woman rights in Islam

[leo-rcc]

If a woman exposes herself in a manner that is sexually provocative in her society then she has no right to bitch about getting 'letched' at.

So you have the right to say how a woman should dress?

You missed the point so completely it boggles the mind. Show us anywhere in his post were he or anyone else dictates the way any person should dress.

Should women not have the right to dress the way they want?

Of course they have that right. Should men not have the right to look at the way women are dressed when walking in public?

A step on from your post is that if a woman exposes herself in a manner that is sexually provocative in her society then she is asking to be raped.

No, because that involves a sexual action without consent. If you try to equate looking at women in public with rape than I am rather disappointed with you. I had you pegged for more intelligent than that.

I suppose you will say she has no rights there neither?

There is no 'neither', you are presupposing something there isn't. Your or any other woman's right to dress how they like is not being challenged here. I suggest you read the posts again.

In 2007 I was in Ipswich for a roboteering event where I dressed up in my Juggalo outfit, complete with the facepaint, dark clothes and cane. During the afternoon break we decided on getting a bite to eat at the Burger King in town. I knew all to well that my get up would cause attention, since it wasn't Halloween yet, so I had a decision to make. Get changed, or go as I was. That is my right. I have the choice. I am not going to bitch and complain if someone looks at me funny when I do it.

[AngelaRachnid]

You missed the point so completely it boggles the mind. Show us anywhere in his post were he or anyone else dictates the way any person should dress.

Well that's autism for you, BTW Dotard did not reply to any post it was simply a straight post on the thread no indications there was a response to anything nothing, just a simple post saying that

If a woman exposes herself in a manner that is sexually provocative in her society then she has no right to bitch about getting 'letched' at.

Which indicates to me that women have no right to compliain = bitch if they dress the way they want to which coincidentally is sexually provocative to men (and some women)

Of course they have that right. Should men not have the right to look at the way women are dressed when walking in public?

yes they should but not to pass judgment like Dotard did

No, because that involves a sexual action without consent. If you try to equate looking at women in public with rape than I am rather disappointed with you. I had you pegged for more intelligent than that.

That excuse was actually lifted from the judges remarks in a UK rape case a few years back which stuck in my mind, the majority of rapes are by people who know the victim = looking

There is no 'neither', you are presupposing something there isn't. Your or any other woman's right to dress how they like is not being challenged here. I suggest you read the posts again.

Did so and find some of the posts very sexist...but thats just my view

In 2007 I was in Ipswich for a roboteering event where I dressed up in my Juggalo outfit, complete with the facepaint, dark clothes and cane. During the afternoon break we decided on getting a bite to eat at the Burger King in town. I knew all to well that my get up would cause attention, since it wasn't Halloween yet, so I had a decision to make. Get changed, or go as I was. That is my right. I have the choice. I am not going to bitch and complain if someone looks at me funny when I do it.

Irrelevant, last night Halloween i was dressed as a satanist asking for virgins to be sacrificed (which was a big joke comming from the area i live in), nothing to do with sexuality etc

A

[Violet]

A woman choosing to dress provocatively might not think of all possible viewers. I'm sure a woman would dress differently to go to a nightclub and to teach kindergarten. Suppose then a woman finds herself in the wrong situation... then she'd be embarrassed if 'under' dressed.

I'm a bit like Evie. I am attracted but then get embarrassed that I do. Women are then embarrassed that I look away and are always prudish around me. I guess they're not 'dressing up' for me but for other hunks they expect to meet

Objectification of women is damaging to both sexes IMO.

And for my religion's view on women... in the creation story beings are formed in order of complexity. The last thing created was woman.

Why should a woman feel 'under' dressed at any time but one in which they are cold? So far as I can tell... there is nothing in the slightest wrong (or embarrassing) with 'provocatively?' dressing, dressing in a trench coat, or not bothering to wear clothing at all

But I am bit like you and Evie... in that I am attracted to people (I like looking at faces and other defining features of a person)... but am too embarrassed by <removed>, so i usually just avert my head and sneak short, disguised glances with my peripherals And yes, if I present my body (and perhaps additional artwork [clothes, paint, etc.]) with a particular theory in mind: I will definitely be disappointed if it fails to 'work'. However, if whatever I was trying to do 'worked?': Then I will dance a little inside So far as I know... I'm not alone in that

Objectification of people is damaging to people, in my opinion. There is no "Who" that can be asked of my table... but if you can degrade a person to the point of being no different than my table: then that would be to undervalue them immensely.

Then how did mormonism and islam (and even much of christianity and judaism) manage to trade their daughters as cattle? <remembers one of fr0d0's sigs> Ah yes, that would be Christian imperfection... not Christianity's imperfection

[Dotard]

If a woman exposes herself in a manner that is sexually provocative in her society then she has no right to bitch about getting 'letched' at.

So you have the right to say how a woman should dress?

Never claimed that. Women have the right to dress any way they wish without my consent.

Should women not have the right to dress the way they want?

Sure they do. I never claimed they did not.

A step on from your post is that if a woman exposes herself in a manner that is sexually provocative in her society then she is asking to be raped.

Nope. A woman should be able to walk down the street completely naked without fear of rape. Should be able to. But that is not the way it is. I should be able to walk down the street with a fistful of cash visible to the public without fear of getting robbed. Should be able to, but that's not the way it is. So with that in mind, if I walk down the street with a fistful of dollars, I am asking to get robbed.

It is incumbent upon me to take responsibility for my own safety and cover my money up. To hide it from those bad elements who wish to forcefully take it from me. Now if people are 'letching' at my cash and constantly asking me for some of it and that makes me uncomfortable what should I do? Cover it up, hide it. The uncomfortableness is my problem which I have created by flaunting my money in public and it is my responsibility to relieve myself of it by not inviting it.

I suppose you will say she has no rights there neither?

(Thank You Leo!) If my fistfull of money gets nickered I have the 'right' to pursue legal recourse if they catch the thief. Does that relieve me of my responsibility of prevention? Does it prevent the crime? Would you NOT say I 'asked for it'?


(edited to add eyeroll)

[leo-rcc]

There you go.

[Eilonnwy]

Nope. A woman should be able to walk down the street completely naked without fear of rape. Should be able to. But that is not the way it is. I should be able to walk down the street with a fistful of cash visible to the public without fear of getting robbed. Should be able to, but that's not the way it is. So with that in mind, if I walk down the street with a fistful of dollars, I am asking to get robbed.

It is incumbent upon me to take responsibility for my own safety and cover my money up. To hide it from those bad elements who wish to forcefully take it from me. Now if people are 'letching' at my cash and constantly asking me for some of it and that makes me uncomfortable what should I do? Cover it up, hide it. The uncomfortableness is my problem which I have created by flaunting my money in public and it is my responsibility to relieve myself of it by not inviting it.

I suppose you will say she has no rights there neither?

(Thank You Leo!) If my fistfull of money gets nickered I have the 'right' to pursue legal recourse if they catch the thief. Does that relieve me of my responsibility of prevention? Does it prevent the crime? Would you NOT say I 'asked for it'?

(edited to add eyeroll)

I'm jumping in late to the conversation but I have to respond to the comments made here. First and foremost, Dotard your analogy, while seemingly ok at first, falls apart when you consider it closely. You compare a woman dressing provocatively and getting leered at (or raped) to waving around money and it getting it stolen. Well there is a problem there, first and foremost, a woman does not have complete control over how they look. Yes they can wear makeup and a nice dress, but a woman is a woman and we have curves and body types that could be judged "provocative" under massive amounts of clothes.

This brings us to the problem of what is provocative. Some cultures judge short sleeves as provocative, other cultures don't bat an eyelash at women walking around topless. So if I walk around in T-shirt and pants that accentuates my body enough to compel a guy to cat call me or rape me, am I asking for it? Honestly, I've had guys whistle at me in the dead of winter when I'm wearing a long coat and scarf, barely any skin showing, and it's no less inappropriate than if I was wearing a pair of shorts and a tank top in the dead heat of summer.

When you even begin to suggest that the way a woman dresses in any way implies "She's asking for it" the way you would be if you were waving money around is atrocious and offensive. Women have been oppressed in horrible ways because of thinking just like this. In Islamic culture, a woman sometimes has to wear a tent so no curves are shown, if they do show skin or womanly and are raped it's THEIR fault. The justification is that women should know better because their bodies incite men. In essence, if women get according to Islamic tradition, if a woman is raped it's there fault. Yes, this is an extreme example but I'm justified in using it since this happens today based on similar reasoning you just put forth.

Furthermore, by your reasoning, if my iPod got stolen it's my own fault if I took it out to change a song. You cannot so easily categorize things based on "Well if you show it to people, what do you expect?"

I consider myself a reasonable dresser but when I go to conventions I like to let my hair down, so to speak, and I might dress in a sexy skirt and wear a fun wig. I do it because it's fun, because I like the way I look and I don't do it to pick up guys. (Actually, in truth, I tend to pick up women at convention parties...>.>) I'm not asking to get raped or leered at, I'm trying to have a good time and enjoy an outfit that looks fun. Sometimes it feels good to look sexy and that can be expressed in a way that in no means want to pick up a guy and have sex, certainly not raped. And say if a woman dressed sexy to have fun with guys, that is still not "asking" for it, the same way if I showed off my brand new iPod to some people, I'm not asking for it to be stolen.

In general people should display common sense, of course. For instance I will often ask for someone to accompany me or give me a ride if it's really late at night and I feel uncomfortable going home alone. But what if no one is available to do so and I still need to go home? Is it my fault I walked by the rapist that night?

It is unreasonable to say that woman should enjoy the same freedoms as men, chose their clothing and appearance as freely as a man can and then say "Oh she was wearing that skirt and she got raped? She was asking for it." It's absurd. A man who rapes a woman makes that conscious choice to do so, and if a woman says no and he violates that, it is his fault 100%. Trying to justify it by saying "She's asking for it" is a gross misunderstanding of the difficulties women face in a male oriented world.

[Violet]

First off, i agree with the fact that nobody is EVER asking to be raped... but that was not the point (As I interpreted it anyway).

How a person dresses does not detract from their being a person, and if they have a sex: there is potential for sexual abuse. If a substance can be used, there arises the potential for abuse. Money :: Woman :: Rope :: Kangaroo :: Notebook :: Nuclear Bomb :: Road Signs :: Piano :: Rotting Fish Guts :: Knowledge --> All substances that can be used, and usually that means they can be abused.

It isn't so much 'asking to be raped'... as it is presenting oneself a likelier and easier to access target. It is the same with waving around your money... you are not asking for it to be stolen... but you are placing attention upon the money... and thus making a robbery more likely.

That is what Dotard meant by "The way of things", and that it is sadly so. You are right that it isn't my fault my money was stolen because I was waving it around in people's faces... but doing so certainly could have contributed to the occurrence having happened. It is always the rapist's/murderer's/theif's/whatever's fault that a substance was abused or infringed upon... and that is precisely why we need to be able to protect that which we possess.

Possession is the law And you are right to state that it is absurd that a person was asking for the removal or abuse of something simply by possessing it

(Edit: changed treated poorly to infringed upon, as it is less likely to be misinterpreted imo )

[fr0d0]

Why should a woman feel 'under' dressed at any time but one in which they are cold? So far as I can tell... there is nothing in the slightest wrong (or embarrassing) with 'provocatively?' dressing, dressing in a trench coat, or not bothering to wear clothing at all Smile

I was thinking of something my wife once mentioned - someone turning up to kindergarten work in a very minimal skirt and top. All the staff were women and it put them off their lunch. Then you think if the kids were a bit older - it really would distract attention from what you might want the kids to be thinking about.

Likewise in any situation.. there really is no complete freedom. In most situations, if public, you'd be arrested. And that'd be ok with me. I really don't want to be subjected to it unless I choose to be.

If a substance can be used, there arises the potential for abuse. <snip> Knowledge --> All substances that can be used, and usually that means they can be abused.

So you're ok with religion now then Sae?

[Violet]

I was thinking of something my wife once mentioned - someone turning up to kindergarten work in a very minimal skirt and top. All the staff were women and it put them off their lunch. Then you think if the kids were a bit older - it really would distract attention from what you might want the kids to be thinking about.

And it would be perfectly acceptable so far as I can tell for them to teach in the nude. It would only distract their attention if a naked person was an uncommon sight. Say that in your culture... everyone wears really tall aluminum foil hats. You wouldn't glance twice at anyone wearing one of these hats, and you probably are wearing one yourself. If, however, you see someone without a hat on their head one day... you will be interested in knowing why they are not wearing a hat. You may dwell on the sight of their uncovered hair for lengthy periods of time.

Clothing is all like those aluminum foil hats. The wearing of clothing is chiefly cultural (See ornamental?), although one might need clothing for protection from the sun, cold, or an airborne zombie plague (and in those cases, the purpose for the clothing is environmental).

Likewise in any situation.. there really is no complete freedom. In most situations, if public, you'd be arrested. And that'd be ok with me. I really don't want to be subjected to it unless I choose to be.

Being arrested in public because one is not wearing body ornaments is also cultural. I see no reason whatsoever to arrest a person because they opted out of extensively decorating their body.

So you're ok with religion now then Sae?

Define okay I certainly see it primarily as a detriment to society, although I recognize how it can be used, even in the process of transitioning a primarily religious world into a primarily non-religious world

[fr0d0]

Ah I see Sae you're talking theoretically/ outside cultural reference. Well of course that's where your rules apply. I was talking about the real world over there >>

Primarily as a detriment yet primarily not I'd wager. I'm with you then.