Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree. It's not a security issue so the state should not get involved in how anyone chooses to dress.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    There seem to be more non Muslims on this thread than Muslims, who disagree with you... You seem to basically be one of two people who actually support this ban
    The two of them probably read the sun as well :danceboy:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leksaa)
    Absolutely nothing, if it's a nudist beach.

    There's a general social consensus that being nude in public isn't acceptable, because nudity is invariably sexualised. There are cultures where women usually go topless, and this isn't seen as an issue because their breasts aren't viewed as sexual within that cultural framework. A woman going topless in London would attract stares, comments, and very possibly harassment. It's contextual.

    You can argue that all clothing customs are socially constructed, and you'd be right, but it's fairly irrelevant to the topic. I think anyone claiming to be offended because someone covers *more* skin than is usual in their culture is being disingenuous.
    Well, I don't think they are being disingenous at all when it comes to the burqa, niqab, or "burqini". The fact that you think that makes me assume that you have difficulty thinking beyond our cultural framework.

    I find the wearing of these Islamic garbs far more offensive than someone being nude. As a human being myself, I don't find the human body offensive, but I am rather offended by people who think it is, and clothes like the burqini exist in part to cover the body because of the idea that it is offensive. It also tells me that the woman wearing it has been frightened by her religion into wearing it, as it is clearly not particularly practical compared to a standard swimsuit. I dislike the idea that an ideology frightens women into covering their body, and thinking of their body as offensive, by threatening them with eternal damnation. That's pretty messed up. Some women may feel pressured to wear certain things by our culture, but it's certainly rare for them to wear things out of fear of an eternity of torture. So yes, there are two reasons I'm offended by the burkini: it suggests that the human body is offensive or shameful, and it is reeks of subjugation.

    Next I'd like to take you up on that "sexualisation" comment. Maybe if we saw more people naked, we would actually become more used to the body and think of it more than merely an explicit sex object. We always will be physically attracted to other people, and that's a good thing. It's not good though when you get to the point where a flash of flesh is enough to drive men crazy with sexual excitement, and unfortunately in countries where women cover themselves from head to toe this is exactly what can happen, thus why we have had young, repressed men from Islamic countries going crazy and assaulting women in Germany and Sweden. To those men, any display of flesh means "screw me". Not a great situation.

    Moreover, is there another item of clothing that reduces a woman's body to merely a sex toy more than the burqa? Think of it this way: the burqa basically exists to hide the body to stop men from getting exicited by seeing it.

    Here are two really common metaphors that I always see Muslims use in defense of veiling.

    Firstly: "If you leave a sweet unwrapped, why should you be surprised when flies collect on it?"

    This is thinking of the female body as a consumable commodity.

    Secondly: "The burqa isn't sexist. If you have a precious jewel, do you go around flashing it to everyone, or do you keep it safe, away from prying eyes? This is how we view our women"

    This is reducing women to a purchasable object which you keep simply to look at.

    The burqa or burqini basically says that a woman's body is an explicit, sordid, sexual object that should be hidden, rather like a dirty magazing being put on the top shelf. Additionally, there is no society that is more utterly obsessed with sex than societies such as Saudi Arabia's. Sure, they are obsessed with repressing it, but they are obsessed none the less, and it probably shapes their society more than anything else.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Well, I don't think they are being disingenous at all when it comes to the burqa, niqab, or "burqini". The fact that you think that makes me assime that you have difficulty thinking beyond our cultural framework.

    I find the wearing of these Islamic garbs far more offensive than someone being nude. As a human being myself, I don't find the human body offensive, but I am rather offended by people who think it is, and clothes like the burqini exist in part to cover the body because of the idea that it is offensive. It also tells me that the woman wearing it has been frightened by her religion into wearing it, as it is clearly not particularly practical compared to a standard swimsuit. I dislike the idea that an ideology frightens women into covering their body, and thinking of their body as offensive, by threatening them with eternal damnation. That's pretty messed up. Some women may feel pressured to wear certain things by our culture, but it's certainly rare for them to wear things out of fear of an eternity of torture. So yes, there are two reasons I'm offended by the burkini: it suggests that the human body is offensive or shameful, and it is reeks of subjugation.

    Next I'd like to take you up on that "objectification" comment. Maybe if we saw more people naked, we would actually become more used to the body and think of it more than merely an explicit sex object. We always will be physically attracted to other people, and that's a good thing. It's not good though when you get to the point where a flash of flesh is enough to drive men crazy with sexual excitement, and unfortunately in countries where women cover themselves from head to toe this is exactly what can happen, thus why we have had young, repressed men from Islamic countries going crazy and assaulting women in Germany and Sweden. To those men, any display of flesh means "screw me". Not a great situation.

    Moreover, is there another item of clothing that reduces a woman's body to merely a sex toy more than the burqa? Think of it this way: the burqa basically exists to hide the body to stop men from getting exicited by seeing it.

    Here are two really common metaphors that I always see Muslims use in defense of veiling.

    Firstly: "If you leave a sweet unwrapped, why should you be surprised when flies collect on it?"

    This is m thinking of the female body as a consumable commodity.

    Secondly: "The burqa isn't sexist. If you have a precious jewel, do you go around flashing it to everyone, or do you keep it safe, away from prying eyes? This is how we view our women"

    This is reducing women to a purchasable object which you keep simply to look at.

    The burqa basically says that a woman's body is an explicit, sordid, sexual object that should be hidden, rather like a dirty magazing being put on the top shelf. Additionally, there is no society that is more utterly obsessed with sex than societies such as Saudi Arabia's. Sure, they are obsessed with repressing it, but they are obsessed none the less, and it probably shapes their society more than anything else.
    You made your entire argument based upon your views of the burka. The burka is not the same as the burkini...
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    I am curious what you 2 think of full-body Burkas and their implications as a possible security risk? Should they be allowed?
    The risk isn't the burka, personally I think they should be allowed like you can wear a balaclava in public but we should protect the police who could be put in a position of suspecting someone of being a danger or of having committed a criminal offence and include having to remove it if asked by police for similar reasons as the balaclava wearer. so they can do their jobs without facing the prospect of losing it for following the rules, it has to be 1 rule for all or no rule at all so no religious exceptions to any law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I was shocked by the stupidity of the writer of the article linked in the OP. Then I saw the comments; it was good to see that they unanimously find that this article is terrible.

    "Islam's misogyny is conclusively proven by the fact that Muslim males don't wear the hijab, niqab, burqa and burkini. QED."

    "Women are burning burkas in the Syrian town that was liberated today but the mental midget who wrote this column thinks A) that they are a choice that women freely make and B) that they are a religious requirement (they are not, they are entirely cultural and anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or is a liar who is trying to advance an agenda under the guise of religion)? Is she really that stupid? And yes, that was a rhetorical question."

    "What a mind boggling load of crap. These are not religious, they are purely cultural. Women do not wear them to feel safe from sexual gazes, they wear them because they are forced, coerced, or brainwashed into doing so. That the writer of this column cannot see that they are misogynistic, and claims that banning them is misogynistic, demonstrates only that she is a complete and utter idiot who is either brainwashed herself or simply has her head so far up her own backside that she cannot think rationally."

    Feels good.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tammie123)
    So your argument essentially is: this is bad but theres worse things that are happening out there therefore we should allow this to happen?
    Yes. There is worse that needs to be dealt with fist then we can deal with the small issue that this is

    Don't you agree?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Well, I was shocked by the stupidity of the writer of the article linked in the OP. Then I saw the comments; it was good to see that they unanimously find that this article is terrible.

    "Islam's misogyny is conclusively proven by the fact that Muslim males don't wear the hijab, niqab, burqa and burkini. QED."

    "Women are burning burkas in the Syrian town that was liberated today but the mental midget who wrote this column thinks A) that they are a choice that women freely make and B) that they are a religious requirement (they are not, they are entirely cultural and anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or is a liar who is trying to advance an agenda under the guise of religion)? Is she really that stupid? And yes, that was a rhetorical question."

    "What a mind boggling load of crap. These are not religious, they are purely cultural. Women do not wear them to feel safe from sexual gazes, they wear them because they are forced, coerced, or brainwashed into doing so. That the writer of this column cannot see that they are misogynistic, and claims that banning them is misogynistic, demonstrates only that she is a complete and utter idiot who is either brainwashed herself or simply has her head so far up her own backside that she cannot think rationally."

    Feels good.
    as they say the worm is turning
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Another town in the South of France has joined in banning the Burkina.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Yes. There is worse that needs to be dealt with fist then we can deal with the small issue that this is

    Don't you agree?
    Alrite m8

    Spoiler:
    Show
    Freudian slip there
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Burkini
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Internet)
    You made your entire argument based upon your views of the burka. The burka is not the same as the burkini...
    In terms of my argument, and in my opinion, yes it is. It serves exactly the same purpose which I am criticising.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Well, I was shocked by the stupidity of the writer of the article linked in the OP. Then I saw the comments; it was good to see that they unanimously find that this article is terrible.

    "Islam's misogyny is conclusively proven by the fact that Muslim males don't wear the hijab, niqab, burqa and burkini. QED."

    "Women are burning burkas in the Syrian town that was liberated today but the mental midget who wrote this column thinks A) that they are a choice that women freely make and B) that they are a religious requirement (they are not, they are entirely cultural and anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or is a liar who is trying to advance an agenda under the guise of religion)? Is she really that stupid? And yes, that was a rhetorical question."

    "What a mind boggling load of crap. These are not religious, they are purely cultural. Women do not wear them to feel safe from sexual gazes, they wear them because they are forced, coerced, or brainwashed into doing so. That the writer of this column cannot see that they are misogynistic, and claims that banning them is misogynistic, demonstrates only that she is a complete and utter idiot who is either brainwashed herself or simply has her head so far up her own backside that she cannot think rationally."

    Feels good.

    It's as if the key issue is personal choice...
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Also it's stupidly inconsistent to say ban the burqini because it's religious, but then say banning it isn't unfair because it's only a cultural symbol anyway
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The risk isn't the burka, personally I think they should be allowed like you can wear a balaclava in public but we should protect the police who could be put in a position of suspecting someone of being a danger or of having committed a criminal offence and include having to remove it if asked by police for similar reasons as the balaclava wearer. so they can do their jobs without facing the prospect of losing it for following the rules, it has to be 1 rule for all or no rule at all so no religious exceptions to any law.
    Brahmin of Booty


    Yes, if there is a ban on the Burka then there needs to be consistency in the form of a ban of clothes that fully disguise the body.

    However, I do not think a burka (not burkini) ban is inherently misogynist, just because females happen to be affected. If the burka was a male clothing item, then people would also be discussing a ban.

    I dont think the sate should dictate what anyone can wear, however.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    Brahmin of Booty


    Yes, if there is a ban on the Burka then there needs to be consistency in the form of a ban of clothes that fully disguise the body.
    I agree with this in spirit, but it fails to fully extend the freedom it should to citizens. Neither the Burqa nor balaclavas are inherently dangerous and thus should not be regulated by the state.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    I agree with this in spirit, but it fails to fully extend the freedom it should to citizens. Neither the Burqa nor balaclavas are inherently dangerous and thus should not be regulated by the state.
    Thats right, but the core of my point was that if youre gonna do something, at least aim for consistency.

    The state can not afford to apply double standards. Theres nothing that is easier to point out and fault the state for than double standards.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    It's as if the key issue is personal choice...
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Also it's stupidly inconsistent to say ban the burqini because it's religious, but then say banning it isn't unfair because it's only a cultural symbol anyway
    Different people use different arguments. The burqa and burkini are sectarian clothes, if you prefer.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brahmin of Booty)
    I agree with this in spirit, but it fails to fully extend the freedom it should to citizens. Neither the Burqa nor balaclavas are inherently dangerous and thus should not be regulated by the state.
    That would be ideal but I'm also a realist and there is little to no chance that the government would change the rules on balaclavas so I believe the rules have to be the same across the board.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Yes. There is worse that needs to be dealt with fist then we can deal with the small issue that this is

    Don't you agree?
    Okay that seems reasonable, as long as you can also see that deciding what others should and shouldn't wear isn't acceptable
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The risk isn't the burka, personally I think they should be allowed like you can wear a balaclava in public but we should protect the police who could be put in a position of suspecting someone of being a danger or of having committed a criminal offence and include having to remove it if asked by police for similar reasons as the balaclava wearer. so they can do their jobs without facing the prospect of losing it for following the rules, it has to be 1 rule for all or no rule at all so no religious exceptions to any law.
    I still wouldn't wear a turban as opposed to my CE approved £300 crash helmet while riding my motorbike. Makes you Sikh dunnit?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 20, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.