"Hasids vs hotties in a Brooklyn bike war"

[Cudzoziemiec]

You're saying I should dress differently if I happen to be passing through that area?

If you're passing through it regularly and are bothered by offending people, yes.

As is well-known, I find gilets even more offensive than young Conservatives

Would it be reasonable for me to stand at the side of the road and barrack anyone wearing one ? Or to campaign vociferously for them to be banned in my area ?

Should anyone riding through Monmouthshire remove their gilet at Chepstow and not put it back on until they reach Herefordshire or Powys  ?

Gilets should be burnt along with mullet haircuts.  
Seriously though, it is a different objection - you find them offensive aesthetically, not morally. Besides which, nobody (well, certainly not me, and I don't think the Hassids in question either) is arguing for a blanket ban on skimpy clothing. As I see it, it's just a case of tolerance which should go both ways, but at the moment is going nowhere (though also, it may be as said earlier, mostly a slow news day... )

[Cudzoziemiec]

And no more miniskirts for Ugandan laydeez either...

And Kerala High Court is seeking an alteration to the Motor Vehicles Act in India which could have the effect of banning sari-clad women from the pillions of motorbikes, though on completely different grounds.

[border-rider]

Seriously though, it is a different objection - you find them offensive aesthetically, not morally.

Do I ?  Actually I despise them and everything they stand for, seeing in them a distillation of the class oppression  inherent in British Society.  Also fat-arsed horsey women on fat-arsed horses.  I'd argue there's a moral component there

Seriously: I think it's very hard to make a distinction based on someone's claimed personal morality.  It's like all these people who get outraged on behalf of other people.  Like Mary Whitehouse etc.  Her crusade was avowedly moral, but I still reckon she was a sanctimonious interfering busy-body

[Cudzoziemiec]

But the Hassidim are outraged on their own grounds. If they were outraged on the grounds that the skimpily-dressed hotties would burn in hell unless they covered up, then I'd agree with you absolutely, it's none of their business. Unless you're suggesting that either the paper and/or I are outraged on behalf of the Jews of New York? I'm sure the New York Post takes the moral welfare of its readership seriously, putting it far above circulation figures, but I'm only outraged the "hotties" ain't cycling down Mahatma Gandhi Road.

[Pete]

because women wearing them distract drivers and cause traffic accidents.

Oddly enough, I remember this being mooted in Europe in the 1960s when miniskirts first came into vogue (and were certainly a distraction to middle-aged men for whom they were a novel phenomenon).  There were a series of amusing posters displayed by the roadside - in Belgium I think it was, and maybe other countries - depicting a cartoon motorist ogling a long-legged lovely and shunting his car into the one in front at the same time.  Can anyone else remember these?

I think it was about that time, that Belgium first made driving tests compulsory for motorists.  They were the last Western country to fall into line I believe...

[border-rider]

But the Hassidim are outraged on their own grounds.

Yes they are, as was Mrs Whitehouse. But in both cases that's being projected from them being outraged (which is their problem) to the behaviour of others being inherently outrageous (which makes it Somebody Else's Fault)

[pcolbeck]

Hasadic Jews have one of the dumbest dress codes of any religion. Where the hell in the Bible / Torah or whatever does it say "thow shalt dress like a 19th Century middle European" ?

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'd have judged it 18th century at the very latest. It's just innate conservatism, and probably also black and white being perceived as non-flashy, so suitable for those whose worries are only cerebral. It is dumb, but we're all allowed to be dumb, aren't we? 

[Cudzoziemiec]

But the Hassidim are outraged on their own grounds.

Yes they are, as was Mrs Whitehouse. But in both cases that's being projected from them being outraged (which is their problem) to the behaviour of others being inherently outrageous (which makes it Somebody Else's Fault)

Are they saying it's Somebody Else's Fault? You can't really be outraged unless someone is doing something you object to, but there is a suble difference between someone's behaviour and it being their fault.

Anyway, I still say it's everybody's fault! There's room for loads of compromise here, sort of "I won't wear my gilet if you won't fart." 

[pcolbeck]

I'd have judged it 18th century at the very latest. It's just innate conservatism, and probably also black and white being perceived as non-flashy, so suitable for those whose worries are only cerebral. It is dumb, but we're all allowed to be dumb, aren't we? 

It must have been  cutting edge fashion when they started wearing it or in 1850 where they all going around in knee length britches, hose and a tricorn hat ? Yes they can be as dumb as they like it's a free country (well this is and so is teh USA which is the point here) but it's free for the rest of us to dress how we like within the law as well.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Cutting edge fashion frozen in time - that's what I had in mind by conservatism here. Probably could have found a more precise word.

Anyway, I'm off to ride round the local mosque in a gilet and lycra shorts with an "I didn't cry when the Pope died" T-shirt*.  Then I'm doing a time trial in a three-piece suit before entering the Tour of Karnataka in a sherwani and turban.

*These were sold in Poland.

[tiermat]

You think your outfit choices could be contravercial Cudzo? Try walking through a North Yorks town wearing a White Zombie T-shirt bearing the slogun "Say You Love Satan" on the back, in 3" high lime green letters....

[Cudzoziemiec]

Guy at the next desk from me is wearing a "Sing for Christ" T-shirt. I shall introduce you!

[Ian H]

Guy at the next desk from me is wearing a "Sing for Christ" T-shirt. I shall introduce you!

Reminds of the cave-diver's T-shirt: "Happiness is a tight wet hole"

[Eccentrica Gallumbits]

I do find it kind of funny, in these cases, that apparently the men have to be protected from being distracted by women wearing less clothing than they think is appropriate.  Apparently women are never distracted by looking at men...

(Maybe this is true, does anyone of the female persuasion care/dare to comment? )

Well, that's the thing about the monotheistic religions, innit. Women are filthy sluts and our sexuality has to be repressed by men, because if we're free to express ourselves or dress ourselves we'll corrupt all the men from thinking about god and lead them into sin. Because we're dirty and evil. (I know some of you prefer us that way, but some of you don't). There are various branches of Christianity who believe much the same - Mormons have to dress modestly, there's a website called Lydia of Purple advertising modest underclothes, nightwear, and clothing for good Christian women who want to dress modestly.

[Pancho]

It paints these men in a pretty poor light, really, just idiot boners wandering around being led astray. 

Such is the male condition.

Who was it who, when losing his libido in old age, said it was a relief to be no longer chained to an idiot.

[Jacomus]

Just another reason why religion sucks.

[pcolbeck]

Well, that's the thing about the monotheistic religions, innit. Women are filthy sluts and our sexuality has to be repressed by men, because if we're free to express ourselves or dress ourselves we'll corrupt all the men from thinking about god and lead them into sin. Because we're dirty and evil. (I know some of you prefer us that way, but some of you don't). There are various branches of Christianity who believe much the same - Mormons have to dress modestly, there's a website called Lydia of Purple advertising modest underclothes, nightwear, and clothing for good Christian women who want to dress modestly.

I had to look. That's bizarre. OK if they don't want to wear revealing cloths but why do they have to look like something from Little House on the Prairie ? Surely they could be modern and modest ?

[border-rider]

Are they saying it's Somebody Else's Fault?  You can't really be outraged unless someone is doing something you object to, but there is a suble difference between someone's behaviour and it being their fault.

Anyway, I still say it's everybody's fault! There's room for loads of compromise here, sort of "I won't wear my gilet if you won't fart." 

They are being outraged at behaviour which the rest of the populus has no problem with and are asking the people concerned to change that behaviour.  ie the problem is not, they say, that of those being outraged, but of those whose behaviour is deemed outrageous

I'm all for compromise, but sometimes it is best just to say "Sorry, you are being unreasonable.  The world doesn't rotate around just you.  Grow up, chill out and live with it"

[Regulator]

Just another reason why religion sucks.

Religion doesn't suck - it just contains some idiots... like every other walk of life.

[Notsototalnewbie]

And no more miniskirts for Ugandan laydeez either...

I do find it kind of funny, in these cases, that apparently the men have to be protected from being distracted by women wearing less clothing than they think is appropriate.  Apparently women are never distracted by looking at men...

(Maybe this is true, does anyone of the female persuasion care/dare to comment? )

Women are just better at multitasking, innit.

This is why I can ogle the army blokes jogging in Hyde Park on my way to work in the morning, without cycling into one of the lamp posts dotted along the cycle path. 

[TimO]

This is why I can ogle the army blokes jogging in Hyde Park on my way to work in the morning...

We should contact the MOD immediately, and point out that their servicemen are leading women into immodest thoughts, and they should stop this straight away, that's our job.

[Tiger]

I'd have judged it 18th century at the very latest. It's just innate conservatism, and probably also black and white being perceived as non-flashy, so suitable for those whose worries are only cerebral. It is dumb, but we're all allowed to be dumb, aren't we? 

In fact the wearing of black is quite the opposite to non-flashy in origin. In the middle ages most people wore pretty rough clothing dyed with vegetable dyes of indifferent fastness in shades of red and green and brown.  There were laws about wearing finery which meant only actual aristos wore really fancy stuff.
Black dyed cloth was very expensive and was adopted by wealthy merchants and clerics etc to show off their wealth. It was a big statement of social position.
Still seen in legal attire, and teachers robes etc - and in a modern form by traditional Jewish folk.
At least that is what I read somewhere.

[bobb]

Religion doesn't suck

It does actually. Any belief system that cannot provide any evidence of why it could, should or would be true sucks.

I don't want to go there really though. This discussion isn't about what me, you or anyone else believes to be a truth. Rather accepting, respecting and tolerating the fact that other people are going to hold different views to your own....

[Regulator]

Religion doesn't suck

It does actually. Any belief system that cannot provide any evidence of why it could, should or would be true sucks.

I don't want to go there really though. This discussion isn't about what me, you or anyone else believes to be a truth. Rather accepting, respecting and tolerating the fact that other people are going to hold different views to your own....

In your opinion it might, young bobb - but that is your opinion and not fact.