Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Topic started by: Dave on 12 September, 2008, 06:19:55 pm
-
Culture clash over sexy cyclists (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09122008/news/regionalnews/hasid_lust_cause_128750.htm)
With picture of 'hottie'.
-
Sectarianism!? What, in the US of A?! :o
-
Isaac Abraham. Good Jewish name!
-
He could demand that they wear a burkha... (!)
Idiot. A man's unwanted arousal at the sight of a hottie is the MAN'S problem, not the hottie's. He needs to keep a grip on his libido.
-
He could demand that they wear a burkha... (!)
Idiot. A man's unwanted arousal at the sight of a hottie is the MAN'S problem, not the hottie's. He needs to keep a grip on his libido.
It is a parallel to the common motorists' perception of cycling as dangerous, transferring the responsibility for the problem (if indeed there is one) to the other party
-
I don't think it's "unwanted arousal" that's the problem, it's simply deemed immoral. Would you dress in shorts to cycle in Saudi Arabia or Iran? That would be deemed immoral as it contravenes locally accepted standards of dress. Would a Papua New Guinean crocodile hunter be allowed to walk down Oxford St wearing nothng but a penis gourd?
The difference of course is that this Hassidic community is only a tiny part of NYC, not the dominant moral code of the city. So it depends how you define "community"; When in NYC, bike as the New Yorkers do, or, When in Hassidic Brooklyn, bike as the Hassidim do?
I guess maybe the Hassidic community would be happy in a gated community?
-
It's immoral because it gives people unexpected, unwanted thoughts. They should master themselves.
Gated communities, feh, I feel that they're an ultimate expression of weakness: "we cannot live in the real world, we're going to hide." Interesting stuff can happen inside them, but mostly they're defined by what they're hiding from, being hotties or hoodies.
-
There's a few gated communities in Warsaw now, and it's moot as to how they're actually hiding in practice; the people who live there tend to work such long hours (cos they favour work, and of course the salary, in the balance of their lives) that they're almost hiding from themselves. But yeah, it's definitely a device to keep "our sort of person" in and "undesirables" out. An extension of home as your castle to "my community is my castle"?
-
I think its a case of respect,if cycling through a Hassidic area,or walking for that matter, I would cover up,out of respect for there beliefs.In the same way I may swear on a building site,if I knew that it would not cause offence,but in more mixed company I would restrain myself.
-
Reading the article, it's just a new spin on the familiar "no bikes - they jump red lights and, more importantly, we want to park cars and drive fast round here".
Re the dress code. It's a respect thing. You wouldn't enter a mosque with your wellies on and, conversely, you'd expect a native tribesman (now there's a phrase which exudes casual racism but, I can sure you, I'm not) to cover his willy when visiting Oxford Street. The Jewish guys need to respect the US women's right to make an exhibition of her flesh.
-
Infuriating, maybe, to us secular folks, but perhaps a bit of tolerance of people's deeply-held views here? After all, up until around the 1970s, to be seen kissing (between the sexes) in public was considered bad form in good old liberal and westernised Ireland. Or so I've read...
Point of correction: the Hasidic sect referred to in the article is possibly not pro-settlement in Palestinian lands: in fact there are many such sects who are vociferously anti-Zionist.
-
Why yes! As we all know the anti-zionist Satmar sect are the predominant hasidic group in South Williamsburg, so the group referred to in the article may well be the very same.
-
Reading the article, it's just a new spin on the familiar "no bikes - they jump red lights and, more importantly, we want to park cars and drive fast round here".
Re the dress code. It's a respect thing. You wouldn't enter a mosque with your wellies on and, conversely, you'd expect a native tribesman (now there's a phrase which exudes casual racism but, I can sure you, I'm not) to cover his willy when visiting Oxford Street. The Jewish guys need to respect the US women's right to make an exhibition of her flesh.
And the US women to respect the Jewish guys' culture, too. When cycling through South Williamsburg, are we wearing wellies in the mosque or a penis gourd on Oxford St? Both, I think.
-
If I decide to visit a church or a monastery while I'm in Greece, I ensure my shoulders, upper arms and thighs are covered. If I went into a synagogue or a mosque, I would ensure I was dressed appropriately.
Out on a public street - as long as I'm not breaking any public indecency laws I think it's up to me what I wear and I would be unlikely to conform to standards of dress required by a religion I don't believe in.
-
I think its a case of respect,if cycling through a Hassidic area,or walking for that matter, I would cover up,out of respect for there beliefs.I
If I decide to visit a church or a monastery while I'm in Greece, I ensure my shoulders, upper arms and thighs are covered. If I went into a synagogue or a mosque, I would ensure I was dressed appropriately.
Out on a public street - as long as I'm not breaking any public indecency laws I think it's up to me what I wear and I would be unlikely to conform to standards of dress required by a religion I don't believe in.
I'm with Kirst. Don't forget, nightrider, that this isn't "a hasidic area" or any other sort of area. It's public space. Everyone has to play by our shared rules in public space, and those rules include tolerating people you might not want to see there.
"Respect" is not due to anyone, it is earned. Intolerance isn't a good way to earn it.
-
More religious crap. The streets are public space not the preserve of any particular religious sect. This sort of nonsense should be resoundingly rejected.
This is what religions do - try and increase their area of dominance and control over all aspects of life. Demanding special treatment, and claoking it all under the guise of 'culture and belief' and 'offense caused'.
Personally I find people who thrust their beliefs into my life offensive - flaunting crosses or wearing headscarves or burkas or growing their hair in particular ways. That is private stuff they can do at home if they want but I certainly don't respect any of it, and I don't want it public spaces, schools etc.
-
More religious crap. The streets are public space not the preserve of any particular religious sect. This sort of nonsense should be resoundingly rejected.
This is what religions do - try and increase their area of dominance and control over all aspects of life. Demanding special treatment, and claoking it all under the guise of 'culture and belief' and 'offense caused'.
Well, strongly worded, but I can understand your point of view ...
Personally I find people who thrust their beliefs into my life offensive - flaunting crosses or wearing headscarves or burkas or growing their hair in particular ways. That is private stuff they can do at home if they want but I certainly don't respect any of it, and I don't want it public spaces, schools etc.
... and then you went too far. Couldn't help yourself, could you? ;)
-
Would a Papua New Guinean crocodile hunter be allowed to walk down Oxford St wearing nothng but a penis gourd?
I think the answer to that rather silly question is "Yes". Can you seriously see any outrage (apart from Daily Wail readers) regarding some PNG croc hunters walking down Oxford Street in their traditional dress?
This is ridiculous.
-
They don't even arrest the WNBR and they're pretty startling! :thumbsup:
-
They don't even arrest the WNBR and they're pretty startling! :thumbsup:
I would not advise routeing it through Stamford Hill, though...
-
Would a Papua New Guinean crocodile hunter be allowed to walk down Oxford St wearing nothng but a penis gourd?
Please don't give Andy ideas for penny-farthing wear.
-
I was going with a kilt, actually... :thumbsup:
-
I seem to be out of step with the majority here, but I do think respect goes both ways. It is public space, so for all. The Hassidim who live there should adjust to the larger NY they are a part of, and those of that larger NY should make allowances for the Hassisim.
A friend sometimes wears a T-shirt saying "What's the difference between a BMW and a porcupine? A porcupine has its pricks on the outside." Fine to wear in the absence of BMW owners (v v few here) but maybe inadvisable to wear to a party where you know in advance there will be many owners of said Teutonmobile.
-
Although I agree with what is printed on your friend's T-shirt, there is a slight difference - that statement is actively trying to be offensive.
The hotties aren't breaking any laws. They're just wearing clothes (no matter how small!) that are acceptable in their society.
What would happen if somebody of say white Anglo-Saxon origin in NYC complained about Hassids cycling around in traditional dress? There'd be absolute outrage and accusations of racism and religious intolerance. Kinda ironic seeing as pretty much all religions are completely intolerant of any other or way of life as this shows....
-
What grounds would somebody of white Anglo-Saxon origin have to complain about Hassid dress? If just that it's "not what we wear" then, yes, that's racist or intolerant in whatever way. But if it actually is offensive to general American standards, maybe by... I'm struggling to think how it could be, actually, so shall invent something... Let's imagine that the colours black and white together in clothes were only worn on certain specific occasions in American tradition, well then that would be a valid complaint. Wear your black and white in your own community but not in the city at large, cos it's reserved for military funerals or something.
-
What grounds would somebody of white Anglo-Saxon origin have to complain about Hassid dress?
Unreasonable ones
-
What grounds would somebody of white Anglo-Saxon origin have to complain about Hassid dress?
Well obviously they wouldn't have any! But you can't seriously believe that there aren't people that would have a problem with it?
I've seen it in London on numerous occasions...
-
Sorry, I was editing my post while you two replied.
-
What grounds would somebody of white Anglo-Saxon origin have to complain about Hassid dress?
Well obviously they wouldn't have any! But you can't seriously believe that there aren't people that would have a problem with it?
I've seen it in London on numerous occasions...
It's not quite the same though, as these traditional Jews are not complaining about all Western dress, just that which bares a lot of skin. They don't mind (at least, it doesn't mention that they mind) jeans, or a suit, or anything in fact covers the body.
-
It's not quite the same though, as these traditional Jews are not complaining about all Western dress, just that which bares a lot of skin. They don't mind (at least, it doesn't mention that they mind) jeans, or a suit, or anything in fact covers the body.
It is the same! They are complaining about the way some people who have different beliefs to them are dressing! And the way these people are dressing is perfectly legal and acceptable in western society. Which the United States is part of.
-
Thin end of the bloody wedge. You can't let these intolerant jerks think they're special. Rinse, repeat for any flavour of intolerant jerk.
-
No, I can't see it as the same. In one case people are complaining simply because someone does something different, in the other case they're complaining because of a specific offensive aspect of that difference. To me it's like the difference between an irate cabbie saying "I hate all cyclists" and "I hate the cyclist who scratched my taxi."
The only similarity is that all four examples are uncalled for. Live and let live, ride and cover up a bit and turn away when the beshorted ones pedal past.
-
You're saying I should dress differently if I happen to be passing through that area?
And that if I don't, any hassle I get is fairly deserved?
What if I don't know these unwritten 'local rules'? It's not like speed limits where there are signs posted. "You are entering an ultra-conservative jerk zone" perhaps?
Ultraconservatives choose to get offended. Screw 'em, they're idiots.
-
Phwoarrrr! Did you check out the hot chick crossing the road??!!
Oyvay to all my chums.
Abraham Shazam
-
... they're complaining because of a specific offensive aspect of that difference.
I find Young Conservatives pretty offensive.
-
They're demanding the right to be intolerant.
-
I'm just not prepared to put up with that sort of behaviour.
-
I like going to the beach in summer. I don't much like looking at middle aged men with huge beer guts walking around in speedos.
Would I be justified in saying that middle aged men with huge beer guts should cover themselves up when visiting the beach when I happen to be there?
-
Sooo
I am not a hottie but
If I was to eat a pork pie as I jumped traffic lights and ran down children in this ghetto that might count
-
I like going to the beach in summer. I don't much like looking at middle aged men with huge beer guts walking around in speedos.
Would I be justified in saying that middle aged men with huge beer guts should cover themselves up when visiting the beach when I happen to be there?
Bitch! ;D
-
If I was to eat a pork pie as I jumped traffic lights and ran down children in this ghetto that might count
Heh. It's kinda absurd that the worst traffic woe they can worry about is that the girls are too pretty.
-
if the BNP made similar demands about dress-code, the wearing of Burkas in specific parts of Bradford for example, (they probably do now I think about it) then the whole thing would be seen for what it was.
Persoanlly though I think this is just an example of a slow news day in NYC
-
I like going to the beach in summer. I don't much like looking at middle aged men with huge beer guts walking around in speedos.
Would I be justified in saying that middle aged men with huge beer guts should cover themselves up when visiting the beach when I happen to be there?
I remember Clive James doing a travelogue from Rio, walking along a crowded beach musing that, "As a public service, the old, fat and ugly don't go on the beach".
-
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. Though they probably wouldn't consider you a hottie...
And that if I don't, any hassle I get is fairly deserved?
I thought my earlier posts made it clear that you don't. No one does, in this case.
-
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 ?
-
I really don't agree that people should behave differently as they go through one public area as is the case here. They are not shouting, being aggressive etc. just behaving "normally" by NY standards.
-
'Especially women', they say. So we have objections to women wearing too little. Elsewhere we have objections to — mostly Muslim — women wearing too much. We might end up with a fairly restrictive female dress code.
-
And no more miniskirts for Ugandan laydeez either...
BBC NEWS | World | Africa | Uganda seeking miniskirt ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7621823.stm)
because women wearing them distract drivers and cause traffic accidents.
;D
"I think skimpy things are not good. We are keeping the dignity of Africa as ladies and we have to cover ourselves up," one woman, called Sharon - who is the size of a small lorry - told the BBC.
-
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? ;D)
-
It paints these men in a pretty poor light, really, just idiot boners wandering around being led astray.
-
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... )
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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... :o
-
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)
-
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" ?
-
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? :)
-
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." :)
-
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.
-
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 (http://images.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.monarch-garments.com/sherwani222.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.monarch-garments.com/catsherwani2.htm&h=1244&w=550&sz=70&hl=en&start=4&usg=__VABtNBoABN_wMf0cC9ZI2sWa8rU=&tbnid=NMw8drSsv4wCmM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=66&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsherwani%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den) and turban.
*These were sold in Poland.
-
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....
-
Guy at the next desk from me is wearing a "Sing for Christ" T-shirt. I shall introduce you!
-
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"
-
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? ;D)
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.
-
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.
-
Just another reason why religion sucks.
-
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 ?
-
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"
;)
-
Just another reason why religion sucks.
Religion doesn't suck - it just contains some idiots... like every other walk of life.
-
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? ;D)
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. O:-)
-
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. ;D
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
If I believe something to be a truth, it then becomes FACT! :P
-
If I believe something to be a truth, it then becomes FACT! :P
The truth is you look as camp as tits in that pink cowboy hay. By your logic it is a fact you are as camp as tits! :P
-
If I believe something to be a truth, it then becomes FACT! :P
The truth is you look as camp as tits in that pink cowboy hay. By your logic it is a fact you are as camp as tits! :P
I am as camp as tits! That is a truth.
I still shag more girls than you though :P
-
If I believe something to be a truth, it then becomes FACT! :P
The truth is you look as camp as tits in that pink cowboy hay. By your logic it is a fact you are as camp as tits! :P
I am as camp as tits! That is a truth.
I still shag more girls than you though :P
You're welcome to them!
-
That's not what you said when we spent a night together :'(
-
That's not what you said when we spent a night together :'(
But you're special! :-*
-
Religion sucks because of the obsession of trying to convert/persuade others of the way. By all means be religious but do it in your bedroom.
-
Are tits camp?
-
Are tits camp?
Blue tits and coal tits aren't but pink tits with yellow cravats definitely are.
-
But you're special! :-*
Is this special woman a general thing among gay men? I remember an old friend of mine commenting on my then partner: "If any female was going to make me straight, it would be her."
-
I don't think my tits are camp. They have gravitas.
-
I don't think my tits are camp. They have gravitas.
Or is it just the effects of gravity? :P ;)
-
Or is it just the effects of gravity? :P ;)
*checks*
Nope, they're fine.
-
I suppose there won't be photos? ;D
-
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40949000/jpg/_40949814_bubbles220300.jpg (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40949000/jpg/_40949814_bubbles220300.jpg)
Image NSFW.
-
aiiiiieeee! My eyes!
-
Whatever your religion, (I am Jewish but non-observant) many hold that scantily-clad women can distract some members of the male of the species.
Elsewhere, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7621823.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7621823.stm) I read mini-skirts may be causing car crashes.
[Edit: I see Jezza beat me to posting this URL. I have been out.]
I actually feel wearing modest clothing can be liberating as men the concentrate on what I say/do rather than my tits.
If you want to see modern, modest clothes, stroll down Golders Green Road...
-
Quite.
When I meet a woman who has made her cleavage the centre of attention one always wonders if she's doing so as she has nothing else to offer.
Sure, a woman is free to dress as she pleases but I think people would find it hard to take me seriously if I sat in meetings with my willy hanging out.
-
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 see your point, but I think it would be more relevant if they were complaining bout it elsewhere
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"
;)
Quite, I'm going for a beer.
-
Whatever your religion, (I am Jewish but non-observant) many hold that scantily-clad women can distract some members of the male of the species.
Elsewhere, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7621823.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7621823.stm) I read mini-skirts may be causing car crashes.
[Edit: I see Jezza beat me to posting this URL. I have been out.]
I actually feel wearing modest clothing can be liberating as men the concentrate on what I say/do rather than my tits.
In my experience women have an uncanny ability to become both invisible and inaudible by the simple act of adopting modest dress. Quite remarkable!
-
Regulator didn't get the joke.... durrrrrrrrrrr ;D ;D
I did - I simply chose to ignore your attempt at humour... ;) ;D
-
Not my joke.... Kirst's ::-)
-
Whatever your religion, (I am Jewish but non-observant) many hold that scantily-clad women can distract some members of the male of the species.
Elsewhere, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7621823.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7621823.stm) I read mini-skirts may be causing car crashes.
[Edit: I see Jezza beat me to posting this URL. I have been out.]
I actually feel wearing modest clothing can be liberating as men the concentrate on what I say/do rather than my tits.
In my experience women have an uncanny ability to become both invisible and inaudible by the simple act of adopting modest dress. Quite remarkable!
Road users can do this by taking up cycling...
Any fule kno cyclists are invisible.
-
Not my joke.... Kirst's ::-)
I actually wasn't making a joke. :-[