Metal Reviews

On the first point, sounds like bollocks to me. While saving people from arranged marriages is laudable, the idea that anyone would be impressed by not allowing immigrants to marry until they are 24 is laughable. A ban on arranged marriages specifically? I don't know, possibly. Agencies that are there to provide confidential support to women in that position? A better idea, IMO. A ban on immigrants marrying? What kind of ridiculous policy is that?

On the second point, stupid generalizations. From living in some of the most Muslim-heavy areas of the UK (Hyde Park in Leeds, Burley in Leeds, Woodhouse in Leeds) I have virtually never seen children wearing the burqa. In fact I would really struggle to think of any occasions at all on which I've seen that... maybe once or twice.

Maybe there are more in Denmark. Perhaps that would tell you something about how successful your assimilationist policies have been in encouraging people to adopt your ways.

On the third point, unfortunately I am not wrong, because I find it inconceivable that Muslim integration into Danish society is a result of them being told to take their burqas off. Seems more likely that the fact they approved of your freedom of expression laws is because they are in fact normal people like you and me and not sinister wierdos, as so many of the "ban the burqa" brigade would like them to be portrayed. Maybe there are people that wear the burqa AND approve of free speech, AND disapproved of the cartoon-related riots. Or perhaps this is not a comfortable enough stereotype.

Well, whatever. I can certainly sympathize, if not necessarily agree, with some arguments for banning it that come from a feminist perspective. However the whole nationalist bullshit about "zomg they're not bending to our will how dare they" to be completely pathetic.

Oh and also



I think this exemplifies why you are missing the point. Noodles was not necessarily expressing an opinion on the issue himself, what he's saying is that it is a non-issue. Maybe some women would have been asked to unveil themselves, refused and gone home without voting. Maybe some would take them off and vote. Maybe some polling stations would be lenient and let them.

And yet, inexplicably, despite the massive upheaval caused by these traumatic experiences Canada is sill intact and the sun still rises there.

The actual genuine problem occurs when arseholes in the press start plastering it all over the front page. This in turn filters into reasonable people such as yourself becoming worried about Muslim non-integration. Then THAT in turn becomes legitimation for less reasonable people to mainstream their agendas.

It is not ridiculous. But I wasn't specific enough about it either. The law was also made to avoid arranged marriages to be used to bringing families together across boarders. Typical a girl would be married to her cousin from the middle east in these marriages. Second of all, it only applies to immigrants and ppl outside EU.
Banning arranged marriages itself would be kinda hard. How would one detect weither or not it is the case? Agencies can't do shit either. Before anybody would find out it would already be too late, and how exactly would one help her out? The 24-law is much more effecient, it's easy to follow and the number of arranged marriages has declined so far.

I didn't meant teenagers were wearing burqas. I meant scarfs in general. Those girls who doesn't wear scarf and burqas are typical ppl who care less about their religion. You can be a muslim in many ways. Girls will typical be a reflection of her parents. As i also stated earlier: where western parents gives their children more freedom as they grow old, muslim parents tends to limit that freedom - no partying, dating etc. This means, that when you have put them in a scarf or burka they are less likely to take it off again.

We have no assimilation policies. To be assimilated means to give up everything and embrace another culture. However, when muslim children grow up in danish sociaty they are most likely to be very danish-sized. This does however not mean they start to eat pork or drink beer, or that they have been modified to be the exact same. We only have a few criterias or expectations so to speak: Learn danish, and agree with certain values/principles in our sociaty.

You cannot start your argument with: " I am not wrong, because I find it inconceivable...", that's not a proof of anything. You're right, though, but wrong in your conception on our country.
We have not told them to take of their burka by means of legislations, there's been a great debate about it scarfs with alot of muslims envolved in it as well, muslims that was pro, of course. However, they did not mention anything about that it was their own choice - but despite of that i still approve scarfs in public, except in the government. Weither or not their boss at work would approve it would have to be up to them.
It is a matter of education, and so far no girl wearing a burqa has ever set her foot on the university or gymnasium. You can then wonder about if she is kept at home by her family, or has become enlightened in the process
And yes, fundamentaly i think muslim are just as normal as everybody else. I believe that every human being is striving towards freedom, unfortunately many are under the influence of religion and suppressive cultures. Saw a documentry from Iran a while ago, with some muslim men and women living in the city who dreamed about freedom as well, or rather a country as it used to be. In Iran you don't have freedom of speech, free market, and you can't hold hands or date in public etc etc, and then there was all that bullshit about women that are treated like trash if they date in the first place, and how they had to wear a scarf whenever they went outside, despite hating it, despite being non-religious. However, even in Iran there are lot's of progressive forces moving underneath, and they are just as horny as everybody else and listen to the same crappy pop-music, some places that is. Education and knowledge is power, the reason why women in burqas are kept away from said same thing. You are of course, welcome to show me proof that women wearing burkas are just as educated as everybody else, and that more than a handfull chosed themselves, cuz there are exceptions in every aspect of life.


Are you sure your comfortable stereotypical view on me or my country is even correct?! National bullshit is not about making other ppl bending to your will, is it?

The funny thing is, you have implied that your country/culture is better than mine, while attacking me for not wanting certain foreign cultural elements in mine. Isn't that hypocrisy?

To your last post i can only say that, some ppl care about the future of their culture, others are so open minded and tolerant that they forget about themselves - become blind to certain problem areas that could be improved or solved, certain elements that never should be.
I can't see why I'm not allowed to be concearned about certain muslim groups not being fully integrated, the biggest problem group, or treat to our sociaty/culture is still the radical muslims, though. But this group also has a link to the burka group, hereby not saying that women wearing burqas are the radical ones or pose any threat as such. If you don't integrate, you are not a part of a sociaty and don't contribute to its preservation.

I can understand concern about radical muslims being integrated but banning burqas will just create more of an "us vs them" mentality and won't really help.

Now you have described it in greater detail it makes more sense to me. However there is a big difference between this and what you first described, and it seems to have as much to do with keeping people out as stopping arranged marriages. Nonetheless I do understand the point you are making.

But I don't necessarily see the same flaws in the agencies idea that you do- surely the idea would be that a woman who knew she was going to be forced into marriage would contact BEFORE it was too late. What can the govt. do? Well, if it can ban immigrants a whole group of people from getting married then it can act in individual cases as well. Of course there are problems, such as the potential for "retaliation" on the part of the parents against the woman that contacted said agency. But then with the 24-year model no doubt there is similar, and maybe even worse cases. Girls being dragged off to foreign countries to marry etc...



Hmm, I am really not remotely sure about this- upon what do you base the idea that Muslim girls are less likely to adopt a different lifestyle to their parents?




But from your posts here it seems to me that you want to extend societies values and principles to include dictating what people can and cannot wear.



But that is exactly the point I was making; Christian or atheist Danes and Muslims shall likely continue to get along better WITHOUT the need for clumsy and arbitrary government edicts upon people's behaviour, such as banning items of clothing. You were saying I was wrong, because Muslims were integrating into Danish society. The point I made was that sure, they may well be, but what makes you think this is anything to do with banning items of clothing, rather than just the fact that both groups are humans with plenty in common anyway.



Well, I know you are right about social currents in Iran, that is very true. But then it isn't especially relevant to this discussion. I am saying it's wrong to force people to dress in a certain way, and it is also wrong to force people not to dress in a certain way.

As far as education goes, the burkha is more likely a symptom than a cause. Banning it would solve nothing in that regard. Plus, I have seen Muslim women in burkhas in British universities, and not just a handful of exceptions here and there, fairly regularly, in fact.

Aaagh... I have to take issue with some of this next part.


Not talking about your country, I am talking about "Nationalistic bullshit" that occurs in every country across the entire world. The ranting about "respecting our culture" is EXACTLY the same wherever you may go. What you were saying in your earlier posts along these lines is nothing I haven't heard 1000 times before in the UK.



Except I clearly didn't; firstly because I was talking about a very specific issue- not something as broad as "culture", and secondly, because I was criticizing issues of policy, not national character.



As if Danish culture is like a fairy that will die if you don't fully profess your belief in it and love for it at every turn. The biggest threat to your society and culture is not anything to do with Muslims- these are a scapegoat, and terrorism is an abstraction. The biggest problems in society are consumerism, corporate bullying, an unsustainable level of global inequality, a complete lack of public influence over government unless it comes in a form filtered through the eyes of the corporate media, the military complex.... Instead people prefer to worry about something that is very ill defined- "national culture"- disappearing because some people that live on the same patch of earth as them dress differently and have diffrent beliefs. If you believe in Danishness, then you can raise your kids to, and if it is really worth preserving then enough people will do so for it to survive.

WIN!!

Who gives a fuck if someone is wearing a burka in my community, it is their choice. If they are living, say here in the UK, and these women feel they are being forced wearing it, then they should just elope! If you've just emigrated into in the UK you should know enough about the place to realise it is British custom to have freedom of choice, there's plenty of shelters.

The key thing is that running away will be at the expense of your beliefs. That's right, people are shit scared of the unknown, so they stick to what they know. In that case if it ain't broke, then why fix it? Who is to say that behind closed doors burka wearing woman don't party like it's 1999? We don't know because we are not of that religion nor custom so can't understand it nor know enough to see what it does for a person or a household.

Unless one comes and tells me otherwise, I care not to post on this topic anymore, mainly because who are we to judge? I can't judge because

1. I'm not a muslim woman.
2. I've only experienced UK culture.
3. I'm not religious and don't know enough about Islam etc to give a balanced arguement.
4. I don't believe the fear-mongering by the media etc.
5. When I combine points 3 & 4, I see that I'm too ignorant to really know what's going on there! My bad!

Just a point - children never wear burqas because they are reserved for women over the marriageable age.

Oh please. If that lifestyle consists (among other restraints) in being forced to marry a stranger while still in their teens and in being constrained to always have their entire body and face hidden by clothing, would women (who know about other lifestyles and who have a real opportunity of choice) really choose that? Imagine yourself as being one of those women (or imagine your sister or girlfriend or female friend, for better gender representation) and you'll know what the choise will be. Don't assume that choice would be different just because they're muslims, they are not aliens from another planet, they may have a different religion, but otherwise they're pretty much like us.



I don't think the danes are trying to dictate what people can and cannot wear. I think they're trying to make sure that young people are not being forced, in the name of tradition, to wear something they would not choose to wear otherwise, something opressive. That's the subtle difference. Whether or not they will/can achieve this through means other than baning, it remains to be seen but it's definitely another subject of discussion.

As for nationalism, I totally agree with Sasheron and her 1st person point of view idea. But I somehow understand Astaroth in this respect too, because I've been to Sweden this spring, and if Denmark is anything like Sweden (and I'm pretty sure it is), then it's definitely one of the best places on this Earth to live in, human quality wise.

"Oh please" yourself, mate! Don't assume that you know what choices people would make, and don't assume I haven't put myself mentally in these positions.

I'm not defending this thing as a custom, but I am saying that

a) Banning is a blunt instrument on these issues
and
b) The assumption that all women wearing it are doing so because they are forced to, and none make an autonomous choice to do so, is inaccurate.

And of what is the deal with this "among other restraints" business? We are talking very specifically about one thing here; if you want to bring other related subjects into the discussion then I am very happy to do so, but with this paragraph you are conflating seperate issues, IMO.

As for this


No no no. People wanting to ban this out of compassion for women's rights I can certainly understand, and would no doubt find much common ground (although probably not agree for reasons already stated). But that is a facade. My goodness, if you could have seen the fuss made in UK newspapers on the subject a while back. How many papers had the headline "BAN THE BURKHA" and put underneath "because it is an instrument of repression"?

I guess precisely zero. Whereas how many reprinted the same headline and the gist of the following story was "because it's a threat to our values and security and I don't like it and anyway there are too many brown people here, they are all terrorists"? A great, great many. The reason Western governments take a hard line on these issues is entirely out of self interest. I believe this issue is often a proxy for Islamophobia, because attacking Muslims about this can be justified from a feminist perspective. In other words, people that just plain old don't like Muslims can stir up tensions in a manner that is acceptable to the liberal establishment.

Oh, and if I was feeling very ambitious I would argue that it is also a proxy for Western sexism, because it is a convenient means for deflecting attention away from the continuing oppression of women in our own culture ;-)

... It's not nearly as simple as that in my country, i can tell you that much. I admit our countries are different, but i still don't believe that freedom of choice even in UK is a certain guarantee that women can decide for themselves, to do so requires cultural, cognitive and social tools and skills, neither avaible to to the majority of women immigrating from the middle east. They don't come by themselves either, they have to be learned, and at last they have to overcome their family. It's also important to keep in mind that muslims in the danish ghettos differ from those living next door to natives. And no, i do not stigmatize all muslims living in the ghettos, some are okay, but many haven't adopted to our ways of thinking yet. I don't interily put the blame on them as such, though.

I also admit, that i'm not only against burqas because it seems oppressive, i have several reasons already mentioned directly and indirectly, I have more cons than pros.




women don't wear burqas when indoor, and muslims are for the most part not allowed to drink alcohol. When i say the most part, i mean moderate muslims and "culture muslims" care less about religious restrictions.

I will return to alaborate and give you answers, Rio, once i get the time to do so.

That's ok I'm going away for 2 weeks tomorrow so I may have to extricate myself from this discussion imminently

So? What was your answer when you did that?



b) I am perfectly aware that there are also women who would willingly make that choice. But there are exceptions to everything and I'm pretty sure those are exceptions and nothing more, that's why I don't really consider them relevant. Now, I can say they're exceptions and you can say the opposite (if you really think that) untill we both get old and nothing will change. The only ways of solving this are that mental exercise I talked before or a survey providing some data. But I don't know of any survey on this issue and I imagine it would be awfully difficult for anybody to do one.

a) I never said banning is efficient. Or the only way. Or desirable. I simply don't know that the best solution is. But I believe this particular tradition needs to be eliminated somehow.



That was just a footnote observation, not an attempt of diverting the discussion towards something else. Thus, the parenthesis.



If that was the situation in UK, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the same in Denmark. From Astaroth's posts I got the impression it is rather out of compassion than out of government self interest and I have no reason to doubt him. By the way, here's some food for thought: did you know that burkhas are banned in Tunis? That's a country with 98% arab population and 99% muslims. The "liberal establishment doesn't like Muslims stiring up tensions so they use the burkha issue as a proxy for Islamophobia" theory isn't very effective in this case, now is it ?

Have fun on your trip and a good new year's eve.

This is silly reasoning, Old School. Rio has basically said everything I would say, except:



You later admitted that many women might still choose to wear burqas due to their belief system; so how is forcing all women to give up burqas any different from forcing them to wear them? I do know women who have decided to stop wearing burqas and have become less religious; similarly, I know women who want to wear burqas. You should always have the choice, and all of this "lets ban burqas and all symbols of non-Christian religion!" bullshit is all a result of paranoia that the muslims are suddenly going to overtake our society and we'll all become terrorists. For some unfathomable reason, its a big issue here now in Quebec, where people are already paranoid enough about English Canada and are now expressing their displeasure with all minorities who do things differently, from Jews to immigrants. Its ridiculous... and indeed, the majority of muslim women interviewed here (muslim women who have regular jobs, go to school, etc..) want to keep their burqas. So hey, lets just impose our culture on them?

Nope, I didn't admit such thing. I never said many. I said some. Exceptions. This is what I said, and this is what I believe. And I believe this because I consider burqa one of those traditions that go against human nature. And humans always follow their nature when religion or society imposed barriers are somehow removed. Always. I can elaborate on this, if you wish.



It may not be different, but it can be justified. In the same way it's justifiable to be searched or even ordered to undress when boarding a plain. It's a violation upon us, but we accept it for some greater good (namely safety). In the burqa case, it would not about safety, but about protection from the social isolation that the wearing of such an item triggers.

But for the record, I never said I agree with banning, so there's really no need to try and prove the wrongs of this measure. Not to me, at least.



Maybe that's the case in Canada. But, I repeat, I didn't get the impression that was the case in Denmark. And most definitely it isn't the case in Tunis. How do you comment that example? Why does a Muslim country ban the burqa? I'd be curious to hear your or rio's take on this one.

Btw, I fail to see what's so silly about my arguments, maybe you can point it out.

I found your reasoning to be silly (and perhaps it was the wrong word to use) because you're imposing Western values and ideals upon other societies. How does the burqa, for example, go against human nature? It goes against modern western values of sexual equality, since men do not have to wear them; but human nature is such a large term that I think its impossible for it to be used in a discussion like this. I really would appreciate it if you would elaborate on this point.



I assume you mean this in reference to the rest of a western society. This statement implies two things: One, that wearing a burqa automatically entails social isolation (which is as far from fact as you get; I know many, and know of many women who wear burqas and participate in society to varying degrees, as all people do vary; hell, a lot of the controversy here in Quebec comes from women with burqas interacting more with the social world, by say, playing soccer, as opposed to being hidden out of view). The second is that if a cultural practice causes a large number of people to act like dicks in response, that cultural practice should be amended (at least I think this is what you meant; correct me if I'm wrong). I really cannot agree with such a stance; it smacks too much of "we're the mob, we can decide what or what not is acceptable based on our prejudices." Being black entailed social isolation for the majority of the past four centuries; does that make discrimination against blacks justified?

I'll post more on this later... Sorry, but I got a take home exam to finish in three hours. A very interesting discussion, though.

interesting question. I think it does in many ways.
I think it's more interesting to see it from a social view on sex as a whole. Any sociaties with rapes, sexual frustration and tabus cannot have a view on human sexuality that is of human nature. An easy example would be catholic priest. Their view on sexuality is very reknown, on the other hand they tend to have sexual frustrations which little choir boys have to pay for it.
In the middle east there are rapist and sexual frustrations as well. A funny thing is that there is alot of homosexuality among younger men, since sex with women are quite hard to come by - another thing is that you're only gay if you recieve it in the ass, the other guy is seen as being straight - even a real man.
In the west it is the other way around. You are gay no matter what, and girls are the ones who are more like to have had homosexual experiences.

It is wellknown that there are fewer sexual criminals among nudist, who have a relaxed relationship to the body, and i don't even think they exist among nature ppl, you know the old school bush men. So imo they live according to human nature the closets. I do not know their view on homosexuality, though - homosexuality may be gay, but it's still a natural thing, however i don't consider ppl who are gay just because it's trendy or because they get turned on by the fact it's a tabu are co-existing with their human nature.

There's still some kind of tabus in the west despite the so-called sexual revolution. However, it might be due to christianity, but it's also because of christianity that sex have been as commercialized as it is today - they have made sex what it is today. On the other low selfesteem due to ideals have also contributed to an akward attitude towards the human body - many hate their own bodies - and then there's the stud vs slut problem. Among primitive nature ppl sex is as common as shaking hands, women are just as horny as the men, and sex in general is not such a big deal - would that be any fun in the west? I really don't know.

So to get back the burqa, no, it's is not human nature to cover up your body, identity and sexuality - the puritanical ideal that lies behind it, puritanism is not human nature. The only human naturistic about is that a long time ago some puny little men wanted to make sure that nobody looked the wrong way at their spouse and ran of with them, nor did they want her to have any reference in bed - the only threat would be ppl getting turned on by slutty ghosts. Lust is natural and so is jealousy, the latter is the reason why i don't think polygami lies in human nature
Sure thing, it also natural to explain the world by means of religion and have a cultural identity, however, that does not mean it is co-existing with human nature when it comes to sexuality. The monoteistic religions are the worst when it comes to this.

You see, this is why a term like human nature should never come up in a discussion like this: It has such variance meanings to different people. You seem to associate lack of clothing (and therefore primal, animalistic actions as representative of man's true nature. I say that thats nonsense, largely due to the fact that every society I've ever learned about has had clothing, and even more damningly, a type of fashion. This would indicate that humans are drawn to clothing as both a protection from the outside world, and also because clothes can have symbolic meaning- even today, it is expected of a business man to wear a business suit, and a band's t-shirt states that you like the band. Similarly, a jewish kippa or a burqa represents an aspect of your religious beliefs. The fact that humans are generally drawn to organizations (or societies) which dictate both clothing and which involves belief in some higher power says to me that these things are as just a much a part of human nature as lust. Furthermore, your statement that "primitive peoples" are drawn to sex is such an oversweeping generalization it hurts- these peoples do have wars, they do have crimes, and they do have clothing! I also don't understand why, even if the statement were true, these people would be representative of human nature and not others. Why can't human nature be an incredibly multifaceted and contradictory thing? I think it is.



These claims are rather pointless. Fewer sex crimes among nudists? Well, there are sex crimes among nudists- we do know that (example: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistH ... emens.html)
What does it mean to say that there are fewer, considering the incredible small number of people who are nudists? It seems silly to me to compare an incredibly small group with about the rest of the population of the world.

It just seems like your point is that human nature is animal nature is human nature. Which is certainly a part of human nature, but to deny that man is different from animals is kind of silly. The fact that man has consistently drawn itself into societies over and over and over again no matter what suggests that societies- with all their rules and regulations- are just as much a part of human nature as our primal urges, whether you're in a hunter gatherer society or an agarian one or an industrial one. Just as ideas about societies are different everywhere, so too are ideas about sexuality. It seems impossible to me to state that one type is the definitive human nature, while the rest are all aberrations.

And coming back to the burqa argument, if this is what you argue, then you shouldn't in fact be arguing for the banning of burqas- you should be arguing for the banning of all clothing and sexual regulations. To strike specifically at the burqa when you have such a huge agenda would seem rather petty.

I try not to talk from a Western values stand point here (actually, I come from a country that, in many respects, social wise, has much more in common with a Muslim country like Turkey than with UK or Canada), nor from an Eastern value standpoint, but from beyond all these. What I mean is: humans are one rase, with the same instincts and basic needs, regardless of their different religions, traditions etc. Yes, we are being sculpted, shaped in some measure by our environment, culture, traditions, religions etc, in very different ways from region to region, but take these away, erase their influence and you will find a common fond underneath. Same needs (food, shelter, sex, power etc), same emotions (love, hate, lust, jealosy, grief, joy etc) and same abilities (intelligence, imagination, creativity etc). Those are the basis of human nature, common everywhere. Of these, burqa does affect the sex part, in some measure, though not alone, but together with other restrictions. And Astaroth is spot on in his description of the situation in Middle East in this respect (I happen to know a few things about this, my former girlfriend had a lot of arab friends and she actually had dated the son of Sudan’s foreign minister for a few years). But that’s not what I had in mind when I said it’s against human nature.

There is another common trait for us all, maybe the most important one: sociability. We are social beings, always have been, probably always will. People have family life, work life and social life. Maybe some don’t have the first two, but everybody has the third. “Humans are social beings. Those that are not are either subhumans or superhumans” said Aristoteles, if I’m not mistaking. Social life consists in person-to-person interaction, and you need communication abilities for that. We mainly think about verbal language when we talk about person-to-person communication, but the communication based on facial expressions is almost as essential. The importance of the face in social interaction and social intelligence is by now widely recognized in anthropology. And this is where, unlike an European dress or a Japanese kimono or any other fashion, the burqa interferes. It hides the face. What happens when facial expressions communication is hindered? Let’s hear from scientists:


Human Facial Expressions as Adaptations: Evolutionary Questions in Facial Expression Research

Now, these guys are not refering to burqa, but, in society, burqa has the same effect as facial paralysis: it makes it completely impossible for the person wearing it to communicate this way. And this is, in my opinion, an abuse that person is subjected to. Whether she asked for it or not. The way we communicate with our facial expressions is intrisic to the human nature, and burqa violates this.

I could go on now about a few other issues but I guess this post is long enough as it is.

Apparently i'm not good enough at explaining myself. I meant primitive ppl living in nature have a natural relationship to the body, instead of an alienated approach to it like many christians f.ex. have, or unhealthy view on sex as a chatholic pastor once said.


When i say "primitive" i mean ppl living in nature, be it aboriginals, bushmen or indians, and many pagan cultures. To say they aren't drawn to sex is a rather retarded, especielly because most of them celebrate human sexuality. War and crimes as such is not an argument against their sexuality. I don't believe crime other than violence between young alpha males perhaps exist within an established community such as these, but war crimes against other communities do. Greed and fighting over territories is human nature too, animals do, we did it, and still do. Of course, these days we try our best to make other "territories" work for us, and not against us, so that we might still be able to benefit from them one day.
What I was talking about was rape, pedophilia, fistfucking, putting pensils into your peehole etc, which occur less among ppl who wasn't brought up by sick molesters, or parents (or sociaties) who told them that the human body was nasty and sinfull.
Imo, whenever the human psychology responds in a negative way to tabus it cannot be the right way. Just like turning the other cheek in christianity, repression is a bad idea and can lead to abnormal behavior in the long run.


Ever heard of procentage?
And congratulation to you for finding a child molester pretending to be a nudist. When i say nudist i mean ppl who truely believes that they shouldn't hide their bodies or be ashamed of it, not wankers who just want easy access to other naked ppl in a sexual manner.


What exactly was it that i wrote?! I wrote that it was human nature to create religions, societies and cultures too. When it comes to sexuality it is something that has been dictated mainly by men and stupidity, something all moneteistic religion historical has in common. It is not natural to see the body as a something that should hidden away or looked upon in disgust, in doing so you have devided the mind and body into two seperate entities, one is good and one is repulsive, alienation and ambivalence towards oneself is not a good thing.


To quote Schwarzenegger: "Whatever your name is, get ready for the big surprise! You are not you, you're me." I didn't use this discussion as an argument against burqas. I just argued that I found the ideals behind the burqa to strive against human nature. I don't argue that we should all walk about butt naked either, but i do think that some clothings are worse than others when it comes to the perception of the body.
Banning sexual regulations is impossible, there's none, except for an obvious one against sexual relationship with children, family members and rape. The only thing to do is to be open about human sexuality, this doesn't mean that everything we do and talk about has to be about sex, but it's still a good way to get rid of old ideals - unless you are a muslim and can't tolerate a drawing of a penis in class - so fucking stupid btw.

I liked what you, OldSchool, wrote about communication, social interaction and facial expression. I think it is a better point than mine, actually, and more relevant.

It was also this I meant when i wrote earlier that women in burqas had a harder time socializing - socializing with other ppl without burqas, and maintaining a job in general - there's a whole series of jobs where the facial expression plays a big part, heck most jobs requires some kind of social interaction. Working with babies, children and elderly ppl requires a burqa free face in particular - it's about feeling presence* and confidence, burqas only create distance. Anyone who sais elsewise should read some basic psychology about human interaction and how children bonds and socialize with other human beings.

(*the meaning of english word "presence" might differ from the context I was looking for.)