Girls were for breeding purposes only

I've actually thought I'd like a burkini myself (minus the hair covering). No worries about sunburn or exposing my less-than-perfect aging body to the scrutiny of male stares - just the pure freedom of being able to unselfconsciously enjoy myself.
 
I do worry about sunburn. I can often be spotted with a long sleeve rash vest over my costume and sarong on. That or sitting under the shade. I'd wear a burkini minus the the head covering if I was out for a long time in the sun
Much better than tons of suncream.
 
Its a good article and I am inclined to agree with it as a western man. However as a well traveled expat, I also feel that if we were to rush up to these so called repressed Islamic ladies on the beach or at the swimming pool and proclaim loudly "fear not you can wear what you like by law !!!" "No man can force you to wear this stupid thing anymore" I very much doubt that they would all instantly run to the nearest bikini stockists or book themselves up for a "Brazilian". Such is the mentality and mindset of these women, maybe before we rush into a crusade to save them, maybe we should find out if they actually want to be saved.
 
You're right, they probably don't want to be 'saved'.

But yet again, that is the fault of men. As example; young Moroccan & Berber men in Belgium get their brides from their home country. They will have fun with the allochthonous girls who live close by but to marry them? No way, they are sluts. So by family reunion you get a lot of fresh immigrants who have a very traditional view. And it starts all over again.
 
They will have fun with the allochthonous girls who live close by but to marry them? No way, they are sluts.

by ''allochthonous'' i assume you mean indigenous white Belgium girls.?

Moroccan & Berber men are much more protective of their women folk than white European males seem to be, and as you say they get their rocks off with the local ''sluts'' till they get married to someone from their own country.

seems they get the best of both worlds.



 
The article is well crafted, but it is pretty much the usual conservative mantry -- freedoms guaranteed to all individuals by the US Bill of Rights (and by British common law constitution and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man) are OK only up to a point, meaning that that which does not comport with what conservatives view as cultural bedrock can be manned.

What those documents really mean is that people can do whatever they damn well please, including those things that "real Americans" might consider culturally offensive and including, as well, those things that could, in the long term, change the cultural bedrock upon which America, or any other society, rests. Fear of Muslims in France and Latinos in the USA is a weapon the conservatives are using to restrict all of our freedoms. If French institutions cannot survive without intimidating women in body-suits at a beach to disrobe, they should be scrapped.

As far as I am concerned, Allison Pearson, the author of the thread starting article, can go put her head between her legs for a bit of self-copulation.
 
There is another argument...those freedoms of clothing enshrined in France are not reciprocated elsewhere...in particular in countries of predominately Muslim populations.

i.e. On another thread men about visas...in Lombok....men are no longer allowed in the Immigration Office wearing shorts....:whistle:
 
You are not allowed into Garuda maintenance in shorts for the last 18 years, you will not get admittance to the Indonesian Embassies in shorts, if your wear shorts in Saudi you are in grave danger of being assaulted, quite strange how another mans hairy legs can excite some, still whatever
 
I love this bit in particular:

And I’m afraid the fact that a woman may “choose” to wear a burkini doesn’t mean that her “choice” must always be respected. Not if it ends up intimidating other Muslim women into feeling ashamed for exposing their own flesh, making integration even harder. It’s not what the burkini is, but the poisonous ideology it represents.

As such, I propose that bikinis and all forms of bathing garments be banned on the beach and elsewhere for fear of intimidating naturists men and women into feeling ashamed for exposing their own flesh.
 
it seems that the daily telegraph doesn't allow readers comments any more and it's noticable that this article is well hidden away in the womens/life section of he newspaper where few people casually reading would find it.

I wonder why.?


I guess otherwise it will be a moderator's nightmare.
 
By the way, we have a lot of naturist beaches in France which ARE segregated.
 
I think the designer or inventor got on a wrong start, s/he should call the suit another name, not burkini, and nothing about religion (women must cover up, etc.). But s/he wants to sell more, it may be religion, but it's also about money. Just like non-Muslims selling hijab, it's about money. Perhaps what they didn't realize is that they are promoting religiosity, and indirectly supporting sharia.
 
There is another argument...those freedoms of clothing enshrined in France are not reciprocated elsewhere...in particular in countries of predominately Muslim populations.

So what you are saying is, if there are Muslim countries that deny certain freedoms, France should follow suit? By that argument, all nations should find the worst offenders against human rights, and imitate them.
 
Imitation is not the same as reciprocation though.

I think Davita makes a valid point which is a very actual and pertinent question for many people (and politicians) in the west. How far should you go with exceptions and concessions for other cultures if the own citizens abroad don't get the same treatment?

Of course it's never black or white and you could argue 'we are better than that'. And there will be as many examples you can use for one argumentation or the other (some are ridiculous of course): if Christians are not allowed to have their church tolling bells in an Islamic state, should Mosques be allowed to call for prayer in western countries? Should we forbid tearooms, if bars over there are not allowed? Should we provide holidays and time off during Islamic festive seasons if our own people over there can not openly celebrate their own religious holidays? Etc.
 
So what you are saying is, if there are Muslim countries that deny certain freedoms, France should follow suit? By that argument, all nations should find the worst offenders against human rights, and imitate them.

Many in France are suggesting that those who wish to keep their Muslim religion and/or culture, whilst living in France, should remember those same freedoms aren't available from where they came. This is the genesis of the beach-attire argument (although conflicted by using security as a reason) which I personally find is the wrong message. A better way is for one French martyr to flaunt in her bikini on a Saudi beach and work from that result...tit for tat.
My wife and I couldn't use the hotel pool at the same time in Dhahran and had to show a marriage licence to eat at the same table in the restaurant...behind a screen.
People from certain parts of Indonesia eat dogs. I can imagine the outcry if they demanded, as a matter of freedoms, to do the same in a public place in the West.

It's a matter of what and where.... and a huge leap to suggest from the above that "all nations should find the worst offenders against human rights, and imitate them."

In a way the reciprocity argument is what 'Rump is exploiting in his campaign for President.....and he HAS a following.

Not everyone believes in turning the other cheek...
 
Imitation is not the same as reciprocation though.

I think Davita makes a valid point which is a very actual and pertinent question for many people (and politicians) in the west. How far should you go with exceptions and concessions for other cultures if the own citizens abroad don't get the same treatment?

Of course it's never black or white and you could argue 'we are better than that'. And there will be as many examples you can use for one argumentation or the other (some are ridiculous of course): if Christians are not allowed to have their church tolling bells in an Islamic state, should Mosques be allowed to call for prayer in western countries? Should we forbid tearooms, if bars over there are not allowed? Should we provide holidays and time off during Islamic festive seasons if our own people over there can not openly celebrate their own religious holidays? Etc.
I think it is about respect.
& I think we should all look for ways to build respect NOT dismantle it.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Follow Us

Latest Expat Indo Articles

Latest Tweets by Expat Indo

Latest Activity

New posts Latest threads

Online Now

No members online now.

Newest Members

Forum Statistics

Threads
5,966
Messages
97,385
Members
3,035
Latest member
Les 819
Back
Top Bottom