Woman in face veil detained as France enforces ban by Geezer

Wonder if the policy is driven by France or the EU.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 4:28 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
A woman has been detained in France for wearing an Islamic veil across her face, after a law banning the garment in public came into force.

Police said she was held not because of her veil but for taking part in an unauthorised protest against the ban.

France is the first country in Europe to ban publicly a form of dress some Muslims regard as a religious duty.

Anyone caught breaking the law will be liable to a fine of 150 euros (£133, $217) and a citizenship course.

People forcing women to wear the veil face a much larger fine and a prison sentence of up to two years.

Under the law, any woman - French or foreign - walking on the street or in a park in France and wearing a face-concealing veil such as the niqab or burka can be stopped by police and given a fine.

It is a small fine, but symbolically this is a huge change, says the BBC's Hugh Schofield in Paris.

Guidelines issued to police say they should not ask women to remove their veils in the street, but should escort them to a police station where they would be asked to uncover their faces for identification.

The French government says the face-covering veil undermines the basic standards required for living in a shared society and also relegates its wearers to an inferior status incompatible with French notions of equality.

The new law has angered some Muslims and libertarians.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13031397

But...But... This is wonderful, 'socialist', multicultural, inclusive Europe. Why are they so insular as to force poor Muslins to conform to "French notions of equality"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hello,

I am glad that this ridiculous law will finally be struck down. I have been waiting for someone to be arrested. Now the country will be introduced to the idea, in front of the whole world, that you can't force someone what to wear on the basis of human rights.

Choosing how to clothe yourself is a human right. Even if no one agrees with your choices. Telling people they can't wear veils is as ridiculous as telling people they can't wear ill-fitting pants. You can't protect freedom by destroying it. You can't create a more just society by committing an injustice.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Choosing how to clothe yourself is a human right. Even if no one agrees with your choices. Telling people they can't wear veils is as ridiculous as telling people they can't wear ill-fitting pants. You can't protect freedom by destroying it. You can't create a more just society by committing an injustice.

Amen, Halleleuah, Peanut Butter.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 11:01 AM

It also stands to reason that society can't restrict people who want to wear no clothes, either.

...I can always just stay indoors...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 7:00 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

This is, like, the stupidest law I've heard of in ... "What kind of crappy planet is that?" Mal about Triumph.

Words can't describe how stupid this law is. Pathetic and rediculous, whoever passed that law needs to be smacked around some, oh, I have a new law, they can't wear their fancy suits because if they do then people will feel unequal because not everyone can afford such suits, so the government people aren't allowed to wear them anymore.

You couldn't pay me to live in France, rutting control freaks. I hope that someone strikes down this law and then everyone throws tomatoes at the originators, oh maybe tomatoes are against the law in France too because some people might be allergic to them, so for equality's sake no one gets to eat them.

Well Byte, there are places you can do that, :) Although I don't know if they have those places in your state.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 11, 2011 10:39 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
You couldn't pay me to live in France, rutting control freaks. I hope that someone strikes down this law and then everyone throws tomatoes at the originators, oh maybe tomatoes are against the law in France too because some people might be allergic to them, so for equality's sake no one gets to eat them.

American hate the French don't they? Well I guess it goes the other way as well. The French probably wouldn't want you over there, Ryonora.
Lovely place though. I could live there for a year or two.

I hate to point this out to you all, but Europe is a completely different place to the US. Different values, different laws. There is nothing constitutionally in most of these places that guarantees freedom of religious worship, as in the US.

Here's a summary of bans on displaying outward religious symbols, most notably the burqa.

FRANCE
France has become the first European country to ban the full-face Islamic veil in public places.

France has about five million Muslims - the largest Muslim minority in Western Europe - but it is thought only about 2,000 women wear full veils.

Headscarves are allowed at French universities - but not schools President Nicolas Sarkozy has said veils oppress women and are "not welcome" in France.

Under the ban that took effect on 11 April 2011 no woman, French or foreign, will be able to leave their home in France with their face hidden behind a veil without running the risk of a fine.

The penalty for doing so is a 150-euro (£133, $217) fine and instruction in citizenship. Anyone found forcing a woman to cover her face risks a 30,000-euro fine.

Most of the population - including most Muslims - agree with the government when it describes the face-covering veil as an affront to society's values. Critics - chiefly outside of France - say it is a violation of individual liberties.

A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in 2004, and received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.

BELGIUM
The lower house of Belgium's parliament has passed a bill to ban clothing that hides a person's identity in public places such as parks, buildings and on the street.

The bill still needs approval in the Senate. It has broad cross-party support, though the Greens oppose it.

Although the legislation does not specifically refer to full-face Islamic veils, it would outlaw the use of garments such as the niqab and the burka.

Currently, the burka is banned in several districts under old local laws originally designed to stop people masking their faces completely at carnival time.

In Antwerp, for example, police can now reprimand, or even imprison, offenders. They say the regulation is all about public safety.

SPAIN
Though there are no plans for a national ban in Spain, the city of Barcelona has announced a ban on full Islamic face-veils in some public spaces such as municipal offices, public markets and libraries.

At least two smaller towns in Catalonia, the north-eastern region that includes Barcelona, have also imposed bans.

Barcelona's city council said the ban there targeted any head-wear that impeded identification, including motorbike helmets and balaclavas, rather than religious belief.

It resisted calls from the conservative Popular Party (PP) to extend the ban to all public spaces, including the street. The PP also wants the ban to be adopted throughout Spain.

BRITAIN
There is no ban on Islamic dress in the UK, but schools are allowed to forge their own dress code after a 2007 directive which followed several high-profile court cases.

Former Schools Secretary Ed Balls said in January 2010 it was "not British" to tell people what to wear in the street after the UK Independence Party called for all face-covering Muslim veils to be banned.

In 2009 UKIP came second in the European elections in Britain, winning 13 seats in Brussels. Their leader Nigel Farage has said the full veils are a symbol of an "increasingly divided Britain", that they "oppress" women, and are a potential security threat.

UKIP is the first British party to call for a total ban, after the anti-immigration British National Party had already called called for the veil to be banned in Britain's schools.

THE NETHERLANDS
In 2006, the Dutch government considered but abandoned plans to impose a ban on all forms of coverings that obscured the face - from burkas to crash helmets with visors - in public places, saying they disturbed public order and safety. Lawyers said the move would likely be unconstitutional and critics said it would violate civil rights.

The government suggested it would instead seek a ban on face-covering veils in schools and state departments, but no legislation has yet been passed.

Around 5% of the Netherlands' 16 million residents are Muslims, but only around 300 are thought to wear the burka.

TURKEY
For more than 85 years Turks have lived in a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who rejected headscarves as backward-looking in his campaign to secularise Turkish society.

Scarves are banned in civic spaces and official buildings, but the issue is deeply divisive for the country's predominantly Muslim population, as two-thirds of all Turkish women - including the wives and daughters of the prime minister and president - cover their heads.

In 2008, Turkey's constitution was amended to ease a strict ban at universities, allowing headscarves that were tied loosely under the chin. Headscarves covering the neck and all-enveloping veils were still banned.

The governing AK Party, with its roots in Islam, said the ban meant many girls were being denied an education. But the secular establishment said easing it would be a first step to allowing Islam into public life.

ITALY
The north-western town of Novara is one of several local authorities that have brought in rules to deter public use of the Islamic veil, passing a by-law in January 2010.

In 2004 local politicians in northern Italy resurrected old public order laws against the wearing of masks, to stop women from wearing the burka.

Some mayors from the anti-immigrant Northern League have also banned the use of Islamic swimsuits.

DENMARK
In 2008, the government announced it would bar judges from wearing headscarves and similar religious or political symbols - including crucifixes, Jewish skull caps and turbans - in courtrooms.

That move came after pressure from the Danish People's Party (DPP), known for its anti-Muslim rhetoric, which has since called for the ban to be extended to include school teachers and medical personnel.

After a Danish paper published a controversial cartoon in 2005 depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a bearded man with a bomb in his turban, there were a series of protests against Denmark across the Muslim world.

GERMANY
In September 2003 the federal Constitutional Court ruled in favour of a teacher who wanted to wear an Islamic scarf to school.

However, it said states could change their laws locally if they wanted to.

At least four German states have gone on to ban teachers from wearing headscarves and in the state of Hesse the ban applies to all civil servants.

RUSSIA
Russia's Supreme Court has overturned a 1997 interior ministry ruling which forbade women from wearing headscarves in passport photos.

But in Chechnya the authorities have defied Russian policy on Islamic dress. In 2007 President Ramzan Kadyrov - the pro-Moscow leader - issued an edict ordering women to wear headscarves in state buildings. It is a direct violation of Russian law, but is strictly followed today.

President Kadyrov even voiced support for men who fired paintballs at women deemed to be violating the strict dress code.

AUSTRIA
Austria's Women's Minister Gabriele Heinisch-Hosek has said a ban should be considered in public spaces if the number of women wearing the veil increases dramatically.

SWITZERLAND
In late 2009, Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said a face-veil ban should be considered if more Muslim women begin wearing them, adding that the veils made her feel "uncomfortable".

Viva la differance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:38 AM

It was idotic then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law

And it's idiotic now.
Not to mention imma take serious *issue* if they keep going with that cause it'll technically mean outlawing my yellow sash/scarf, if they're gonna go so far as to piecemeal ban middle eastern cultural influences...

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:12 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It also stands to reason that society can't restrict people who want to wear no clothes, either.

...I can always just stay indoors...

I was on vacation in Barcelona a couple of years back, in the square of the old Jewish Quarter, when a man bicycled past wearing nothing except a good tan. It was apparent he was not Jewish. There were probably at least a hundred folk there, and the only reaction he got was some giggles from a group of teenage girls.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 4:16 AM

Kinda bizarre that there's tolerance for some forms of self-expression, and not others. Would the woman from Switzerland that Magons mentions who is discomfited by over people wearing headscarves be similarly bothered by public nudity?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:35 AM

The purpose of sumptuary laws were different, they were there to force people to dress within their class, once the price of fabric had fallen to where quantity of fabric alone was not an economic determinant. Eventually, they became unnecessary once a fashion industry had successfully launched a new economic model, but since the days of designer knockoffs I don't know, though I suspect today's ruling classes would prefer to blend in. Notice that everyone in power everywhere in the world where the same identical outfit. It's not fashionable, or comfortable, and has no significance except that it was stylish among a certain set in a a certain time when the change occurred.

The purpose here is to outlaw the practice of Islam, to not delete it entirely, but to reduce it to a nominal self identification like Judaism or most of european christianity. The result, in the eyes of TPTB, would be that one group would carry a star of david, one a cross, and one a crescent, and that the three would all ultimately read a heavily updated and edited religious text that would ready them with a set of beliefs that would prepare them to support the ideas of their rulers and make themselves subservient.

So, I guess you could say the purpose was the opposite.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It also stands to reason that society can't restrict people who want to wear no clothes, either.

...I can always just stay indoors...

I was on vacation in Barcelona a couple of years back, in the square of the old Jewish Quarter, when a man bicycled past wearing nothing except a good tan. It was apparent he was not Jewish. There were probably at least a hundred folk there, and the only reaction he got was some giggles from a group of teenage girls.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Geezer,

Not everyone carries "the curse"

Quote:
From Urban Dictionary:

The directional inverse correlation between the size of a jewish males bank account and the the size of his penis.

Well, he DID have reservations at Alain Ducasse... But when we got back to my place, I finally just faked it so I could go to sleep. He DEFINITELY had the curse of the sacred jewish inch.

Perhaps I was lucky to be born poor. All that scottish and Irish blood.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 6:07 AM

That's actually a THING?

Everyone is within like percents of each other size wise, outliers are somewhat rare.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:18 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
[BGeezer,

Not everyone carries "the curse"

True, but it wasn't that. I was thinking along the lines that an obvious foreskin would usually indicate that one wasn't of the Jewish persuasion. I mean, the guy rode right by me, and it was hard to miss.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:06 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

American hate the French don't they? Well I guess it goes the other way as well. The French probably wouldn't want you over there, Ryonora.
Lovely place though. I could live there for a year or two.

I hate to point this out to you all, but Europe is a completely different place to the US. Different values, different laws. There is nothing constitutionally in most of these places that guarantees freedom of religious worship, as in the US.

No, Americans don't hate the French. Some silly Americans might, but there are plenty of us that don't follow that stereo type. Some of us actually recognize that "different" doesn't mean "bad" as well. Further, some of us know that it's silly to have an opinion about another's culture since we're so far removed. We're not as fun on forums though.

I do find it ironic and very amusing...the French would say they are standing up for equality and the rights of Women to dress as free citizens without covering their faces and plenty have praised them for taking the stand. And others see it and say not being able to wear the veil is robbing them of their freedom - that is funny. No wonder we're always fighting.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

True, but it wasn't that. I was thinking along the lines that an obvious foreskin would usually indicate that one wasn't of the Jewish persuasion. I mean, the guy rode right by me, and it was hard to miss.

Oh, I keep forgetting, the jewish slave marking. Most american males are so disabled, taking about 1/2 the sex nerve endings with it. It does decrease the urge, phantom pain, barbaric little slave marking. But you're right, not jewish europeans don't have it done.

The point in the ancient mideast was to stop the slaves from screwing the nobility. It would be impossible to hide your mutilation. Originally they all did it to both genders but now it's muslims doing it to girls and jews doing it to boys.

The bicyclist thing might be related to the story here last year. The Satmar Rabbinical council was in a huff over hipster bicyclists in short shorts and spandex riding through the bike lane, and so they went out and painted over the bike lane. The hipsters went in and painted the bike lane back in, and the Satmar "religious police" tried to arrest the bikers, but the actual police came in and told the Rabbis to back down.

It was in the new york times, so chances are it made it out there, I can see something like that as a statement. Probably because doing that in the muslim neighborhood wouldn't be the best idea.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

American hate the French don't they? Well I guess it goes the other way as well. The French probably wouldn't want you over there, Ryonora.
Lovely place though. I could live there for a year or two.

I hate to point this out to you all, but Europe is a completely different place to the US. Different values, different laws. There is nothing constitutionally in most of these places that guarantees freedom of religious worship, as in the US.

No, Americans don't hate the French. Some silly Americans might, but there are plenty of us that don't follow that stereo type. Some of us actually recognize that "different" doesn't mean "bad" as well. Further, some of us know that it's silly to have an opinion about another's culture since we're so far removed. We're not as fun on forums though.

I do find it ironic and very amusing...the French would say they are standing up for equality and the rights of Women to dress as free citizens without covering their faces and plenty have praised them for taking the stand. And others see it and say not being able to wear the veil is robbing them of their freedom - that is funny. No wonder we're always fighting.

I suppose if you replace veil with bikini top than that makes sort of common sense. Women at the beach, some would like not to wear a bikini top, but some wouldn't. In France they don't have to, but here they do, so we're less free. but in France they're not forbidden from wearing a bikini top at the beach, which would be the equivalent of this law.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's actually a THING?

Everyone is within like percents of each other size wise, outliers are somewhat rare.

It's true, variations on average are very small, so to speak. The infamous black cock is actually 1/2 an inch longer than the average white cock, it's like 6.5 to 6.0 or something, and asians like 5.5 I think. The records are like 12.0 and 1.5, so there's a lot of individual variation. It's a patrilineal Y-chromosome thing, so it's a father's father thing, etc,. so for me, scottish, but I haven't checked the whole population, I just know that we scotts have a reputation. I think the irish and australians do too. Probably a myth. I've known two men who constantly worried about the bedroom laughter situation, one was jewish, which is where I learned about the curse. I don't know its origin, possibly mideastern?

I know that apes have about 2", so different human lines have all evolved longer. To get into the sticky gooey, I recently read there was a reason for it, other than winning over the ladies, which was gang bangs. Sperm swims about an inch an hour, so Mr. Sloppy Seconds only has a chance if he has a size advantage. I'm dubious myself because I think that he would be pushing the earlier sperm up. Either way, gang bangs are pretty anti-evolution.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 11:56 AM

Might depend on hitting the G-spot and/or A-spot, if they're real. I've heard that satisfaction on both sides helps with the fertility making because of certain muscular contractions, involving the cervix among other things.

But the spots (again, if real) are also non-essential to the process. Sufficient stimulation without anything fancy is supposedly enough on its own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 12:48 PM

Right, they are real, there are nerve clusters, it's actually vestigial in the human female the way nipples are on a human male, it's a pumping mechanism, and can be used to create a female ejaculation, it would just carry no sperm.

Size undoubtedly affects the pleasure, to a point, I've actually heard women complain of the pain from those with "frankencock" but, yes there's some evolutionary advantage here. The numbers I posted were "unaltered" sizes. Yes, surgical alterations are something that men do, damaging their virility in the process. One procedure is to cut the tendons that secure the male organ to the pelvic bone, which adds about 3" and allows the thing to break during sex. (Darwin award) the other is an insert which can be a varying number of inches, and adds to size while reducing blood flow, causing impotence, (darwin award #2) But when you see people advertising their largess in such a manner, one of more of these is what they've done. If a woman really wants a larger one, she could buy it out of plastic.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:32 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If a woman really wants a larger one, she could buy it out of plastic.

Really? We've gone from France's intrusion into what should be a civil right to sumptuary law to the evolutionary benefits of cock size?

Really?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:43 PM

Gemstones!

Distractability is the major component in avoiding brainwashing - they can't keep our attention long enough to force the viewpoints down our throats.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:48 PM

I suggested to some of my contacts over there that if they're gonna wear a veil/headscarf or whatever, they pin a plainly visible yellow star on their outfit as a reminder to the fucking french where shit like that LEADS.

We'll see if any of em have the guts to do it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:49 PM

CAT-HERDING, Wheee!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:43 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Magon's, I don't hate the French by any means, I only pick on them here because of this law. If any country had a law like this I'd say the same thing about them too. Its a good thing you aren't a Muslim who chooses to wear a headscarf, you can go ahead and live in France if you like, though the EU is very picky about letting non-EU residents move there longterm, so you might be able to stay for a while but not for a long while. Now, if you have some very special skill that is lacking in the EU population then you have a better chance of being allowed to stay. Anyways, I think you're the only person who is okay with this in principle, if you actually are okay with this. I know that I have no right to go and bother people and insist they change their law, that isn't my place. But this is a forum and I have every right to say what I think here. As do you, as we both proved by writing our posts.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:55 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Size ain't everything, matter of fact it can occasionally be quite inconvenient. I mean, I guess it's a confidence booster, but then it also mandates wearing briefs or boxer briefs if you are going to wear your shirt tucked in. In the bedroom it requires patience and endurance and a lot of patience, as in I hope you are willing to spend like a damn hour on foreplay so you don't hurt her. And after you do everything her way she'll still complain about being sore, though she'll smile more about it.

As with any from or art, what separates the masters from the amateurs is not the size of their tools, but their attention to detail.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:08 AM

MOCKROMANCER

This law is crazy. I'd rather see all the effort going into making guys turn their hats forward again. I wonder if the world would be a better place if Germany had gotten to keep France. Merkel would be in charge. Me likes that

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:11 AM

MOCKROMANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by TheHappyTrader:
Size ain't everything, matter of fact it can occasionally be quite inconvenient. I mean, I guess it's a confidence booster, but then it also mandates wearing briefs or boxer briefs if you are going to wear your shirt tucked in. In the bedroom it requires patience and endurance and a lot of patience, as in I hope you are willing to spend like a damn hour on foreplay so you don't hurt her. And after you do everything her way she'll still complain about being sore, though she'll smile more about it.

As with any from or art, what separates the masters from the amateurs is not the size of their tools, but their attention to detail.

LOL, my god man what else would you ever wear besides boxer-briefs or boxers? Holy grapes.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:31 AM

My guess is Happy's comments are the male equivalent of women who have larger breasts being less able to get away with not wearing a bra.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My guess is Happy's comments are the male equivalent of women who have larger breasts being less able to get away with not wearing a bra.

It's not really the same, it's not always painful, though, admittedly, sometimes it is, for a guy, and when it is, you can't exactly make an adjustment in public, the way a girl could with her boobs.

Girls don't always need bras though. They could wear a push-up or a corset. Or just something really tight.

She might defy gravity

But if not, there are other solutions

I don't know who this girl is, but I found this pic while searching.

Felt obliged to share.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:10 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

But...But... This is wonderful, 'socialist', multicultural, inclusive Europe. Why are they so insular as to force poor Muslins to conform to "French notions of equality"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

And "some" wonder why I have an issue with equality being more important than FREEDOM.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:02 PM

Keeping order in every verse

I really don't think this is a case of racism, more a case of "manners". I speak for myself when I say I find it incredibly rude when a person is speaking to me and not lookng me in the eye. I am uncomfortable when I cannot see somebody's face when engaged in discourse.
Motorcyclists in my workplace are asked to remove their helmet/visor when dealing with deliveries.(security matter) Youngsters are banned in shopping centres from wearing hoods and masks(security matter).
Although I don't wish to legislate against this, because I do agree that it opens a very squirmy can of worms, I think that appreciating the CULTURE of basic manners in the society you live in is commonsense and expected of you.
Although I completely understand the religious significance of the face veil, I absolutely despise talking to a human pillarbox, not because I have racist views, but because I have cultural expectations that I demand are respected.
If I walk into a muslim house(as I have done many times) I would expect to remove my shoes and would have no complaint about it. I would not allow the wearing of a face veil in my house and admittance would be refused if not complied with.
This is RESPECT for the culture you are entering,NOT a racist attitude.To ask somebody to remove their veil when conversing with me is my absolute right and to refuse that courtesy will result in and end to any further discourse.
Is that such a big deal???????

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:14 PM

Quote:
Youngsters are banned in shopping centres from wearing hoods and masks(security matter).

...? I wear hoods a lot, especially in winter time around here, sometimes as something to hide my crippling anxiety and insecurities under, and I've never been hassled in any store I've been in. Never even been bothered by police on the street.

I even went to see my brother in England and was wearing my hood in stores, nothing.

Also, anxiety and other disorders, including autism, can sometimes manifest in people not looking other people in the eye. You hold that against them? You'd refuse them your acquaintance, your business?

Quote:
I think that appreciating the CULTURE of basic manners in the society you live in is commonsense and expected of you.

Must be easy to say that if you're in the MAJORITY. Culture is what someone makes it, what they make around them, who they interact with. Saying that there's one nation and one culture is silly and ethnocentric.

So no, I won't call the French law racist, and I won't call it creedist, but I *WILL* call it ethnocentric, and I WILL call it intolerant.

And I'll also accuse that kinda stuff for one-world no individuality anti-culture NONSENSE. Much easier to control everyone and feed them the same propaganda when they all think, act, and dress alike, see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:31 PM

Keeping order in every verse

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Youngsters are banned in shopping centres from wearing hoods and masks(security matter).

...? I wear hoods a lot, especially in winter time around here, sometimes as something to hide my crippling anxiety and insecurities under, and I've never been hassled in any store I've been in. Never even been bothered by police on the street.

I even went to see my brother in England and was wearing my hood in stores, nothing.

Also, anxiety and other disorders, including autism, can sometimes manifest in people not looking other people in the eye. You hold that against them? You'd refuse them your acquaintance, your business?

Quote:
I think that appreciating the CULTURE of basic manners in the society you live in is commonsense and expected of you.

Must be easy to say that if you're in the MAJORITY. Culture is what someone makes it, what they make around them, who they interact with. Saying that there's one nation and one culture is silly and ethnocentric.

So no, I won't call the French law racist, and I won't call it creedist, but I *WILL* call it ethnocentric, and I WILL call it intolerant.

And I'll also accuse that kinda stuff for one-world no individuality anti-culture NONSENSE. Much easier to control everyone and feed them the same propaganda when they all think, act, and dress alike, see.

Oh for fuck's sake, why do you have to come up with the OBVIOUS exceptions to the rule just to make a bloody point. Pedantic doesn't necessarily mean intelligent, you know. The points you make on the matter don't even need responding to. That's like saying dogs aren't allowed in a shop. But you wouldn't tell a blind man to fuck off would you? Honestly, pathetic response>

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:40 PM

I really don't see how what I said was pedantic. Both in regards to the definition of pedantic as unimportant details, formalities, or scholastics, and in regards to how you're using it, as "obvious exceptions."

You didn't say any exceptions, did you expect me to mind read them?

But you wanted me to have a point. So here's some points.

1) While the law bans all face concealing headgear in public for the purpose of identification as a "security measure," it may be presumed that of those few non-Muslims who wear such headgear, which include winter-wear baclavas, do not wear them ALL THE TIME. On the other hand, it can be presumed that Muslim women wearing such headgear wear it 100% of the time in public.

The law primarily targets Muslims.

2) The Muslims in question very likely believe that the veils are symbolic of their modesty, and may also believe that removal of their veil exposes them to danger. They likely believe their veils are protective, and being unable to wear their veils is a humiliation akin to being required by law to walk around in public in a speedo.

The law, either intentionally or not, results in emotional damage to the main targets of the law, including humiliation.

3) When the law goes into place, it is expected it will effect 2,000 women. The response to the ban in France? Peaceful protests! In that time, one single person was attacked, by members of her community. While I must disapprove of that one single attack, I think this is indicative of just how much a threat "terrorism" is from the individuals in question.

As such, the law acts on preconceived notions of Muslims as violent more than it does on the reality of the situation in France, and uses "security" as a justification for their harrassment.

So, I was willing to give the French the benefit of the doubt, that they might simply just not be AWARE of the ramifications of forcing their values on a target demographic. Or maybe they don't care, and this is just some means to an end that is entirely irrelevant to the who or the what.

But if not, it starts to come across as a little prejudiced and bigoted, assuming all these Muslim women are a potential terrorist threat, hey? And I don't know about you, but humiliating someone just because they're an acceptable target because of said prejudices of the majority seems a little mean-spirited.

And that's not even getting into how laws about having your face uncovered at all times just so you can be identified on security camera must ALWAYS have benevolent intentions, right? Because no one is ever wrongfully accused, or framed, or a political dissenter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:08 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hi Peacekeeper, I guess we can't talk because I can't look people in the eyes, I don't even really understand the concept really, I mean I can look at people but the part about eye contact is beyond my capacities for conceptualization. But I can try. :))

I know it looks like we're picking on you but I don't think we are ... are we? Well I can assure you that I'm not picking on ya, I thought my post might make ya laugh because I'm one of those exceptions. I just thought I'd post it for giggles. :)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 5:00 PM

*shrug*, I don't look at folk often when talkin to em neither - honestly I prefer remote communication in part for that reason, I have a reflexive hostility towards other human beings in person and not lookin directly at em avoids provoking that - not to mention when fixing something for someone, I've usually got both eyes and hands on the job, so they're talkin to the back of my head anyways, and that's on a small project, unlike my nasty lawyers beat up cadillac... I swear that thing is soon to fall apart right out from under him, that's the third damn time I hadda replace that water pump and I am pretty sure he was lying to me about not running it into the red and the seals are blown too, dumbass...

But I digress - anyhows, not everyone shares YOUR concept of morality, or proper manners, why would you expect them to ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:50 PM

Keeping order in every verse

No, not everybody shares my sense of manners and morality, but it is evident that the majority of the french population DO. And if the majority demands it, then the minority surely has to fall somewhere in line to respect it, don't you think?

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 12:38 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
I really don't think this is a case of racism, more a case of "manners". I speak for myself when I say I find it incredibly rude when a person is speaking to me and not lookng me in the eye. I am uncomfortable when I cannot see somebody's face when engaged in discourse.
Motorcyclists in my workplace are asked to remove their helmet/visor when dealing with deliveries.(security matter) Youngsters are banned in shopping centres from wearing hoods and masks(security matter).
Although I don't wish to legislate against this, because I do agree that it opens a very squirmy can of worms, I think that appreciating the CULTURE of basic manners in the society you live in is commonsense and expected of you.
Although I completely understand the religious significance of the face veil, I absolutely despise talking to a human pillarbox, not because I have racist views, but because I have cultural expectations that I demand are respected.
If I walk into a muslim house(as I have done many times) I would expect to remove my shoes and would have no complaint about it. I would not allow the wearing of a face veil in my house and admittance would be refused if not complied with.
This is RESPECT for the culture you are entering,NOT a racist attitude.To ask somebody to remove their veil when conversing with me is my absolute right and to refuse that courtesy will result in and end to any further discourse.
Is that such a big deal???????

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

thanks peacekeeper, i was going post something similar, but couldn't be arsed. I don't agree with laws prohibiting dress of any kind, but I get why having people who come to your country and insist on such an archaic and controversial dress as something which covers a womans face, and then wonder why the locals get pissed off.

My tolerance for religious worship finds itself severely tested with such crap.

If I go to Morrocco, I follow local laws, if I go to Malaysia, I do the same. I extend that courtesy to my host country and citizens...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 4:29 AM

Quote:
No, not everybody shares my sense of manners and morality, but it is evident that the majority of the french population DO. And if the majority demands it, then the minority surely has to fall somewhere in line to respect it, don't you think?

No, they don't. Not unless they're hurting someone, and there's already crimes to cover that. The point of a Republic/parliament is that it has majority and minority parties, and is SUPPOSED to be constructed so as not to run roughshod over a minority population. The point is fair government, where the rights of the minority are protected by accordance, agreement, or law. Unfortunately, these governments never seem to live up to that promise, but that doesn't mean that the IDEAL, of voice from all concerned citizens in policy affecting their lives, should be abandoned.

Furthermore, you can't create PRE-CRIMES, where someone MIGHT do something because they're a member of a certain population. No crime has yet been committed, in what manner do you enforce it? This is basically the gist of the anti-terrorism part of the law in question. It's a bad idea, simply because allowing for pre-crime sets a precedence to which other populations, even potentially the majority population can be held.

Keep the fines if someone is forcing the women to wear the Burqas and they don't want to. Lose everything else.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:37 AM

Keeping order in every verse

Again, and I stress, I am against legislation that prohibits a certain dress code. I think that is wrong.What I object to is the fact that the minority refuses to respect the views of the majority. All you hear about, wherever you go in the world is guidelines of behaviour that I am expected to follow in order not to upset the local population.
But I am still expected to turn a blind eye when a minority in my country does not appreciate what pisses ME off.
I am SICK of having to pander to the wishes of a few, when the few have no concept of what offends ME, and I have to say, MOST of us who are too frightened to voice their opinion, in case they are labelled with some inappropriate monicker.

Peacekeeper---keeping order in every verse!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:53 AM

Well, how often do you encounter it and it's a problem for you? I give you credit for being against laws restricting clothing, but why does it matter what the minority does, and what the majority thinks?

Where I live, there's a every sizable Latino population, and yes, most of them are Mexican. They speak Spanish, a lot, and I know very little Spanish. They often keep speaking Spanish while I'm near them, and sometimes it is difficult for me to communicate with Spanish speakers, and vice-versa.

But I don't throw up my hands and say, "oh my gosh, you Mexicans, by not conforming to the majority, you make it so much harder for everyone else. Stop being so Mexican!"

Similarly, I would never go up to either a Muslim girl in a hijab or a woman in a barqa, and say "oh my gosh, you could have bombs under there, and not seeing your face makes it hard for me to communicate with you. Stop being so Muslim!"

I mean, how is it exactly that you're having to pander to them? You've said nothing so far to indicate to me that you have had to pander - perhaps that you've had to tolerate some people's differences, maybe, but then everyone has to do that whenever we socially interact with someone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by peacekeeper:
And if the majority demands it, then the minority surely has to fall somewhere in line to respect it, don't you think?

No.
To be even more blunt, Fuck You.

I mean that in a general, rather than personal sense, since everywhere I turn, every single day, I have a culture and society that is radically divergent from my own beliefs on those things foisted upon me without so much as asking, often with the force of law behind it, even when that law is in blatant defiance of the very documents and principles this country was founded on.

*I* am SICK of having to pander to the wishes of the many, bow to superior force an accept as "normal" things I consider wrong, inhumane or even downright evil - and I feel that calling people intolerant is entirely appropriate when they are, in fact I do feel that the attitude I am seeing here reeks of it, and weasel-wording it to avoid admission of what it really is just further convinces me folk feel it's wrong even in their own mind, but as always when societys majority is down with that wrong, people feel they can get way with it, as long as they are discreet and don't cop to it obviously.

And it sickens me that they're usually right about that.

For all that we pretend otherwise there's a damned lot of prejudice and intolerance in our societies, and paying lip service to tolerance while ones actions indicate the opposite is a pretty obvious form of hypocrisy and sets my teeth on edge cause by *MY* lights, anyone who seeks to deprive someone else of their rights, freedoms or personhood should instantly and immediately lose all respect for their own, on the spot.

Look, if a girl wants to wear the damn thing, if she feels uncomfortable and exposed without it, who are YOU to demand such a thing, consider this for our female posters - how would YOU feel if some nimrod made it mandatory for you to expose your breasts in public ?
Cause that *IS* how some of these girls feel about it, never you doubt it - for a fact most folk have NO understanding of any culture but their own.

Now if she don't wanna wear it, and this is being shoved upon her unwanted, then it's not a matter of CULTURE to step in and make an issue of it, it's a matter of being a human being - and that stands even if it's WITHIN a culture and country where forcing that upon them is the norm.

In short, using the law to force women to conform to YOUR moral standards, against their will - is no fucking different than the goddamn Taliban doing so, no matter how much you dress it up and weasel word it - once you cut to the root of it, you're STILL not respecting their personhood.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:40 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

This isn't about the "majority vs the minority".

Thats a smokescreen.

Its an issue of privacy. Those in power don't LIKE not knowing who you are.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 14, 2011 10:22 AM