Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:20 pm UTC

Do i get to argue without the tit for tat because women are allowed to go topless here?
Rice Puddin.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:25 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:Do i get to argue without the tit for tat because women are allowed to go topless here?


Only if you're willing to claim that Western laws that don't allow that are also backwards, oppressive, and need to be changed... ^_^
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Indon » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:27 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:Uh-huh... so we're fine because our level of oppression is at a lower level. Which, is somehow acceptable, while a more restrictive level of the same type is not. That's not arbitrarily self serving at all.


If we can agree that lower levels of oppression are better, then so long as we work to lower our own level of oppression, it's hardly hypocritical to call people out on not working to lower theirs.

Think of oppression in terms of derivatives - The rate of change of iranian oppression appears to be zero to positive, which is definitely higher than our negative value.

Rinsaikeru wrote:Do i get to argue without the tit for tat because women are allowed to go topless here?


I would think you'd be arguing with more tits than anyone else, rather than less?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:31 pm UTC

Indon wrote:If we can agree that lower levels of oppression are better, then so long as we work to lower our own level of oppression, it's hardly hypocritical to call people out on not working to lower theirs.


That's fine, but only if you're claiming that Western public indecency laws are oppressive.

Which, is not something I necessarily agree with.

(but at that point, it wouldn't be hypocritical)
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:01 pm UTC

One tiny bit of bullshit I'd like to iron out: It's not the Islamic Republic of Iran that gets to decide its own culture. Its the people, individually and collectively, who get to decide how to express their cultural identity.

Also, oppression is not a binary state. Any legal regime that arbitrarily holds one standard for one set of people and another standard for everyone else is oppressive. It's just a matter of how oppressive.
Image

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby BlackSails » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:09 pm UTC

Western laws might be sexist, but its not as oppressive as Iran.


The earth isnt quite spherical, but saying its flat is wronger than saying it is spherical.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:10 pm UTC

The things that are outrageous about the full-body covering isn't the body-covering itself in-so-much as it is the other abuses that often go with it. For example: The expectation that the husband of a woman who is "Indecent" in public is expected to administer a beating to her for shaming him in public... and that for most any infraction of Sharia that is committed by a woman the penalties start at a beating by her -arranged marriage-* husband's hands, and goes up to public execution for crimes that a man will only face a fine (IE: Adultery).

* (in many cases the relationships we're talking about are what amounts to institutionalized rape)

The definition of an extreme indecency code -by itself- isn't (entirely) what upsets those of us that hear this, but rather that it is part and parcel of a larger package of forced inequalities and abuses of fellow human beings.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby crzftx » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:02 pm UTC

Deleted
Last edited by crzftx on Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:08 pm UTC

crzftx wrote:everyone on the "for" side keeps arguing "it's their culture, let them do as they please. IF they dont like it, theyll change it." 62000 (roughly 12% of the women) broke the law. Id say that implies a significant portion doesnt like their "cultural" laws.


What percentage of the populace do you think gets parking tickets? I'd imagine it's more than 12%. Shall we draw the same implications?

(and Iran's population is 72million. if we assume a 50/50 split, that's still only 0.17% -- I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from...?)
Last edited by yoni45 on Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby The Reaper » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:10 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
crzftx wrote:everyone on the "for" side keeps arguing "it's their culture, let them do as they please. IF they dont like it, theyll change it." 62000 (roughly 12% of the women) broke the law. Id say that implies a significant portion doesnt like their "cultural" laws.


What percentage of the populace do you think gets parking tickets? I'd imagine it's more than 12%. Shall we draw the same implications?

That more than 12% of the population doesn't like parking tickets? Yes. Draw the same conclusion. I think you'll find it apt.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:12 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:That more than 12% of the population doesn't like parking tickets? Yes. Draw the same conclusion. I think you'll find it apt.


I'm sure I would -- if you limit the conclusion to that, however, it doesn't make much of a point.

(which is why, as you'll note, my original post stated 'shall we draw the same implications')
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:18 pm UTC

Comparing women's rights to cars...hmmm

Something doesn't quite compute for me. Parking fines are usually leveed in cases where cars are in fire zones, impede traffic, or cause other nuisance--for instance, parking in bike lanes. Women wearing whatever they choose--causes no impediment.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Maurog » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:20 pm UTC

Sure it does, for people who believe in spiritual impediments. It causes traffic jams on the spiritual plane.

And earthquakes. These guys are just trying to prevent disasters. You can dismiss their reasons because they are not real for you, but if it's all real for them, how can you convince them otherwise?
Last edited by Maurog on Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:26 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Indon » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:24 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:What percentage of the populace do you think gets parking tickets? I'd imagine it's more than 12%. Shall we draw the same implications?


Iranian women are all going five miles over the decency laws?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:24 pm UTC

The Reaper wrote:
yoni45 wrote:
crzftx wrote:everyone on the "for" side keeps arguing "it's their culture, let them do as they please. IF they dont like it, theyll change it." 62000 (roughly 12% of the women) broke the law. Id say that implies a significant portion doesnt like their "cultural" laws.


What percentage of the populace do you think gets parking tickets? I'd imagine it's more than 12%. Shall we draw the same implications?

That more than 12% of the population doesn't like parking tickets? Yes. Draw the same conclusion. I think you'll find it apt.


The problem here is defining the governmental good that the policy represents. Most urban environments are far too congested with automobiles to accept unlimited parking in their 'Market Districts', and as such they put out meters and timed parking zones, and have rules about how long any one person can stay at any one point in the city.

Burquas... uhm.. prevent public acts of lechery and debauchery? I mean if men in the region just can't stop themselves from being driven in to an unavoidable animal rut at the sight of a woman's uncovered wrist... Although I'd say that's more of an impulse control problem that, at that degree of severity, should probably be treated with cattle-prods and/or heavy medication.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:25 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:Comparing women's rights to cars...hmmm

Something doesn't quite compute for me.


Sure, I'll elaborate:

The given poster noted that a significant portion of the populace was cited by the given law, which means they don't like the law.

Apparently, someone noted that if enough people don't like the law, they'd be able to change it. The above fact was cited to show that enough people don't like the law.

(and from there, we're supposed to draw our own conclusions)

Except that's not very different from people getting parking tickets. Plenty of people get them. Plenty of people arguably don't like them. That doesn't mean much.

Rinsaikeru wrote:Women wearing whatever they choose--causes no impediment.


Yet again, it's outlawed in most western states, just to a lesser degree.

(Just to note: if as far as you're concerned, all these laws should be abolished and people should be allowed to wear whatever, whenever, then that's a different argument altogether, and your reasoning holds. This argument is towards those that don't hold that view.)
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:28 pm UTC

Considering that the overwhelming majority of women in Iran are Muslim (and currently pretty conservative)--I'm pretty sure a relaxation in the policing of garments isn't likely to produce immediate 'improper' attire, it's just going to result in fewer women being ludicrously punished for accidentally exposing a wrist going about their daily business.

Furthermore, other posters have already commented that western rules about decency are also relaxing. Here for instance--the rules for men and women are the same as regards decency--I don't see why there is a gender difference anywhere in all honesty.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:32 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:Furthermore, other posters have already commented that western rules about decency are also relaxing. Here for instance--the rules for men and women are the same as regards decency--I don't see why there is a gender difference anywhere in all honesty.


Guys don't need to wear shirts on the street, women have to have some sort of top. But yeah, other than nipple-gender discrimination...

I support bare breasts!
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:33 pm UTC

Actually, where I live--women can go topless if they so choose, wherever/whenever men are also allowed to.
Rice Puddin.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:33 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:Considering that the overwhelming majority of women in Iran are Muslim (and currently pretty conservative)--I'm pretty sure a relaxation in the policing of garments isn't likely to produce immediate 'improper' attire, it's just going to result in fewer women being ludicrously punished for accidentally exposing a wrist going about their daily business.


For one, I don't know that any were punished for 'accidentally exposing a wrist' in this case.

Who exactly are you to establish what is or isn't 'improper', and that what said women were cited for wasn't "really" improper?

Rinsaikeru wrote:Furthermore, other posters have already commented that western rules about decency are also relaxing. Here for instance--the rules for men and women are the same as regards decency--I don't see why there is a gender difference anywhere in all honesty.


I would imagine that would be a result of the genders actually being different (but a different argument altogether).
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:39 pm UTC

Which is why I have 'improper' properly quarantined in punctuation--I don't feel anyone should be judging propriety for anyone else personally...but that's another argument.

So what is the difference then? I can want to be as much or as little naked as I like, that doesn't seem to be determined by my gender. Perhaps you mean men are unable to control themselves around naked women? In that case I'd say they're the ones in need of some form of punishment. I don't see what biological difference in regards to what bits of skin should be visible you could be commenting on.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Ulc » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:47 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:* (in many cases the relationships we're talking about are what amounts to institutionalized rape)


A-yup

I mean, the poor guys forced into a marriage with someone they don't want, and getting told that unless they can show blood on the sheet they are outcast of their famillies, and no-one will ever talk of them again, unless with shame.

Ohh wait, it was a "the women are the only victims" - sorry, didn't get the memo that the men was given much of a choice by their fathers in whom to marry.

I don't support arranged marriages, or the extreme kind of indecent exposure laws that they use*. But please don't assume that the women are the only possible victims in arranged marriages. So please don't take this as "rape is okay", as that is NOT what I'm saying, I'm merely pointing out that arranged marriage is equally victimizing for a man forced into it.

*I do appreciate some degree of "please don't be start raving naked in the street" though
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:51 pm UTC

While both are forced into the marriage, and while the man has no more control over this than the woman does--he does have the benefit of social support in many regards. If there is infidelity his punishment is far less, he has more ability to leave the marriage, it is not expected that he be punished by his wife if he commits something deemed culturally wrong.

So while you are correct that it hurts both parties--you are off on the severity of the infraction against each party. But guess what? Sexism hurts men too--go figure.
Rice Puddin.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:57 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:I don't see what biological difference in regards to what bits of skin should be visible you could be commenting on.


I'm pretty sure I don't need to highlight how women are biologically different from men. Not to mention socially different.

The fact that a society or culture might consider revealing certain body parts of a particular subset of members that is based on such perceived biological or social differences remains, and I don't know that it's necessarily wrong.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:02 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:
Dauric wrote:* (in many cases the relationships we're talking about are what amounts to institutionalized rape)


A-yup

I mean, the poor guys forced into a marriage with someone they don't want, and getting told that unless they can show blood on the sheet they are outcast of their famillies, and no-one will ever talk of them again, unless with shame.

Ohh wait, it was a "the women are the only victims" - sorry, didn't get the memo that the men was given much of a choice by their fathers in whom to marry.

I don't support arranged marriages, or the extreme kind of indecent exposure laws that they use*. But please don't assume that the women are the only possible victims in arranged marriages. So please don't take this as "rape is okay", as that is NOT what I'm saying, I'm merely pointing out that arranged marriage is equally victimizing for a man forced into it.


-just- the arranged marriage victimizes the man that way, sure. However in this case all he has to do is trump up some charge that results in a death penalty, or even better dishonors her side of the family and one of her blood relatives has to commit a so-called honor-killing. Hey look, he's single again..err, I mean.. I'm sure that he'll find the strength to carry on living.

Remember my overall point is that there's a -package deal- of misogyny in the Sharia-defined cultures, not just one aspect out of context.

Edit: And actually he doesn't have to go that far, I believe all he needs to do is say "I divorce you" three or four times in front of the tight religious official (and in a theocracy all officials are religious)I think and that's it, marriage ended. He goes on his merry way, and she gets squat-all and has to make her way with nothing.
Last edited by Dauric on Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:13 pm UTC

What I'm saying is that the biological difference that exists between males and females has little to do with the cultural nonsense that has grown up regarding body covering.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Ulc » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:16 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:So while you are correct that it hurts both parties--you are off on the severity of the infraction against each party.


Yes, I made a mistake in choosing to say "equally". Sorry 'bout that.

On the western law; there is a very good reason that women are usually required to cover up their nibbles in places where men can go topless. Nipples on a women are sexual characteristics, mens are not.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:25 pm UTC

No, actually, women's nipples are baby feeding aparatus--though considering the sexualized obsession with them I can understand your confusion. Male and female nipples are as sexual as each other, or rather as sexual as they feel to that particular party.
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby EsotericWombat » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:11 pm UTC

^This. Also, fuck you for saying that my nipples aren't sexy.
Image

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:26 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:No, actually, women's nipples are baby feeding aparatus...


The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, as highlighted by:

Rinsaikeru wrote:...Male and female nipples are as sexual as each other, or rather as sexual as they feel to that particular party.


There's your problem -- female nipples 'feel' sexual to the society and culture in which you live, while male ones (yes, Wombat, including yours), don't.

Rinsaikeru wrote:What I'm saying is that the biological difference that exists between males and females has little to do with the cultural nonsense that has grown up regarding body covering...


Possibly, although I'd imagine unlikely -- I'd imagine the cultural 'nonsense' grew out of the biological differences.

Either way, whether physical difference or a social one, the point stands.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Rinsaikeru » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:32 pm UTC

This is where you're missing what I'm saying--I know men who are very sexually aroused via nipple stimulation, I know women who get no stimulus from this. To these individuals, the sexuality of their nipples is based on THEIR experience.

I couldn't give a flying fart about what other people think regarding nipples.

Why is it, then, if this need to cover bodies is biological, that other female animals aren't more covered than males?
Rice Puddin.

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby T-Form » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:41 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:
Rinsaikeru wrote:What I'm saying is that the biological difference that exists between males and females has little to do with the cultural nonsense that has grown up regarding body covering...


Possibly, although I'd imagine unlikely -- I'd imagine the cultural 'nonsense' grew out of the biological differences.

So, for breasts/nipples, what are the relevant biological differences? I mean, there isn't anything particularly sexual about fat, breast milk, a lack of chest hair, or a higher incidence of breast cancer, and those are the only aspects that are correlated with sex.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:49 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:This is where you're missing what I'm saying--I know [individual] men who are very sexually aroused via nipple stimulation, I know [individual] women who get no stimulus from this. To these individuals, the sexuality of their nipples is based on THEIR experience.

I couldn't give a flying fart about what other people think regarding nipples.


First, there's the problem that your evidence highlights how certain men and women see their *own* nipples, not those of others.

But either way, rules of society are not predicated upon how 'some' people view certain things, but on how an overwhelming number of people (ie, 'society') do.

Some people might see nothing wrong with full frontal nudity. Society, however, finds this offensive.

Rinsaikeru wrote:Why is it, then, if this need to cover bodies is biological, that other female animals aren't more covered than males?


I never said this was a 'need'...?

T-form wrote:So, for breasts/nipples, what are the relevant biological differences?


They're (that is, the breasts are) bigger on a female. I have no clue why this difference would lead early societies to require women to cover them up, but given that that's the major difference, it seems like it did.

Edit: actually, perhaps it wasn't the size, but it's function for feeding babies. Either way...
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby meatyochre » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:30 pm UTC

I'd like to step up bravely, here, and say that my boyfriend and I have very similar boobs. Except his are dark brown and mine are pasty white.

Why is it that there's no requirement to cover up moobs?
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby T-Form » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:37 pm UTC

yoni45 wrote:They're (that is, the breasts are) bigger on a female. I have no clue why this difference would lead early societies to require women to cover them up, but given that that's the major difference, it seems like it did.

Edit: actually, perhaps it wasn't the size, but it's function for feeding babies. Either way...

Feeding babies isn't a sexual activity, though. In fact, breastfeeding is often specifically excluded from Western "indecency" laws. So that can't be it. The breast size thing doesn't look too promising, either - if size alone was the determinant, then male shoulders would surely be indecent if left uncovered. So if size is involved, it's got to be in tandem with some other aspect. Female breast size comes mostly from the mammary glands and from fat, but, again, fat isn't inherently sexual. There still doesn't seem to be any objective basis by which female breasts could be considered sexual to a greater degree than the corresponding male anatomy.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:41 pm UTC

T-Form wrote:There still doesn't seem to be any objective basis by which female breasts could be considered sexual to a greater degree than the corresponding male anatomy.


Yet, they are. I never said there was an objective basis to it. There likely was some reason for why it developed as it did, but whether or not there was such an objective basis to it, it did.

T-Form wrote:Why is it that there's no requirement to cover up moobs?


Because society doesn't consider exposed moobs to be offensive.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:09 pm UTC

Phew, yeah, thank Hitler society is allowed to suppress things that it finds offensive.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5929
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby Angua » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:14 pm UTC

The only reason I can think of for society deciding (back in the mists of time) to cover up female breasts is for support (I personally find it uncomfortable just half jogging up stairs, and mine are relatively small). It should be noted that not all societies cover them up (I see to remember pictures of some tribes with the women bare-chested but I can't remember who they were).
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby yoni45 » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:27 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Phew, yeah, thank Hitler society is allowed to suppress things that it finds offensive.


Um, no, that's been around for long before Hitler.

If you're going to Godwin yourself out, you may as well make it good.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
meatyochre
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:09 am UTC
Location: flying with the Conchords

Re: Iran: Our theocracy isn't dickish enough to women.

Postby meatyochre » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:28 pm UTC

Angua wrote:The only reason I can think of for society deciding (back in the mists of time) to cover up female breasts is for support (I personally find it uncomfortable just half jogging up stairs, and mine are relatively small). It should be noted that not all societies cover them up (I see to remember pictures of some tribes with the women bare-chested but I can't remember who they were).

This isn't universal. I stopped wearing a bra 2 years or so ago. I have 1 sports bra for when I work out (and this is only in consideration that I know other people don't want to see me without a bra in a tank top), and 1 nice bra for special occasions like weddings.

Mine are mid-sized, about a B-plus or C-minus. I prefer the lack of support. I find that bras are incredibly constricting and uncomfortable. Taking one off at the end of a day, back when I wore one daily, was the biggest point of relief I could possibly experience. The only problem is the boob sweat, and I always layer a tank top under my top shirt so I can tuck it up there. Problem solved!
Dark567 wrote:"Hey, I created a perpetual motion device"

"yeah, but your poster sucks. F-"

Image


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests