You Cain’t Hiiiiiide, Yore Slutty Eyes

(With apologies to the Eagles for the title)

Saudi women with attractive eyes may be forced to cover even them up, if resolution is passed

Women with attractive eyes may be forced to cover them up under Saudi Arabia’s latest repressive measure, it was reported yesterday.

The ultra-conservative Islamic state has said it has the right to stop women revealing ‘tempting’ eyes in public.

A spokesperson for Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, Sheikh Motlab al Nabet, said a proposal to enshrine the measure in law has been tabled.

“Tabled” in western vernacular means postponed, but elsewhere, as in this use (I think), it means “presented for serious discussion.”

They’re gonna talk about it.

Because those seductive Arabic jezebels just insist on sparking the irresistible urges of  poor Arabic men.

BTW, this is from those jolly scamps of correct behavior, Saudi Arabia’s Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, who brought us 15 dead schoolgirls in 2002, when

… the committee refused to allow female students out of a burning school in the holy city of Mecca because they were not wearing correct head cover.

 

Print Friendly

  • Didaktylos

    To be more precise, Hank – “tabled” meaning “put on the agenda” is British usage; meaning “deferred” is American.

    • Hank Fox

      Noted, and thanks!

  • carolw

    And who decides if their eyes are attractive? Let me guess…

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com WMDKitty

    *headdesk*

    I’m sorry, but if those men “can’t” (read: “won’t”) control themselves, then they are the ones who need to be locked away.

  • http://sidhe3141.blogspot.com sidhe3141

    Why do I get the feeling that someone has a blindfold fetish?

    • Aliasalpha

      Blindfold would imply that you can see the rest, this sounds more like a ‘woman in a sack’ fetish

  • http://anygivenweeknight.blogspot.com/ starspider

    So let me get this straight. Due to no fault of her own, a genetic quirk produced between two people whose association she had no control over (her parents) and whose association at least one of them may not have had any say in (her mother) a woman whose ocular organs appear to be an attractive shade or hue or tilt has to cover them up.

    Because her male counterparts are so weak-willed that glimpsing them may drive them into a frenzy.

    Or something.

    What?

    • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

      A few months ago I read the actual reason behind the Muslim belief that you cannot show an image purportedly of Mohammed:

      It’s because the Muslim people may be tempted to worship the image as an idol.

      It’s all about control of thought, it’s religion 101 – claim you’re not in control of your thoughts and facilities, our religion can help, let’s make life shit for anyone who might cause you to stray.

    • drbubbles

      Some time ago I saw an ethnographic video about a Muslim land where women wear distinctive hijab, with a sort of ridge that runs down the middle of the face-covering (more mask than veil), and one hole for each eye (much smaller than in the pic at the top). What was curious was that, despite the overall woman-in-a-sack æsthetic, the masks were subtly different and some in the audience observed differences in apparent attractiveness between individual women (perhaps because the severe limitations of the w-i-a-s æsthetic really didn’t allow much in the way of visual distinction aside from height, BMI, and mask). The anthropologist videographer said that one thing women considered in selecting a mask was how it looked on them. There was no obvious association between a woman’s apparent attractiveness with the mask and without (which we got to see because the videographer was a woman and got to film in the tents when the masks were off)—that is, women whose masks comported with some aspects of Euro-American facial æsthetic values, may not have had faces that did (and vice versa).

      (This is not to excuse or rationalize being forced to wear hijab. It is an anecdote that, if it has a point, might suggest that there’s not much women can do to appease men who consider their very existence to be sinfully flirtatious; or that masculine sexualization of women, being a symbolic state, isn’t going to be prevented by any conceivable clothing; or that clothing has a semiotic dimension; or that thought cannot be delimited by decree; or that women, as people, can find outlets for self-expression when they wish; or that control itself breeds new opportunities for resistance…).

  • realityhack

    How does a country that gets so much assistance from the US and no negative attention manage to do this kind of crap. Isn’t this exactly when you send a message though the back channels ‘suggesting’ that reducing women rights even further would be detrimental to the ongoing relationship… blah blah blah?

    • d cwilson

      realityhack:

      We will get around to telling them this is bad idea right around the time the last drop of oil has been pumped out of the ground.

  • http://surgoshan.blogspot.com/ Surgoshan

    I think we should help those poor Saudis out. Their women are obviously far, far too attractive; we should bring them all here, educate the shit out of them, and let them help us boost our economy.

    And with no women to distract them, Saudi men will also be more productive, netting a boost to their economy as well. It’s win-win!

  • Ramel

    Tabled and IALA system B, you even drive on the wrong side of the road…. Why do Americans insist on getting things backwards and then start claiming that their way is correct?

    • Michael B.

      We have a thing about independence. You might have noticed.

    • drbubbles

      We drive on the right because our cars have the steering wheel on the left. (You would, too.)

      • Ramel

        Your steering wheels are on the left because you drive on the right.

        • Pentimento

          It seems funny to claim that your method of lane occupancy is correct when, the first self propelled road vehicle was produced by Cugnot is France, the first gasoline car was produced by Benz in Germany, the first four-wheeled, four-stroke car was produced by Daimler in Germany, and the first successful gas vehicle was produced by Duryea in America. Now, kids, what do those three countries have in common, other than unbridled arrogance, that is?

          Unless you feel the need to defend your life with a sword while you drive, even the Canadians have abandoned your methods.

        • Ramel

          It’s also interesting to compare the difference in how the three differences I mentioned came about.

          One is through language drifting between what were until recent decades relatively isolated cultures with the same original language, but very different histories.

          The second is the result of a complicated series of international negotiations to standardise marine navigation that somehow ended with most of the world agreeing to one system while Japan, South Korea, north, central, and south America use a reversed colour scheme. And Japan only uses system B because of the USA’s post war occupation.

          The third is interesting for being largely arbitrary and based on seemingly random historical factors and how rules regarding which side of the road people drive on largely grew out of codifying local conventions. At least that is in countries that had their own automotive industries early on, much of the world picked a side based either on their imperial owner, on what their neighbours had, or based on where they were buying their cars from.

          And the final little dig is just poking fun at the way Americans (and I do accept that this is an expressively broad generalisation) have a bad habit of assuming that the way thing are done in their little corner of the world is somehow automatically correct.

  • Crudely Wrott

    So how does one explain all those drivers around the world that drive smack dab in the middle of the road? Are they all diplomats or something? Can they be deported?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X