The Never-Ending and Quite Exasperating Debate We All Know of

[Thumpalumpacus]

I hold that no government has any business telling people how to dress or what they do with their bodies.

If you went into Walmart stark naked, the police would make you leave. You'd get a ticket, probably, if you weren't Baker Acted. 

If your mom wanted to go to McDonald's topless, she would get in trouble. 

Our society has rules dictating how we dress. Different societies tell people they have to cover up different bits. I assume you're OK with your government enforcing the anti-naked-in-Walmart law, which means that you accept legal limits on dress -- just different ones from some other countries.

Surely you know the difference between social mores and government laws. The two overlap at times, but I should hope that what I wrote was clear: the government shouldn't tell people how to dress, nor should it seize bodily autonomy from any upstanding citizen barring the commitment of a crime.

Is there anything else you need explained to you?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure I want to go to bat for a system that slaps a sexual predator tag on people caught pissing in public. There's obviously alot wrong with the way our society uses our government to enforce it's dress codes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's obviously alot wrong with the way our society uses our government to enforce it's dress codes.

Of course -- I wasn't arguing those laws were just. I was arguing that gov't ought not be doing that. I had thought that was clear.

[Paleophyte]

I hold that no government has any business telling people how to dress or what they do with their bodies.

If you went into Walmart stark naked, the police would make you leave. You'd get a ticket, probably, if you weren't Baker Acted. 

If your mom wanted to go to McDonald's topless, she would get in trouble. 

Our society has rules dictating how we dress. Different societies tell people they have to cover up different bits. I assume you're OK with your government enforcing the anti-naked-in-Walmart law, which means that you accept legal limits on dress -- just different ones from some other countries.

First, both Walmart and McDonald's are privately owned businesses. They are free to make whatever rules they like regarding attire on their premises. Some upscale restaurants won't admit you in anything less than a three-piece suit.

Second, much of the world has no law against a woman going topless, including many US states.

Third, the law about keeping your nickers on may have some basis in basic hygiene but is largely ridiculous. As Thump states, the government has no place making those sorts of laws. Just because we have daft laws doesn't mean that they make any moral sense.

Perhaps you need a higher bar than "the acceptable dress code in Walmart".

[Belacqua]

Third, the law about keeping your nickers on may have some basis in basic hygiene but is largely ridiculous. As Thump states, the government has no place making those sorts of laws. Just because we have daft laws doesn't mean that they make any moral sense.

Many parts of the US do have laws against nudity in public places. 

I understand you think these laws are "largely ridiculous." But if they are instituted by the democratically elected officials of that community, then I assume they reflect the social mores of that area. 

As you say, different places have different laws because they have different customs. What makes moral sense in one culture may seem like nonsense to you. 

I suppose you could argue for some kind of universal non-contingent moral truth, that it is OK to have your bits swinging on the public sidewalk. To me it makes more sense that laws reflect the will of the people.

[Prycejosh1987]

I believe Muslims can learn from Christians in conduct and in beliefs and how we function. Love is not a dress code but a hearts desire.

[Leonardo17]

First things first: The Koran describes the Pharaoh (in the story of the Prophet Moses) as someone “who had a hand on the uterus of women”. So from an Islamic perspective, I see it as a negative sign when policy makers get involved in the human reproductive system in a controlling and imposing manner. (I’m talking about the US State of Arizona regressing to the 1864 law on Abortion of course).
 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-top-c...27591.html
 

It isn’t the same thing.
I don’t know what the Koran says but the original text is in the tanakh.
it isn’t about women’s rights, it isn’t about abortions.
It is about racism/xenophobia, it is about genocide.
More importantly, it is about an evil people (the egyptians) abusing god’s people, which are the jews (according to the tanakh author)


The text starts at Exodus 1:5
Summary:
1. All the souls/people that came from Jacob were 70 souls/people.
2. Joseph and his brothers and the people of his generation died. I assume it is due to natural causes.
3. The jew population was going up by a lot.
4. There was a new king of Egypt. Let’s call him the nameless king.
5. The nameless king says to his people (the egyptians): Look, there are too many jews. This is a security risk. If we have another war with our enemy, the jews would join the enemy.
6. The nameless king decided to make the life of the jews difficult. They made them built 2 cities: Pithom and Raamses.
7. Since jews love hard work, this made them hornier and hornier and they had babies at a faster rate.
8. The egyptians made the life of the jews even worst. They made them make mortar and bricks.
9. The nameless king told the jew midwives that if a jew woman has a boy, kill it.
10. The jew midwives were afraid of the jewish god and so, they did not do any killing.
11. Somehow, the nameless king found out about this. He asked the jew midwives about it. The midwives said that egyptian women are crap and that jew women are happy, wonderful, full of joy.
12. The jew population kept going up. Apparently, the nameless king has not decided yet to kill the adult jews.
13. I think the nameless king killed the jew midwives.
14. The nameless king orders the police or the egyptian population to take the jew male babies and to throw them into the river.
15. At this point, the story of Moses starts: A levi man marries and levi woman and she has a male baby.
16. They don’t want baby Moses to be killed so, they build an ark of bulrushes, covered in slime and pitch.
17. They put baby Moses in the ark and near the river bank.

You may be right on this one.
 
Bu still: The mystical people that I know believe in some sort of symbolism that are hidden within the texts of the Quran.
 
For instance when Moses is confronting the magicians of the pharaoh, in the Quranic story he puts his right hand in his dress and when he takes it out again it is of pure white color.
 
Some scholars interpret this as the fact that Moses was not just a magician prevailing over other magicians. This episode has more to do with Truth (with a capital T) prevailing over the magic (the lies, brainwashing, mass hypnosis) of the Pharaoh.
 
So I’m not going to insist on this one, but if you go back to Hitler, he also believed than Aryan Women should be in one way and not another way. If you go back to Napoleon, he put laws in force that prevented kids from disobeying their fathers. And in the middle ages, other than the witch trials, the church wanted people to have sex in a given position and not in other positions (that’s how suspicious it was of all sorts of sexual energy).
 
So for me “Ramses had a hand on the Uterus of your women” means what you say (most probably). But I also read it as “Ramses was afraid of sexual energies / female energy and therefore he wanted to control it”. But this is one of the “deeper meanings” so I cannot impose it on anyone else

---

---

Ambrogda:

 
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-heal...rcna153349
 
That’s something that needs to be discussed if you have a long time partner. But it’s still a personal issue so I won’t add any comments on that subject.
 
On Dress code:
 
Sadhguru once said that there were people who wanted to cover up women to the centimeter. He also said that there were people who wanted to uncover them to the centimeter. He than concludes “Let the woman decide”.
 
While I’m perfectly fine with that solution, I don’t think I need to “like” what other people (both men and women) are wearing.  

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't like the wizard battle in magic book, decides to make it a metaphor...for...you know...something.

[Leonardo17]

I’m not really an expert on the subject. I’ve only had one semester of Cultural Anthropology back in my college years.
  But there is this well known phenomenon. Ancient societies have established some rules or taboo’s on some issues to help regulate some practical issues; like the restriction of sex in order to promote matrimony.

  The “Namos” (honor / chastity) issue in middle-eastern societies is something like that.

  The part that is of interest to us is the enmeshment of these traditional / cultural / tribal values with religious values. Religious values are actually much more modern than these traditional behavioral codes. One very strong possibility is that early missionaries chose not to mess with these values while promoting their own theology in an attempt to not anger those primitive populations.

  One thing is for sure: The word “Namos” is not mentioned in the Quran. And technically, the hijab is mainly a tool to reinforce this “namos” ideology or tribal value.

  And I’m sure there are many parallel to that in all other religions.