[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Horse]

Hi Platt

Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Horse, 

> Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm not uncomfortable in the presence of 
> exposed genitals in public. But I know many people who would be, including 
> my wife. And I'll wager if there was poll taken of a sizeable sample of 
> the world's population, the vast majority would consider public nudity 
> offensive, too. Otherwise we would see a lot more public nudity than we 
> do. Do you agree?

I think you're probably correct but all you seem to be saying here is 
that many cultures have a taboo against nudity and that, as most people 
go along with the mores of their culture, they would support that which 
they are expected to support! But how come all of a sudden you seem to 
be supporting the will of the majority and eschewing the wish of the 
individual. Would you accept this sort of reasoning in other areas as well?
I think the more important question is why would people find public 
nudity offensive and even more importantly why would mere offense be a 
reason to ban public nudity. There's all sorts of practices, ideas and 
attitudes that I find offensive but as long as no-one is being 
physically harmed or having something forced on them i can't see that 
this is a good justification for prohibition.

  > Again, apologies if I misled you. I don't assume public nudity leads to
> public fornication. I asked the question to determine where you would 
> draw the line. If public nudity is OK, how about public fornication? If 
> not, why not. Would it make you uncomfortable? Or  would prefer to avoid 
> the question? :-)

I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just don't see where the link is 
made or why you should get from one to the other in any society that has 
a healthy attitude towards the body and its various bits.
To answer your question about public fornication I would say that I'm 
not in favour of it, as I really don't fancy stepping over copulating 
couples in the middle of the high street, but I wouldn't necessarily ban 
it outright. I also doubt it would be necessary to ban it outright 
unless it could be shown that, as per Arlo's comments on health reasons, 
there was some _physical_ reason to do so.
OK Platt, even though it isn't relevant to the conversation, I've taken 
the time and trouble to answer your question. So how about answering 
Arlo's question:

"Why is it "moral" for American men to forbid women from exposing their
breasts in public based on these same men finding breasts "sexually
provocative", but its not moral for Muslim to do the same with other
body parts?"

See below for some further comments on the question of the hijab. I'm no 
expert on Islam but there does seem to be justification for Arlo's 
statement.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>>> It would also be a good idea to at least attempt to answer Arlo's
>>>> question without recourse to insult.
>>> How have I insulted Arlo that he hasn't insulted me?  Should I roll over
>>> and play helpless every time he makes a snide personal remark? 
>> Not at all but as Arlo has put the question a number of times and it is
>> relevant to the argument it would seem like plain courtesy to provide an
>> answer rather than evading. If you can answer that is!
> 
> Do you mean "IF it is relevant to the argument?"

I meant 'as it is relevant to the argument' which I still think is the 
case. See below

> 
>>>> Arlo's Question:
>>>>
>>>> "Why is it "moral" for American men to forbid women from exposing their
>>>> breasts in public based on these same men finding breasts "sexually
>>>> provocative", but its not moral for Muslim to do the same with other
>>>> body parts?"
>>> I don't except the premise that Muslims find a woman's face "sexually
>>> provocative." Arlo has provided no evidence to support such a claim.
>>> Anyway, I don't see in the rules of MOQ discuss that one must answer
>>> every question put to her or him. That would be silly. No one is on trial
>>> here. 
>  
>> It seems entirely relevant to the discussion, in my opinion, and saying
>> that Arlo has provided no evidence for his statement seems like a cop out.
>> However, if you have no good argument to put forward then why not say so.
> 
> To coin a cliche, you're entitled to your opinion. But, I hope you noticed 
> in Khaled's post that he suggests the head scarf is a "religious 
> declaration,." a far cry from Arlo's unsubtantiated assertion that the 
> cover is a response to Muslim mem's sexual fascination with women's faces. 
> That assertion is becoming increasingly bizarre.

There appears to be an amount of controversy about this. The Qu'ran does 
make reference to the subject:
"... and let them cast their veils over their bosoms and not reveal 
their adornments save to their husbands."

Whether this is a religious declaration or not it would seem to make 
reference to covering up parts of the body in order to prevent arousal 
of others - OK to get the husband going though.
There are other historical references to the hijab and a good scout 
around the 'net can give you a bit more background.
The impression I get though is that women are encouraged to cover 
themselves in order that men are not aroused. This type of attitude also 
seems to crop up in other religions so the theme is a general one and 
not particular to Islam. So Arlo's statement in the question is not 
unreasonable as far as I can see. Of course you can continue to duck the 
question if you wish - that's your choice.


Horse