Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

arniegang wrote:please stay on topic Liban

now can we get back to some donkey stories or swallow stories/posts please

Naughty naughty arnie

Corcovado wrote:

arniegang wrote:please stay on topic Liban

now can we get back to some donkey stories or swallow stories/posts please

Naughty naughty arnie

so spank me

There was nothing to tone down in this thread, no need for overreacting!
If you want to tone something down Arnie, why not tone down your attack on Nick81 and Raidah in Fight Club. If you are keen to split a thread, then why not take the 5 pages of off-topic banter out of that same thread.

K

With respect, there was a need to tone it down. The original subject had gone off topic way before i posted, and you indeed were part of that process, so please dont lecture me on staying "on topic".

With regards to what was put in FC, then that is a entirely separate issue, and has nothing to do with this topic at hand. Your comments regarding this, have no place in this thread. I noted your comment in the FC thread, you do not need to repeat yourself.

You also failed to notice that FC is technically "unmoderated" and i cannot therefore split the thread.

Furthermore, I should not need to remind you of the concept of fight club.

K & A - easy does it!

Concord wrote:K & A - easy does it!

Or let me know so I can take wagers!

we love each other really, she has said her bit, now i have said mine

end of... as far as i am concerned Concs

arniegang wrote:K

With respect, there was a need to tone it down. The original subject had gone off topic way before i posted, and you indeed were part of that process, so please dont lecture me on staying "on topic".

With regards to what was put in FC, then that is a entirely separate issue, and has nothing to do with this topic at hand. Your comments regarding this, have no place in this thread. I noted your comment in the FC thread, you do not need to repeat yourself.

You also failed to notice that FC is technically "unmoderated" and i cannot therefore split the thread.

Furthermore, I should not need to remind you of the concept of fight club.

How were we off-topic?

Women iron breasts, cut clitorises and cover themselves from head to toe in some cultures to protect themselves from s.ex.ual abuse, keep themselves "pure", or whatever bizarre reason related to male whims. This is because those societies are patriarchal and the onus is on the women to change their behaviour instead of the men changing theirs.

arniegang wrote:so spank me

That's Liban's job!!

Kanelli, I asked this question before, but what society isn't patriarchal?

its too bad ...

Tdot i believe there is a village in Indonesia that is a matriarchal society - there may be others in other countries.

It's not these ones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minangkabau although property is passed to women

kanelli wrote:Women iron breasts, cut clitorises and cover themselves from head to toe in some cultures to protect themselves from s.ex.ual abuse, keep themselves "pure", or whatever bizarre reason related to male whims. This is because those societies are patriarchal and the onus is on the women to change their behaviour instead of the men changing theirs.

I can't help but agree with you. Sometimes equal rights seems to mean equal as long as the male agrees!
I have no problem with people dressing appropriately for their culture. And if women wear full cover burka's (including covering their face) and men wear their traditional clothes and head scarfe's (apologies for not knowing the correct names!), then that's fine. But it really pi$$es me off when I see a couple where the woman is in full cover, and the guy is there wearing shorts and a t-shirt. I have to say it makes me cringe that thousands of years of evolution, and some guys still act like cave men in their beliefs!
Disagree with me if you want - but that's my view

the_zooter wrote:

arniegang wrote:so spank me

That's Liban's job!!

thank u zoots ur my knight...and arnie i dont know what going on with u ...BEHAVE ...

My 2 fils,

Aren't "we" imposing "our" values on what is right or wrong. Being able to wear whatever anyone wants doesn't necessarily mean that that society/culture is better than the other. In fact, believe you me, I've seen enough forms of undress at the malls (scary stuff) which would not be tolerated back wherever they come from ("western" or not). It is simply a matter of arrongance (or lack of class) to show they can wear whaever they want - although for some their dress is their livelyhood - or means to obtain it. Others, may have looked better before but "hit the wall" decades ago.

I wonder if any woman who is "covered up" has posted on this thread. Or whether anyone posting has asked a woman who wears the abaya about her opinion (and don't tell me they are all afraid to speak up). My wife and I think is a horrible thing but what the heck do we know...

If I am not miskaten Karen Hughes, Under Secretary For Public Diplomacy, USA, was lectured recently by women in the middle east about her "attempting" to tell them what was best for them (particularly with respect to dress, etc.). Albeit a minor example, and perhaps "staged" but...

I'm sure that women who grow up to wear a burqa etc. feel it is normal because that is how they grew up! So many people don't question anything. If a woman says she likes to dress like that, that is fine, but she'd give the same answer if she was raised to dress in shorts and a t-shirt.

On a hot day in Montreal I saw two instances that I think are unfair. In one residential park I watched some orthodox Jewish girls trying to play outside wearing stockings, long pencil skirts, longs sleeves, high collar and hair covered. They hardly had the mobility to play and it was so hot outside! What should they do, play indoors all summer so they don't overheat? What about getting some nice sun on their skin! Who knows, maybe they are all taking vitamin D supplements. In a water-side park a Muslim family was out together. The man was wearing shorts and a t-shirt and playing soccer with his small son. The woman was draped in black from head to toe (except face). I cannot figure how that is comfortable in that heat, and it impedes her from playing ball with her son as well. Why wasn't her husband wearing more traditional dress with long sleeves and long skirt/pants? He'd be very jealous if other men looked twice at his wife, but it seems okay for him to show his body and possibly allow women to give him a second glance in front of his wife. Now that is equality, isn't it?

Women in my culture who dress super-s.ex.y in itty bitty outfits are also influenced by men. They know that they can dress to impress them and exert power over them. Women can perhaps more easily manipulate men when dressing that way, but they are also falling into a trap of gaining their self-worth by catering to the fantasies of men.

I would never tell another woman how to dress, because I believe that women should be able to choose to do what they want.

kanelli wrote:I wouldn't never tell another woman how to dress, because I believe that women should be able to choose to do what they want.

Amen.

Now I don't know what side of the fence to sit on!!

I'm so confused by it all!!

Corcovado wrote:yes my dear ... Nefertiti and cleopatra in ancient egypt... Balkis...in old ages god was a Female ... the world was much better... now men...they want war.."boys and their toys" and weapons of mass destruction ...Alot of men rape women all over the world .. and the woman must iron her Breast and wear a veil to cover her body and face so men dont follow their animal instinct and rape her... Men Need decpline

Before sixth century, many people studied on human being, so got many philosopher, psychologist, scientist and world famous writers & poets but now all people (10years-above 60years) waste their time to chat or watch show at AFF website. Men not need discipline only, man need to study for human being knowledge.

vegael2003 wrote:

Corcovado wrote:yes my dear ... Nefertiti and cleopatra in ancient egypt... Balkis...in old ages god was a Female ... the world was much better... now men...they want war.."boys and their toys" and weapons of mass destruction ...Alot of men rape women all over the world .. and the woman must iron her Breast and wear a veil to cover her body and face so men dont follow their animal instinct and rape her... Men Need decpline

Before sixth century, many people studied on human being, so got many philosopher, psychologist, scientist and world famous writers & poets but now all people (10years-above 60years) waste their time to chat or watch show at AFF website. Men not need discipline only, man need to study for human being knowledge.

Oh no... he's starting to post outside the topic he created

Nick81 wrote:

vegael2003 wrote:

Corcovado wrote:yes my dear ... Nefertiti and cleopatra in ancient egypt... Balkis...in old ages god was a Female ... the world was much better... now men...they want war.."boys and their toys" and weapons of mass destruction ...Alot of men rape women all over the world .. and the woman must iron her Breast and wear a veil to cover her body and face so men dont follow their animal instinct and rape her... Men Need decpline

Before sixth century, many people studied on human being, so got many philosopher, psychologist, scientist and world famous writers & poets but now all people (10years-above 60years) waste their time to chat or watch show at AFF website. Men not need discipline only, man need to study for human being knowledge.[/quote


Oh no... he's starting to post outside the topic he created

I don't know why man afraid to listen truth, can you tell what is its reason?

Now celebs need burkas

These days their every personal flaw is being exposed. There's only one way to fight back

Kathryn Hughes
Monday July 10, 2006
The Guardian


The tabloid newspapers and celebrity magazines have greeted the arrival of high-definition television (HDTV) with a kind of whooping glee. In a string of "before and after" photo features, they offer previews of what terrible secrets Teri Hatcher, Keira Knightley and Elizabeth Hurley are about to have exposed to the cruel gaze of the world at large (respectively, hectic flush, acne, crows' feet). The message is clear: in this new economy of super-sightedness, power has passed from the looked-upon to the looker. No amount of covering up with slap is going to save you from a kind of visual rape in which you and your enlarged pores are laid bare before the world's probing, mocking glance.


This savage scopic economy (that's what cultural theorists call it, anyway) has been in the ascendant for some time now. Witness Heat magazine's weekly "circle of shame" feature, where attention is directed to a malfunctioning bit of a celebrity's body that might otherwise have gone unnoticed: fingers that resemble claws, ears that droop like an elephant's, an apparent third nipple ... and all ringed and tagged to make sure that no amount of lipsticky smiles can distract you, the viewer, from your stern task of seeking out the visual truth in a world of smoke and mirrors.

In this new x-ray world there will be few hiding places, and so the options left to those most likely to be caught in the public gaze are severely limited. The old-fashioned approach might simply be to redouble your disguise and hope that the all-seeing eye will skim over you before passing on to more important targets. To this end the beauty columns in the high-end newspapers are suggesting a product called Cover FX, a skin foundation originally developed to deal with burns and vitiligo, now being sold as just the thing to take with you when you go into battle with HDTV. Its dense putty layers will, quite simply, blot you out, reducing you to a kind of blank screen on which a new, more pleasing face may be painted.

The other, more modern approach is to glory in your fakeness, joyfully drawing attention to the fact that you have been assembled with the world's searching gaze in mind. You can see this in the Big Brother house, where none of the female contestants is remotely bothered about having had breast enhancements. Instead, here - as elsewhere - the talk is all about size, shape and provenance. In the press, too, the talk is no longer about has she/hasn't she had cosmetic surgery, but about who has got it right (Anne Robinson) and who has got it wrong (the hapless Teri Hatcher, who is fast becoming a terrible warning about what can happen to a nice woman in the savage age of high definition).

Then again, consider the wives and girlfriends of the England soccer team, who were recently accompanied to Germany by a couple of operatives from the Fake Bake tanning company. No one pretended for a moment that a job lot of pasty girls from the chilly north-west of England owed their gleaming golden tans to anything other than artifice. Indeed, far from being kept secret, like postmodern madwomen in the attic, allowed out after dark only with their spray cans to perform their magic art, the fake bakers were incorporated into the Baden-Baden narrative as surely as Coleen's luggage or, indeed, Posh's breasts.

In these circumstances you can begin to see the point of the burka. Every now and then a Muslim feminist will write a piece for the papers suggesting that turning yourself into a small black tent is, in fact, marvellously liberating since it removes you at a stroke from the scopic economy. Until now that logic has always seemed strangely topsy-turvy, but in the age of high definition it may indeed turn out to be the only truly practical choice.

kathryn.hughes@btinternet.com

MaaaD wrote:Now celebs need burkas

These days their every personal flaw is being exposed. There's only one way to fight back

Kathryn Hughes
Monday July 10, 2006
The Guardian


The tabloid newspapers and celebrity magazines have greeted the arrival of high-definition television (HDTV) with a kind of whooping glee. In a string of "before and after" photo features, they offer previews of what terrible secrets Teri Hatcher, Keira Knightley and Elizabeth Hurley are about to have exposed to the cruel gaze of the world at large (respectively, hectic flush, acne, crows' feet). The message is clear: in this new economy of super-sightedness, power has passed from the looked-upon to the looker. No amount of covering up with slap is going to save you from a kind of visual rape in which you and your enlarged pores are laid bare before the world's probing, mocking glance.


This savage scopic economy (that's what cultural theorists call it, anyway) has been in the ascendant for some time now. Witness Heat magazine's weekly "circle of shame" feature, where attention is directed to a malfunctioning bit of a celebrity's body that might otherwise have gone unnoticed: fingers that resemble claws, ears that droop like an elephant's, an apparent third nipple ... and all ringed and tagged to make sure that no amount of lipsticky smiles can distract you, the viewer, from your stern task of seeking out the visual truth in a world of smoke and mirrors.

In this new x-ray world there will be few hiding places, and so the options left to those most likely to be caught in the public gaze are severely limited. The old-fashioned approach might simply be to redouble your disguise and hope that the all-seeing eye will skim over you before passing on to more important targets. To this end the beauty columns in the high-end newspapers are suggesting a product called Cover FX, a skin foundation originally developed to deal with burns and vitiligo, now being sold as just the thing to take with you when you go into battle with HDTV. Its dense putty layers will, quite simply, blot you out, reducing you to a kind of blank screen on which a new, more pleasing face may be painted.

The other, more modern approach is to glory in your fakeness, joyfully drawing attention to the fact that you have been assembled with the world's searching gaze in mind. You can see this in the Big Brother house, where none of the female contestants is remotely bothered about having had breast enhancements. Instead, here - as elsewhere - the talk is all about size, shape and provenance. In the press, too, the talk is no longer about has she/hasn't she had cosmetic surgery, but about who has got it right (Anne Robinson) and who has got it wrong (the hapless Teri Hatcher, who is fast becoming a terrible warning about what can happen to a nice woman in the savage age of high definition).

Then again, consider the wives and girlfriends of the England soccer team, who were recently accompanied to Germany by a couple of operatives from the Fake Bake tanning company. No one pretended for a moment that a job lot of pasty girls from the chilly north-west of England owed their gleaming golden tans to anything other than artifice. Indeed, far from being kept secret, like postmodern madwomen in the attic, allowed out after dark only with their spray cans to perform their magic art, the fake bakers were incorporated into the Baden-Baden narrative as surely as Coleen's luggage or, indeed, Posh's breasts.

In these circumstances you can begin to see the point of the burka. Every now and then a Muslim feminist will write a piece for the papers suggesting that turning yourself into a small black tent is, in fact, marvellously liberating since it removes you at a stroke from the scopic economy. Until now that logic has always seemed strangely topsy-turvy, but in the age of high definition it may indeed turn out to be the only truly practical choice.

kathryn.hughes@btinternet.com

Why write a long message, it is not a class room

Vegie you're one of a kind!

And Maaad nice find as usual

Nick81 wrote:Vegie you're one of a kind!

And Maaad nice find as usual

but nick81, u did not reply me about this question "I don't know why man afraid to listen truth, can you tell what is its reason?"

vegael2003 wrote:

Nick81 wrote:Vegie you're one of a kind!

And Maaad nice find as usual

but nick81, u did not reply me about this question "I don't know why man afraid to listen truth, can you tell what is its reason?"

You're not ready to listen to the truth weakling.

V, do you mean men as in males, or men as in human beings?

kanelli wrote:V, do you mean men as in males, or men as in human beings?

Oh no K., don't get him started...

Nick81 wrote:

vegael2003 wrote:

Nick81 wrote:Vegie you're one of a kind!

And Maaad nice find as usual

but nick81, u did not reply me about this question "I don't know why man afraid to listen truth, can you tell what is its reason?"

You're not ready to listen to the truth weakling.

if u tell then i m ready for listening, but pls tell me that is "81" yr age?

kanelli wrote:V, do you mean men as in males, or men as in human beings?

men always male but men never female and human is same of both, male and female