Yes! Blame the promiscuous Women for the Earthquakes

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

damn - you could have been the new model of IED!

Inappropriate Earthquake Device?

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

Are you implying that if we airlifted you to Iran, we could expect its imminent destruction?

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I'm SAYING that I've already discounted the theory!

Ah yes, but everyone seems to overlook that, even though the immodest women are responsible for the whole thing, the theory actually reposes on the men's response to them. So, can we assume that U.S. males are somehow immune to the boob factor? Or, even more intriguing, that they are more sensitive to it in California than, say, Florida?

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Ah yes, but everyone seems to overlook that, even though the immodest women are responsible for the whole thing, the theory actually reposes on the men's response to them. So, can we assume that U.S. males are somehow immune to the boob factor? Or, even more intriguing, that they are more sensitive to it in California than, say, Florida?

Florence, I think you're on to something here...

Given that it is men's thoughts and reactions to the immodestly dressed women.
Given that telling women to wear more clothes would be repressive
Given that telling men not to look at or react to immodestly dressed women would not be fair or practical, or even possible in some cases.
Given that continued exposure to a stimulus will gradually reduce the reaction to that stimulus.
The only reasonable conclusion, for the safety of the human race, is for women to be as immodest as possible in their clothing choices!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by dsvick

Florence, I think you're on to something here...

Given that it is men's thoughts and reactions to the immodestly dressed women.
Given that telling women to wear more clothes would be repressive
Given that telling men not to look at or react to immodestly dressed women would not be fair or practical, or even possible in some cases.
Given that continued exposure to a stimulus will gradually reduce the reaction to that stimulus.
The only reasonable conclusion, for the safety of the human race, is for women to be as immodest as possible in their clothing choices!

Careful Dave, you might get your eye plucked out.

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by kennyc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8631775.stm

Promiscuous women are responsible for earthquakes, a senior Iranian cleric has said.

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi told worshippers in Tehran last Friday that they had to stick to strict codes of modesty to protect themselves.

"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes," he said.

Tens of thousands of people have died in Iran earthquakes in the last decade.

Mr Sedighi was delivering a sermon on the need for a "general repentance" by Iranians.

"What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes," he said.
<snip>

Yes, it sures sounds like women have all the power, doesn't it? And not even the entire woman, either. All it takes is some hair sticking out of a scarf or a hint of some boobage and this otherwise lower class female can cause geologic catastrophe without lifting a finger or uttering a word? Amazing.

And it's the spread of adultery in a society which increases earthquakes? Even if this were true . . . men are not complicit in this? They are blameless because at the sight of some hair or boobage, they become weak and mindless, incapable of free will or self control?

NEVERMIND.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by dsvick

Either that or you're not nearly as bad as you think. Next time I'm in Seattle I'll let you know and we can do some ... errr research, yea, that's it research.

Originally Posted by dsvick

Florence, I think you're on to something here...

Given that it is men's thoughts and reactions to the immodestly dressed women.
Given that telling women to wear more clothes would be repressive
Given that telling men not to look at or react to immodestly dressed women would not be fair or practical, or even possible in some cases.
Given that continued exposure to a stimulus will gradually reduce the reaction to that stimulus.
The only reasonable conclusion, for the safety of the human race, is for women to be as immodest as possible in their clothing choices!

In All Seriousness;

I was taking classes from an Imam when I was getting ready to go to Kuwait. I wanted to not be a cultural monster. he explained to me that all of the extreme measures taken towards covering women was not to repress women, it was because men were just completely incapable of controlling themselves in any circumstance, so it was decided that the easiest thing was to remove the temptations.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

And it's the spread of adultery in a society which increases earthquakes?

See, that's where they lose me: The explicit facts that discount this theory are the continued existence of places like Los Angeles, New York, Las Vegas and Washington, DC, whilst simultaneously not explaining how you can have an earthquake in the middle of the uninhabited ocean.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I was taking classes from an Imam when I was getting ready to go to Kuwait. I wanted to not be a cultural monster. he explained to me that all of the extreme measures taken towards covering women was not to repress women, it was because men were just completely incapable of controlling themselves in any circumstance, so it was decided that the easiest thing was to remove the temptations.

Somehow... that doesn't explain how the women get in trouble, jailed, caned, etc, for not covering themselves properly...

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

In All Seriousness;

I was taking classes from an Imam when I was getting ready to go to Kuwait. I wanted to not be a cultural monster. he explained to me that all of the extreme measures taken towards covering women was not to repress women, it was because men were just completely incapable of controlling themselves in any circumstance, so it was decided that the easiest thing was to remove the temptations.

Exactly. Every culture has controls on behavior. The question is whether the controls are internal or external.

Our culture presumes a man can control himself, and that the controls will be internal. Their culture assumes he can't, and you must limit the provocation, so the controls will be external.

Latin America is slowly moving out of that mindset. It's changing nowadays, but 50 years ago or so, young males were taught that they were hot blooded and passionate, and left alone with an attractive young woman, they would be unable to control themselves and would have their way with her. Young women were taught that they were weak and feminine and passive, and would of course be unable to resist the attentions of the male.

The culture got around the obvious problems by making sure young unmarried women weren't left alone with men. They were always accompanied by the duenna, an older married female relative who served as a chaperon.

Latin America got the attitudes from Spain, and Spain probably got them from the Arabs, during the period when the Moorish Arabs controlled much of the Iberian peninsula.

There are occasional nasty incidents over here when male exchange students from middle eastern countries come over here to study. Because their culture assumes they can't control themselves, they never learned how to, and relationships with female fellow students become problematic. I've also heard horror stories of women who married middle eastern men over here. Everything was fine as long as they were over here. When he took her back home among his family, he became a dramatically different person, and the relationship rapidly became unbearable for her.

There are other implications as well. In the middle east, relations among families are critical, and family networks provide many functions that might be the province of local government here. Young unmarried daughters are valuable currency in such relationships, and marriages are often things arranged by families. A marriage is a political and economic alliance between the families involved, made for the benefit of the families. An unmarried woman who loses her virginity out of wedlock is debased currency, and a destabilizing factor in her society. The response in some places can be having her stoned to death.

Ultimately, all such behavior evolved to aid the survival of the society. The individual is not important. The problem is that cultural reflexes like that can persist long after their value has passed, because such cultural reflexes change with glacial slowness.
______
Dennis

[FlorenceArt]

Great explanation Dennis. I tried to express something similar myself but got so muddled I didn't post

Not sure about the part where the Spanish got this attitude from the Arabs though, because I'm not sure the Arabs had that mindset at the time. But it's just a feeling, I may be wrong. Hey, maybe they got it from the Spanish?

[mores]

My wife rocks my world ... I hope that does not mean she's promiscuous!

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay, all seriousness aside, we need to organize ourselves to find these geologically-destabilizing women ASAP! (If for no other reason, so they can pass on their skills to others. There's got to be a good 3 seasons of reality-show material in that.)

Haha I'm in!

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

See, that's where they lose me: The explicit facts that discount this theory are the continued existence of places like Los Angeles, New York, Las Vegas and Washington, DC, whilst simultaneously not explaining how you can have an earthquake in the middle of the uninhabited ocean.

The chap making the statement probably knows better. But the middle east as a whole is in turmoil, as cultural structures that have existed for millenia are coming into question, and wider exposure to cultures who do things differently are demonstrating that different approaches are possible.

There's an interesting process taking place in Turkey at the moment, as Islamic scholars re-examine the Hadith. The Hadith is a collection of things said by Mohammed, as reported by relatives and close associates. It is second only to the Koran as the source for Islamic law, and forms the basis for things like the prohibition on a woman traveling alone. The scholars are attempting to understand the context in which the pronouncements were made. When Mohammed said that women should not be permitted to travel alone, for example, the motive probably wasn't a matter of keeping them properly subservient to men. It was intended to protect them, because when the statement was made, it simply wasn't safe for an unaccompanied woman to travel by herself. Given that, did holding the prohibition still make sense in a time and place where it was safe for a woman to travel by herself? Did the Prophet really intend it to be permanent, or was it a response to a specific set of conditions that could be discarded when those conditions no longer applied? I applaud the effort, but I don't expect the process to be easy or peaceful.

Most of this stuff resides on a gut level, and responses are reflex. Questions of the gut level belief can provoke violent responses. (We see that over here among fundamentalist religious types who aren't Muslim.)

It opens the question that there may just be cultures that are fundamentally incompatible. Every culture faces basic problems involved in people living together in groups, where agreement must be had on what behavior is acceptable, and every culture comes up with a different set of solutions that work for it. What happens when cultures with incompatible solutions meet?

Chances are, one or the other either changes dramatically or is destroyed.
______
Dennis

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

See, that's where they lose me: The explicit facts that discount this theory are the continued existence of places like Los Angeles, New York, Las Vegas and Washington, DC, whilst simultaneously not explaining how you can have an earthquake in the middle of the uninhabited ocean.

Psst. Careful, not so loud. Sodoma, Gomorra ...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by beppe

Psst. Careful, not so loud. Sodoma, Gomorra ...

And for gawd's sake don't salt your pillar!

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Yes, it sures sounds like women have all the power, doesn't it? And not even the entire woman, either. All it takes is some hair sticking out of a scarf or a hint of some boobage and this otherwise lower class female can cause geologic catastrophe without lifting a finger or uttering a word? Amazing.

And it's the spread of adultery in a society which increases earthquakes? Even if this were true . . . men are not complicit in this? They are blameless because at the sight of some hair or boobage, they become weak and mindless, incapable of free will or self control?

NEVERMIND.

Look what happened just for a bite in an apple!