Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Romance

Well: having been branded sub judice as a drooling, leering, lecherous, s.e.x. maniac, with a glint in his eye and a bulge in his...ego...I suppose I should add that to the existing tirade at the bottom of my profile!

Perhaps it is true that our virtual and real personae tend to be diametrically opposed.



Knight

Dubai Knight wrote:Well: having been branded sub judice as a drooling, leering, lecherous, s.e.x. maniac, with a glint in his eye and a bulge in his...ego...I suppose I should add that to the existing tirade at the bottom of my profile!

Perhaps it is true that our virtual and real personae tend to be diametrically opposed.



Knight

Oh I get it now! You are saying that you aren't anything like the person you are portraying! Silly me! You didn't get it when I was doing it did you?

Do you remember that 3 way conversation you, me and DDS had? The one where I was picturing Mr Emirati, smelling gorgeous, picking me up for dinner at the Royal Mirage in his brand new X6 and I compared him to you two turning up in your old cars smelling of wet dog for a drive thro McDonalds? Do you remember all the names you called me, I think yours were shallow, shallow and shallow, and I can't remember DDS's, he's called me that many, I've lost count. I think I pointed out at the time that you were both gullible, you didn't like that either. You see! you're not the only one who plays games!

Ah, so that's the reason for the hostility towards DK. I must have missed that thread. I thought maybe you asked him out and he refused you. Sounds like rich Emiratis are more your style though.

Kanelli, yes you must have missed that one. I was winding DK and DDS up big style one time about their passion for their old vehicles and I'm afraid it went right over their heads and they reigned a load of abuse my way, I think DDS said I was unintelligent. LOL! I do admit I like a nice car, and if a rich Emirati was thrown into the equation, well it's all good to go. (If it was my choice I'd rather have Mr Beckham tho')

BM, I think you realize by now that your humor level is a bit too high, dry and wicked. I always found a good laugh in your posts, even those directed at me.

BM, I think you realize by now that your humor level is a bit too high, dry and wicked. I always found a good laugh in your posts, even those directed at me.

Thanks Bora, I try my best to liven things up!

I was just thinking about Kanelli's comment about my hostility towards DK. I think I can safely say (but I stand corrected if wrong) that I've only shown hostility to those on DF who've been (I'm struggling for the right word here as I don't like 'attacked', after all it's just an internet forum) 'off' with me first. I'm really quite an amicable person in real life, believe it or not, but I do admit to having a strange, some say wicked sense of humour. Some people get me, some don't, such is life! I never let it bother me.

Bethsmum wrote:Thanks Bora, I try my best to liven things up!

I was just thinking about Kanelli's comment about my hostility towards DK. I think I can safely say (but I stand corrected if wrong) that I've only shown hostility to those on DF who've been (I'm struggling for the right word here as I don't like 'attacked', after all it's just an internet forum) 'off' with me first. I'm really quite an amicable person in real life, believe it or not, but I do admit to having a strange, some say wicked sense of humour. Some people get me, some don't, such is life! I never let it bother me.

It's all about give and take and giving it back. The word "attacked" has been overused. Let's go with poke, or jab, or swipe or some other word . Don't need to explain who you are in real life, I'm all sure we are amicable people in real life, but like you said - it's an internet forum - it can bring out the best of us and the worst of us. Oh, wait, doesn't that happen in real life???

kanelli wrote:Give me a break uaekid. Let's face it, no matter what a woman wears, covered or uncovered, she is viewed as a s.ex. object by men.

And there was nothing offensive in what DK said about some Emirati women trying to show their beauty or control their own love life. You are the one offended that women adorn their abayas in diamante and wear them more form fitting. Deal with your own issues, but don't blame DK.

uaekid, do you spray a bit of your cologne on the paper when you pass your number to the ladies?

me offended ? thats the only reason I go to the mall

but reading his post :

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

and I'm not talking about local women only but women in general here, judging them to be what ever you wana call that sentence from DK ,when many are dressing in such way is just a " fashion sense ", some wear such a style to be "women" and exercise their life in a feminine way but not “an obvious attempt to attract the opposite s.e.x” as DK put it, I’m sorry but women dressing up is NOT a sign they are monkey’s and trying to attract the dominant male .

and I’m sorry kanelli for your view of your gender to be such an extreme one. At the end, you are entitled of your opinion and I hope you and DK wont think that women at the beach wearing bikinis are trying to attract the fishes. I don't mind DK view , but you are a Disgrace to your gender kanelli.

I'm a disgrace to my gender! That had me spurting water out of my nose and onto the keyboard. To make us laugh even more, perhaps you could elaborate on your view of the male and female genders... That should be fun.

Do I hear the distant 'phhhhssttttt...' of a six pack of whupass being opened?



Knight

kanelli wrote:I'm a disgrace to my gender! That had me spurting water out of my nose and onto the keyboard. To make us laugh even more, perhaps you could elaborate on your view of the male and female genders... That should be fun.

I'm sorry to break it to you kid... All of those times that your mummy put you on her lap and told you that looks don't matter, and that you are the most handsome boy in the world, well...
The bad news is that looks count for a lot, and women don't get dressed up to try and make themselves look look like shite.
The good news is that if you ARE the most handsome boy in the world, you've got nothing to worry about.

kanelli wrote:I'm a disgrace to my gender! That had me spurting water out of my nose and onto the keyboard. To make us laugh even more, perhaps you could elaborate on your view of the male and female genders... That should be fun.

Of course you are dear, not to all females but yourself in the first place ! I mean don’t mind me or DK in how we look at women, we are men, we are alike in this matter “I don’t disagree with him “.. but you as a woman supporting his view is a hall different issue .
You could be one of those who dressed up for such a reason “in your old days” but not necessarily all women are, and you as a female should fight this shallow view of women rather than supporting it. Remember what you use to preach ? this just makes you as pretends as DK, right ?
You are supporting the men idea of being attracted to women for their bodies rather than their rights to be attracting bcz of their intelligent , personality and soul .maybe you don’t have all of these but in any how and if this is your true view of women then fine but spear us your preaching of women rights and sexism crap you are losing credibility here. Not mention you being incapable to raise a daughter to be a self respected woman in the future .

"I mean don't mind me or DK in how we look at women, we are men, we are alike in this matter "I don't disagree with him"... but you as a woman supporting his view is a hall (sic) different issue."

So there is a double standard between what men and women are allowed to think? One tick on my list of things I expected you to say.

"You could be one of those who dressed up for such a reason "in your old days" but not necessarily all women are..."

I'm 4 years older than you, but back in the "old high school and university days" I wore jeans and t-shirts and doc martens or running shoes. I owned one simple black dress that I wore to formal events requiring it. I was focused on studying for my undergrad and masters and working part-time, so wasn't doing the hair, make-up and partying thing very often. As a teacher and corporate trainer I wore business casual attire. Nowadays I wear lots of knee-length 3/4 sleeved or no-sleeved wrap dresses with a camisole underneath so no brea.stfeeding cleavage. Because I'm not draped in a black sheet of cloth you could still say I dress as a ho. Guess you win that one!

"You are supporting the men(sic) idea of being attracted to women for their bodies rather than their rights to be attracting(sic) bcz of their intelligent(sic), personality and soul. Maybe you don't have all of these..."

If looking for a short fling, both men and women are attracted to good looks and that is all that is relevant. If men and women spend time together they can become attracted to the intelligence and personality of the other person and feel compelled to spend the rest of their lives with that person, so clearly there must be more than just looks involved. The fact remains that most men and women are first attracted to each other by looks, but attraction based on other characteristics is vital to forming a long-term relationship. Nothing wrong with that.

"...spear(sic) us your preaching of women's rights and s.exism crap you are losing credibility here."

Right, because you admit that is okay for men to view women as se.x objects, but as a woman I lose credibility when I say this. Fantastic (s.e.xist) logic!

"Not mention (sic) you being incapable to raise a daughter to be a self respected woman in the future."

He he he! You'd just love how I raise my boys. I try to keep everything gender neutral. The other day when playing at a girlfriend's house they played dress-up. My friend's daughter and my son were in their little dresses, with high heeled sparkly shoes with purses draped over their arms and tiaras on their heads prancing around the house for about an hour. Now I've done it! My son has been turned into a ho.mose.xual! :8 Somebody save him from my evil clutches!

I wouldn't tell you that you are incapable of raising any children well because a) I don't know you, and b) It would be mean and unfair.

What do you think my husband would say if he read your comments here about me being only good for looks but no intelligence, personality or soul, and incapable of raising female children to be respectable... I asked him and he said, "Pfff! He doesn't know you at all. He sounds like a chicken (beep) who says stupid (beep) to others because he's hiding behind a computer screen."

Kanelli, I still have to disagree with you on the following point you made

If looking for a short fling, both men and women are attracted to good looks and that is all that is relevant. If men and women spend time together they can become attracted to the intelligence and personality of the other person and feel compelled to spend the rest of their lives with that person, so clearly there must be more than just looks involved. The fact remains that most men and women are first attracted to each other by looks, but attraction based on other characteristics is vital to forming a long-term relationship. Nothing wrong with that.

It just isn't true for all that looks are what first attracts one to another. If good looks are only relevant for short flings, how do you explain men going with absolute mingers? (And the other way round to).

I agree with a lot you say but at the end of the day, it's a culture thing.

BTW I only have daughters but if I had a son I wouldn't let him dress up in girl's clothes, no way. I hate all that metrosexual thing. I like my men to be men. That must be the northern english girl coming out in me.

BM, of course there are some people having short flings with others who don't look conventionally gorgeous. Some may have ugly faces but hot bodies. Some people are so desperate they will take whoever they can get at the end of the night. Does that make my initial statement invalid for the majority of cases?

Did you miss the part "but attraction based on other characteristics is vital to forming a long-term relationship." I'm a bit incredulous that you think that looks are not primary in the majority of people being attracted to others. That would seem to go against all evidence around us.

If a parent thinks it is ok for her little girl to go to a boy's house and dress up in his pirate and gladiator costumes, why can't a little boy go to a little girl's house and dress up in her princess costume? The children are playing dress-up! I never said I dress my boys in little girls clothes every day. He did ask for pink flip flops the other day at the shoe store and I was ready to buy them but he changed his mind. Pink is a colour like any other, is it not? I had Barbies and Star Wars and Hot Wheels cars when I was a little girl. Should my parents have only given me pink toy kitchens, pink baby dolls and pink Barbies and taken away my Star Wars and toy cars? Parents should at least look at some of the psychology and sociology research before assuming that they are damaging their kids by letting them wear or play with something "reserved" for one gender.

I wasn't going that deep into why I wouldn't want any son of mine dressing in a fairy costume and a tiara. Just that I wouldn't want to see it.

Actually, pink was the boys color, and blue for girls.

According to Jean Heifetz, for centuries, all European children were dressed in blue because the color was associated with the Virgin Mary. The use of pink and blue emerged at the turn of the century, the rule being pink for boys, blue for girls. Since pink was a stronger color it was best suited for boys; blue was more delicate and dainty and best for girls. And in 1921, the Women's Institute for Domestic Science in Pennsylvania endorsed pink for boys, blue for girls. (When Blue Meant Yellow. pp. 20 -21)

One could argue that contemporary color symbolism confirms these associations. Blue is considered a calm, passive color, hence feminine. Red (pink derived from red) is considered active hence masculine.

So I guess we are the stronger gender. I don't need to wear pink to know that.

I don't have a problem with men in pink, just pink dresses. I never was into Elton.

Bethsmum wrote:I wasn't going that deep into why I wouldn't want any son of mine dressing in a fairy costume and a tiara. Just that I wouldn't want to see it.

Hey, no obligation to think deeply about subjects that don't interest you.

I just find it curious that girls can wear boy things and play with boy toys, but heaven forbid a boy do the same.

I dunno why Kanelli, just offensive to my eye. This is obviously about me rather than the child, I just don't like to see boys in girls stuff. It just looks wrong to me!

Bethsmum wrote:I dunno why Kanelli, just offensive to my eye. This is obviously about me rather than the child, I just don't like to see boys in girls stuff. It just looks wrong to me!

Spend some time in Egypt. You'll get used to it.

Bora,

I lived in Cairo for 7 years and still cant get my tights off.

drewpeacock wrote:Bora,

I lived in Cairo for 7 years and still cant get my tights off.

LOL. Drew, If I ever met you that would be the first picture to pop in my head!!!!

Thanks for sharing

The hijab is based on the notion that men are pigs.

Really? Please provide your evidence. Because what I read states otherwise.

33. Surah Al-Ahzab
Verse 59. O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e.screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever OftForgiving, Most Merciful.

BTW, there's a lot of misinformed notations of islam on the forum.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

kanelli wrote:And yes, deep down I DO think that all men think of women as se.x objects.

I object!

kanelli wrote: Making women cover completely, or encouraging them to show lots of skin are both evidence - just opposite ends of the spectrum.

The hijab is based on the notion that men are pigs.

So brucebanner, who exactly would be doing the annoying of those women that would need to cloak themselves??? Why is a woman only free and respectable when she's cloaked? Where is the responsibility of the men for their conduct? But yes, men don't view women as s.e.x objects...

(Of course, I agree that skimpy clothing is not a good idea, but in Saudi women are draped in black sheets with all skin covered and that is over the top!)

That's besides the point, but feel free to read the commentary of the verse I quoted; http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=42193.

Also, it's over the top according to your standards. Just because a certain group of people decide to do somethings differently, which doesn't fit into your social norm, it doesn't imply that it's over the top.

kanelli wrote:So brucebanner, who exactly would be doing the annoying of those women that would need to cloak themselves??? Why is a woman only free and respectable when she's cloaked? Where is the responsibility of the men for their conduct? But yes, men don't view women as s.e.x objects...

(Of course, I agree that skimpy clothing is not a good idea, but in Saudi women are draped in black sheets with all skin covered and that is over the top!)

Okay brucebanner, I'll have respect for your viewpoint when you walk around on a daily basis shrowded in billowy black cloth with your face covered.