Thread: Reason for Hijab: Womens hair emits dangerous sex rays

Originally Posted by Ray

It is time to check the genetic strain that makes Islamic women emit 'dangerous' sex-rays! It might help mankind.

I thought that was the major ingredient of Viagra.

But if we all take a step back here. There are varying degrees of sensibility. It wasn't that long ago in the west that female tennis players wore near burkhas, that bathing machines were in use at seaside resorts. That the sight of an ankle was shocking etc.

In the west Ancient greek art was "restricted viewing" because of the greek's fondness for erect penises and in the case of art depicting plays somewhat "supersized" phalluses.

Further there are those loony parts of the world that want horses and dogs etc to wear shorts and so on.

In fact nudity, whilst lets be honest, about as natural a thing as you can get, is a touchy subject the world over. Thong bikinis (often worn by those who shouldn't, sadly) have caused controversy in many places.

And then you have context, conformity and social standards. Bikinis are fine on the beach, but not in the office (well most of them). Why is that?

Now, forcing women to cover up is, well, bad. But the logic behind it has been with us for centuries. And i defy any heterosexual man here to say that they are not affected by the dress of women.

Equally how amny religions have a dress code? Lots and not just for women.

Equally how amny religions have a dress code? Lots and not just for women.

Most of them has a dress code, but this is the best reason for all....stupiity at its prime!

It is true that, why only women, men should be suitably dressed and not be in the raw in office or in a public place.

However, I wonder if looking and moving like sack with slit holes for navigation through the streets that being the only aperature for the eyes is the 'suitable' dress. I am sure some can carry it off with panache.

True, that all peoples of the world had social taboos and as you said, ankles were not shown and yes, bath-house (I saw a BBC programme just yesterday or was it National Geographic). However, the dress code evolved with the change of time and societal and workaday exigency.

In England, if one did not wear a tie and a suit or did not have their socks on, it was as offensive and taken as being naked.

The British sneered at the boorish way of the Americans in years not too far ago, but now they are more American than Americans in their dress and social customs. In fact, Blair was more casually dressed than Bush at one of their Press Briefings! So, they have changed. Imagine, the stiff upper lip British snooty joes, stooping to reality!

They used to dress for dinner. Now they don't. Possibly the cost of having so many clothes for the day, different for each meal or activity made them see reality. Or it was adequate to just have a fork as silverware instead of the elaborate soupspoon, tablespoon, dessert spoon, fish knives, normal knives, butter knives, fish forks, normal forks and so on. And have new plates for each course. Quarter plates, soup plates, dinner plates, breakfast plates, etc etc. Table napkins, tea serviette, sandwitch servietters and so on. And today? I saw a press report that said that now the trend is not to change their underwears woinf to the pressure on time! I wonder how far the last part is true, though.

Imagine wearing a burkha and working in a school chemistryl lab. There is always a chance of the burkha catching fire because of the bunsen burner or some chemical falling on the burkha, either soiling it or being eaten through by chemical reactions! Or working with machines and it getting tangled, resulting in an accident. maybe fatal. Even working in the office in a burkha could spill liquids like ink etc and create a mess or it getting caught in a dot matrix printer and so on.

Therefore, there is a case for a change or so it appears.

I refuse to have a meal unless in my tails and there are at least 5 courses. Old chap, what what? I leave my help to worry about the tableware. Always remember, start at the outside, work in.

Regarding our burkha wearing friends, reemmber that they are not allowed to work (ehnce avoding some of the perils your mention) or drive and so on.

I don't wish my comments to be misinterpreted. I would like to see the burkha done away with and women free to purse careers and their dreams as much as the next man. Hey if the burhka's are coming off i want ot be the next man

My posts were to highlight, however, that in even enlightened societies it takes something to change attitudes. In the UK women gained a lot of independence thanks to the efforts of the Kaiser and the Fuhrer. This enabled women to gain experience of roles that previously were the exclusive domain of men (working in factories, flying planes, working the land, working with machinery. It made it acceptable for them to wear trousers!

What are the imperitives that will be so demonstrable in showing the Islamic societies that things should change?

And even in the west, are we really that enlightened yet? In tennis there was a kerfuffle when Navratilova wanted to wear shorts at Wimbledon. The Janet Jackson farce highlighted some more hyperbole and so on.

Not only are different cultures, wel different, but also there has to be a reason for things to change. As we don't have a utopia to emasure other countries by, we probably shouldn't judge them too harshly.

Trooth,

I am not agianst being 'suitably dressed'.

I read a news report about a Bangldeshi women who was footloose with some football guys etc. It turnd out to be a **** who before coming to the UK live in BD. I dont't know the actuals.

I am sure that al BD women are not horny or wantingto make a quick buck with the taboloids!

Trooth,

In case you don't want to go through the rigamarole of a five course meal with all those changing of plates etc, don't enter an Indian Army Mess.

Go to some other Army Mess somewhere in the subcontinental neighbourhood where you can even eat with your feet!

Originally Posted by Ray

Trooth,

I am not agianst being 'suitably dressed'.

I read a news report about a Bangldeshi women who was footloose with some football guys etc. It turnd out to be a **** who before coming to the UK live in BD. I dont't know the actuals.

I am sure that al BD women are not horny or wantingto make a quick buck with the taboloids!

Objection! Relevance!?

Lol.... oh ya, not a court room.... so:

wtf!? Relevance!?

Btw, that quote, Pardah. Its loosely translated. Hmmm let me try and give it my take on how they are to be translated. Men are to take care of the women, for they both have different roles. I know its mis-used by many men, but thats more of a societal issue. Our societies are highly male dominated, always were even before Islam. Heck even non-muslim people of the same societies have this male dominance bug.

Btw, the Burkha is not part of the Islamic dress code. Hijab and Burkha not the same thing. Hijab is a dress code, Burkha is a dress. Islam has a dress code for men too.

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

Relevance!?

It's a thread about sex rays...

Originally Posted by Confed999

It's a thread about sex rays...

ya but, Pakistani woman caught as BD woman. "I'm sure BD women aren't like that... " etc. etc. Relevance of Stereotypes? Or maybe even prejudices?

Btw, as I mentioned earlier, and this comment has got nothing to do with Hijab, that sex rays are probably a reference to pheromones. Women's hair emmit a lot of Pheromones. Why do you think we always like the way their hair smells? Even though its just shampoo?

Originally Posted by Asim Aquil

ya but, Pakistani woman caught as BD woman. "I'm sure BD women aren't like that... " etc. etc. Relevance of Stereotypes? Or maybe even prejudices?

The same could be said for your objection to the statement as well. Don't look for insults, wait for the ones directed right at you.