Comments by "POO CRAYON" (@poocrayon4588) on "Do All Nudists Agree Or Disagree? | Spectrum" video.

They were forced to cover up - they're just brainwashed. No other religion or culture in the history of mankind has ever had such extreme forms of body hiding as the niqab. Don't delude yourself, no one would choose that if they were remotely free not to and not living in an extremely repressive culture. Attempting to look liberal and progressive has you defending one of the most absurdly opressive forms of dress of all time, which even most people in ancient times would have thought was opressive to women.
22
The male wang is a beautiful thing
17
You know you'd look. Don't lie
9
I saw a show where a deadly fish swum up a mans penis and he died from it and I'm afraid to swim naked in a lake
5
Lol, wrong. Most art involving naked women was made by men who were turned on by (and often sleeping with) those women. To pretend naked bodies in art don't have either a sensual or sexual element a lot of the time is plain wrong.
4
Why do nudists always have bodies that look like melting candles?
3
@sunshell What's your point? There wouldn't even be such a prevelance of female nudes in art if men weren't turned on by/attracted to them. And men sexualize and over sexualize women in all societies and always have and always will. Inevitably that will show in their art.
2
@MarsyinMars Extreme modesty to the level of the niqab at such a widespread level for so long IS exclusive to Islam. But as I say, if you have no problem with it you wouldn't need to stretch to find tenuous parallels in other religions in order to condone it by inclusion in a group of religions. The fact you do suggests you either don't support or at least agree with it logically or that you are ashamed of it. Or that you haven't thought it through. I don't agree or support the idea of the niqab and find it completely absurd and the rationale for it likewise, especially womens rational for it. However if it is part of their culture I can at least respect that and they may be quite intelligent and rational in spite of my difference of opinion with them on that. As for those women who convert and wear it from a completely different culture, well they are complete fools in my eyes that is all. But they are certainly free to make that choice. However the idea of it being forced is absolutely real - in many places it is forced and women who don't are shunned. It's an easy out to say this is because of the "culture" of these places, but the reality is given that Islam is a set of governing rules for life and earthly law, the religion has deeply informed the culture. Of course as you say it is all they have ever known. You say these women are not oppressed because they say they are not and I would agree. However consider what the answer would be if you asked women in 1875 before they had the right to vote if they were oppressed, the majority would almost certainly answer that they were not. Again the same for women in medieval times etc. Yet the same women such as (likely) yourself who say that Muslim women are not oppressed in the current day would likely say that women in the past in their own cultures were oppressed. Despite that being a minority view of women in those times. Ironic, the modern western woman who defends Islamic women as not being oppressed may be the only group of women to ever consider themselves oppressed. Off topic but something to think about in it's illogical nature. YOU consider breastfeeding seperate, but still it is public nudity and it is completely acceptable to you. You've just rationilized the nudity you have no problem with as being different. I have no idea what happened in San Fransisco. The problem with your train of thought on freedom of religion is that it is far from a fundemental right and was only made such when most people in the countries which instituted it had the same religion. It's a fundemental right so long as it serves the majority and those capable of enforcing it, as are most things. The reality is if most migration into those places which are banning the face coverings and veils is Islamic and is at a greater rate than ever before AND it is thought that that is either causing problems with those societies, or else changing the society internally into one with values the current majority doesn't hold through demographic changes, then either freedom of religion will be curtailed or migration will be based upon discrimination against religion. Both of which are clearly against religious freedom but both of which are perfectly acceptable moral solutions to the majority if said countries feel such mass changes cause by Islamic immigration are undesirable. As is a valid choice and would likewise be if were happening in an Islamic country. So really, in spite of the pretty thoughts, freedom of religion and constitutions aren't worth the paper their written on if they don't work for the people at large (and perhaps more importantly those most capable of forcing change to them relatively quickly). After all the idea of freedom of religion only came about because lack of freedom of religion wasn't working for the general populace. The same could easily happen in reverse and often has. Whether that's right or wrong depends on your POV. The idea of freedom of religion and general enlightenment born ideals and "rights" also include the idea of questioning and examining religion and religious figures. This is as I understand a source of tension with Muslim migrants in france who are less accepting of this ideal when applied to their own religion. So in a way you might say many believe in freedom of religion in public but NOT freedom to question religion in public. But these are problems for France and Europe and not for me anyway. However the situation is far more complicated and fraught than to present it as a few harmless minority women being discriminated against for being different. I'm not saying that doesn't happen and isn't cruel but because of the mass muslim migration to some countries there is far more to it than that. Anyway, I'm not exactly against the Niqab in public but don't want to see it widespread because I don't agree with the rationale behind it, whether it's free will or not or both. And I'm not for public nudity in general but have no problem with it (like you) in some situations, ala breastfeeding, sunbathing, nude modelling etc. And of course it's depiction in art. The main point was that these nudists have every right to feel as persecuted in their nudist lifestyle as some NIqabi does if not more so, as not only do those who defend face coverings have no problem with face coverings, they also seek to oppress public nudity. So this isn't about my beliefs but about your emotional and thoughtless argument.
2
Why do nudists always have bodies that look like melting candles?
2
@nito0 I never said I support people going nude, I was responding to a comment by the woman who was so triggered by one of the nudists talking about niqab, as though niqab isn't as or more ridiculous than being a public nudist.
1
@Leeeeyes I don't care if you take your niqab off and I'm not telling you to. BUT since the comment I replied to was by a woman who was triggered by the nudists mentioning it and was seemingly fine with niqab I opinioned that niqab was itself an extreme form of dress and attitude to the human body shared by no other culture or religion in human history other than Islam. And if she finds the nudists opinions defending their public nudism ridiculous I can equally find the rationilization of the niqab ridiculous - and I do. Your triggered but I truly don't care if you were the nijab or "if you ain't playing" as I have zero interest in being in a relationship with a woman in the niqab and am not a muslim. I'm merely giving my response to her being so offended by nudists but thinking NIqab is fine. Wear it or dont, I don't care, it doesn't effect me on a personal level and I've never even seen one irl.
1
@alaanagah90 I don't discount that many of you want to dress that way nor did I say I did. If you dont feel oppressed by a niqab thats fine but I still think it's as absurd or more say than the nudists feeling they have a right to be publicly nude. And in no time on a large scale other than the islamic world have people ever worn anything remotely as all covering as the niqab. People were still wearing far less than hundreds of years ago and if you go back to older times, again, women wore far far less than that (say in ancient Rome or Greece or Egypt). It is a style of dress particular to Islam - that's fine but if someone's going to say Public nudity is silly but saying the niqab is silly is off limits then that is absurd. What part is delusional? That the niqab is the single most all covering thing ever worn by women? Ever? Because that's very much true. Wear your niqab if you want, just don't be surprised if these nudists want to know why they can't do the opposite in public just because it doesn't mesh with your views or morality, when your niqab may not mesh with theirs.
1
@greylux-4284 Well clearly not wanting to see niqab is quite accepted in western and non Islamic countries too. Case closed. And the NIqab is every bit as extreme as walking around naked and actually more perverse since it springs from a place of far greater sexual obsession than simple nudity.
1
@MarsyinMars First - As I already wrote, I'm perfectly aware of other female coverings in religion both current and pre Islam. What I wrote was there has never been a covering as complete and extreme as the niqab which has been widespread in other religions ever. And that's a fact. No other religion ever has held a widespread accepted view that women should show only their eyes. Only their eyes - think about that for a second, is women walking around showing only their eyes really less extreme than public nudism? No. And I think you greatly overestimate public support amongst non Muslims for religious freedom when it comes in the form of the Niqab. If numbers of Muslims in countries are small (like mine) it may be accepted because it's irrelevant. However where there has been large muslim migration such as in France you can plainly see that freedom of religious expression as far as wearing a Niqab is not widely accepted at all. And given that that Nation and many others have legal nudity (topless) on public beaches while outlawing the wearing of the Niqab in public, it is clear that in western countries where Islamic migration is large, that public nudity of women is in fact a more widely accepted phenomenom than the Niqab. I'm not triggered simply because I'm replying to you, this is what conversation and argument is. If that upsets you you are the one triggered and are clearly of a too emotional nature too engage with people with differing opinions. You should lighten up and trying to be cooler.
1
@MarsyinMars Some few Jewish communities is hardly the same as the widespread use of the niqab in Islam, if you have no problem with the Niqab (or Burka) don't try to make it seem like other religions use similar coverings on an equal scale or that they ever have, that is false. After all if you don't think the niqab needs justification then why try to justify it by saying (falsely) that that form of extreme covering is not unique to Islam? And I never called you liberal or progressive. I don't care if your liberal and doubt I would find you progressive, that's neither here nor there. To claim that nudity is harmful on a harrassment level and the Niqab isn't is merely a point of view that holds "modesty" to the point of total covering to be less offensive than partial or total nudity. I wouldn't be at all surprised if most people in the west would feel more comfortable and less "harrassed" by seeing a topless woman on a beach than a woman in full Niqab. Likewise to walk into a public gallery and find a nude model being sketched etc. Nor is that a sanitary issue. To be clear I'm not for public nudity everywhere but to think it is more offensive than the Niqab is only your point of view and very likely not the majority one in western countries. Especially if the question was whether to allow public nudity in certain situations and for certain purposes. After all we already allow women to publicly breastfeed. Is that not public nudity? Is that not more acceptable than the Niqab? Absolutely Niqab stems from a sexual obsession - that's why rules surrounding womens dress came down from Muhammed not some woman from the same time. Women now just live in the system and make the best of it and I truly don't have anything against them for doing so, as in a way that's what women everywhere do to an extent and likely always will have to do to a greater extent than men when it comes to clothing. But to pretend that it doesn't stem from the obsession with womens bodies and especially with preventing other men from seeing the bodies of men's wives and daughters is to bury your head in the sand. Niqab, Burka, all of it - none of it the invention of women. Having said that I do at least appreciate your defence of womens choices in their own actions when it comes to this kind of thing - even if they only extend into Islam and cultures other than your own and are mistaken. And I don't know where you live but most places don't worship their constitution and it would be quite simple to ban niqab and burka without it having a widespread effect on other laws.
1
@tabbybit Except it is an Islamic view. Simply because it's not mentioned in the Koran doesn't mean it's not Islamic any more than popular Christian practices which are mentioned in the Bible aren't Christian practices. It's widespread in Islam and long has been so it is an Islamic view. But whole face or only eyes makes no difference, it's still an extreme covering so the point is the same either way.
1
@sana17513 You stfu - the video commented on the Niqab and the commenter I replied to was triggered by the opinion on the video and I replied. The Christian religion is based on the word of Christ who never mentioned head coverings so yeah if the Quran tells women to wear a Hijab that is more opressive. But your the one calling it oppressive one second and empowering the next, it's contridictary. I know about the religion - it specifies head coverings which is why they are worn. That's a fact. And Ill comment on it all I like, the people who made the religion and encourage it obviously feel free to talk about what women should wear on their heads and you all listened to them and are now defending it so why shouldn't I talk about the same?
1