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.

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.

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

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

Ronnie Peters, you ought to get out into the real world a bit.

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.