h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, seriously. Well, semi-seriously, at least.

There is a thread somewhere in the vast conglomeration that is h2g2 about a man who took it upon himself to challenge social mores by walking naked from one end of Britain to the other. Chilly. And uncomfortable. Also possibly illegal, though I seem to remember some debate about that.

If I could find that thread I'd post this comment there. But I still get lost in this place. And the conversation search is still down.

Let's assume, for the moment, that it is illegal to wander around the countryside in the nude. If it is, this is a reflection in law of what originates as a social custom (public morality).

Okay, here's the question: Is there any qualitative difference between this and the law in some Islamic states, also based on public morality, that women (and, to a slightly lesser extent, men) cover their entire bodies when in a public place?

Note the word /qualitative/. There is an obvious quantitative difference.

TRiG.

I'm inclined to think that an action should be illegal only if it does real quantifiable harm.

I see people every single day who, quite frankly, if I saw them naked I'd be physically sick. So I'm all for laws requiring clothing.

SoRB

The qualitative difference is the bit that requires women to be treated differently from men. And the extreme example of that is the people who say that women must dress differently so that they don't tempt the men into sinning.

Thread from 'The Forum':

F135418?thread=696512

We need more nudity.... but only allow those who meet with certain 'standards' to be nude....

>> And the extreme example of that is the people who say that women must dress differently so that they don't tempt the men into sinning. <<

This is where the issues arise, for me. "Sinning". What a stupid, barbaric-Middle-Eastern-death-cult concept.

The Muslim religious dress code is based on the fact that if women exposed their flesh in any way shape or form, the men would be seized by an uncontrollable urge to rape them. Anyone else have a problem with that?

RF

Also women are not to looks directly at men. This is seen as a provocative challenge.

You lookin' at me, Lil? huh? Lil? huh?

RF

So two extremes going on . . . women having to wear burkas, covered from head-to-toe so as to not incite *lust* (rolls eyes) and UK naturists thinking they should be able to walk about in the buff wherever they please.

About the first extreme . . . what utter tripe! Simply a means to keep women as less than second-class citizens based on what *their men* deem as 'proper'.

As for the other . . . I really don't care. Except, as I've posted elsewhere, most people actually look better dressed. Though I also think that many people don't even know how to dress and certainly have no idea of what they look like from behind.


az

>>>"Sinning". What a stupid, barbaric-Middle-Eastern-death-cult concept.<<<

funny, and I always thought it was a Judeo-Christian concept...

and while I do understand that we're at the "sweeping generalisations" stage of the thread, how about making the distinction between Middle Eastern (includes Christian, Jewish and Muslim while excluding easily half the world's Muslims) and Islamic.

While you're at it, perhaps take the trouble to distinguish between Alawite, Druze, Sunni, Shia, Twelvers and other forms of Islam - all of whom have different societal rules... and perhaps add in a bit of social history on the bedouin arabs pre-Islam - with whom the custom of face covering actually originated.



Wilma

There's also the issue of proportionate response in punishment. Nudism or indecent exposure in the UK is going to be what? A fine or a night in the cells or something? Fair enough really - they know the law after all and I expect it mostly catches drunk blokes pissing in the streets.

Az, perhaps you should write an entry on how to dress well? Or perhaps there's even one already. I'll just get searching...

>>funny, and I always thought it was a Judeo-Christian concept...

And would you not consider that Judeo-Christianity is a Middle-Eastern death cult?

<>

Don't get me started, Bouncy.

First of all, a three-way mirror is *de rigeur* as most people have no idea what they look like from behind (imho).

At least, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt on that.

Secondly, if you choose to be a 'fashion victim' then you gotta already know that you're probably going to look ridiculous in anything you wear.

Meanwhile, it's simply common sense.

What clothes feel good when you put them on? Feel like you? Make you feel 'at home'? THOSE are the clothes you should be wearing.

The rest is all stuff and nonsense. So you end up with 40-something women wearing tight hipster trousers (eek!) or overweight men thinking that jeans showing bum cleavage is somehow sexy?

Again, extreme examples. But I always find it amazing that so many peole DO NOT KNOW how to dress themselves. In a manner that brings out their best attributes and shows them as being comfortable with their own personal style.

I mean, how hard can it be? Wear stuff that feels *like you*, not some crap you've seen in a magazine.

There actually aren't any rules. There is actually no such thing as 'fashion' unless one wants to believe in it.

I love clothes. I love styles of clothing. Heck, I'm even designing clothes. But they have nothing to do with 'fashion'. They are about feeling comfortable and 'at home' with what you are wearing. With who you are.

Me? I always dress exactly how I like. And people often refer to my dress sense as 'elegant' even when I'm wearing stuff that looks like pyjamas.

'Style' comes from within. Clothes are just an outward expression of that. At least, that's what I think.


az

>>>Judeo-Christianity is a Middle-Eastern death cult?<<<

why death cult specifically?

Wilma

Sounds like "wear what you already wear," to me. Package it right and that sort of philosophy could make you a lot of money . You need to think of an appropriate empowering name for the 3-way mirror though .

Death cult specifically because of the importance of afterlife and rejection of the material world.

Oh, and the whole apoctalypsticism/resurrection thing. Lakes of fire and rivers of second death and all that stuff.

Just to clarify, in case there was any doubt, I fully intended to include Christianity and Judaeism as Middle Eastern death cults, as well as Islam; all of which started in the Middle East. (Although, when I was little, I'm sure we used to call it the Near East. When did it move?).

Why death cults? Well, they all worship dead people. Hence "death cult".

RF

<>

Well, noooo . . . more about educating people to find out what they are most comfortable wearing. Which may or may not be my stuff, but I really think people should be aware of what sort of clothing suits them best, makes them feel like themselves, all that stuff.

Re: death cults.

Yeah, all those religions that focus on death and a possible afterlife. Rather than the here and now. Those that (for example) go crazy about the Passion of Christ and re-live His death every year, which much pomp and circumstance.

Those that believe that by sacrificing your 'earthly' needs and wants now, while you are alive, that you will be rewarded later in a promised 'afterlife'.

I've never understood this nonsense. Like, I'm gonna believe there is some magical heavenly place out there? Why would I believe that?

And frankly, nobody has ever answered that question properly.


az