As ever John, you pick up on the key point ... a Burkha IS a valid reaction to the Victorias Secret syndrome .... no doubt not the best reaction, certainly not if imposed repressively or prudishly, but a "valid" contribution to the debate none-the-less.
(BTW this is Swift's Big-Enders vs Little-Enders I guess.) Regards Ian PS Talking of secrets, I have a small collection of head-shots of women in Burkha's (and other Moslem head-gear) with eyes just visible .... now that is beauty ... you can keep your boobs and butt. It's in the eyes not just of the beholder. On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:59 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ian, for getting us started with a well-crafted projection. > > where two communities bump up against such burkha / bikini > disagreements they need to find common adjustments to form the > agreement of the larger community - both ought to stand-up and > participate in the argument. Choosing to simply accomodate / tolerate > the status quo is the recipe for either total voluntary isolation or > total war / enforcement. In our globalized world - total isolation is > not an option. > > Regards > Ian > > ---------------- > > So... common adjustments to form agreement. What might those look like? > > >From my perspective, the issue of female display is a root issue for any > society. Since society is a product of infant nurture at female breasts, > the issue of how a society treats breasts is of deep importance. > > In fact, as I understand (vaguely I'm sure) the original injunction by the > prophet was for females to cover their breasts - not their whole body from > head to toe. > > The Victorian attitude towards breast seems to me, to be the most warped. > The use of wet-nurses (how unbiological is that?) and the extreme > corsetting and girdling mirrored their repressesive culture in general, and > this treatment of hiding and restricting mammary glands is seen as the > effect of an overly repressed society, but I believe it was actually > creative of that form of social patterning and reinforcing of same. Sort of > a "make men jump through social hoops in order to get the goodies" kinda > deal. > > However, we don't live in a victorian culture, anymore. As Cass said to me > as we passed a huge Victoria's Secret in San Francisco the other night, "Why > do they call it a secret and then put it on billboards 90 feet wide? That > doesn't make sense." > > As an aside, see? Don't you think she's got the makings of a > philosopherette? > (She's the one that named her punk pink stuffed pig, robert peirced-pig, as > further evidence) > > > In this light, it makes sense for the burkha to evolve as a reaction > against this rampant visual sexuality in the west, at least on the immediate > surface. > > On a deeper level, I believe the burkha reinforces the social patterns it is > fighting against. By repressing the display of the female form which is an > existential reinforcement of "ok-ness" for male psyche, it drives men to > desire the artificial images even more. It makes the lurid western-style > decadence all the more attractive. It makes one's own culture very bland in > comparison and virtually guarantees the old reaction of schoolboys when let > out on holiday. > > But the bikini also is fraught with problems. Its just not comfortable to > be in the presence of near nudity for long. I found this at burning man > where it was ubiquitous. I missed the allure provided by artfully draped > clothing. And that image-oriented advertising conglomerate that fills the > mind with beautiful women in variously crafted and elegant poses creates a > social milieu in which we become so jaded that not much impresses us > anymore. And thus an unstable resonance is created wherein girls have to go > further and further, it seems, in sexual display, just to make some kind of > impact in their world of boys and school. > > ---- > > So. A lot of blather on the subject, but where is common ground to be > found? > > I've heard a few things on the radio lately, that are bothering me. The > attitude we've got in this country that it's somehow ok to send remote > controlled missiles into "terrorist hideouts" while wringing our hands in a > very public way over waterboarding, which at least isn't lethal... it's a > weird mix of high-handed moralizing whilst knocking poor people's lives and > homes into rubble. > > If that's gonna be our solution to our problems, then the world is full of > too many potential terrorists to kill. But some voices are raising the cry > that they wanna try. > > Hence, I appreciate your putting it out there Ian, doing the holy work of > interpretation. > > An often thankless task, but rewarding in its own way. > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
