Adverts to promote positive view of Muslims

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Sorry this topic just reminded me of Rima Fakih who won the Miss USA title recently.

She's crazy beautiful.

Yes she is!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Who said anything about normal for western culture? I clearly meant normal as in clothes you wear because you like them, because you feel comfortable in them, not because of some misplaced notion that wearing them denotes respectability because you have 'covered yourself modestly' due to some misguided notion that god will be displeased if you do not.

Women choose their dress to accomplish various goals - to attract men, to garner the envy of women, to project power - among other reasons. One can feel quite comfortable and like what they are wearing while, at the same time, seeking to please God. Muslim women, Amish women, Catholic nuns, for example, do not seek to offend people like you who consider them to be "misguided" because their reasons for dressing as they do don't please you. You are not relevant to their goal, however much you may wish that to be the case. This is not about what you think.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Who said anything about normal for western culture? I clearly meant normal as in clothes you wear because you like them, because you feel comfortable in them, not because of some misplaced notion that wearing them denotes respectability because you have 'covered yourself modestly' due to some misguided notion that god will be displeased if you do not.

i like how soffiya already answered you, what she said makes sense, but i wanted to also add that what is so frustrating about your posts on this topic is the dictatorial stance you take. you don't get to decide for anyone and everyone just what their clothes mean to them. only the individual has the right to do that. women have every right to use clothes or the very lack of them in any manner they choose, not what you choose. what you have deemed is a right reason for wearing clothes is not binding on anyone. there are as many acceptable reasons for why women wear clothes as there are for why not. a mandinka woman in west africa may not cover her breasts because for her it's socially and culturally the norm not to. in a las vegas strip club, there are women who don't cover their breasts either, for the specific reason of making money off of this display of their bodies. both are equally valid reasons to not wear clothes, regardless of how anyone may feel about their motivations for doing so.

[Peikko 1,575]

Women choose their dress to accomplish various goals - to attract men, to garner the envy of women, to project power - among other reasons. One can feel quite comfortable and like what they are wearing while, at the same time, seeking to please God. Muslim women, Amish women, Catholic nuns, for example, do not seek to offend people like you who consider them to be "misguided" because their reasons for dressing as they do don't please you. You are not relevant to their goal, however much you may wish that to be the case. This is not about what you think.

Offended? How typical and how wrong. What is offensive is the symbolism of clothing used to denote the notion that women must be covered to be modest, chaste and good. That is not a symbolism that I invented or dreamed up, it is a symbolism born of misguided belief systems and that notion must be challenged if society is to progress away from the absurd and dangerous idea that women in a state of undress deserve to be sexually abused. Defend choice by all means, but choice based on reality, not fiction.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

The problem is that there is no equal playing field. The symbolism is systemic in most societies, western and eastern - there are very, very few societies where women can choose to wear little to nothing and not be considered 'loose' or 'available' no matter what other signals she may be giving out - the clothing or lack thereof says something to society and worse is used by society as an indicator as to whether or not she 'deserved' to be sexually abused.

If one accepts the reality that this universally held symbolism if you are choose to 'honour god and your husband' by only revealing for example your legs and hair to your husband, can you do so without the inevitable conclusion that those who do not do so are 'dishonouring god and their husbands'? I can't see how one can do the one without the other, and in so doing are you not perpetuating the myth and symbolism that allows women who don't make the same choices to be considered deserving in some way of their fate?

[^_^ 5,021]

... there are very, very few societies where women can choose to wear little to nothing and not be considered 'loose' or 'available' ...

This statement is false. If a 100 year old woman walks around naked, in most societies she will be assumed to be insane or otherwise impaired.

Your statement is only true when the woman who has chosen to wear little or nothing is somewhat attractive. This is true because attractive women are attractive. Are you familiar with the physiological and chemical changes that occur in the body and brain of a male ** sapien when he sees the bare mammaries and/or buttocks of an attractive female? If not, I suggest you read up on it. It is fascinating material.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Offended? How typical and how wrong. What is offensive is the symbolism of clothing used to denote the notion that women must be covered to be modest, chaste and good. That is not a symbolism that I invented or dreamed up, it is a symbolism born of misguided belief systems and that notion must be challenged if society is to progress away from the absurd and dangerous idea that women in a state of undress deserve to be sexually abused. Defend choice by all means, but choice based on reality, not fiction.

Despite your denials, your words and your tone say you are offended by women who dress to please God. It is your right to be offended by whatever you chose, but no one is responsible for your offense except you. That is the reality. Another reality is that clothing conveys intent. That is why strippers and hookers show lots of skin and nuns and monks show a lot less. That hasn't prevented abuse, but if you dress and behave in a way that draws sexual attention, you become an easier target for abuse, and that does tend to muddy the water.

[sjr09 155]

[mawilson 2,133]

women have every right to use clothes or the very lack of them in any manner they choose, not what you choose.

But they don't - their religion makes the choice for them.

[twowls 217]

Despite your denials, your words and your tone say you are offended by women who dress to please God. It is your right to be offended by whatever you chose, but no one is responsible for your offense except you. That is the reality. Another reality is that clothing conveys intent. That is why strippers and hookers show lots of skin and nuns and monks show a lot less. That hasn't prevented abuse, but if you dress and behave in a way that draws sexual attention, you become an easier target for abuse, and that does tend to muddy the water.

This is where things get muddy indeed. Your statement that women who wear fewer clothes are an easier target for abuse may be true (I don't know; I haven't seen statistics on that), but it's a statement very closely related to those that place blame and responsibility for violence against women on the women. Incredibly sticky territory. Your invocation of strippers and hookers as a counterpoint to nuns is pretty problematic in my opinion. It sounds like you're relating the intent of hookers (to have sex with strangers) with the rest of womankind who don't cover up. Yikes. My personal intent when I put on a hot dress is to feel beautiful.

You started out with the notion of pleasing God, which makes sense to me in the context of your own religious framework. I think the switch to intent in human society and the impact of dress on potential criminals is a dubious place for the argument to go. It's just a hop and a skip to dividing women between saints and whores based on how they express themselves by their dress. I don't think you intend to go there, but like I say, sticky.

[Peikko 1,575]

This statement is false. If a 100 year old woman walks around naked, in most societies she will be assumed to be insane or otherwise impaired.

Your statement is only true when the woman who has chosen to wear little or nothing is somewhat attractive. This is true because attractive women are attractive. Are you familiar with the physiological and chemical changes that occur in the body and brain of a male ** sapien when he sees the bare mammaries and/or buttocks of an attractive female? If not, I suggest you read up on it. It is fascinating material.

Old women are raped - rape is not really about sexuality.

[Peikko 1,575]

Despite your denials, your words and your tone say you are offended by women who dress to please God. It is your right to be offended by whatever you chose, but no one is responsible for your offense except you. That is the reality. Another reality is that clothing conveys intent. That is why strippers and hookers show lots of skin and nuns and monks show a lot less. That hasn't prevented abuse, but if you dress and behave in a way that draws sexual attention, you become an easier target for abuse, and that does tend to muddy the water.

My words have been extremely explicit in their intent and the 'offense' that I take is to the notion that clothing, in particular clothing that covers and hides the female form is symbolic of chastity, modesty, sexual propriety because there is no getting around the notion that if you believe the former then you necessarily believe that those who do not dress in this way are the opposite, promiscuous, provocative, loose. That is an absurd symbolism. If you wish to please god, there are much better ways to do so and with your body - the best way is to keep it healthy.

[^_^ 5,021]

Old women are raped - rape is not really about sexuality.

A 90 year old woman walking around naked won't be seen as loose or available.

[Peikko 1,575]

This statement is false. If a 100 year old woman walks around naked, in most societies she will be assumed to be insane or otherwise impaired.

Your statement is only true when the woman who has chosen to wear little or nothing is somewhat attractive. This is true because attractive women are attractive. Are you familiar with the physiological and chemical changes that occur in the body and brain of a male ** sapien when he sees the bare mammaries and/or buttocks of an attractive female? If not, I suggest you read up on it. It is fascinating material.

The more I think about this, the worse it seems - it promotes so many false and wrong notions it's hard to know where to begin but to expand, rape is not confined to young, attractive, scantily clad ladies.

[mawilson 2,133]

I Cleo