nicked the followin bit off this discussion forum
which clearly shows the writer's perceptions of bird's in general:
Coming from a very male dominated culture (Latin America), I still find it difficult to understand why Muslim women are required to cover their hair and in some cases some of their faces when they are in public? Doesn't that reduce their freedom and individuality?
name of wanker deleted
well, may i ask why then do the collective Latin American cultures place so much emphasis on physical beauty, so much so that bird's resort to plastic surgery? such that they unfairly win each and every international beauty "contest" year-in year-out?
isn't it a male dictate to look "gorgeous" - to which i much disagree the latino definition of "gorgeousness" [sidetrack, this: thank goodness this year's miss wotsit's winner is non-latina. bless.]
the concepts of freedom and individuality are subjective. wearin skimpy bathin suits on the beach may mean nothin in that sad continent. it merely serves to prove the adage, "if you have it, flaunt it". oh yes, the wearer is oh-so-proud of her figure and looks that she's beggin to be drooled at.
cue: the obligatory fur-flyin and eye-dagger throwin
but to yours truly, she's an attention whore. and it begs the question: "is there a need to flaunt yer trunk?"
why perpetuate the need for feckless [with non-existent self-esteem to boot] bint's to compete with one another by turnin out skimpier than the rest?
why give tosser's like the above writer the pleasure to objectify bird's?
that's the whole idea why some muslim bird's feel more empowered by concealin their physical asset's.
of course, some may argue it's the male half of the population who insist on their womenfolk to do so. likewise, isn't the typical latin american tosser who dictate how their bird's should look like?
as enscribed by the letter b @ December 11, 2005 06:34 AM | someone's pinged