything he was actually responsible for.”

On the other hand, just about everything up to that point was just a bit… creepy and boofheaded.

In fact, I think that’s about the most stupid article I’ve read on OLO – and that’s saying something.

Enough said about this excuse for an article. This topic is being intelligently discussed in other parts of this forum. Why bother dignifying Father Dave’s tripe with serious consideration?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 9:15:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that females should be taught to put more thought and consideration into what they wear and to dress more conservative and appropriately.

Beauty comes from within, there is no need for our girls to flash their body in the manner that they are doing today.

Walking around half naked makes females look like easy and cheap targets to those who have no respect or control.

We should encourage our females to protect themselves by being sensible about what they wear and consider where they are going, what time they are going and who they are going to be with.
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 9:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we have other religions trying to ride on the shirt tails of Muslim facism because the traditional religions have lost their power.I can still remember the nuns telling eight year olds not to have impure thoughts in the early sixities.It was the devils work,blah ,blah blah.We didn't even know what sexual feelings were,let alone know that our sexuality was all the fault of the devil.

Does that ring a few bells as regards Hilali's reportoire of oppression through guilt, that religions have used so effectively in the past to control people?Why does the Catholic Church sporn so many paedophiles?Could it be sexual repression caused by control freaks?Tell you what,some of the nuns of that era were cruel and nasty.They were a product of this totalitarism that the Muslims offer us.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:36:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To me, the issue is pretty simple: There are consequences to actions. The guys committed RAPE and they are given the penalty in accordance with the law. End Of Story.

And examples of dancers and top-less woman in Father Dave's article are cases of different nature. These things are not part of day-to-day life.
To compare an ordinary woman with those examples is totally preposterous.

Skinny bikinies and revealing dress is an acceptable dress-code in Western Cultures and when we have roughly about 70% (not sure) westerners, they are going to be abundunt in public.

I'd conclude by quoting "When you are in ROME, act like a ROMAN"
Posted by badboy, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 11:38:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay....*slap/biff/poke* :)

not at all mate... its not about religions making a power grab on the shirt tails of Hilali.... Its using the opportunity provided by his outlandish and extreme remarks to put some balanced perspective into the issue.

As for me, I'm totally with the point that both males and females are better advised (in terms of the enduring and deeper values which make a strong morally robust society strong families) to do as Jolanda says..."emhasize the beauty within"....this is not to deny natural beauty, its simply encouraging and urging (very responsibly so I think) all of us to look beyond the shallow external.

I can't see 'power' in this, other than the power of a stronger community. Certainly not 'Church' power.

The Biblical approach is this:

"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." Hebrews 10:23

LOVE as opposed to 'lust'
GOOD WORKS as opposed to shallow selfish behaviour.

I honestly don't see how any of us can argue against these wonderful principles.

'Stir up'...not force or make laws. I don't see 'power' in this.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 5:58:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a woman who rarely wears makeup now, I can't answer from personal experience Pericles' question about why women feel bound to wear makeup but I would like to put forward some of my observations and you can interprete them any way you like. When I worked in an office a 'nice' appearance was considered necessary by my boss so I wore skirts and makeup to work because it was expected of me. When I was young and went to clubs with my friends I wore makeup because it was also an expectation that you wore makeup when you went out. My mother tells me that I look better with makeup, and so has a male friend. Incidentally, my husband of 27 years left me because I am not 'feminine' enough. I rarely wear makeup or skirts anymore as being middle aged I tend to please myself. Does this subjective viewpoint help? By the way I had a friend who could not be seen in public without her makeup, and my son once asked a girl who wore heavy makeup what was she hiding. Maybe it has something to do with masks and feeling vulnerable for some people. Women used to say when they put on their makeup that they were "putting my face on". Interesting phrase.
Posted by Lainie, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 5:59:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, Love sounds great until we look a bit more closely at what you mean by it. Your comments about wanting to be able to stop gays living next door give a pretty good indicator that what you mean by love are very different to what others might consider it to be.

I have a new religion that makes it a sin for me to consider the idea of a god. Those who insist of flaunting their own freedom to pusue unnatural and disgusting ideas like god are a stumbling block to me.

Are you now going to stop the exercise of your freedom to flaunt your idea's out of love or will you recognise that such a belief on my part is my problem not yours?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 7:55:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave says: “The logic goes like this: The community as a whole recognises the potentially destructive force of the male sex drive - destroying individuals, families and the community at large. Therefore both men and women and the government take responsibility for curtailing these destructive effects. Men are taught to pray and to take cold showers when tempted. Women, for their part, cover themselves in public. And the government does its bit by legislating that all rapists get the death penalty.”
This is not only flawed logic but a seriously flawed method.

Nevertheless, let’s treat it as a syllogism - deductive reasoning, Deductive (general to specific) reasoning uses three distinct steps to reach a conclusion. First, we posit a major premise. This is the main idea on which the rest of your thinking rests. Dave’s premise is: “The community as whole recognises the potentially destructive force of the male sex drive.” Hmmm do they really? The sex drive of which males – rapists or men of goodwill? Where is the evidence to support this? For instance: if the male’ self constraint was so unpredictable wouldn’t the rape statistic in liberal societies show that nine out of ten men are rapists? Is this a valid major premise?

Second step the minor premise is just an extension of the major premise. He goes on in the same sentence to say: “-destroying individuals, families and the community at large.” The massive slippage or”glissement” from “potentially” destructive force to an actual destructive force does not establish a valid relationship (third step).

Slippage is where one redefines the terms or commitment during the course of an argument. Here one sentence has opinion based on a doubtful major premise used to posit a minor premise. It fails to establish any truth.

The premises are opinion based on a regard for men that suggests Islamic leaders (and certain Christian ones) regard men as animalistic. It is one liberals should reject because we men must not be treated as if we are nothing more than one-dimensional cartoon characters who have no morals, ethics or goodwill toward women
Posted by ronnie peters, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 8:24:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ronnie Peters, you ought to get out into the real world a bit.
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 9:02:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ronnie's post is the closest that's come to being right, but it's a little off the mark in that it doesn't mention that there will be a proportion of males who are as Smith has described.

The majority aren't like this. This is the point Smith neglects to make.

As usual, we have a situation murkier than the extremes at either end of the 'moral' (and this isn't the best word, but the closest) spectrum.

Males that can't control themselves from temptation obviously aren't going to fit into society. I'm of the opinion that while changing dress codes would perhaps make a minor difference in this regard, it wouldn't be significant. Sexual assault would still occur.

That being said, Smith's message about double standards is valid.

All in all, I wouldn't mind seeing society's dress codes being a little more genteel, though I certainly wouldn't advocate any forced changes. This has to be a culture change through choice.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 9:42:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the article is spot-on. Marketing and gender power-games tell us that women are the most desirable, obtain-at-all-costs objects imaginable, but at a personal level men are punished if they treat them as sexual.

The way we dress is a tool of communication. If a woman uses that tool to broadcast "I am sexually active and available", it is utterly hypocritical to then treat men like animals for reacting to that signal.

Let's take the same situation in reverse. What if a man offers love and intimacy on order to bask in female attention, then withdraws it as soon as it becomes inconvenient? Do we say that a woman should have more control over her emotions, and not take the bait? Of course not. The bloke gets labelled as a cruel bastard.

Somehow, however, women have scored the double whammy. They can lead men on with what they know men most desire, then take it away when they've had their fun. But for a man to do the same is considered the height of treachery.

Let's reach a compromise. If women can tease men and cry "pervert!" when it elicits the intended reaction, then it's fair for men to say "I love you and I'll take care of you" and laugh in a woman's face and leave once he gets bored of the sex.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 12:33:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not really!

"What doesn’t make sense is how, in our culture, I’m expected to pretend that I didn’t notice."

No, you're expected to assume that what is on display is not on offer. If you taught your three kids not to grab everything that catches their eye, you've started them on the right track. Go and talk to actual rape victims and you'll find that very few of them were letting it all hang out, so to speak, when they were attacked. I've never met your daughter, but I'll bet there's more to her than hors d'oevres.

More: http://andrewelder.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-display-im-tired-of-silly-articles.html

In this world people face all sorts of temptation, and the good parent and teacher helps people past the idea that you've gotta have whatever you fancy - whether it's sex or anything else we're offered in our in-your-face, consumerist society. Rise above it Dave.
Posted by AndrewElder, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 2:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU says: "Ronnie Peters, you ought to get out into the real world a bit." Great xample of real slippage from a virtual identity.

So I live in a bubble? Why is testing a faulty syllogism deemed not to be living in the real world? How do you figure that?

Don't you think that line is a little passé? Not only am I in the real world , but I have experiences that give me some insight. Some of them pretty painful. Maybe you should direct your nonsense to Dave Smith and Sheikh Hilal who need to get real when it comes to delivering sensible and logical arguments.

By the way. Ronnie Peters is a human; it follows that, he is a sentient being who must know and be real. Therefore, Ronnie Peters must be in the real world. Correct me if I am wrong. VK you failed to convince like DS and SH.

Why would anyone try to suggest a person had no real world existence or experience? Negate their arguments with more illogical nonsense. The virtual death of reason. Is that what you want? Religious inspired pap with no grounding in reason or truth. Back to the days of heresy? Sounds like VK has an ingrained dislike for reason and a penchant for killing off different positions. It is easy to make assumptions harder to develop them into proper arguments.

If I choose to criticise a failed argument in the way I have, then you can only assume that I am interested in the truth of arguments. The other implied assumptions you make are just ideological loading.

Partaking in these debates is a real activity. My history and reading informs me enough to partake in this discursive formation. Actually, any positve input would enhance the discourse.

VK, Dave Smith and Sheik Halil need to get out in the real world too. So what? Your attempt at evoking emotion is a deceptive practice? Had you real understanding in the world of ideas you would know that that is wrong-headed approach. Do you want to turn off the enlightenment too?
Posted by ronnie peters, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 4:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a heap of ordure
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 6:34:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have laws that try to prevent young people, under the age of 16, from being sexually exploited, either through actual sexual activity, or by being used as the subjects of pornography.

These laws are in place, partly, because it is considered that children under the age of 16 are unable to give informed consent to these activities. That is, that under the age of 16 a child (because that is what they are in the eyes of the law) is not mature enough to make informed choices for themselves in these areas.

However, we do not have laws that prevent people under 16 from dressing and acting in ways that suggest that they are advertising themselves as available for sexual activity.

Why do we assume that if young people should be protected (and I believe that they should be protected), that these same young people are able to make informed choices about their manner of dress and conduct in public?

If a person with a pornographic / sexually suggestive image or video of a young person can be charged with an offense, why should a young person be permitted to dress or act in a sexually suggestive manner?

And shouldn't parents who provide sexually explicit garments to children, such as g-strings and padded bras for ten year olds, similarly be charged with sexual exploitation? If a stranger gave a child these items they could be charged with 'grooming', so why not the parents?

All I am suggesting is equality of the law: if it is illegal, as it should be, to exploit children, it should be illegal for children to present themselves, or to be presented by their parents, as available for exploitation.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 7:50:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article by Dave Smith, and most of the responses to it, demonstrate that what I and many other said in the wake of Sheik Hilali's comments (and were shouted down for our troubles) is true: Many other religions, and many other Australians, share Hilali's views about womens' attire (they just use more polite language) and share his impulse to remonstrate women for what they choose to wear and attribute to women a measure of responsibility for what men then choose to do. Many men (and women) wish to control and make rules about how women present themselves, for reasons that entirely escape me.

And many of the people who so believe were the ones shouting loudest for the Sheik's deportation or worse, saying such views have no place in Australia. I say, if it's good for the goose... (and he really is a goose).
Posted by Mercurius, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 8:25:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just read some of the essays by the Dane Fjordman on the impact of Islam on Europe and the high crime rates in Sweden, Norway, France, and Germany attributed to the muslims.

They live in enclaves because they are encouraged to do so by their Imans who then fill their tiny brains with Hilali like mush, and then they think it is OK to commit rape and other molestations on the non muslims.

Were did they get the ideas from in the first place? ..well by the example set by their founder of course.

Hilali doesnt have any points, other than propogating the nonsense he is supposed to be such a learned scholar about.
Posted by bigmal, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 9:04:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a teenage daughter who is appalled by the way some females are behaving and the way they are being seen and portrayed. Basically because of the behaviour of a select few, pretty much all woman are often seen as sluts.

My daughter is much more conservative than she would like to be just because she doesn't want to be confused as one of them.

The way some women dress often doesn't help the way they are seen but the actual biggest problem is not the way that they dress, but they way that they act, the choices that they make and their behaviour.

Tonight my daughter is at her Year 10 formal, she looked beautiful. All the girls looked beautiful. Some dresses were very revealing but they didn't look sexy, they looked stunning. It isn't really the clothes that make some women look like sex objects - its the way that they sometimes act and the choices they choose to make.

Somewhere along the line we are not teaching some children common sense and it really shows.
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 15 November 2006 9:45:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't help but think of those Arabian movies where the belly dances would perform with minimal clothing in the tents for the masters male guests.

The man's tone was to ensure fear in the females of the sect and reinforce the custom of the man as the master of the house.

The original concept of the headdress was to ensure that women remembered their place.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 16 November 2006 12:35:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To most of the above:

It is a long time since I have read such a pile of racist, sexist, patriarchal rubbish on a public forum. I feel ashamed of my culture if you are the products of our education system or of our family structures. I fear for our culture and our future if you represent common opinions in Australia. I fear for the safety and future of my daughter if the opinions expressed here are in any way representative of what is abroad in the general community.

I sincerely hope that you are NOT representative.

Where is your intellectual rigour? Where is your compassion or empathy? Where is your understanding of our cultural freedoms, or of our civic freedoms, or even of our legal rights? Where is your ability to analyse text or argument?

I have always been a great defender of free speech, and was raised by my parents to respect the rights of others and to acknowledge that my own opinion is not always 'right' - it is just my opinion. I was raised to believe in the rights of all and that community or society is founded on mutual respect.

I repeat my previous comment, which has been ignored by all, I suspect because it raises questions which go to the core of the problem and involve self-examination, placing the problem firmly at the root cause - male behaviour:

Perhaps we should be asking, what is wrong with men? Why do men rape? Why do men believe that women are there for their use? Why are so many men raised with no respect for the other? Why are men so violent? Why do men hurt and abuse women and then claim provocation as an excuse?

Why is the sexual drive used as a cover for violence?

There is something terribly wrong in the hearts of men, and until this is addressed, women will live in fear and articles such as this will masquerade as logic.
Posted by Chris S, Thursday, 16 November 2006 7:58:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,
"Perhaps we should be asking, what is wrong with men? Why do men rape? Why do men believe that women are there for their use? Why are so many men raised with no respect for the other? Why are men so violent? Why do men hurt and abuse women and then claim provocation as an excuse?

Why is the sexual drive used as a cover for violence?

There is something terribly wrong in the hearts of men, and until this is addressed, women will live in fear and articles such as this will masquerade as logic."

Unfortunately it is not long since I have read such a pile of sexist rubbish on a public forum.

The questions you ask are valid for some men and many of the views expressed by some posters are disgusting but really no worse than the kind of generalised one sided swipe that you take at men. Many of the same questions you ask regarding the behaviour of some men can are just as valid when applied to some women, just alter the wording slightly.

Humans have good and bad in is. We are capable of greatness and of horrid depths. The kind of sexist one sided views that your post suggests has no moral high ground. It's just as bad as the worst of behaviour of those you attack.

Stop playing gender politics and deal with human being's rather than generalised groups whom it suits you to villify.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 November 2006 8:46:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris_C

Rather.. I'd like to ask you WHO are you referring to ?

Instead of making blanket sweeping statements condemning pretty much every poster here... how about doing us the courtesy of 'picking' out specific comments which support your rather dodgy assessment of all but you.

Having read many of the comments I found little resemblance between your condemnation and what was actually said.

But let me relate an incident from an old work place about female behavior.

There was a girl, around 20, who had considerable sex appeal and was quite shapely. She used to sit in rather provocative ways, like legs spread. Now.. we might ask, was she conscious of this ? and of its possible impact at least on the *thinking* of blokes observing her ? Ok..here is evidence. I (as supervisor) approached her once for some work thing, she swivelled in her chair with her legs wide apart facing me. Yes.. I DID notice and had to gulp. Then...a male worker came over and she immediately CLOSED her legs and sat 'ladylike' !
Now.. I was turned on...yes.. but apart from a swallow, did nothing except the work related stuff as was my job.
This same girl, used to sit at the front of the factory, at a desk facing the work area, with her legs very relaxed and wide. The workers at benches had a clear view, and I noticed them "noticing" her.

I doubt she knew what was going on, but it DID have impact. Was the 'impact' caused by her ? Of course not, the site of a girl with open legs never does anything to a man...right ? and girls have absolutely no clue about such things... right ? and mothers used to say 'Don't sit like that, its unladylike' for no reason...right ? :)

Now..the rubber_meets_the_road question is this.

"If a male thinks a girl is coming on, or giving signals, there is a PROTOCOL"

1/ He asks her out
2/ They carries it on as they see fit.

If she has no interest, she will decline...right ? End of story.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 16 November 2006 9:11:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
VK3AUU. Your posts are baffling.

Please compare our disagreement with that of a Dad and child. Dad lectures the child about something and tries to explain his position - the child just retorts: “Get real - that’s Bullsheet.”

Your assertion that my posts are like “sheet" (using the word ordure) says more about your maturity than you sophistication. Yes. Yes. I know it’s the testosterone - you can’t help it.

I read Dave Smith’s article again to see what riled VK3AUU. And dam it, I found another disagreeable idea.

“… the rapacious ferocity of the male sex drive, especially in testosterone-filled teenagers. Perhaps Islamic communities are just more realistic at this level….. But I suspect that the statistics on sexual assault and marital breakdown are much healthier over there than they are here.” Well I suspect that the women over there are oppressed and a treated like ordure compared to women here.

I am starting to think that the anti-Islamists were correct to worry that the immigration would undermine our culture. That culture which guards the right of individuals to equal freedom regardless of sex. Let’s fight the ideas that give rapacious males excuses and restricts the freedom of women.

Try applying your ideas in an analogy - like restricting boxing? Maybe this will help you understand my position.

Now the best para of DS’s article.

“Does that absolve a teenage boy from responsibility when he assaults some poor young girl, simply because she was dressed provocatively? Of course not. But maybe it’s time we all took responsibility for the problem, instead of just leaving it to the lads to work it out for themselves, because they won’t.”
Dave Smith this is what has been lacking in this thread. I notice Jolanda (a great Mum) has given some wise instruction to her daughters. But I haven’t seen any posts suggesting that Dads instruct their lads. I think, we are maybe that sexist that we are blind to our own failings and habits. No. It is not the all the girls fault, it’s not the testosterone - it’s the socialisation.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 16 November 2006 9:27:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAz-David

I think Chris has a point, but NB he/she said 'to most of the above' which you converted to 'blanket sweeping statements condemning pretty much every poster here'. This elision is an apposite example of the low standard of debate on OLO.

I have made several postings challenging those who make some wide generalisation based on personal anecdotes (in your case I'm not sure what your general point is intended to be) and swapped personal anecdotes that illustrate the exact opposite. Anecdotes tell as much about the narrator as they do about the general human issue under discussion.

Your anecdote today is no exception. It tells me a lot about your supervisory and management skills and attitudes - not to mention more sensitive personal matters. I think other supervisors would have handled the issue with much more insight and delicacy.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 16 November 2006 9:35:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris S

Perhaps you could look closer at the population that are creating the statistics for an increase in crime and rape.

The Anglo Australian has indeed been bought up to respect each other and the law.

This can be reflected in our low representation of population in Australian jails.

The Government does not publically disclose the populations responsible for the increases in crime.

I agree, that by now our society of men should have some control over their beastly urges.

We only need look to the reproduction in the animal kingdom to find that some humans have not fallen far from the tree.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 16 November 2006 9:57:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suebedotoo,

Wasn't the gang rape in Darling Harbour reported June this year
committed by 4 men of Anglo background?
We have to deal with crime & rape as an individual cases of people breaking the law.
The Cronulla riots could not have happened if the culprits who attacked the life saver were arrested and punished as an 'indecent Australians' instead of being portrayed as "Lebanese vs Us" with the compliments of Alan Jones!
Posted by Fellow_Human, Thursday, 16 November 2006 1:09:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bless you frank... had to put some little 'Bash Boaz' thing in there:)

I neglected to mention I was not supervisor of 'that' section (the desk). The girl concerned worked on that side and my side at different times. The desk thing (on the other section) concerned me and I actually suggested (based on what I observed) that a cover might be in order on the factory side of the desk, and this was implemented. It was a bit delicate because the sup on the other side clearly had a thing for her.(along with 90% of the other guys)

My point, was

1/ That female behavior does...impact on males. Denying this is to deny nature. Some girls do send 'that' signal, and know it.
2/ There are more acceptable and less acceptable behaviors, stances for both blokes and girls.
3/ No matter what the level of less acceptable signal sending either by dress or body language, there is still also an acceptable protocol for legitimate male female interaction.
4/ To knowingly 'tease' males or females by body language or dress, is quite shabby and could legitimately deserve a reminder or even a genuine rebuke in the spirit of:

"Consider then how to stir one another up to love and good works" (Hebrews 10:23)

On Chris C's post.. saying 'most' without saying 'which' is discourteous and unhelpful in my view.

A final point. The very discussion of these issues here, is what community is all about. As Ronnie said about Jolanda and her ideas and advice..etc.. we all benefit from this, and perhaps such forums are becoming the social equivalent of a pub or the town meeting ?
....now where are the scones and the tea... ?
Just imagine the future forum... like holywood squares we will be real time and all have out little 'WebCams' working overtime. Who knows.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 16 November 2006 1:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_david,

I really love that "final point" of yours. Absolutely correct. What I find fascinating (and frustrating sometimes) about these venues is how it brings opinions from across the broadest possible diversity of the community. Another thing I like is being able to rattle the trees of folks who "know" what is "correct" amongst the "proper" people.

Ah yes, diversity and tolerance is the thing. How good is that? It certainly gives the little people an equal voice. But strangely, it seems that those who espouse diversity and tolerance the loudest, often demonstrate the least compliance with its principles - no names mentioned of course, but I think you know the usual suspects I'm talking about. And I'll tell you, they don't like riff-raff like me at all.

And my final point - I hope it nevers comes down to webcams. That would mean I'd have to change out of my PJs, do my hair and take a bath ocassionaly. Such a thing wouldn't do my professional image any good at all.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 16 November 2006 2:03:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris S

you asked:

"Perhaps we should be asking, what is wrong with men? Why do men rape? Why do men believe that women are there for their use? Why are so many men raised with no respect for the other? Why are men so violent? Why do men hurt and abuse women and then claim provocation as an excuse?"

I will add: why do people steal, murder, commit traffic offences, shoplift, cheat on tax, plagiarize essays, pirate music and video and every other law breaking activity that you can think of?

Because they do.

We have laws to try to prevent illegal activity and to try to maintain order and protect the members of society. But people, both male and females, consistently break laws in many ways.

Lets not look at rape as a crime that can be divorced from all other crimes: it is one of many, that can be deemed to include breaking the laws against underage sex (when was the last time that you heard of a 16 year old guy being charged with carnal knowledge of his 15 year old girlfriend?) This sexual activity is against the law, but people still indulge.

We have locks on our doors and windows to deter burglars. In NSW there are laws against leaving cars unlocked. We have speed signs, cameras etc all over the place:

We are threatened with legal sanctions for doing all sorts of things to our fellow humans that we would not want done to us.

For years there were laws against prostitution, none of which worked, because men were willing to pay ridiculous amounts for sex whilst women were willing to take risks for that money.

But the courts are still busy.

Sadly, it is the nature of humanity.

There has to be three approached to law: education / training to try to influence potential lawbreakers not to, punishments of lawbreakers AND basic security issues - the use of locks. Think about it.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 16 November 2006 2:33:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Neither the shiekh or the pugilistic pastor has a point.

But I agree with many even the redoubtable BD and Leigh the manner in which women dress does have an effect on men - it is our job to reject this satan and insist he get behind us - if we cant do that - even in the face of extreme provocation from the chikee babes - it is our problem to deal with.

Having said that - put a penis on camera, flaccid will do - reduce the sound quality of any sound track on any almost any music video and you will have what would be described in most jurisdictions as pornography - some would argue it is porn with or without the male member .

I only raise this as poor old Leunig alluded to this himself a few weeks ago and was allof a sudden aligned by some member of the commentariat as siding with the SHeikh - all he really said was this is all a bit weird - and it is - so thier is littel wonder the shiekh get shocked - but his logic from that point is flawed
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 16 November 2006 4:31:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The entire debate revolves around the rights and needs of women, but men's needs are being ignored. Sheik Hilali and modern feminists are each at the extreme, opposing ends of a concept which needs to be balanced out. Women's state of dress or undress is about more than their right to dress as they please. It's about fairness to men, too.

I don't believe women can ever truly understand the strength of male sexuality. It's not like a woman's appetite for, say, chocolate. It' s not something we laughingly say we're "addicted" to and like to indulge occasionally. It's something that's with us all the time.

All male behaviour is dictated by the drive to secure more females and more sex. Societies squeeze in into civil terms, but sex is solely responsible for the desire to wield power, drive big cars, fight, earn money...the whole kit and caboodle.

For all men - but single ones especially - seeing gorgeous, unobtainable women advertising their sexuality can border on physical pain.

If you passed someone starving in the street, would they have a right to assault you and take food from you by force? Of course not. But would it be reasonable for you to exercise your right to dangle food in front of them and tease? No.

Naturally, someone will now say I'm advocating veils and burkas for women because men can't control their sex drive. It's more nuanced than that.

Women need to understand that men can control their urge to ogle and chase every sexy woman they see, but I cannot emphasise enough that IT'S UNPLEASANT FOR US! It's like asking a woman to be serene and patient while menstrual cramps are clawing her belly apart.

There's a bit more...
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 16 November 2006 6:23:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly, at this point in time it's impossible to convince women that men deserve some degree of sympathy for being utterly driven by sex.

Feminism is very new to society and it's a good thing for us, but we've gone from a world where men's rights were paramount, to one in which women's needs are critical and men's are ignored. When we reach the middle ground we can move forward, but we're not nearly there yet.
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 16 November 2006 6:24:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sanco, here is one male who is driven by a variety of things. The satisfaction of a job well done or a new thing tried and mastered is much higher for me than the possibility of getting a bit.

Sex is important and some of the points you make are important, some teasing is abusive but I've not come across any of that for years. Young girls trying out their new found power is the only time I can remember. I suspect older women deliberately abusing that power are rare (depending on the circles you move in I guess). The ones who play those kind of power games are somewhat of a turn off anyway.

In the mean time if women wish to dress in a manner that I find appealing (for whatever their resons) then I'll think to myself "thanks for that" and expect no more.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 November 2006 8:12:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No man ever died from a lack of sex.

Yes, it is an important drive, but not one that cannot be dealt with.

At the very least this drive can be dealt with by sex between one consenting adult.

Rape can never be excused in terms of a need for sex, there is proportion of rapists who, in spite of getting all the sex that they could possibly want from a regular partner, or partners, or who could afford to pay for it on a regular basis, still rape.

Having said that, I believe that the claim that rape is all about power is just feminist cant, of the same kind that states that all penetrative sex is rape because it exploits the woman's body.

It should be remembered that women also have sex drives, that can be destructive: there have been, in the news, a few examples lately of female teachers who have abused the trust of society by having sex with underaged male and female students. This is as equally abuse as when the teacher is a male and the victim an underaged student.

The other problem that we are facing is the action of some young women. The old legend, about, for instance, the Maroubra Seals club back in the 1980s was that a guy could randomly ask girls, on a Saturday night, for sex. Generally a guy would get a lot of knock backs, but would generally get one positive response in a night. I am sure that others can confirm this type of story has happened at other venues and situations.

If every woman refused such requests on every occasion, then the requests would soon stop. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, when a girl advertises herself as being available by dress and manner, she actually is available.

Some consistency here may be helpful.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 16 November 2006 10:02:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David reading your own comments the only point you can ever make, is to make an point of writing comments that you have not based on facts as you didn't provided evidence or are sexist comments.

So next you wander may I suggested you should do some research before replying again, especially as there are different versions of The Bible and more then one passage in each and yet you only quoted one small line.

PS Now how do we know what happened at your work place actually happened and if a man done the same to a female workmate, would you be happy or do something about it?
Posted by Kwv, Thursday, 16 November 2006 11:40:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly, some correspondents need to get some help. Their priapic fantasies indicate to me that these guys are at risk of losing control of themselves in the company of women.

The last time I recall being 'turned on' by a glimpse of a woman's crotch was when I was in my early teens and I used to catch the bus to school with some unfortunate girls from a private school that required them to wera long, frilly bloomers as underwear.

However, I grew out of that stage - unlike, apparently, some commenters here and the author of the article. Adult men notice attractive women, but learn how to see them without ogling or perving.

Unfortunately, it seems that some men become stuck at the priapic adolescent stage of development. Maybe that's why they need artificial structures like religion, psychotherapy or medication to keep themselves under control.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 17 November 2006 6:35:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ronnie peters. I have a 16 year old son too and an 8 year old and I have always taught all my children the importance of self respect otherwise I believe that they will find it difficult to respect others.

I remind them to consider carefully how they act, the choices they make and what they do as whilst I will still be there for them if they make a bad choice, I will not protect them from taking responsbility, if they hurt another or make a bad choice they will be expected to take responsibility for their actions. For every action there is a re-action and a consequence.

I want them to think about what they are doing before they do it, not just think about how to get away with it and cover it up afterwards.

These days because of the lack of the lack personal responsibility expected of people and the culture of covering up and protecting those that do the wrong thing - people dont care.

We should be required to care - at least enough to be fair.
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 17 November 2006 6:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ronnie peters, I like the way that you dissect arguments clinically. I haven't noticed you before in my sporadic visits to OLO. I hope you become a regular, someone to hopefully balance some of the other less savoury regulars who use this site to repeatedly parade their boring prejudices. Or, should I say, prejudice - some are so narrow minded and artless, they have only a single prejudice to regale us with. It's much more interesting to read someone who can deconstruct an article and expose its truths and weaknesses.
Posted by PK, Friday, 17 November 2006 2:46:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fellow Human,

Firstly, the media were all over that fake gang rape that occurred in Darling Harbour, but yes, there actually was one Lebanese guy involved.

The media, and police, wanted to show that non-Muslims could also do pack rapes (as though we didn't know that already).

But you miss the point.

There have been over 70 racially motivated pack rapes by Muslim men (racially motivated, don't forget that, that is incredibly important) although countless more that were unreported.

Police know this because some of the videotapes made by the Pakistani brothers who pack raped about 5 girls have women on the tapes who have never come forward.

Those guys were with a prostitute, and the police likely knew it, but the leftist media wanted to show that others could gang-rape, so Muslims didn't feel victimised.

One important differences was that the guys all came forward within 24hrs of the CCTV footage being shown, wheareas none of the Muslim guys owned up (just like the trouble at Cronulla).

The main thing though is that wherever Muslims have gone in the west there is the problem of racially motivated gang rapes. This is a cultural phenomenon and is far worse in Islamic countries.

It is so bad that the laws of Islam are used, where four male witnesses must be present to the rape, and if the woman can't prove it, she is charged with adultery and stoned to death.

For you to even bring that Darling Harbour incident up shows you want every culture to have the problem of racially motivated gang rapes.

In civilised nations, that doesn't happen.

In fact, in the words of one of the judges who sentenced the vile Skaf racists (there vile mother should be in there too, she called the girls, as well as the police prosecutor, "sluts" - those Muslim men have got them brainwashed well!) he said that such crimes have only been seen in wartime.

Which is exactly the point. Many Muslims see themselves at war with the west.
Posted by Benjamin, Saturday, 18 November 2006 6:36:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And in writing comments without evidence like "The main thing though is that wherever Muslims have gone in the west there is the problem of racially motivated gang rapes. This is a cultural phenomenon and is far worse in Islamic countries","There have been over 70 racially motivated pack rapes by Muslim men" and etc etc etc

But of course Benjamin you haven't been brainwashed by people like A Bolt from the right wing media and talking about The Media, please tell us who are the leftist media?

PS BOAZ_David, come out come out where you are, unless you are scare of me pointing out the truth to you? That your comments are not based on facts and are sexist comments.
Posted by Kwv, Sunday, 19 November 2006 8:19:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ha Ha Dave you make me laugh. I'll talk you through what you do next time you see a young lady showing a bit. Well first you give her a once over. If she is pretty ugly, well it doesn't matter how much flesh is being exposed. Don't look man, it's bad for you. (Should be laws against it come to think of it). Next, if she is a bit of alright, have a 'sneeky peek'. This is where you pretend to look elsewhere but linger for a second or two (but no more than 3 seconds, because that would be staring. And it's rude to stare Dave, you dirty dog you!) Generally you can repeat this strategy up to 3 times. Never make eye contact (unless you are single, or atleast certainly if you are in the company of a woman) or if you may be percieved by the young woman as a 'fat old letch' or such. Oh, and if you are with a woman, you must position yourself in a safe position to not be seen.
OK, looking at young pretty girls, Dave, is supposed to make you feel, well, nice. Not in a way that makes you foam at the mouth and start trying to hump a streetpole, but rather a dreamy, warm feeling that lasts for maybe a seconds or maybe a few minutes. More importantly, enough encounters of this kind over the course of the day and you may find you have a lovely appetite by the time you get home. If, Dave (as in my case) you have a beautiful wife, you may wish to make love to her. If not, engage yourself with some suitable reading material
The above is normal and acceptable and harmless. Suggesting that Males are uncontrollable animals that are succeptable to forcing others into the act of fornication at the mere sight of skin is degrading to us all. My message is simple. Dave, get a grip with the boobies thing, and muslims, control your repressed urges.
Posted by trueaussie, Sunday, 19 November 2006 10:49:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh would I could subdue the flesh
Which sadly troubles me!
And then perhaps could view the flesh
As though I never knew the flesh
And merry misery.

.....

Get down from me! I thunder there,
You spaniels! Shut your jaws!
Your teeth are stuffed with underwear,
Suspenders torn asunder there
And buttocks in your paws!

Oh whip the dogs away my Lord,
They make me ill with lust.
Bend bare knees down to pray, my Lord,
Teach sulky lips to say, my Lord,
That flaxen hair is dust.

- From “Senex” by Sir John Betjeman (1906-84)
Posted by Snout, Sunday, 19 November 2006 11:55:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
trueaussie I am wondering what the following is based on "and muslims, control your repressed urges" facts or just someone not controlling themselves like they tell others to do?
Posted by Kwv, Monday, 20 November 2006 12:40:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KWV .. I'm here ! :)
there are post limits you know and I post on many threads...cannot be everywhere all the time.

Please do me the courtesy of pointing to 'one' 'sexist' comment and I'll then respond to that specific issue.

On 'evidence' well.. it depends what we are talking about.
Often I simply speak from the viewpoint of my Australian CULTURE and that is not a thing we find 'evidence' for, we just live it.

On the Bible.. good grief.. the only verse I mentioned was "stir one another up to good works" and you taking issue over 'versions' with THAT ? I'm stunned. If I said "Jesus is coming back next week" I would expect some challenge, but not about 'doing good'.
Maybe you are expecting there is some version somewhere where Jesus or one of the Apostles says "Do bad works"? :)

The statement 'wherever there are muslim populations'etc as you qutoed from Ben I presume, is actually quite true, but its a matter of degree. With any population, you will have the statistical mean and maxima and minima.. extremes of lethargy and radicalism with a pretty moderate 'get on with life' mean.

A 'radical' or passionate Buddhist who feels Buddhism is threatened by a government is more likely to burn himSELF in flames as they did in Vietnam rather than take up arms. This might be connected to their 'teaching' ? Then there is their history. No history of Buddhist uprisings I know of. Maybe Tibet is a possible exception.

In the same way, a passionate Muslim is more likely to take up arms as per their...wait for it... TEACHING. "Fight them wherever you find them" kind of thing. HIstory ? Its the history of war, from Mohammeds 27 battles down to today.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 20 November 2006 9:41:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
my goodness..FRANK... I need to apply some special attention to you here.

CHRIS C "To most of the above"

BOAZ "you condemned pretty much all of"

Does the difference mean THAT much to you Frank ?

"pretty much all" "most"

Not something I'd be taking issue with myself. (does the word 'petty' come to mind ?)

But if it makes you happy... "Im sorry" for lax perception.

Chris did make one statement I totally agree with.

"There is something terribly wrong in the hearts of men, and until this is addressed, women will live in fear"

I would add "...and women" to the heart problem.

So, this leads to ... SOLUTIONS.

Add a 'T' to Chris's name and you have it.

Paul describes the unspiritual man as follows (Using himself as an example)
Romans 7
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am!Who will rescue me from this body of death?

ANSWER ?

25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

METHOD ? (Romans8)

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death

CONCLUSION

The Spirit filled life.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 20 November 2006 10:07:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations Dave, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. You, at least have had the guts to say what you believe and I not only support you in that, I also support you in your view.
I don't have any daughters, and to some degree I am rather glad about that as it has saved me a lot of anxiety. Young girls today are encouraged to flaunt themselves by the 'role models' that they view through the entertaintment arena and as you point out, are very niave about the sexual drive of young boys and men. I would encourage all parents of young girls to encourage more modest dressing in public. Not to the extent that the Muslim woman choose as dictated by their religion, but not to the extent that they are barely covering their bodies with what they are wearing. I think that it is a tragedy that young girls and woman are behaving this way, without the knowledge of what it is doing to men and then cry victim when they are violated. There seems to be some education required by parents so that they get back the control that is necessary for protecting their children.
Posted by snooty_56, Monday, 20 November 2006 11:54:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those who complain that women's exposed flesh is a deliberate ploy to cause them pain and provoke them into lustful deeds, here's a thought:

Remember how in Victorian times the sight of an ankle could arouse men? And notice how in societies that expect women to cover up completely even the sight of a woman's hair is considered provocative? And notice how in hunter/gatherer societies women seem to be able to go about topless without causing the men around them to become uncontrollably sexually violent?

So, we seem to have a situation in which men get horny fairly regularly, and they look to the group in society that has been designated the appropriate objects of desire (whether that's women, or young boys or whoever) and then if certain areas of their bodies are shown, it is interpereted as deliberately and even cruelly provocative.

I suppose my point is that if you happen to be a member of the group that has been designated the appropriate object of desire, you can't really ever get it right. Someone will always consider you to be being provocative if you're showing any part of your body.

Mind you, if you're wearing a burkha, you're too unavailable, or if you're wearing a boiler suit, you're a bloody man-hating lesbian who should be trying to make herself attractive to men, or if you're wearing a tracksuit and no make-up you've let yourself go etc etc

You know, Hamlet, you're right. A lot of the time women are only dressing revealingly because they've been taught that unless they're looking sexy they aren't really worth anything much. It's more to do with identity and self-esteem than with getting some action from men.
Posted by Hedgepig, Monday, 20 November 2006 12:02:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snooty,
I agree with you. I know of a young of 13 who wears hipster jeans and skirts, bare midriff and low cut tops.

I do not mind looking at girls/women in revealing clothes but what concerns me is that she is niave enough not to be aware of the situation she may be letting herself into and certainly no where near experianced enough to handle a situation she does not like. As you said young men have very powerfull sex drives and this girl is not the only one that is vunerable.

I would like to see more parental supervission but I suppose there is all sorts of pressures for parents to allow young ones out on their own, supposedly with friends.

I don't know what the answer is but I wish kids could be kids for as long as possible because adult life is long enough.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 20 November 2006 12:55:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was this old Nun in France I think, who bragged about her piety and her proof was that in 60 years she had bathed only her finger tips.
She was a victim of rape. Clothed from head to toe and stinking to high heaven. I don't know what the percent of crime ratio rape falls under or how many cases are true or deemed false. I do know that rape is not a normal male impulse. I do not believe one can dress to avoid rape and I think comments by the Mufti and the Priest do a disservice to men and women. I think this constant prodding by media and other social manipultors pitting men against women needs to be rejected by the common folk. A social rebellion where men and women stand together and support one another rather than allowing this trumped up division of the sexes.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 20 November 2006 9:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David for the sexist comments, maybe you should read your own comments, like Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 2:01:39 PM and Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 16 November 2006 9:11:25 AM.

And you might call it Australian CULTURE when you are twisting comments around, as well as ducking and weaving when facing reality, I call it providing evidence.

Especially when once more you only quote one line, even those in the different Versions Of The Bible there are many lines and so maybe you should do some research especially to tell us if there version somewhere where Jesus or one of the Apostles says "Do bad works"?

And maybe wait for it, you can also provided evidence, of your comments about Buddhist or Muslims?
Posted by Kwv, Monday, 20 November 2006 11:27:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kwv, for your info (in case you don't know it) you can copy a link to a specific post by hitting the small blue icon under a post - the one on the right of the set of icon's under each post. Once you have copied the link you can use Ctrl-v to paste it into your message.

Useful when you want to make it easy to reference another post.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 8:12:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin,

“The media, and police, wanted to show that non-Muslims could also do pack rapes”

In a civilised nation as you mentioned, you should not have to show that.
My point is simple: No event carries a meaning except for how we interpret it.
If we stick to objectivity and judge criminal acts on its merit rather than use it to paint a group or ethnicity, it will work much better for the community and greater Australia.

If the criminals who bashed the lifesavers on Cronulla were judged on the basis of just committing a criminal act, it would have been resolved on the day. The creation of an ‘us versus them’ story lead to ugly consequences.

“Many Muslims see themselves at war with the west”

Some Muslims do, some Westerners reciprocate. It’s never a one side story.

PS: you got the Islamic laws upside down. Rape is punishable by death in Muslim countries. The 4 witnesses approach is intended to protect females from being falsely accused of adultery since accusing an honest woman is the 3rd worse sin in Islamic faith.

Boaz,

Our version of the "truth about Mohammed prophet of Islam" can be found in this debate article:

“Mohammed in the Bible”
http://www.jamaat.net/muhinbible/muhinbible.html

Ahmed Deedat died waiting for a response.

Peace my friend,

T
Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:47:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
Now, heaven knows,
Anything goes."

Cole Porter wrote these lines in 1934, before most of us on this thread were born.

Just goes to show that debates about "modest" dress are a perennial favourite, eh?

And thanks for the tip, RObert, I was wondering what that new button was for!
Posted by Snout, Tuesday, 21 November 2006 11:58:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Somebody made the point early on in this forum, but it is worth saying again - indeed, I've been repeating it like a broken record for years.
If we are going to blame women and the way they dress for rape - because it creates such temptation in men that they cannot control themselves, why do we not then blame the rich man for tempting the poor man into becoming a thief? Surely the desire to own things - or even just to be able to feed your family - is just as uncontrollable an urge as the desire to rape an uncovered woman? It seems to drive much of the world (that bit called the economy), after all. Yet no religion, anywhere, blames the rich man for the crime of thieving. Doesn't the thief get his hand cut off under Sharia law? So surely this nonsensical ( and mysogynist) argument is just more of that good old double standard so beloved of all the world's major religions?
Here's another example of the difficulty some men have in seeing the world from a different perspective. back in the early days of the Jewish state, there was a serial rapist wreaking havoc in Tel Aviv. The Isreali cabinet gathered to discuss what they could do. A curfew of 9pm for women and girls was suggested - to protect them. It was gaining approval until the one female cabinet minister (Golda Mier) intervened. "A curfew is a good idea." she said, "But as it is obviously a man who is doing the raping, it should be all men and boys who must be off the streets by 9pm." There was a horrified silence, and then all the men in the cabinet hastily decided a curfew had no merit. She relates this incident in her biography "My Life."
Posted by ena, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 10:44:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You should have whispered that. Golda Mier was 71 when she became PM and our Man of Steel might get to hear about it.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 11:24:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ena, as is the way of these things I just recently heard that story somewhere and thought how well it illustrates the way women's basic rights are so often considered to be negotiable, or contingent on circumstances, whereas men's rights are inviolable. What? Expect MEN to modify their behaviour?? But that's a breach of human rights!
I think a lot of the posters here who complain about how hard done by white heterosexual men are nowadays are reacting to the relatively recent phenomenon of men's interests not being prioritised in every situation. It used to be that women were always the default losers; now sometimes men are the losers too, so their impression is that the tide has completely turned and women are now calling all the shots. In actual fact (if there is such a thing) there are now both male and female losers. Sorry, this post probably belongs in the paternity fraud comments.
Posted by Hedgepig, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 12:35:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Couldn't agree more, hedgepig.
I am sick of being told by posters on this site that, as a feminist, I must hate men, when all I really do is expect no more and no less of them than I would any other human being.
I LOVE men, and women and children - all of them in principle and a great many of them in practice.
Posted by ena, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 2:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert thanks for the advice :-) but what posts of mine were you refering to when you wrote "you can copy a link to a specific post by hitting the small blue icon under a post - the one on the right of the set of icon's under each post"?
Posted by Kwv, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 6:32:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kwv, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5150#62551 when you referenced some of BD's posts by post date and time. I figured it might help other readers to find the specific posts you were refering to - no criticism intended.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 7:15:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great to see some good sense on this thread - all the more so given the drivel that constitutes much which preceded it.

You go, girls :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 8:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And no criticism taken (If the right saying?) R0bert.
Posted by Kwv, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 9:23:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seems to me that there are still a number of men who would think that NO can mean YES. Grow up and take responsibility. Maybe it is just that most middle age guys don't look so good in "stubbies and a blue singlet" where a woman would. There is absolutely know argument in saying that women who dress provocatively should be aware of what might happen. As the father of 2 girls, one of whom is still a teenager, I would never accept that anything a girl was to do can justify rape or sexual assault.
Posted by micmac2006, Thursday, 23 November 2006 5:36:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wish I had your confidence mate.
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 23 November 2006 7:42:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolanda: I accept that if a person hurts another they must take responsibility for their actions. – if there are no reasonable grounds. For instance, if a person behaves in a lecherous and offensive way towards a woman on the grounds that she has dressed in a way that invites his advances or somehow is asking to be raped because her attire creates such temptation in him that he cannot control himself, it is reasonable that the man must take full responsibility for his lack of character and respect for others.

However, if a person tries to justify rape with absurd notions of the woman being responsible for her rape, then I think we have reasonable grounds to condemn these ideas.

The problem I have with your comment, Jolanda, is that you also say a person must take responsibility for “bad choices”. The male makes a truly harmful, and thus truly bad choice, if he forces himself on a woman For instance: If a young girl disobeys her parents and slips into something trendy once out of Mum’s sight the consequence of rape is far disproportionate to the, in itself , harmless supposed “bad choice”. It seems to me that the consequence decides what is a bad choice rather than the other way around. Bad choices, such as this, deserves a lecture from Mum and maybe some detention – not the horror of rape..

It is clear that a woman’s choice is denied in a rape. I don’t care whether the woman is the biggest prick teaser Downunder – there is no excuse for denying a woman the right to deny a male the privilege of entering her body. No excuses. That is the Law - albeit often sidestepped by dirty lawyers, posters and certain immigrants. To justify rape with the argument that it is a consequence of the woman wearing clothing that makes the man lose control is absurd and unfair to good women and disciplined, sensible men. continued
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 23 November 2006 1:10:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued
There is a certain punitive edge to the idea that women who are raped or abused are somehow responsible for their troubles. I think it comes from under-developed misogynistic cultures and sub-cultures. For instance: I am told that in Sharia law if a woman is raped she can be sent to gaol for causing her own rape. The Islamic woman is stoned in a courtyard if she is found to be adulterous (I may be missing something here but little if anything is said about the male ). This seems to be the tendency of a lot of the posters on this thread is to blame the female - disregard the male. It is a misogynistic cultural path that would be a truly bad choice for Australia.

The Mum above whose daughter is raped for wearing trendy clothing is, according to certain posters’ thinking, somehow warranted because the male-sex drive is so powerful. The underlying idea on this thread also seems to be that there is a certain natural justice to it; a certain desirable punitive measure to it: that a person outside the family, outside the law system assigning themselves punitive powers (the rapist and sleazy males) to deal with any women who dares arouse their male sexual urges is reasonable. The men who are positing these opinions and attitudes are justifying rape and possibly enabling rapists, and I think, they are culpable.

Parents have to make sure their youngsters are “streetwise” - aware that there are predators, who have been convinced that women deserve it, etc, out there ready take advantage of those who are vulnerable or in vulnerable situations. That is just common sense. However, nothing will convince me that rape is justified. To do so would be to go down a very horrid path for women, parents and society. The re-action and the consequence to a harmless action such as wearing sexy clothing must be reasonable otherwise the re-action to women and consequence for women will become as unreasonable as certain other cultures.

Psychologists have enough trouble undoing rapists' harm without this blame-the-victim nonsense.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 23 November 2006 1:30:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Ronnie, I agree with your comments. However, I believe that it pays to be careful in order to avoid any unwanted circumstances as a result of certain behaviours. It is the responsibility of both men and women to behave appropriately in the presence of each other and accept responsibility for their actions. No behaviour condones rape.
Posted by snooty_56, Thursday, 23 November 2006 1:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your honesty Sancho of the beast within.

It has also been discussed about the levels of testosterone which vary from the cultural diversity of the male species.

The animal kingdom gives out more of its secrets whereby only the strongest will survive.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Monday, 27 November 2006 1:25:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snooty_56 I am sorry but I don't think you do agree with my position. Yes it pays to be careful. However, I think it is the soul responsibility of the male to make sure the female is willing and able. Even if a girl has a few to many drinks, flirts and gives the fella the wrong idea and finds herself in an awkward position but says NO and indicates NO I think that a real man would accept the girl’s choice. This is being safe (avoiding complications), sensible and respectful. It is the person wanting to engage in intercourse or sexual activity (usually the male) responsibility to listen and respect the person they are with.

You say that they should "accept responsibility for their actions". You may be seen to be condoning rape otherwise you wouldn't have said "their" actions because it includes the female if she is a victim. If we seriously don't condone rape, there can't be talk of responsibility on the woman's part if she refuses advances. That is lawyer talk to excuse grubs with no self control.

Sheik Hilali did not have a point of any relevance in Australian society. His position is a leftover from an outdated misogynistic religion and unenlightened thinking. We need to work toward a culture where there are no excuses. Zero tolerance. I know that you do not condone rape under any circumstance because you said so but your post does suggest an ambiguity and there is no place for that in human relations.
Posted by ronnie peters, Monday, 27 November 2006 6:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Ronnie, perhaps what I said was ambiguous. I find it interesting that you are representative of the males who can take total responsibility for their actions with regard to violence against women, of which rape is a part. Unfortunately in my personal experience the men who have been abusive towards me are ones who believe that it is a woman's fault alone if she is violated...regardless of what she is wearing. I suppose I am afraid for woman and young girls, like me, who have had to deal with men who are not prepared to accept responsibility for their actions. It certainly is an outdated belief that woman ask for what they get...even if their behaviour might be seen as provocative by the way they dresses. Thanks for your comment Ronnie.
Posted by snooty_56, Monday, 27 November 2006 7:41:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why don't we change the law a bit: make it an offense for a man to even approach a woman for sex: any woman, no matter what she is wearing, no matter how she is acting.

Make it clear, under the law, that only women can initiate any sexual contact. Any male initiated contact should be treated as sexual assault.

Then make it an offense for a man to have sex with a woman who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol - at all, like 0.02% of alcohol. After all if a P plate driver cannot be trusted to drive a car with any alcohol in their system, then men (and society) should assume that a young woman who has consumed any alcohol is incapable of giving informed consent, even if she is the one who makes the approach.

Maybe make it 0.05% blood alcohol level for women over 21, but unless men can prove, with a breathalyser print out countersigned by a witness and the women, then men will have no way of knowing if a woman can give informed consent.

Then make a few other changes: Make it so that any complainant cannot be cross examined, at all. After all, every thing that a woman says about sexual assault must be right.

Then change the burden of proof to that of the civil burden, that is, instead of 'beyond reasonable doubt' change the burden to 'on the balance of probabilities', but this would be just a way point: the next step would be to assume guilt and make the accused prove his innocence - beyond reasonable doubt.

Lets get those rape convictions in court up to where they should be - 100%.
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 27 November 2006 9:44:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now let me see

before we had burkaas and hijabs we had rape
before we had mini sikrts and bikinis (phwooarrr) we had rape
before we had porn we had rape.

Rape was invented about the same time as wars were.

And, if any of you bright sparks ever have the balls to stop thinking from your pants (both male and female) and actually approach the issue as a COMPLETELY violent act then all the research data actually falls into place.
Rapists don't have a history of other sexual pervesions but they do have a history of violence. Wife bashing, poofter bashing, wino bashin. That sort of thing..
Posted by sparticusss, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 9:18:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sparticusss

If you take a careful read through court judgements delivered when rapists are being sentenced you will find that many do not have any 'history of violence' what so ever. Some do, yes, but it is not a common characteristic.

Many do not have any criminal histories at all, except for the rapes.

The male and female teachers who have committed sexual acts with under age students, which can be considered as rape, as rape can be best be described as any sexual act in the absence of informed consent, (people under 16 not being able, under the law, to provide informed consent) have not had histories of violence as such.

They are in the same position as anyone who takes sexual advantage of someone else who is either too drunk, drugged, asleep or otherwise incapacitated so that informed consent cannot be given.

Often these rapes are not what we would normally be considered as 'violence', except they inflict unwanted activity upon an unwilling person, and that is also a definition of violence.

Rape, is more widely legally known in this country as aggravated sexual assault, because that is what it is, an assault of a sexual nature. There may be no threat, or battery, or infliction of bodily harm, but that does not stop it from being violence.

The violence however is inherently sexual in many (not all) cases.

Add to this that a person must not assume that consent is given, it is necessary for a person taking part in sexual activity to be certain, virtually beyond reasonable doubt, that consent has been given. So even if a person does not consider that he or she is a 'rapist' because they haven't heard the word 'no' or they haven't been resisted, that doesn't stop them being a rapist.

Even if a guy, after a party, finds a naked woman asleep in his bed, and she has been close dancing and flirting with him earlier, he cannot assume that she has consented to sex. He has to seek and obtain consent, otherwise find somewhere else to sleep.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 9:44:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good lesson:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2006nswcca.nsf/6389480b59cf41ecca2570e6001cb3e1/c283950507c46695ca25722f0001eb3b?OpenDocument

Just because a woman is lying on a bed with no underwear, exposing her genitals, doesn't mean that she wants sex with the guy that she is exposing herself to.

As soon as this guy walked into this woman's house and realised that she was (a) drunk and (b) exposing herself to him (if it had been a drunk male in the position of exposing himself to her he would have been charged with something - but go figure) he should have left the house, without fixing the computer and gone home.

And he should have never seen her again. At all, never, and he should have told his wife, and everyone who knew them both, how she acted and why he will never see her again.

The consequences of her actions ahould have been ridicule, not rape.

If she cannot act with dignity in front of a man who she considered as a father figure she should not expect to for him to act as a father figure to her.

He deserves his punishment for the sexual assault, and she is completely blameless for that.
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 1 December 2006 11:03:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In not replying I guess BOAZ_David has made a sexist comments, he cannot provided proof that his one line came from The Bible and he cannot provided evidence, of his comments about Buddhist or Muslims?
Posted by Kwv, Saturday, 2 December 2006 1:35:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's get this topic back on track. The good Sheik was again hammering home the orthodox Islamic point that the hijab is an essential part of civilised society. That is, there can be no equality of the sexes without women covering their head and all of their body. The assumption is that men cannot be trusted to control themselves in normal society.

In this regard he is totally wrong. There can be equality of the sexes without women covering their head and revealing what they want to reveal. A man, especially a Sheik, dictating to women what they should put on in the morning is patently sexist and against the ideal of equality.
Posted by TR, Monday, 4 December 2006 12:02:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet another attack on aussie dress taste and freedom by what is obviously an extremist group.

http://www.triplemrocks.com.au/shows/brekky/index.php

An attack on the good old Aussie Budgie Smuggler.

"We're on a mission to clean up the pools and beaches this summer with The Cage's Budgie Smuggler Amnesty."

Think I'll have to wear mine to the beach this summer in protest at this attack on my freedom to dress as I want.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 4 December 2006 12:40:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the Mufti and Dave acknowledged women had the same sex drive as men, than they would have to imagine the frustrations these garbed women must feel when they walk past a building site on a hot day, in down town Tehran. Could they acknowledge that young muslim girls may be dripping with desire under their hijab as they witnessed sinewed naked or semi-naked torso's of young muslim workers? Yet neither the Mufti or Dave will suggest men should also where a hijab.

Sex is a game for two or more players. People who express opinions like the Mufti and Dave are merely exhibiting their own stunted sexuality. They empathise with the frustrated adolescent, becuase well bluntly - that is were their own sexuality is at. Like the adolescent, they are overwhelmend by their own desire and still do not recognise the other to be as real as themselves.

Adulthood is about many things including respect for others and responsibilty for your actions. This fundamentalist position on dress is symptomatic of an immature state unable to respect others or accept responsibility.

For Dave and the Mufti, I recommend a more active and mutually satisfying sexual life - not necessarily amongst themselves. They will then find their current perspectives altered permanently. Nor will they feel it necessary to stunt all of us to preserve their own fears and fantasies.

As for the concerned fathers, your daughters' confidence and vocabulary will save her from unwanted approaches more readily then her conservative dress. The ability to selectively apply aggressive foul language will ensure all but the psycho run away.
Posted by YEBIGA, Wednesday, 13 December 2006 11:33:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well summed up, YEBIGA. And worthy of a new thread in the other section. Perhaps you will oblige.
Posted by Rex, Thursday, 14 December 2006 8:05:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy