Tempting eyes and Muslim men !!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam_777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pfaffenhoffen said:
I told you.** I WENT TO A MUSLIM COUNTRY, and I liked it. I found women sexy. What can I tell you ? I cannot say: “No, they were not sexy!”. No. They were, for me !!! If you go to a Muslim country (did you go?) and find them ugly, fine. I am giving my opinion, as a man.**If they are imposed but the husbands? I do not agree.
If they are imposed by religion? I do not agree.

Anyhow, in high couture we have long dresses, carves, hats and so on. The high stylists prefer long dresses to mini-dresses. And I prefre too. It is not what you show that attracts you but what you guess. Though I find women athletes very, very sexy.

But as I told in another post, I have seen topless women (with breasts down to the ankles :D) and miniskisrts (fatty, distorted legs), and that I would prefer to see in burkhas so ugly the sight !!! I am speaking as a man.
Click to expand...
I suppose this isn’t the worst fetish I ever heard of:shrug:
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
No hypocrisy.It is for their husbands.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is a great deal of hypocrisy in how Muslim men act and how they expect their women to act. For instance, the suicide attackers on 9/11 frequented strip clubs (keep in mind that these men were supporters of the Taliban and equally harsh groups).
 
schaick said:
It does because of a woman feeling jealous for her man looking at another

So you don’t know how she feels about the possibility of her husband having 3 other wives which is not a stereotype but a true possibility:
*004.003 If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. *

While Christianity considers lust a sin, Islam does not. Islam also allows for lust to be acted on during a temporary marriage or with a slave that they possess.

The verdict is still out with the bacha boy situation- some Muslims say it is ok because the boys are beardless other Muslims say it is a homosexual act.

I can see how wearing a burka would set a woman free from cat calls and rape- “uncovered meat” asking for rape in the eyes of many Muslim men.
Click to expand...
Its a classic blaming the victim strategy:rolleyes:

Even more so than Christianity or Judaism, Islam is a relgion that was obviously created by men, for the benefit of men specifically.
 
meedo said:
Islam bad. Christianity good.
Click to expand...
Proving Islam is bad doesn’t necessarily make Christianity good:shrug:

Nor is Christianity necessarily Islam’s very twin (or visa versa).

Life is not that simple:rolleyes:
 
meedo said:
Islam bad. Christianity good.
Click to expand...
I would not put this way.
Christ is the only savior.
Mohamed is saved THROUGH Christ.
What good is is Islam comes from Jesus Christ.
Every Muslim is saved through Jesus Christ.
 
bz5 said:
Property, something you own
Click to expand...
If you are married, do you think you are your wife’s and she is yours?
In my marriage, we think this way.
The problem with chatell is if the wife is his property but he is not her property…so ?
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
If you are married, do you think you are your wife’s and she is yours?
In my marriage, we think this way.
The problem with chatell is if the wife is his property but he is not her property…so ?
Click to expand...
I’m the wife, but yes, I think we are each other’s. I wouldn’t say either of us is property, though. I was asked that question about my kids once, at a book club. Do we own our children? No, people aren’t owned. And yet, they are mine and my husband’s. Maybe that’s contradictory, but I see a difference.
 
Ladervijd said:
The men were touching the bottoms of the women? Perhaps these men were nurses? Or are the women implying that men should not be physically free/able to touch female bottom/s (in extreme, when not talking about hand-cuffing, as in seperate pedestrian pathways for males and females to each side of any street, and as in female only nurses and rescue)?
One thing is whether intentional touching e.g. by any man of any female’s bottom is allowed or not, a bit different thing of proving such (after such happened to one female on one occasion without witness/es).
Click to expand...
Huh?? Should strange men be able to grab women’s bottoms as they pass through in a crowd? Uh, no. Sure, I might have been talking to liars, but I seriously doubt it - at least one of them thought it was funny. My point is that even the head to toe covering isn’t always a protection, though it certainly is a burden for many.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
I suppose this isn’t the worst fetish I ever heard of:shrug:
Click to expand...
Fetish? Tell you, forget about it.
The story goes about the sailors who arrived to a certain island in the Pacific where everybody was naked and the women were not particularly endowed with physical attractiveness and when the missionaries arrived and convinced them to dress, what a relief, they said. Wel, it mus be a legend.

But when they have the Miss Universe event, they must have a number like cattle, the Juri cannot distinguish them…

The attraction is on guessing not on seeing.

Byt the way, have you ever been to a Muslim Country?
 
bz5 said:
Huh?? Should strange men be able to grab women’s bottoms as they pass through in a crowd? Uh, no. Sure, I might have been talking to liars, but I seriously doubt it - at least one of them thought it was funny. My point is that even the head to toe covering isn’t always a protection, though it certainly is a burden for many.
Click to expand...
Again, should they (in particular males) be able, as in physically able to do grab any woman’s bottom regardless of whether they would do so or not and regardless of whether it is allowed or not? In other words, when such (in any particular country) is considered sexual harrasment, and when the two of us, in such country, would happen to be squeezed in in a train, standing, and your bottom would happen to touch my loose hand, I would hope you wouldn’t sue me or punish me for it, albeit arguably (not only) males have responsibility for their hands (with exceptions such as epileptical seizure), and it isn’t difficult to keep hands in pocket or above waist line.

And for that matter, head to toe covering makes it in most public places practically impossible for any hand to slip (at first) unnoticed to the (naked) panties area. The (weather/climate) environment being of more significance (sand, dust, wind, Sun-light) regarding “dress code” than males per se though.
 
Ladervijd said:
Again, should they (in particular males) be able, as in physically able to do grab any woman’s bottom regardless of whether they would do so or not and regardless of whether it is allowed or not? In other words, when such (in any particular country) is considered sexual harrasment, and when the two of us, in such country, would happen to be squeezed in in a train, standing, and your bottom would happen to touch my loose hand, I would hope you wouldn’t sue me or punish me for it, albeit arguably (not only) males have responsibility for their hands (with exceptions such as epileptical seizure), and it isn’t difficult to keep hands in pocket or above waist line.

And for that matter, head to toe covering makes it in most public places practically impossible for any hand to slip (at first) unnoticed to the (naked) panties area. The (weather/climate) environment being of more significance (sand, dust, wind, Sun-light) regarding “dress code” than males per se though.
Click to expand...
Not a naked bottom - how would you feel if, walking down a street,someone reached out to give a quick squeeze or caress to your posterior? It’s no accident. It’s disrespectful and intrusive. Can you seriously not understand that? If the climate were the real issue, the men’s faces would also be covered, and the women could wear a heat-reflecting white as well.
 
vera_dicere said:
Their treatment of women aside, I think its actually more offensive to their men. To be so worked up over the eyes of a woman? Have they no self control?

But I was in Dubai recently and I was quite impressed by the level of modesty displayed by some of the women.

Though, it was funny when i saw a woman in a full length burka having an argument in a mall with her husband, and in english yelled at him “I saw you checking out her bottom…” And that guy, looked very, very scared!
Click to expand...
And the impracticality of it. During a visit of Malaysia in mid-September, my friend and I met other tourists from the Middle East. The women were dressed very modestly, of course. Those from Saudi Arabia wore full black clothes, as a Hindu taxi driver related to us. I thought it must have been unbearably hot for the women without air-conditioning, everything covered but the eyes, like the first picture provided by the OP. But I did marvel at the beautiful detail of their long dresses and veil, e.g., bead accents, a bit of appliqué or lace here and there, mostly black as well.

Tired of Hainanese food for days in a row, we went for McDonald’s hamburger inside a huge mall in Kuala Lumpur one time. A young Saudi couple with their child took the table next to us, the woman dressed in the fashion as described. Her husband wore comfortable long shorts and light colored shirt as did the little boy. They ordered hamburgers and fries.

You can just imagine the repeated motions the woman had to do with each bite of the burger and fries. She kept her facial veil, which she had to lift each time with one hand and putting the food in her mouth with the other! The man and their son looked like they enjoyed their food, unencumbered, of course.
,
 
bz5 said:
I’m the wife, but yes, I think we are each other’s. I wouldn’t say either of us is property, though. I was asked that question about my kids once, at a book club. Do we own our children? No, people aren’t owned. And yet, they are mine and my husband’s. Maybe that’s contradictory, but I see a difference.
Click to expand...
👍🙂
 
Pfaffenhoffen said:
I can not believe you do not know that !!!
If muslims go to Heaven is through Mohamed? Or through whom?
Objections, please ! 1,2,3,4,5,…all welcome !!!
Click to expand...
They don’t go… that’s why I thought you were joking. As far as objections to their salvation, I stand with the Church. Are they invincibly ignorant of the truth? No. Are they baptized? No. Do they partake of the Eucharist? No. Do they reject Christ? Yes. Do they reject His Church? Yes. Are they stained with moral sin? Yes. Ergo, they are not saved unless they repent, accept Christ and His Bride (the Church) and partake of the Sacraments.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
They don’t go… that’s why I thought you were joking. As far as objections to their salvation, I stand with the Church. Are they invincibly ignorant of the truth? No. Are they baptized? No. Do they partake of the Eucharist? No. Do they reject Christ? Yes. Do they reject His Church? Yes. Are they stained with moral sin? Yes. Ergo, they are not saved unless they repent, accept Christ and His Bride (the Church) and partake of the Sacraments.
Click to expand...
Oh you don’t believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330
 
Thankfulness said:
Oh you don’t believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

The Church and non-Christians

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330
Click to expand...
Keep reading on to paragraph 846. Then read 847 and 848 and reread 841. Conclusion, paragraph 841 refers to Muslims “who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.” As you read, three things are necessary for their possible salvation, complete ignorance of Christ and his Church, seek God with a sincere heart, and try to do His will as dictated of their conscience.

Muslims who do know Christ and what the Church teaches are not ignorant and the Church becomes the only way of salvation for them. You actually thought this involved all Muslims?
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
They don’t go… that’s why I thought you were joking. As far as objections to their salvation, I stand with the Church. Are they invincibly ignorant of the truth? No. Are they baptized? No. Do they partake of the Eucharist? No. Do they reject Christ? Yes. Do they reject His Church? Yes. Are they stained with moral sin? Yes. Ergo, they are not saved unless they repent, accept Christ and His Bride (the Church) and partake of the Sacraments.
Click to expand...
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/i...XIjC26wjSGbWA-eZne0INjnJmM5NX6V0MRxVu_NjrwN2g

I thinks it’s better to keep who goes and who doesn’t go to paradise to the LORD Himself, we can just warn them of purgatory which is not a good place to stay…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top