woman rights in Islam

[Violet]

It is true nonetheless Because beneath that ninja costume is you Wearing specific things does not change who we are... but it can represent who we are.

[fr0d0]

Then onto Islamic dress codes. Isn't hiding and not fully revealing romantic? Women use this tactic, is doesn't have to be seen as oppressive. All intelligent & rational followers I've spoken to prescribe to this viewpoint. So they made it part of their societies rulings. Aren't they just different to us? Are we so perfect?

No, it is not done for romance purposes... and even if it was: It is not something they change out of soon afterward (see the vile corset?). I take it that if a society stones a woman to death because she got raped... that you think they are 'right' simply because they are a society?

You seem to want to sidestep everything Sae. How is it not romantic? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Of course a societies standards are brought about by consensus of opinion. Going sharply from one to another is going to raise questions when the rest of your cultural influences are out of balance. I don't see how the development of a woman's modesty into cultural normality could be anything other that romantic in it's roots.

So women commonly choose to alter and adorn their bodies. Aren't breast augmentation and botox enhancements equally if not more vile? In some discussions here it seems the anti religious view is to uphold a societal approach to morality so your scenario is true for them. Personally I find that abhorrent.

[chatpilot]

Christianity,Judaism etc. are all middle eastern belief systems where the woman is a second class citizen and in some parts of the middle east she is property. It surprises me how many women are faithful Christians considering how god comes off as a male chauvinistic pig.

[Dotard]

What all of you are referring to is called machismo ....

No it ain't. We were not refering to male dominance over females. We were refering to contributing to the likelihood of a crime being committed against you and your possessions by flaunting or exposing your possession to the public. Crimes including rape and possessions including body parts.

Nothing at all to do with men dominating women in societies. These crimes are not exclusively man on woman. Women do commit these crimes (rape included) against other women although it is fairly rare for women to be convicted of serious sex crimes. In most cases women manage to plead down to such an extent that only real penalty is being placed on a sex offender list.

[Eilonnwy]

---

I'm jumping in late to the conversation but I have to respond to the comments made here. .

Sae's response, immediately following your post, spoke my mind. To respond would be to repeat her points.

So I will;

First off, i agree with the fact that nobody is EVER asking to be raped... but that was not the point.

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 I meant by "the way it is", 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. In this particular 'letching' example if that means not wearing that super-low cut show-the-titties top then that's what you have to do.

You state 'it's fun to dress sexy', well, it's "fun" to wave my slag money around in poor people's faces. It (fun) doesn't remove your responsibility to protect what's yours including hiding it and not waving it around in the faces of those who desire it, cannot obtain it through legitimate means and have no problem forcefully removing it from your possesion.

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

---

I have two problems with what you have said. First, you equate women with possessions that can be used and abused. That view is incredibly detrimental to understanding women and the crime of rape. Personally, I'm offended by that statement, although I do understand you didn't intend it as on offensive statement.

Second, and more importantly, your statement that a woman needs to cover themselves up to avoid rape is patently false. Sexual attractiveness is not the cause of rape, it's practically irrelevant. So your reasoning is not only demeaning to women...it's false.

http://www.rwu.edu/studentlife/studentse...emyths.htm
http://kiosk.ucsb.edu/CampusSafety/RapeA...sault.aspx

[Dotard]

I have two problems with what you have said.

No I do not intend to be offensive. If I personally offend you, I am sorry you find me offensive.

Ok... how can I spin this so Eli can understand my reasoning.....


If I'm in prison and I went around wearing one of these ---> would I, or would I not, maybe just possibly be contributing to the likelihood of a crime being commited against me?

In that same senerio if I went around wearing a money belt with money hanging out of it would I, or would I not, maybe just possibly be contributing to the likelihood of a crime being commited against me?

It's ok, I have no problem equating my body with my other possessions, so a yes or no will suffice.

[Violet]

I have two problems with what you have said. First, you equate women with possessions that can be used and abused. That view is incredibly detrimental to understanding women and the crime of rape. Personally, I'm offended by that statement, although I do understand you didn't intend it as on offensive statement.

Second, and more importantly, your statement that a woman needs to cover themselves up to avoid rape is patently false. Sexual attractiveness is not the cause of rape, it's practically irrelevant. So your reasoning is not only demeaning to women...it's false.

Anyone... anything... can be used, Eilon. Are you suggesting that women can't be either used or abused? I don't think anyone was equating women entirely with possessions... but if something can be used (and note that women [and in fact any person] CAN be used... or else we couldn't be 'abused')... then it usually follows that it can be abused. Is it offensive to understand that a woman can be abused?

Not at all the intention.

No it ain't. We were not refering to male dominance over females. We were refering to contributing to the likelihood of a crime being committed against you and your possessions by flaunting or exposing your possession to the public. Crimes including rape and possessions including body parts.

It isn't so much to avoid rape... as to be targeted less for it (If I were going to commit a rape, [and I had my choice of whom] I can assure you that I would choose to rape the sexiest and most vulnerable looking person I could quickly find [Not only would it be more logical to rape the most vulnerable... it would be most 'fun?' to rape the sexy]). Sexual attractiveness is not the cause of rape... but it sure as hell can help select the target.

Compare that to money. If I were going to steal money from someone, (and I had my choice of whom) I can assure you that I would choose to steal from the richest and most vulnerable looking person I could quickly find [Not only would it be more logical to steal from the most vulnerable... it would also be most 'worthwhile?' to steal from the rich]. Richness is not the cause of theft... but it sure as hell can help select the target.

Edit: Dotard's picture example above brings home this point visually 2nd edit note: Holy fruitcake, it took me more than 30 minutes to write this

As in: it is a secondary reason, beyond the primary of who's most easily 'available'. Of course, you do not need worry about flaunting your money if you can defend that money (and of course yourself)... and it is the same way with flaunting your body. That's why you should carry concealed (or at least a long knife, or the like), travel with a buddy or two, stay near other people, and essentially not be a moron about defending what is yours. If your body is yours: it is your job to defend it... and others around you need to respect that you own it (and are defending it).

There are of course, people who will not fully respect that it is yours... and may try to use it without your consent, abuse it, and/or vandalize it. Which is why we should always 'carry concealed'.

[Eilonnwy]

Dotard, the more you try to explain yourself, the more you offend me. When women wear clothing that may show skin, it is nowhere near the same as walking around in ass-less chaps. You're trying desperately to justify your position and now you're resorting to absurdity. I understand the premise you are trying to assert. I disagree with it, it's wrong on many levels, as I have explained, and especially when it comes to the facts about rape. Women are not raped for being attractive and wearing revealing clothes. This is a well-documented fact, of which I provided links. Therefore your analogy completely and utterly fails. It does not consider the facts of rape, and only further demeans women when you suggest they should cover up lest they be leered at or raped.

[Violet]

Dotard, the more you try to explain yourself, the more you offend me. When women wear clothing that may show skin, it is nowhere near the same as walking around in ass-less chaps.

Woah there... what was that? How is a woman (or man) 'showing skin' any different than a man (or woman) wearing 'assless chaps'? How can varying clothing choice (or lack of such) offend you?

You're trying desperately to justify your position and now you're resorting to absurdity. I understand the premise you are trying to assert. I disagree with it, it's wrong on many levels, as I have explained, and especially when it comes to the facts about rape. Women are not raped for being attractive and wearing revealing clothes. This is a well-documented fact, of which I provided links.

You provided links, which I countered with this analogy here:

---

It isn't so much to avoid rape... as to be targeted less for it (If I were going to commit a rape, [and I had my choice of whom] I can assure you that I would choose to rape the sexiest and most vulnerable looking person I could quickly find [Not only would it be more logical to rape the most vulnerable... it would be most 'fun?' to rape the sexy]). Sexual attractiveness is not the cause of rape... but it sure as hell can help select the target.

Compare that to money. If I were going to steal money from someone, (and I had my choice of whom) I can assure you that I would choose to steal from the richest and most vulnerable looking person I could quickly find [Not only would it be more logical to steal from the most vulnerable... it would also be most 'worthwhile?' to steal from the rich]. Richness is not the cause of theft... but it sure as hell can help select the target.

---

It is true that being sexy is not the cause of rape (Hence how non-human animals are sometimes raped, which is quite related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia a linky for you)... but it is an great part of the choice for whom to rape. It is true that riches are not the cause for theft (Here is a link to prove this: http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/868944.html )... but that riches are an great part of the choice of whom to steal from.

Therefore your analogy completely and utterly fails. It does not consider the facts of rape, and only further demeans women when you suggest they should cover up lest they be leered at or raped.

Our analogies were quite brilliant so far as I see. They consider the agenda of the rapist/thief... rather than the reason for the rapist/thief to want to do such. I still don't see how being realistic is being demeaning...

[Dotard]

Fine, you find me offensive, you established that. I find you to be a bad at bowling. With that out of the way now..........

Answer the question Eilo. Answer the question, yes or no?

The analogies are just fine. Sae's points are spot on. Your 'well documented facts' were nothing but some campus rape awareness flyers.

Here's my 'documented facts';

Linky

and a little excerpt;

“educational programs aimed at reducing the
vulnerability of women to sexual coercion are dependent on the
acquisition of information concerning risk factors.” We also claim that a
woman’s appearance and behavior might have some influence on these
10 risk factors. --> Camille Paglia <--(a woman!) introduced this same reality into the discussion
of rape on page 50 of her book Sex, Art, and American Culture (Vintage,
1992): “Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling
women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything.
No, they can’t. Women will always be in sexual danger . . . feminism, with
its pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the perfect world, keeps young women
from seeing life as it is.”


And another one; Linky

a snipet;

" Young women also need a new kind of education. For example, in today's rape-prevention handbooks, women are often told that sexual attractiveness does not influence rapists. That is emphatically not true. Because a woman is considered most attractive when her fertility is at its peak, from her mid-teens through her twenties, tactics that focus on protecting women in those age groups will be most effective in reducing the overall frequency of rape."

Maybe, just maybe, it is you Ms. Eilo, who does not fully understand why rape occurs.