the message board for Dubai English speaking community
desertdudeshj wrote:I'm not 100% sure as I never really asked, but I'm guessing dole, land, govt jobs, etc etc
Dubai Knight wrote:She can never lose her nationality unless she chooses to become a national of another country, but she does lose all the 'rights' that are normally associated with that nationality.
As for ' the girls walking around the malls', yes Kid I am sure they have a comparative amount of freedom compared to those not mall crawling as a pastime, however they do still comply with the mores of UAE social behaviour and wear their abayas and sheylas, albeit cut to emphasise their figure and adorned with diamante and rhinestone. This is an obvious attempt to attract the opposite s.e.x., however who are they trying to attract?
Back to the subject of the thread.
Unlike the normal order in nature, in order to attract the right potential life partner, the females must 'display' their plumage...
Knight
uaekid wrote:desertdudeshj wrote:I'm not 100% sure as I never really asked, but I'm guessing dole, land, govt jobs, etc etc
no ,its just that her sons from a non emarati husband wont get the UAE nationality.they'll have their father.
uaekid wrote:but im still amazed at you starting the thread pretending you care for our women rights and love then went in describing them as s.e.x objects i would say them trying to attract men im malls as you said ! So Which way do you wana go here ?
desertdudeshj wrote:On of my Pakistani friends is married to a local, he had to whisk her away to pakistan and get married, her father being an influential man would never allow this to happen here. You forget the Father/guardian still has to give his permission legaly for it to happen.
And yes she was not stripped from her nationality but most rights that come with it were. Their daughter was refused local citizenship and is now a Pakistani citizen.
desertdudeshj wrote:No she does live in the UAE and the marriage is recognised.
uaekid wrote:but im still amazed at you starting the thread pretending you care for our women rights and love then went in describing them as s.e.x objects i would say them trying to attract men im malls as you said ! So Which way do you wana go here ?
Chocoholic wrote:uaekid wrote:but im still amazed at you starting the thread pretending you care for our women rights and love then went in describing them as s.e.x objects i would say them trying to attract men im malls as you said ! So Which way do you wana go here ?
Someone's got to care about your women's rights Kid, because you guys sure as hell don't!
Bethsmum wrote:You may know DK personally, I don't, but what I can say that nearly all of his posts concerning women are detrimental to women and his obvious first thoughts are how they would perform in the sack.
kanelli wrote:And yes, deep down I DO think that all men think of women as se.x objects.
kanelli wrote: Making women cover completely, or encouraging them to show lots of skin are both evidence - just opposite ends of the spectrum.
kanelli wrote:benwj I checked out that article. Germaine Greer nailed when she said, "“Stephen Fry is clearly under a delusion that he is an authority on female s.exu.ality. Well, if he thinks that women are not interested in ge.nital encounters with total strangers then he is absolutely right. But to conclude that we are therefore uninterested in s.ex is madness.
“It is true that men have an interest in a kind of s.ex which women find infinitely depressing, and it’s true that women really don’t want to hang around toilets hoping that someone will come along and play with their bits. That is not what passion is about for us and we would be placing ourselves in mortal danger if it was.
“Women have an idea of passion which men like Stephen can’t even begin to imagine. What women yearn for is intimacy. The fact that for women s.ex is an integral part of closeness doesn’t mean we are any less interested in it.’ "
Flying Dutchman, Hijab is about possessing women and not wanting them to be s.exu.ally objectified by others she doesn't belong to e.g. father or husband. Encouraging women to dress in next to nothing is about men pinning women's self esteem on their desirableness by men. The men get eye candy and hopefully a larger pool of women who may make themselves s.exu.ally available to them. In the end we are all se.x.ual animals, and women do have a desire to be attractive the same way that men do, but women also want to be respected and taken seriously as an important 50% of the population. For some reason men can be attractive and respected and taken seriously, but this isn't always reciprocated to women.
Flying Dutchman wrote:I could be wrong, but I am under the assumption that the majority of women (especially the ones already in a relationship) dress up nice, not so much for men, but to for other women (to make them envy).
Dubai Knight wrote:Bethsmum wrote:You may know DK personally, I don't, but what I can say that nearly all of his posts concerning women are detrimental to women and his obvious first thoughts are how they would perform in the sack.
And how do you arrive at this conclusion?
Perchance a little substantial evidence might be forthcoming?
Knight
kanelli wrote:BM, that is utter nonsense. DK posts on all kinds of topics unrelated to s.e.x, and when he does makes a bit of playful s.e.xual banter it is with people he has met and who know how to take the joke. Please explain to me how his description of Emirati women was supposedly "treating them like meat".
And yes, deep down I DO think that all men think of women as se.x objects. Some keep it more quiet, some vocalize it, some physically treat women like that. Making women cover completely, or encouraging them to show lots of skin are both evidence - just opposite ends of the spectrum.
benwj wrote:kanelli, I haven't met a woman either who didn't enjoy it.
Yes, Germaine nailed it and gave poor Stephen Fry a roasting.