veil
October 8th, 2006
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by the amazing NearlyFreeSpeech.NET
Protected by the mighty CloudFlare
Fundamentalist Muslims are obviously extremely insecure to force/teach their women to wear such attire. I suppose it has two main benefits: it hides lovely ladies from horny men, and hides homely women to the effect that the husband’s self esteem remains intact.
As for the women, I suppose there may be more benefits: it hides lovely ladies from Horney men, allows them to flip-off men they don’t like, allows them to wear nothing underneath if they feel daring and sexy, and allows them to play with themselves even in public if they feel horny.
As for whipping themselves up into a frenzy at the slightest inference of disrespect, such actions certainly support such an insecure nature, as does whipping themselves across the back and shouting “death to (most everyone else).”
This one was great! Keep ’em coming.
[…] But if anyone asks, I didn’t send you to read this. […]
@Hobbes: wow, how strange: here in Ontario, women can walk down the street topless (as per a law urging equality stemming from a decision made in the Gwen Jacobs case) without peril or kinky self-flagellation.
This past hot summer was made slightly hotter in Toronto for all the bare chesticles that some neo-feminists were displaying in celebration of equal rights, plus various Slut Walks to defy the idea that women attired in a specific way brings either protection or harm unto the garbed, yet such is also somehow out of the control of a perpetrator.
I wonder what it is that makes it impossible for women in some places to reveal a single carbon-based cellular aspect of their person without venomous retribution, but in others it all hangs out and most folk seem to more or less be able to handle it.
(Oh, and we have a nude beach. Up yours, fundamentalist, sex-and-women-hating cities!)