From: javad@hplabsz.hpl.hp.com (Agha Javad)
Subject: Re: still looking for answers
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:14:00 GMT
Organization: LabaniyyAtee-e-Sar-e-Koocheh

In article <massoud.11.720903231@chemteca.sdsu.edu> massoud@chemteca.sdsu.edu (Massoud Ajami) writes:

>>[my junk deleted]
>>>
>>>Divine ruling,if it is so, has to be based on its physical reason.
>>>One faculty of sexual arousal in men is in the sense of sight,
>>>while it is in the sense of touch for women. Islamic hejAb is
>>	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>It is in the sense of sight AND touch for both men AND women.
>
>No, you are wrong. The intensities are not the same. 

The intensities may be different (I am no expert), but sight AND touch
can be stimulating for both, the stimulus does exist, although it may be
in varying degrees.

>>>society dependent, here, a woman in a normal dress is covered,
>>>while the same one can be a sex godess in a different society.

>>Then in fact, you are saying that hejab is a relative concept, and based
>>on this logic, a bikini can be interpreted as covering depending where you
>>go.  So if the ruling is just saying cover yourselves in such broad terms,
>>it is not precise and should not be enforced with an arbitrary interpretation.

>Yes, bikini is coverage in nude colonies, but that has to do anything
>with religion. You can not twist the things and produce results.

yes it does, because you pointed out yourself that hejab is relative, and is not
precisely defined as exactly how much a woman should be covered.  This is what
YOU said, not me.  If this is in fact true, then enforcing a specific dress
in the name of religion when in fact that dress has not been specified by 
religion is wrong.  (If your explanation of hejab being relative is correct)

>>As far as sex appeal, believe me, even a woman in hejab can have sex appeal 
>>depending on what the man has been exposed to before.  In Iran, high school
>>guys still hang out at the girls' high school to check out the girls.  I mean,
>>what is there to see?  But they do it anyway, because covering the girls
>>does NOT make the man's sexual desires/fantasies, etc. magically go away.

>So you are answering yourself!

No, I am answering you! I'm saying that enforcing a dress will not solve the
problem.  The problem comes first from those who can't control themselves
and behave in public, not from those who are targets of uncontrolled eyes.
What are you going to do, put women in armored personnel carriers when they get
out of school?

>>>When a sight is not trained and disciplined, coverage is required.
>>>When a SWAT team is called for an undisciplined and untrained gun
>>>(one going on shooting spree), then they _DO_ wear bullet prof
>>>jacket!

>>Excellent point!  The SWAT team will wear a bullet proof vest for their own
>>safety WHEN THEY FEEL THREATENED.  Even then, it is voluntary, and a member
>>can say I don't need it, and they won't prosecute him for it either.  By
>>this analogy, the woman should have the freedom to wear whatever she feels 
>>appropriate, and cover herself IF SHE FEELS THREATENED.  If she is in a 
[stuff deleted]
>>The bottom line is, a woman should be free to a)believe whatever she wants,
>>and b)wear what she feels is appropriate, not what you and I say is
>>appropriate, especially when you and I and others don't even agree!

>First of all, there is no guaranty if you change the law, it would work
>and if you do so, 1400 years later two others would talk this nonsense
>because of failuare, so no accomplishment there. The problem is the
>education of it, not the law. Don't use the puny argument of the lack of 
>education for the principle.

You have so rightly pointed out that the solution is education, not the law.
True, there is no guarantee that changing the law won't help.  But there IS a
guarantee that keeping it will hurt, and the problem lies elsewhere. 
Accomplishment? Yes, there is- women will be given the freedom they deserve 
(we all deserve), and that is quite an accomplishment.

>Can you find a SWAT team officer which saying "I don't need to wear
>bullet proof jacket?" Do they let him do that?

Exactly- the SWAT team officer AGREES to wear this for his OWN protection,
understanding its principle, and all this in the face of DEFINITE DIRECT
threat which he knows is coming.  He and his superiors AGREE that he is facing
direct threat to his life.  All women don't agree  with you that they are facing
danger in all situations in public.  They should not be FORCED to wear what just
one religion says they should wear.  There is a big difference.

Is the SWAT team officer forced to wear the vest after the mission
is over, in the street full of normal people because someone might pull out
a gun and attack him? NO.  The woman can wear what she sees fit FOR HER OWN
protection in different situations.  If she is muslim and agrees completely,
then she should be free to wear what she believes is right.  If she is not,
likewise.  It is NOT the government's role to determine your dress.  Women
do not always 24 hours a day face the threat of being targeted/attacked by
sexually aroused men, and they, NOT you and me, are the best judge of what
they should wear, given their beliefs/convictions/situation.

>Second, you are confusing the issues of principle and behavior. I am

Principles are what guide and direct behavior.

[stuff about culture deleted]
>>This I have no quarrel with, and I respect.  But "asking" is different than
>>"forcing at gunpoint".  I am sorry, but paramilitary guards in combat fatigues
>>riding around town in jeeps and armed with automatic rifles JUST to make sure 
>>women are covered seems a bit too much, especially the way they treat women 
>>when a hair is showing.  Considering the other crimes that are soaring in our 
>>country (theft, drugs, murder, rape, etc.) seems to me IRI's priorities are 
>>not the people's needs, but once again, their own power.
>>
>You have all the rights to go and tell them yourself.
>(I am using your logic for above).

No I don't, and you know it.

>Peace and Prosperity!
>  ---==< 110 >==---

May your doogh turn out well,

Agha Javad
Xref: sparky soc.culture.iranian:9849 soc.culture.arabic:4897