1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Saudi understanding of sexuality...

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by cleanbluesky, May 16, 2006.

  1. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    FFS Raz, I'm not going to create a dialogue for you... unless you are suggesting, on the basis of a wikipedia page, that I am mistaken in what I believe a veil is...

    m-w.com says
    something that hides or obscures

    although it also lists other definitions. The wikipedia page doesn't note these distinctions and the manner in which they can be used.

    When discussing veils I was talking about pieces of cloth that obscure the face...

    So, I ask again - do you have a counter-argument or is this conversation over?
     
  2. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    Do you therefore think that people from cultures such as that should abide by our rules and cultural norms if they wish to live here?
     
  3. ElRazur

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 15, 2005

    Posts: 10,439

    Location: I am everywhere...

    We have our own rules here and as it clearly states in the quran - Muslim must abide by the rules of whatever place they go to live in.
    On that basis i would support your statement, having said that, it is not so in real life.
     
  4. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    As our rules are completely independent from the Koran I don't understand why you suggest that they should obey our cultural norms because of the koran ...... your previous argument is that they have their way of life out there and that we should not even begin to question it, yet it seems our way of life here is not as sacrosanct in your opinion as theirs is?


    Afterall if the Police force is institutionally racist then that must be the norm here and using your arguments from before - that works for us so why challenge it, why criticise it, why suggest it is not a good thing .....

    Alternatively if the cultural norm and legal requirement here is to treat homosexuals on exactly the same footing as non homosexuals then why do you use your foreign upbringing as an excuse for not practicing acceptable behaviour here?
     
  5. ElRazur

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 15, 2005

    Posts: 10,439

    Location: I am everywhere...

    Do you find it hard that to accept i pointed out the obvious jargon you posted then now you try to flip things around?

    Im gonna say this one time and one time only.

    We all know that veils obsucre the face, one way or the other. Your source backs your arguement, my source highlights that too but saying
    is just totally wrong. Veils are worn as part of tradition and culture but since you live in a first world and you cant comprehend as to why it is worn hence you comment! Nice one .

    I think i counter-argued you originally but you refuse to see it.
     
  6. ElRazur

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 15, 2005

    Posts: 10,439

    Location: I am everywhere...

    These people as we know are guided in all aspect of their lives, one way or the other by the quran. Hence, i dont see why they should NOT obey our rules (perhaps not way of life) . My arguement is whatever happens within their boundry is their issues not ours and i dont feel we should get involved.

    I dont see how a racist police force is the norm, when it should be totally neutral by default (now that's the norm) so that arguement dont work im afraid.

    I try to not bring up the issue of homosexuality but yet it has to come up all the time. Iirc, throughout the whole homosexuality debate, i did mentioned that my homophobic stance wont go to the extent of me offending them i.e verbal abuse or physical attack instead i will try to avoid them if i can. Now from where im standing, that is still abiding by the rules. For example I have gay co-worker at my work place but i wont because of my views not work with him if i have to. i think my issues is just more of me not understanding homosexuality coupled with the fact as you rightly mentioned i have a foreign upbringing
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2006
  7. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Well, I covered all of those things with my (admittedly) vague comment about being against all things which cause proven harm.

    Your point about identity is an interesting one though. I thought the burkha was a means of suppressing sexuality rather than identity, although obviously the side-effect IS a suppression of identity.
     
  8. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    You seem to give value to everyones traditional cultures and norms - but not those in the UK. Why is this? Why should your foreign upbringing (or anyone else's) be a suitable excuse for not adhereing to our cultural values and norms IF we are to take your view that we must not criticise other countries for theirs?

    Equally we can argue that IF it is institutionally racist then it MUST be a cultural norm for the police force to be racist. Therefore by your argument about cultural norms we should not be seeking to remove racism from the force, after all its worked for them for a long time - IF we accept your view that it is institutionally racist. However we would still have to understand your viewpoint that it is NOT bad to show prejudice via homophoia but is bad to show prejudice via racism. We *could* use your argument and change the words from "I don't see why any man would want to go to bed with another man" to "I don't see why anyone would want to go to bed with someone from a different race".
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2006
  9. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Yes, they are worn for 'cultural reasons' but whether something is done for cultural reasons or not does not mean that it is a good practice, or that it should be supported - nor does it mitigate the idea that they are used for opression.

    A woman wearing a full veil is without identity, and I don't think that this is something either you or I would be happy to have done to us.

    Also, there is no reason we cannot criticise the culture of others - as you yourself enjoy the right of. Why should you criticise homosexuals when it is a cultural norm that they are tolerated over here?

    Why should I not comment on veil wearing, if you can comment on homosexuality?
     
  10. ElRazur

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 15, 2005

    Posts: 10,439

    Location: I am everywhere...

    I do give values to this country's culture and tradition period. I dont know why you think that. There will always be a clash of interest, reasoning and ideas in me due to my upbringing. The only way i can skip past all of those in the society is by me learning and adapting to the enviroment i am in and that's exactly what i am doing - I am "moderately homophobic" and think i explained why. If you try to put forward an arguement of homosexuality being accepted here as a cultural thing, then i suggest you should check more on your heritage (assuming you are english). It is not a cultural thing and never has it been. I think is more of a tolerance and human rights reason hence the acceptance.

    Institutional racism is as a result of rogue elements getting into the system and manipulating it to suit their own personal agendas - e.g those who oppose a multicultural britain will be more than happy to abuse their powers (if they are in the position) to stop that (muticulturalism) from happening or perhabs make life hell for the minority as see from the damming police report on the numbers of times black/asian people are arrested. This again is highlighted by the suspension of BNP members inthe force, surely if that the norm, they would be allowed to stay?
    Like i said previously, if by DEFAULT it should be neutral, then i dont see how your argument stands. Race and homosexuality are two different things, but what strikes me as odd is the continous use of both (due to what you will consider an oposing view) as an argument. We should tackle one debate at a time not mixed both together and try to paint a picture of convincing debate.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2006
  11. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    Because both are prejudices.

    Why should I not discriminate against you on the basis of race? It is a prejudice based upon an aspect of you that is in no way of your choice. You did not choose to be of a given race / culture and so on. People do not choose to be hetero or homo. When did you choose to be hetero?

    Therefore how can you whine about racism when you yourself exhibit prejudice. We as a society believe that prejudice is wrong, regardless of whether it is race, sex, weight, age, colour, accent, sexuality and so on.

    We do not excuse certain prejudices. We say that everyone should be judged on their ability not on other irrelevent factors. Sexuality is irrelevent. So is race. If you are incapable of seeing the commonalities then you must be utterly blinded by prejudice - that is why the two can't just be dealt with as seperate items because they are both branches of the same tree. They are both prejudice, irrational and unreasonable to discriminate against.

    There is no logical reason whatsoever to discriminate against homosexuals. Your best answer to date is that you don't like them or don't understand their desires. So what? That is prejudice - pure and simple. Ask a racist why he doesn't like blacks and he'll have no better answer, "just don't like them" or "because they are different". You're no better, infact imho you are worse because you constantly accuse others (eg the Police Force) of racism whilst you sit there in your biggoted blanket dislike of homosexuals.
     
  12. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: May 3, 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    What do you mean by identity? If you mean our character, then does what we wear define our character?
     
  13. VIRII

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jul 24, 2003

    Posts: 30,259

    It means you can't see the face.
    Clothing imparts an impression and is a major factor in people making first impressions.

    You'll make a very different first impression of a woman in a business suit and the same woman in a burberry micro skirt, boob tube and nasty gold earrings.
     
  14. ElRazur

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 15, 2005

    Posts: 10,439

    Location: I am everywhere...


    Yes, i agree to some extent - Not all cultural practices are all good,e.g the use of tribal mark - which is more of a facial mutilation. A quick explanation as to why it was used back then = During the slave trade era's people who are taken and later released or managed to escape usually end up in somewhere they dont know or have a clue about. Tribal mark (as the name suggest) was then introduced so as to hekp in identifying where someone comes from etc and should the need arise for them to be returned back home. As slave trade era ceased, the whole tribal mark thing is no longer practised......Hence with time bad cultural practices will fade off.

    Once again you spitt for terrible line or should i say you are using your first world view to decide things, look man think outside the box please. A woman wearing a veil DO have an identity. If your view of seeing someone's face all the time as some sort of yardstick for identity then you are plain wrong. Her passport will clearly states who she is, not to mention birth certificate, bank cards etc. Off course i wont be happy if our women are asked to by some sort of decree but if that's always been the norm, i honestly wont complain but deep down in me i might oppose it.

    As per the homsexuality thing see my post to VIRII please. (i am late for work, will be back online as soon as i get to work)
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2006
  15. jumpy

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 6, 2004

    Posts: 2,629

    Location: BOOMTIMES

    It is with good reason that the Saudis have a reputation with other more westernised gulf states (chiefly Bahrain) for being a bunch of animals. When the causway bridge between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia was opened there was a sudden influx of young Saudi men visiting Bahrain and enjoying its more relaxed culture and atmosphere and the alchohol available at licenced retailers and hotels.
    Almost immidiately there was serious trouble when these saudi men came into contact with the local women and most especially with western women - there were a good number of cases where women who were guests at hotels and the female staff were assulted and in some more extreme cases violently raped; being dragged into the hotel toilets by a bunch of saudi men and seriously sexually assulted.
    Because of the severely insular nature of Saudi culture and religion, these men, having been fed the belief that women who don't do all of that 'covering exposed skin' thing must be whores and are therefor available... then being exposed to a more affable social climate they went totally off the rails with their behaviour. The usual result of this was deportation back to saudi with an explanation to the saudi officials of what occured.

    It is difficult to see the reasons for this sort of action. I have a theory about this one:
    1) the restrictive laws for saudi society are there to stop men acting upon their baser drives (ignoring for a moment islamic/religious considerations).
    2) saudi men cannot be trusted to keep themselves under control

    This presents a bit of a quandry for me; such a restrictive system in itself only serves to propogate such bad behaviour as it re-enforces such negative ideals (more so where women are concerned). This is all very well when you have the 'Ministry for the Prevention of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue' (I kid you not) to keep the populace under 'moral control' but when you step outside of this system, say when you visit another country, who is going to enforce propper behaviour? These men have no self control for themselves (as is illustrated by the problems with visiting saudis to bahrain). How can you expect people to behave appropriately when you give them no oportunity to be exposed to wider cultures and to understand that their system is not the only system of social grace. But after many centuries of such law how can the populace move to a broader understanding of this if the people are so ingrained with the belief that (example) a woman who doesn't cover herself up must be 'available' whether she says 'no' or not?

    It is a vicious cycle which will only serve to isolate further parts of saudi society from the rest of the world in terms of it's moral and social code of conduct. It is innevitable that when young saudi men (though I'm not taring all with the same brush by any means) encounter such freedoms as are available outside of saudi, they will be totally unprepared to deal with the situation without getting themselves into a lot of trouble and causing the objects of that trouble (usually women) to suffer great indignity - something which saudi morality is supposed to be adamantly against. It would seem to me that they have failed to deal with the issue completely.

    Obviously I am looking at this from a western point of view. Undoubtedly there will be those who dissagree and call BS! But I lived in Bahrain for more than six years, so I think I have a pretty good handle on what makes their culture different from ours. And sadly imo the saudis will never embrace social change without much struggle due to the strict religious implications imposed by their beliefs and laws which are without a doubt one of the most oppressive and loaded systems in the world - leaving asside how they treat their own women, see how they treat foreign household workers (not europeans, think pakistani or philipeno etc).

    It is no supprise to me that such an edict was issued by the saudi king. Par for the course.

    Go here: http://muttawa.blogspot.com/ this guy seems pretty sound and by all accounts if Saudi can produce a man like him then there's hope yet. Go and read that blog, it's informative and considers most of the current issues with saudi and islam and general news reactions, it is also extremely funny in places and the guy does his best to be sensible and not start foaming at the mouth when somebody mentions his religion and how others perceive it. Well worth a bookmark.
     
  16. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    I'm not going to tolerate a practice merely because it doesn't belong to my culture. I am aware that it is a '3rd world practice' but I dont see what relevence that fact has on whether I approve of it or not.

    You seem to be mistaking my comment on identity to mean a method of identification. My comment was on social identity. If yuo cannot see a persons face, it is harder to tell if they are being honest or what they are truly thinking. Taking this aspect away from a person makes it harder for them to get on with people socially.

    Also, if veil-wearing isn't negative, why don't men take it up as well?
     
  17. Needles

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 20, 2005

    Posts: 2,113

    Location: OcUK

    If a women is a muslim and is a devoted follower of that faith then she will wear the veil, also when we talk of immigrants entering the UK the talk is of the need for them to integrate into society by adopting the laws of that society, well if you visit a foregin country that rule should apply also, maybe visitors to this land might find certain laws or traditions oppresive or wrong so it comes down to your point of view, saudis may think our society is decadent and morally corupt and theirs as being better, where things like drunkiness and loutish behaviour are not common place and where women dressed in very little or nothing at all is frowned upon as being demeaning to women, where we might see them living in a country stuck in the middle ages.
     
  18. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    I don't think (although I could be wrong) that the koran demands it's followers to wear veils or burkas. It's one of those "interpretation" things.

    Yes, just like British people living abroad integrate so well with foreign culture... ;)
     
  19. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 2, 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    Any evidence to back up this seemingly smug generalisation?
     
  20. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Just visit the British populated areas of Spain.