To burkini or not burkini, that’s the question.

[Conserative Morality]

Really, that's why elegant dresses became a thing in the decadent European courts of the 18th century? Marie Antoinette and CO. popularized these clothing items because "omen would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies"?

Much shock. Wow. Such decadence.

[Galloism]

I question whether it's increasing, but even if it were, 2,000 compared with 30,000-40,000 is a minscule number.

You are claiming that nun habits is so small and inconsequential that it doesn't matter, while arguing in favor of banning something even smaller and more inconsequential.

You question if what is increasing? Islamic coverings? Yes. They were almost non-existent in immigrant communities in France before the 1980s, and the 1960s Mid-East had many less of them than it does today. That is a sign of an "increase".

And Islamic coverings (again, this is about the burkini here, and co. not the illegal burqa alone) are not "smaller and more inconsequential" than the dead and decaying pre-Vatican II nun's outfit.

Yes, yes yes they are.

Factually. It's been studied. I've already provided you a source showing only about 2,000 women, in all of France, wore the burqa before the ban. That's far far fewer than those who wore nun habits.

I mean, I know this is really hard stuff, but mathematically, 2,000 is less than 30,000 - 40,000. This cannot be denied. It must be fewer because it's a lower number. It's pretty much the entire basis of mathematics.

[Galloism]

Really, that's why elegant dresses became a thing in the decadent European courts of the 18th century? Marie Antoinette and CO. popularized these clothing items because "omen would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies"?

Much shock. Wow. Such decadence.

Well, that just makes me want to engage in a fury of masturbation right now.

[Olerand]

Really, that's why elegant dresses became a thing in the decadent European courts of the 18th century? Marie Antoinette and CO. popularized these clothing items because "omen would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies"?

Much shock. Wow. Such decadence.

That's an "elegant dress"? She looks like she's out hunting. I've seen more elegant looks from the Queen.

[Galloism]

Much shock. Wow. Such decadence.

That's an "elegant dress"? She looks like she's out hunting. I've seen more elegant looks from the[/url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Marie-Antoinette%3B_koningin_der_Fransen.jpg] [url]Queen.

I think if I saw someone dressed like that I'd bust out laughing.

Gotta be a cultural relevance thing, but still.

[Olerand]

That's an "elegant dress"? She looks like she's out hunting. I've seen more elegant looks from the[/url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Marie-Antoinette%3B_koningin_der_Fransen.jpg] [url]Queen.

I think if I saw someone dressed like that I'd bust out laughing.

Gotta be a cultural relevance thing, but still.

As would I. How odd seeing someone dress in 18th century fashion today... Almost like seeing someone dress in 7th century fashion.

[Conserative Morality]

That's an "elegant dress"? She looks like she's out hunting. I've seen more elegant looks from the Queen.

Very sexy. I particularly like the part where most of her body is completely covered.

[Galloism]

I think if I saw someone dressed like that I'd bust out laughing.

Gotta be a cultural relevance thing, but still.

As would I. How odd seeing someone dress in 18th century fashion today... Almost like seeing someone dress in 7th century fashion.

And yet, banning such a dress would be silly.

Except on the subway maybe. It may present a safety hazard.

[Olerand]

You question if what is increasing? Islamic coverings? Yes. They were almost non-existent in immigrant communities in France before the 1980s, and the 1960s Mid-East had many less of them than it does today. That is a sign of an "increase".

And Islamic coverings (again, this is about the burkini here, and co. not the illegal burqa alone) are not "smaller and more inconsequential" than the dead and decaying pre-Vatican II nun's outfit.

Yes, yes yes they are.

Factually. It's been studied. I've already provided you a source showing only about 2,000 women, in all of France, wore the burqa before the ban. That's far far fewer than those who wore nun habits.

I mean, I know this is really hard stuff, but mathematically, 2,000 is less than 30,000 - 40,000. This cannot be denied. It must be fewer because it's a lower number. It's pretty much the entire basis of mathematics.

And I've said, numerous times, that I'm not discussing the burqa, which is banned with an ECHR approved ban in France. This topic itself is not even about the burqa.

But you keep on arguing with someone that's not me, but do exclude me from this quote list.

[Olerand]

That's an "elegant dress"? She looks like she's out hunting. I've seen more elegant looks from the Queen.

Very sexy. I particularly like the part where most of her body is completely covered.

Did I say she was naked? But hardly "modest". Hardly made so as not to incite men's attention and lust so as to not sin. Truly, who are you arguing with, what is your argument?

As would I. How odd seeing someone dress in 18th century fashion today... Almost like seeing someone dress in 7th century fashion.

And yet, banning such a dress would be silly.

Except on the subway maybe. It may present a safety hazard.

And I, and the current French government, and the Council of State, opposed the bans. Who are you arguing with?

[Galloism]

Yes, yes yes they are.

Factually. It's been studied. I've already provided you a source showing only about 2,000 women, in all of France, wore the burqa before the ban. That's far far fewer than those who wore nun habits.

I mean, I know this is really hard stuff, but mathematically, 2,000 is less than 30,000 - 40,000. This cannot be denied. It must be fewer because it's a lower number. It's pretty much the entire basis of mathematics.

And I've said, numerous times, that I'm not discussing the burqa, which is banned with an ECHR approved ban in France. This topic itself is not even about the burqa.

But you keep on arguing with someone that's not me, but do exclude me from this quote list.

Well, fortunately, the court decided the burqini ban was stupid.

Now if only they would do the same to the burqa ban.

[Conserative Morality]

Did I say she was naked? But hardly "modest". Hardly made so as not to incite men's attention and lust so as to not sin. Truly, who are you arguing with, what is your argument?

"Double standards for women in clothing are not new, not exclusively Islamic, and not dead."

[Conserative Morality]

Obviously this is just my view as an Anglophone. The French can't see this because they're just so far ahead of us.

[Olerand]

And I've said, numerous times, that I'm not discussing the burqa, which is banned with an ECHR approved ban in France. This topic itself is not even about the burqa.

But you keep on arguing with someone that's not me, but do exclude me from this quote list.

Well, fortunately, the court decided the burqini ban was stupid.

Now if only they would do the same to the burqa ban.

The Council of State did not find it "stupid" a meaningless legal term, it found it illegal. The ECHR found the burqa ban legal. Both issues are settled.

Did I say she was naked? But hardly "modest". Hardly made so as not to incite men's attention and lust so as to not sin. Truly, who are you arguing with, what is your argument?

"Double standards for women in clothing are not new, not exclusively Islamic, and not dead."

Where on God's green Earth did I ever say this? I argue that it is still alive, even in Islamic communities and societies. What...

[Olerand]

Obviously this is just my view as an Anglophone. The French can't see this because they're just so far ahead of us.

Did I ever say otherwise? What.........

[Conserative Morality]

Where on God's green Earth did I ever say this? I argue that it is still alive, even in Islamic communities and societies. What...

You argue with the implication that Western (or at least French) double-standards are effectively dead, and continue to do so.

[Galloism]

Well, fortunately, the court decided the burqini ban was stupid.

Now if only they would do the same to the burqa ban.

The Council of State did not find it "stupid" a meaningless legal term, it found it illegal. The ECHR found the burqa ban legal. Both issues are settled.

One was settled stupidly and will hopefully be repealed when France decides oppressing minorities is a bad thing.

[Olerand]

Where on God's green Earth did I ever say this? I argue that it is still alive, even in Islamic communities and societies. What...

You argue with the implication that Western standards are dead, and continue to do so.

Do I? Because I've said numerous times, the opposite is true. But I understand that one's (or one item's) explicit intentions are less clear to some here, clearly.

[Conserative Morality]

Obviously this is just my view as an Anglophone. The French can't see this because they're just so far ahead of us.

Did I ever say otherwise? What.........

Oh, sorry, allow me to rephrase that:

Clearly, this means we should regard women wearing elegant dresses as oppressing themselves.

Elegant dresses... Where they made so that women would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies?

[Olerand]

The Council of State did not find it "stupid" a meaningless legal term, it found it illegal. The ECHR found the burqa ban legal. Both issues are settled.

One was settled stupidly and will hopefully be repealed when France decides oppressing minorities is a bad thing.

Hope is a... cruel mistress. Especially hope for the most awful forms of misogyny. Fortunately, it will not.

[Olerand]

Did I ever say otherwise? What.........

Elegant dresses... Where they made so that women would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies?

What? I asked what the purpose of elegant dresses was? Was it to do so? It failed if so.

When did I ever claim sexist clothing standards in the West are dead? Certainly not in that quote.

[Galloism]

One was settled stupidly and will hopefully be repealed when France decides oppressing minorities is a bad thing.

Hope is a... cruel mistress. Especially hope for the most awful forms of misogyny. Fortunately, it will not.

I'm actually kind of hoping against misogyny. France's act in doing so was purely misogynistic in nature. It was designed with the premise that women are too weak and childlike to make their own decisions.

[Olerand]

Hope is a... cruel mistress. Especially hope for the most awful forms of misogyny. Fortunately, it will not.

I'm actually kind of hoping against misogyny. France's act in doing so was purely misogynistic in nature. It was designed with the premise that women are too weak and childlike to make their own decisions.

Fighting "misogyny" by defending misogyny. How Orwellian, I love it. I don't see us falling into that though, fortunately, or the ECHR.

[Galloism]

I'm actually kind of hoping against misogyny. France's act in doing so was purely misogynistic in nature. It was designed with the premise that women are too weak and childlike to make their own decisions.

Fighting "misogyny" by defending misogyny.

That's what France, and, to an extent, you are doing, yep - except without the scare quotes.

France is trying to use misogyny to fight misogyny. That won't work. It just won't.

[Aggicificicerous]

But the burqa, which is not the topic of discussion here's original raison d'être and its continued raison d'être is to cover women. For they are sinful. But not men, they're a-ok. The question is, is this sexist? Is this comparable to jet engine? Can this raison d'être, women and only women, must cover up no matter the weather ever be feminist? By what understanding of feminism?

Can something that was designed with one idea in mind be used for another? Yes, that's pretty much my entire point.

Which presumes that a woman, not raised with the mentality that women's bodies are inherently sinful, or indoctrinated into it by religion, would make this choice.

Are you saying that's impossible? How very presumptuous of you.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... p-ceremony

A serious question, do you believe, had some Ulama never interpreted the coverings from the Ahadith, that a woman would have come up with these women only outfits in the heat of Arabia? Do you believe there is a woman so self-loathing?

You sound like Chessmistress once she gets going on pornography. The idea that some people might do it voluntarily is alien to her; if you do it, it's because you have been forced into it, and if you chose to do it, you've been brainwashed by male-dominated society. There's no room for freedom of expression there, because if you choose the wrong thing, you forfeit your own agency in her eyes. I'm not so arrogant I would presume to know the minds of every person who does things I personally disagree with.

EDIT:

Defending misogyny by fighting misogyny. Truly Orwellian. I simply regret that you deny Muslim women the freedom from religious dictates that I'm sure you defend Western women against. Moving on.

And it's pretty telling here that you seem to think a ban on certain articles of clothing does anything to help women.