I don't understand how someone can support decency laws that state that women have to cover their chests, but vehemently condemn Islamic governments for having laws stating women have to be entirely covered.
I think you should be able to wear (or not wear) whatever you like. I imagine there are lots of you who disagree.
How would you justify Sharia being bad but Western Decency laws being good?
2007-11-28 18:58:39 · 7 answers · asked by Mr Milquetoast 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm every bit as pervy as the next guy, but where the law is concerned I doubt very much it would make any difference if we repealed decency laws. I can't really imagine my friends and relatives shouting "no more decency laws, let's get buck naked!" What bothers me is hearing people go on and on about how muslims are so awful because they force women to wear veils, while they live in a society that enforces similar laws.
2007-11-28 19:53:55 · update #1
The answer is very simple. It's a matter of free will.
Women are the majority of the electorate in most Western countries (not by much, but they are) and they have the right to vote for legislators who will pass laws allowing them to go topless if they choose to. That they don't do so is their own choice. If they 'really' don't like the law where they are, they can move to somewhere more liberal. You can go topless in Berkley without any problems.
Women in Islamic countries, on the other hand, have NO SAY in what laws their men will impose on them, and aren't even allowed to leave their homes without a mans permission.
If Shari'a countries grant women the vote and to have an equal say in what the law should be, and the right to move if they choose not to live under the law the majority decides on, then I would agree they have the right to choose to vote for laws that require veils and Burkhas.
Richard
2007-11-28 20:15:09 · answer #1 · answered by rickinnocal 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1.Sorry but my first thought was that you would like very much to see that happen(translation-perv)
2.Upon deeper thought, it's a legitimate question, and i think it's just considered(going back to puritan laws) that "obscene" parts should be covered because their being in view has been sexualized, which is indecent according to god, which is the same thing as the women having to be covered according to Islamic governments' laws, so you have a good point, however i don't think America is ready for nudity passing as the norm(wardrobe malfunction uproar) plus women have more important rights to worry about/fight for than the right to take their tops off
the bigger issue about the head to toe covering is that it dehumanizes women physically, it diminishes their presence as a person, feeding into the accepted treatment of women(abusive), facial expressions and eye contact are huge parts of communication, and they are deprived of that
2007-11-29 03:31:45 · answer #2 · answered by harlequin 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't get a hard on when I see a woman wearing a T-shirt and shorts. I do when she has no top on. I think that about sums it all up. (unless Islamic men get boners for women who show ankle skin or something) I'm serious. If we're talking decency, we're really talking sex.
2007-11-29 03:05:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yada, yada yada. I too am a fan of naked women. But Im satisfied with them being naked in the privacy of my home. If they were topless everywhere all the time then there would be no thrill in getting a girl to take her shirt off for you only. Sexy is not necessarily nude.
2007-11-29 03:20:12 · answer #4 · answered by David M 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think we should go by our Western decency standards and the Muslim ruled countries should go by Sharia law.
2007-11-29 03:13:43 · answer #5 · answered by pgb 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sharia doesn't require the men to wear veils.
2007-11-29 03:10:27 · answer #6 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think ur a perv
2014-07-24 18:51:30 · answer #7 · answered by ? 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋