info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
305 views
Skip to first unread message
BV BV
Oct 31, 2015, 2:50:54 PM10/31/15
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to obey God.
In recent years, a small piece of cloth has managed to cause quite a stir. The scarf or hijab that Muslim women wear on their heads is making headlines around the world. Hijab is banned in French public schools and other European countries have adopted, or are drafting similar legislation. In Australia, a radio presenter triggered both debate and outrage when he called for the face veil (niqab) to be banned from banks and post offices. Even predominantly Muslim countries such as Turkey and Tunisia ban the hijab in certain government buildings. When a small piece of fabric causes such controversy and conflict, wouldn't it be easier to remove it? Why then, under such circumstances, do Muslim women wear scarves?
There are a myriad of reasons why, but the easy, one sentence answer is, because they believe God has made it an obligation for believing women. In the Quran God tells the believing men and women to lower their gaze and to dress modestly. He (God) specifically addresses women when He asks them not to show off their adornment, except that which is apparent, and draw their veils over their bodies. (Quran 24:30-31)
These verses of Quran are known as the verses of hijab and it is the consensus of Islamic scholars that they make the wearing of hijab mandatory. Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar do enforce a dress code. Women there are expected to cover their hair and wear some sort of loose fitting, full-length garment over their clothes. However, for the majority of Muslim women around the world, to cover, or not to cover, is a freely made choice. God requires Muslim women to dress modestly and to wear the hijab in public and in the presence of men who are not close relatives.
Although the English word scarf and the Arabic term hijab have become interchangeable, it is worth noting that hijab is more than just a scarf. It is a term that covers a variety of clothing including scarves, but also a variety of different dress styles from around the world. Many have cultural connotations such as the Pakistani shalwar khamis or the Afghani burqa, but whenever a Muslim woman covers "her adornment", she is said to be wearing hijab.
The literal meaning of hijab is to veil, to cover, or to screen. Islam is known as a religion concerned with community cohesion and moral boundaries, and therefore hijab is a way of ensuring that the moral boundaries between unrelated men and women are respected. In this sense, the term hijab encompasses more than a scarf and more then a dress code. It is a term that denotes modest dressing and modest behaviour. For instance, if a Muslim woman was wearing a scarf but at the same time using bad language, she would not be fulfilling the requirements of hijab.
The majority of Muslim women wear hijab, to obey God, and to be known as respectable women. (Quran 33:59) However, in the last 30 years hijab has emerged as a sign of Islamic consciousness. Many women see wearing the hijab as indicative of their desire to be part of an Islamic revival, especially in countries where the practice of Islam is discouraged or even forbidden.
While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being "set free" from society's unrealistic fashion culture.
Hijab frees women from being thought of as sexual objects of desire or from being valued for their looks, or body shape rather then their minds and intellect. No longer slaves to consumerism, hijab liberates women from the need to conform to unrealistic stereotypes and images dictated by the media. Women wearing hijab have expressed that dressing modestly and covering their hair, minimises sexual harassment in the workplace. The aura of privacy created by hijab is indicative of the great value Islam places upon women.
It is true that in some families and in some cultures women are forced to wear hijab but this is not the norm. The Quran clearly states that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). Women who choose to wear hijab do not make the decision lightly. In fact many women testify that they faced great animosity from their Muslim or non-Muslim families when they decided to cover. Across the globe there are numerous instances of women having to defend their right to wear the hijab.
Hijab can be a symbol of piety and it can be a sign of great inner strength and fortitude. A woman wearing hijab becomes a very visible sign of Islam. While Muslim men can blend easily into any society, Muslim woman are often put on the line, and forced to defend not only their decision to cover, but also their religion. Nevertheless, women who wear hijab insist that the advantages far outweigh any disadvantage conjured up by media bias or general ignorance.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2770/why-muslim-women-wear-veil/
Thank you
Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to obey God.
In recent years, a small piece of cloth has managed to cause quite a stir. The scarf or hijab that Muslim women wear on their heads is making headlines around the world. Hijab is banned in French public schools and other European countries have adopted, or are drafting similar legislation. In Australia, a radio presenter triggered both debate and outrage when he called for the face veil (niqab) to be banned from banks and post offices. Even predominantly Muslim countries such as Turkey and Tunisia ban the hijab in certain government buildings. When a small piece of fabric causes such controversy and conflict, wouldn't it be easier to remove it? Why then, under such circumstances, do Muslim women wear scarves?
There are a myriad of reasons why, but the easy, one sentence answer is, because they believe God has made it an obligation for believing women. In the Quran God tells the believing men and women to lower their gaze and to dress modestly. He (God) specifically addresses women when He asks them not to show off their adornment, except that which is apparent, and draw their veils over their bodies. (Quran 24:30-31)
These verses of Quran are known as the verses of hijab and it is the consensus of Islamic scholars that they make the wearing of hijab mandatory. Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar do enforce a dress code. Women there are expected to cover their hair and wear some sort of loose fitting, full-length garment over their clothes. However, for the majority of Muslim women around the world, to cover, or not to cover, is a freely made choice. God requires Muslim women to dress modestly and to wear the hijab in public and in the presence of men who are not close relatives.
Although the English word scarf and the Arabic term hijab have become interchangeable, it is worth noting that hijab is more than just a scarf. It is a term that covers a variety of clothing including scarves, but also a variety of different dress styles from around the world. Many have cultural connotations such as the Pakistani shalwar khamis or the Afghani burqa, but whenever a Muslim woman covers "her adornment", she is said to be wearing hijab.
The literal meaning of hijab is to veil, to cover, or to screen. Islam is known as a religion concerned with community cohesion and moral boundaries, and therefore hijab is a way of ensuring that the moral boundaries between unrelated men and women are respected. In this sense, the term hijab encompasses more than a scarf and more then a dress code. It is a term that denotes modest dressing and modest behaviour. For instance, if a Muslim woman was wearing a scarf but at the same time using bad language, she would not be fulfilling the requirements of hijab.
The majority of Muslim women wear hijab, to obey God, and to be known as respectable women. (Quran 33:59) However, in the last 30 years hijab has emerged as a sign of Islamic consciousness. Many women see wearing the hijab as indicative of their desire to be part of an Islamic revival, especially in countries where the practice of Islam is discouraged or even forbidden.
While those who seek to ban hijab refer to it as a symbol of gender based repression, the women who choose to don a scarf, or to wear hijab, in the broadest sense of the word, do so by making personal decisions and independent choices. They view it as a right and not a burden. Nor do these women regard hijab as a sign of oppression. Women who wear hijab often describe themselves as being "set free" from society's unrealistic fashion culture.
Hijab frees women from being thought of as sexual objects of desire or from being valued for their looks, or body shape rather then their minds and intellect. No longer slaves to consumerism, hijab liberates women from the need to conform to unrealistic stereotypes and images dictated by the media. Women wearing hijab have expressed that dressing modestly and covering their hair, minimises sexual harassment in the workplace. The aura of privacy created by hijab is indicative of the great value Islam places upon women.
It is true that in some families and in some cultures women are forced to wear hijab but this is not the norm. The Quran clearly states that there is no compulsion in religion (2:256). Women who choose to wear hijab do not make the decision lightly. In fact many women testify that they faced great animosity from their Muslim or non-Muslim families when they decided to cover. Across the globe there are numerous instances of women having to defend their right to wear the hijab.
Hijab can be a symbol of piety and it can be a sign of great inner strength and fortitude. A woman wearing hijab becomes a very visible sign of Islam. While Muslim men can blend easily into any society, Muslim woman are often put on the line, and forced to defend not only their decision to cover, but also their religion. Nevertheless, women who wear hijab insist that the advantages far outweigh any disadvantage conjured up by media bias or general ignorance.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2770/why-muslim-women-wear-veil/
Thank you
Dorothy J Heydt
Oct 31, 2015, 5:45:05 PM10/31/15
to
In article <82dfdff9-0592-429f...@googlegroups.com>,
Or they're afraid they'd be stoned to death if they didn't.
Depending on where they are.
One of the advice columnists -- I forget which one -- recently
advised a Muslim woman living in the US, who wanted to go
bareheaded when applying for work, but if she went bareheaded in
her home neighborhood her parents' neighbors would find out and
be scandalized and the whole family would lose face. After a bit
of discussion, the columnist realized she could take the veil off
when applying for work -- and when working, once she got the job --
and put it back on before going home.
That's one of the things ladies' rooms are for.
OTOH, one of the pharmacists at the drug store I go to wears hijab
and nobody gives a damn. But they're in Berkeley. :)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
BV BV <bv8b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
>
>Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to obey God.
Either that, or their parents would be humiliated if they didn't.
>Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
>
>Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to obey God.
Or they're afraid they'd be stoned to death if they didn't.
Depending on where they are.
One of the advice columnists -- I forget which one -- recently
advised a Muslim woman living in the US, who wanted to go
bareheaded when applying for work, but if she went bareheaded in
her home neighborhood her parents' neighbors would find out and
be scandalized and the whole family would lose face. After a bit
of discussion, the columnist realized she could take the veil off
when applying for work -- and when working, once she got the job --
and put it back on before going home.
That's one of the things ladies' rooms are for.
OTOH, one of the pharmacists at the drug store I go to wears hijab
and nobody gives a damn. But they're in Berkeley. :)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
J. Clarke
Oct 31, 2015, 8:19:53 PM10/31/15
to
In article <nx3t3...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com says...
I've come to the conclusion that Islam's idea of "modesty" is bizarre.
I remember working with a couple of women who wore tight yoga pants (the
kind that might as well be body paint for all the concealment they
provide), a tight knit top, and the hijab.
I remember working with a couple of women who wore tight yoga pants (the
kind that might as well be body paint for all the concealment they
provide), a tight knit top, and the hijab.
Dorothy J Heydt
Oct 31, 2015, 10:15:04 PM10/31/15
to
In article <MPG.309f24b79...@news.eternal-september.org>,
It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
*because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
look?
I saw a picture once from maybe 1890, contrasting British and
Turkish costume. The British woman was dressed for a ball or
dinner, with bare arms and a cleavage down to there. The Turkish
woman wore pants low on the hips, a bodice that barely covered
the breasts, and a face veil. Essentially, one culture exposed
what the other showed off, and vice versa.
The Judge Dee murder mysteries of Robert van Gulik were
illustrated by his own hand, and very nicely too. Many of the
female characters in the stories are courtesans, and they're
frequently drawn stark naked ... except that *something* always
covers their feet, because feet were too sexy to be depicted.
(N.B. this was before foot-binding came in.)
The culture that goes with Islam thinks women's hair is so sexy
that it must be covered or it will drive men mad. Taken to
extremes, women have to be covered from head to foot, without
even their eyes showing, because the very sight of a woman will
drive men mad and it's always the woman's fault.
/sigh
by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
*because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
look?
I saw a picture once from maybe 1890, contrasting British and
Turkish costume. The British woman was dressed for a ball or
dinner, with bare arms and a cleavage down to there. The Turkish
woman wore pants low on the hips, a bodice that barely covered
the breasts, and a face veil. Essentially, one culture exposed
what the other showed off, and vice versa.
The Judge Dee murder mysteries of Robert van Gulik were
illustrated by his own hand, and very nicely too. Many of the
female characters in the stories are courtesans, and they're
frequently drawn stark naked ... except that *something* always
covers their feet, because feet were too sexy to be depicted.
(N.B. this was before foot-binding came in.)
The culture that goes with Islam thinks women's hair is so sexy
that it must be covered or it will drive men mad. Taken to
extremes, women have to be covered from head to foot, without
even their eyes showing, because the very sight of a woman will
drive men mad and it's always the woman's fault.
/sigh
Garrett Wollman
Oct 31, 2015, 10:34:01 PM10/31/15
to
In article <nx3t3...@kithrup.com>,
western-female-appearance-standards rat-race -- which is the case for
the covering Muslim women I know. (I'm sure the religious teaching
has something to do with it, too, but there's no doubt it also saves
them a lot of money that non-covering women are made to think they
should be spending on clothing, cosmetics, hair care, etc. Not to
mention avoiding plenty of unwanted "male gaze".)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <82dfdff9-0592-429f...@googlegroups.com>,
>BV BV <bv8b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
>>
>>Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to obey God.
>
>Either that, or their parents would be humiliated if they didn't.
>Or they're afraid they'd be stoned to death if they didn't.
>Depending on where they are.
Or they happen to like the fact that they can opt out of the
>In article <82dfdff9-0592-429f...@googlegroups.com>,
>BV BV <bv8b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
>>
>>Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to obey God.
>
>Either that, or their parents would be humiliated if they didn't.
>Or they're afraid they'd be stoned to death if they didn't.
>Depending on where they are.
western-female-appearance-standards rat-race -- which is the case for
the covering Muslim women I know. (I'm sure the religious teaching
has something to do with it, too, but there's no doubt it also saves
them a lot of money that non-covering women are made to think they
should be spending on clothing, cosmetics, hair care, etc. Not to
mention avoiding plenty of unwanted "male gaze".)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Cryptoengineer
Oct 31, 2015, 10:39:23 PM10/31/15
to
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:nx45r...@kithrup.com:
"Of all the strange “crimes that human beings have legislated out of
nothing, “blasphemy” is the most amazing--with “obscenity” and “indecent
exposure” fighting it out for second and third place."
-Lazarus Long, as recorded by RAH.
pt
news:nx45r...@kithrup.com:
nothing, “blasphemy” is the most amazing--with “obscenity” and “indecent
exposure” fighting it out for second and third place."
-Lazarus Long, as recorded by RAH.
pt
Cryptoengineer
Oct 31, 2015, 10:49:06 PM10/31/15
to
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) wrote in
news:n13tmm$1ndm$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu:
> In article <nx3t3...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <82dfdff9-0592-429f...@googlegroups.com>,
>>BV BV <bv8b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
>>>
>>>Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to
>>>obey God.
>>
>>Either that, or their parents would be humiliated if they didn't.
>>Or they're afraid they'd be stoned to death if they didn't.
>>Depending on where they are.
>
> Or they happen to like the fact that they can opt out of the
> western-female-appearance-standards rat-race -- which is the case for
> the covering Muslim women I know. (I'm sure the religious teaching
> has something to do with it, too, but there's no doubt it also saves
> them a lot of money that non-covering women are made to think they
> should be spending on clothing, cosmetics, hair care, etc. Not to
> mention avoiding plenty of unwanted "male gaze".)
>
> -GAWollman
I'm sure some do that, but by most reports, Arab women in the middle
east who have the money dress to the nines under their chadors and
niqabs. After all, they don't wear them when at home, or when at
all-women facilities (which are are quite common there).
I have heard Western women who have lived there say that anonymity
and not obviously being a foreigner are often an upside of the veil.
There's a variety of veiling styles:
http://twentytwowords.com/not-all-headscarves-are-burkas-7-types-of-
muslim-headwear-for-women/
pt
news:n13tmm$1ndm$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu:
> In article <nx3t3...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <82dfdff9-0592-429f...@googlegroups.com>,
>>BV BV <bv8b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
>>>
>>>Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to
>>>obey God.
>>
>>Either that, or their parents would be humiliated if they didn't.
>>Or they're afraid they'd be stoned to death if they didn't.
>>Depending on where they are.
>
> Or they happen to like the fact that they can opt out of the
> western-female-appearance-standards rat-race -- which is the case for
> the covering Muslim women I know. (I'm sure the religious teaching
> has something to do with it, too, but there's no doubt it also saves
> them a lot of money that non-covering women are made to think they
> should be spending on clothing, cosmetics, hair care, etc. Not to
> mention avoiding plenty of unwanted "male gaze".)
>
> -GAWollman
east who have the money dress to the nines under their chadors and
niqabs. After all, they don't wear them when at home, or when at
all-women facilities (which are are quite common there).
I have heard Western women who have lived there say that anonymity
and not obviously being a foreigner are often an upside of the veil.
There's a variety of veiling styles:
http://twentytwowords.com/not-all-headscarves-are-burkas-7-types-of-
muslim-headwear-for-women/
pt
Robert Bannister
Nov 1, 2015, 9:40:37 PM11/1/15
to
On 1/11/2015 10:04 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> The culture that goes with Islam thinks women's hair is so sexy
> that it must be covered or it will drive men mad. Taken to
> extremes, women have to be covered from head to foot, without
> even their eyes showing, because the very sight of a woman will
> drive men mad and it's always the woman's fault.
Saint Paul too. There are still churches where women are expected to
> The culture that goes with Islam thinks women's hair is so sexy
> that it must be covered or it will drive men mad. Taken to
> extremes, women have to be covered from head to foot, without
> even their eyes showing, because the very sight of a woman will
> drive men mad and it's always the woman's fault.
cover their hair lest the men be driven mad with lust.
--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia
Robert Bannister
Nov 1, 2015, 9:42:15 PM11/1/15
to
On 1/11/2015 10:33 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <nx3t3...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <82dfdff9-0592-429f...@googlegroups.com>,
>> BV BV <bv8b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
>>>
>>> Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to obey God.
>>
>> Either that, or their parents would be humiliated if they didn't.
>> Or they're afraid they'd be stoned to death if they didn't.
>> Depending on where they are.
>
> Or they happen to like the fact that they can opt out of the
> western-female-appearance-standards rat-race -- which is the case for
> the covering Muslim women I know. (I'm sure the religious teaching
> has something to do with it, too, but there's no doubt it also saves
> them a lot of money that non-covering women are made to think they
> should be spending on clothing, cosmetics, hair care, etc. Not to
> mention avoiding plenty of unwanted "male gaze".)
I think you'll find that most Muslim women spend at least as much on
> In article <nx3t3...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> In article <82dfdff9-0592-429f...@googlegroups.com>,
>> BV BV <bv8b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil
>>>
>>> Description: Even in the face of adversity Muslim women choose to obey God.
>>
>> Either that, or their parents would be humiliated if they didn't.
>> Or they're afraid they'd be stoned to death if they didn't.
>> Depending on where they are.
>
> Or they happen to like the fact that they can opt out of the
> western-female-appearance-standards rat-race -- which is the case for
> the covering Muslim women I know. (I'm sure the religious teaching
> has something to do with it, too, but there's no doubt it also saves
> them a lot of money that non-covering women are made to think they
> should be spending on clothing, cosmetics, hair care, etc. Not to
> mention avoiding plenty of unwanted "male gaze".)
make-up and sexy clothing as any others. It's just that you don't get to
see it unless you are close family.
Mart van de Wege
Nov 2, 2015, 5:28:10 AM11/2/15
to
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
> look?
>
Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>
> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
> look?
>
visible nipple?
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Larry Moore
Nov 2, 2015, 7:56:02 AM11/2/15
to
On 2015-11-02, Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>>
>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
>> look?
>>
> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
> visible nipple?
>
> Mart
AKA the "wardrobe failure"
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>>
>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
>> look?
>>
> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
> visible nipple?
>
> Mart
--
Just do the work you find in front of you and enjoy yourself.
Mart van de Wege
Nov 2, 2015, 8:42:07 AM11/2/15
to
had to start censoring nipples because their (mostly US-based)
advertisers objected.
Dorothy J Heydt
Nov 2, 2015, 9:15:07 AM11/2/15
to
In article <86bnbcs...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
culture when nothing else is.
Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
>>
>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
>> look?
>>
>Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>visible nipple?
Yeah, I heard about that. Nipples are covered in the aforesaid
>
>>
>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
>> look?
>>
>Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>visible nipple?
culture when nothing else is.
Catherine Jefferson
Nov 2, 2015, 10:17:55 AM11/2/15
to
Russian and Greek Orthodox churches expect it when you're at church.
Don't overstate the case. ;)
--
Catherine Jefferson <tw8...@ergosphere.net>
Blog/Personal: http://www.ergosphere.net
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2015, 11:04:09 AM11/2/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:17:55 AM UTC-5, Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> On 11/1/2015 6:40 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > On 1/11/2015 10:04 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >
> >> The culture that goes with Islam thinks women's hair is so sexy
> >> that it must be covered or it will drive men mad. Taken to
> >> extremes, women have to be covered from head to foot, without
> >> even their eyes showing, because the very sight of a woman will
> >> drive men mad and it's always the woman's fault.
> >
> > Saint Paul too. There are still churches where women are expected to
> > cover their hair lest the men be driven mad with lust.
>
> Or just because that's considered appropriate behavior. Traditional
> Russian and Greek Orthodox churches expect it when you're at church.
> Don't overstate the case. ;)
Goes both ways - the few times I've been to a synagogue, I've worn a
> On 11/1/2015 6:40 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > On 1/11/2015 10:04 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> >
> >> The culture that goes with Islam thinks women's hair is so sexy
> >> that it must be covered or it will drive men mad. Taken to
> >> extremes, women have to be covered from head to foot, without
> >> even their eyes showing, because the very sight of a woman will
> >> drive men mad and it's always the woman's fault.
> >
> > Saint Paul too. There are still churches where women are expected to
> > cover their hair lest the men be driven mad with lust.
>
> Or just because that's considered appropriate behavior. Traditional
> Russian and Greek Orthodox churches expect it when you're at church.
> Don't overstate the case. ;)
kippah.
Once again, this is totally arbitrary: In some circumstances, wearing
a headcovering is a sign of modesty and humility. In others, taking
your hat *off* is the sign of modesty and humility.
I'm conditioned to take my hat off whenever I go indoors, and have an
old man's 'unmannered slob!' type reaction to people who fail to do so,
which is especially triggered by people wearing baseball caps backwards.
I've read that there's a subset of porn involving Arab women wearing the
niqab.
pt
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 2, 2015, 11:19:52 AM11/2/15
to
from costumes.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Robert Carnegie
Nov 2, 2015, 11:35:41 AM11/2/15
to
Also seen today: readers' objections to language
(admittedly /very/ ripe language) in a comic borrowed
at <http://www.lovemysurface.net/cartoonist-predicted-the-future-in-2012/>
Polite version:
Microsoft: "We made a tablet computer that you get a
keyboard for. When Apple produce one in three years,
you'll be impressed." And it came to pass.
My take: $499 for the tablet, $100 for the keyboard,
how many minors /are/ fans of this product and so liable
to be either offended or corrupted by the vocabulary?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Nov 2, 2015, 11:48:06 AM11/2/15
to
straight!
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2015, 12:02:46 PM11/2/15
to
sun, and in winter, sub zero temps and driving snow.
Yes, I wear a hat. But I take it off when I come indoors.
pt
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2015, 12:08:14 PM11/2/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:28:10 AM UTC-5, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
> >
> > It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
> > by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
> > made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
> > *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
> > you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
> > streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
> > look?
> >
> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
> visible nipple?
There's some pushback against this now. In several states, female toplessness
> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>
> >
> > It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
> > by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
> > made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
> > *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
> > you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
> > streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
> > look?
> >
> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
> visible nipple?
in public is no longer criminalized. Google 'Free the nipple' for the campaign
(NSFW).
One of those states is NY, and last time I was in Times Square, there were a
number of young ladies in shorts and body paint willing to do selfies with
gawping tourists for a mere $5 a shot.
[There's a small industry/scam of costumed figures in TS doing this - I once
counted 5 Lady Liberties (none topless) in a single block].
Of course, in many European countries, the laws aren't so restrictive.
pt
Larry Moore
Nov 2, 2015, 12:28:55 PM11/2/15
to
On 2015-11-02, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:53:47 -0000 (UTC), Larry Moore
><la...@wightman.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-11-02, Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
>>>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
>>>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
>>>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
>>>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
>>>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
>>>> look?
>>>>
>>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>>> visible nipple?
>>>
>>> Mart
>>
>>AKA the "wardrobe failure"
>
> No, no -- "wardrobe malfunction." Let's keep these euphemisms
> straight!
>
>
Sorry - my FoxSpeach isn't what it could be (not being often exposed
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:53:47 -0000 (UTC), Larry Moore
><la...@wightman.ca> wrote:
>
>>On 2015-11-02, Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
>>>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
>>>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
>>>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
>>>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
>>>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
>>>> look?
>>>>
>>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>>> visible nipple?
>>>
>>> Mart
>>
>>AKA the "wardrobe failure"
>
> No, no -- "wardrobe malfunction." Let's keep these euphemisms
> straight!
>
>
to commercial television.) Thank you.
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2015, 1:02:14 PM11/2/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 12:28:55 PM UTC-5, Larry Moore wrote:
> On 2015-11-02, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:53:47 -0000 (UTC), Larry Moore
> ><la...@wightman.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2015-11-02, Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
> >>>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
> >>>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
> >>>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
> >>>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
> >>>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
> >>>> look?
> >>>>
> >>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
> >>> visible nipple?
> >>>
> On 2015-11-02, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:53:47 -0000 (UTC), Larry Moore
> ><la...@wightman.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2015-11-02, Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
> >>>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
> >>>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
> >>>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
> >>>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
> >>>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
> >>>> look?
> >>>>
> >>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
> >>> visible nipple?
> >>>
> >>AKA the "wardrobe failure"
> >
> > No, no -- "wardrobe malfunction." Let's keep these euphemisms
> > straight!
> >
> Sorry - my FoxSpeach isn't what it could be (not being often exposed
> to commercial television.) Thank you.
Having seen the clip in question, there was no 'malfunction' about it.
> >
> > No, no -- "wardrobe malfunction." Let's keep these euphemisms
> > straight!
> >
> Sorry - my FoxSpeach isn't what it could be (not being often exposed
> to commercial television.) Thank you.
pt
Walter Bushell
Nov 2, 2015, 1:04:22 PM11/2/15
to
In article <86bnbcs...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
of "good ole time religion" for one thing.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
> visible nipple?
>
> Mart
American culture cannot be described as "very modern". There is a lot
> visible nipple?
>
> Mart
of "good ole time religion" for one thing.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
BCFD36
Nov 2, 2015, 1:16:32 PM11/2/15
to
a hat at times.
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Nov 2, 2015, 1:23:01 PM11/2/15
to
In article <proto-D8FE86....@news.panix.com>,
The Brits have a Queen and a state church.
The Germans have blue laws.
The Japanese have all kinds of weird (to us) old stuff in their
culture.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <86bnbcs...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>> visible nipple?
>>
>> Mart
>
>American culture cannot be described as "very modern". There is a lot
>of "good ole time religion" for one thing.
>
What culture *would* you describe as "very modern"?
>In article <86bnbcs...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>> visible nipple?
>>
>> Mart
>
>American culture cannot be described as "very modern". There is a lot
>of "good ole time religion" for one thing.
>
The Brits have a Queen and a state church.
The Germans have blue laws.
The Japanese have all kinds of weird (to us) old stuff in their
culture.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Greg Goss
Nov 2, 2015, 1:50:06 PM11/2/15
to
be hats.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Greg Goss
Nov 2, 2015, 1:51:35 PM11/2/15
to
BCFD36 <bcf...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>You must have a full head of hair. I'd sunburn my scalp if I didn't wear
>a hat at times.
I got my first scalp-burn on a mountaintop at age 45. The bald spot
>You must have a full head of hair. I'd sunburn my scalp if I didn't wear
>a hat at times.
didn't really become obvious till mid-fifties.
I guess I don't spend enough time outdoors (other than with a
motorbike helmet as a "hat") to burn.
Greg Goss
Nov 2, 2015, 1:53:02 PM11/2/15
to
Larry Moore <la...@wightman.ca> wrote:
>On 2015-11-02, Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>>>
>>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
>>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
>>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
>>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
>>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
>>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
>>> look?
>>>
>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>> visible nipple?
>>
>AKA the "wardrobe failure"
>On 2015-11-02, Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>
>>>
>>> It depends on what you think is sexy ... and a lot of that varies
>>> by culture. Remember the traditional Japanese hairstyles, that
>>> made sure to cover the back of the neck, because that was sexy,
>>> *because it was always covered*? Remember (well, no, but have
>>> you seen pictures of) a woman around 1900, stepping into a
>>> streetcar, exposing her ankle, and all the guys turning around to
>>> look?
>>>
>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>> visible nipple?
>>
I was more offended by the scripted part of that skit. An aggressive
man was tearing clothes off a woman. The plan was to stop at her
underwear.
To me, they were playing with rape.
Greg Goss
Nov 2, 2015, 1:57:56 PM11/2/15
to
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I heard about that. Nipples are covered in the aforesaid
>> culture when nothing else is.
>
>Less often on men... I think.
Canadian constitutional law has been ruled on so that anywhere men can
>> Yeah, I heard about that. Nipples are covered in the aforesaid
>> culture when nothing else is.
>
>Less often on men... I think.
show nipples, so can women.
No women DO, but if they wanted to, it's legal.
Exposure is a tradition when Calgary is in the later hockey playoffs,
but I've never "researched" the tradition in person. The police
always SAY that they'll crack down, but I don't think they have the
authority to do so other than "drunk and disorderly" charges.
>Also seen today: readers' objections to language
>(admittedly /very/ ripe language) in a comic borrowed
>at <http://www.lovemysurface.net/cartoonist-predicted-the-future-in-2012/>
>
>Polite version:
>
>Microsoft: "We made a tablet computer that you get a
>keyboard for. When Apple produce one in three years,
>you'll be impressed." And it came to pass.
>
>My take: $499 for the tablet, $100 for the keyboard,
>how many minors /are/ fans of this product and so liable
>to be either offended or corrupted by the vocabulary?
she got the pad (part of her college tuition for virtual textbooks).
It was used -- years old -- in 2013. It had a slot that supported the
iPad to become a virtual laptop.
Greg Goss
Nov 2, 2015, 2:01:42 PM11/2/15
to
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <proto-D8FE86....@news.panix.com>,
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <86bnbcs...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
>> Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>>> visible nipple?
>>>
>>> Mart
>>
>>American culture cannot be described as "very modern". There is a lot
>>of "good ole time religion" for one thing.
>>
>
>What culture *would* you describe as "very modern"?
My personal culture is rather liberal, thus I resonate well with "blue
>In article <proto-D8FE86....@news.panix.com>,
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <86bnbcs...@gaheris.avalon.lan>,
>> Mart van de Wege <mvd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a single
>>> visible nipple?
>>>
>>> Mart
>>
>>American culture cannot be described as "very modern". There is a lot
>>of "good ole time religion" for one thing.
>>
>
>What culture *would* you describe as "very modern"?
states" (up here, red and blue are reversed. sigh.)
The religiosity seems to me to be a hallmark of red-state-ishness.
I would say "New York", but my ex used to watch (and my new roommate
watches) Seinfeld, and there seems to be a lot of prudishness and
ritualized behaviour in the portrayed NYNY culture. So maybe
"California Dreaming".
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2015, 2:04:41 PM11/2/15
to
piece of nipple jewelry, then cover it with a breakaway panel, unless
you intend to show it off.
Which is exactly what they did.
Now, I don't have a problem with exposure, even on TV, but they weren't
living up to what they had promised (not) to do.
pt
Greg Goss
Nov 2, 2015, 2:07:29 PM11/2/15
to
wearing nipple studs is routine, even if they're not displaying them.
I decided that arguing with women over what they do when I'm not
watching was an unproductive approach and accepted what they said.
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 2, 2015, 2:20:51 PM11/2/15
to
lot of relief and pointy bits. It would have made a nice Christmas
tree ornament.
It looked quite uncomfortable to wear, and I can't imagine a singer
even considering doing so during a performance unless she intended to show
it off as part of her costume.
Also, the panel covering it was clearly designed to be breakaway.
pt
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 2, 2015, 2:32:07 PM11/2/15
to
"hats", though. Sometimes used a ski mask or something of that nature if
I had to go out and clean off the driveway, but nothing that fit in the
category of "a hat I'd wear other than just to get a particular job done".
Sort of like I don't wear masks, but yes, I've worn masks when doing
particular jobs where it's wise to wear a filter mask.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 2, 2015, 2:33:53 PM11/2/15
to
the error of going out when the Daystar is up. I've taken to putting
sunscreen on the balder areas, though. Better than wearing a hat; I
*hate* the sweaty sensation.
Don Bruder
Nov 2, 2015, 5:58:05 PM11/2/15
to
In article <fc9700ce-6e0b-4ce6...@googlegroups.com>,
Agreed - I had videotape running, as well as being right there in front
of the tube when it happened. All the visible evidence tells me it was
planned - In particular, the "gonna have you naked by the end of this
song" line delivered just seconds before the "event". And unless one is
planning to display it, how often does one install a fairly elaborate
piece of jewelry on one's (supposedly going to remain covered by one's
costume) nipple? Even further, the total lack of any sort of reaction
(unless that grin I think she displayed just before the folks in the
booth cut to an external shot of the stadium counts) to suddenly being
undressed in front of an audience of who-knows-how-many-bazillion TV
viewers, not to mention the thousands in the stands. And it was clearly
intended to be a "thumb in the eye" aimed at either the FCC in
particular, or "The TV industry" in general - I doubt that more than a
microscopic handful of the folks seeing it in person even noticed that
anything slightly unusual had happened - My bet is that without the TV
cameras (and the ruckus that developed over the next few days), the
total number of witnesses who *ACTUALLY SAW IT* (as opposed to
"remembering" they saw it, despite not actually seeing anything at all)
with good ol' "Eyeballs Mk. I" would have been no more than a few dozen
- namely, the stagehands and physically closest members of the
"supporting cast".
Not that I actually CARE - it was a nipple. So what? But I have to
admit, the flap it caused was indeed quite amusing, mostly in a "Look at
all the idiots going into spasms!" sort of way.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
of the tube when it happened. All the visible evidence tells me it was
planned - In particular, the "gonna have you naked by the end of this
song" line delivered just seconds before the "event". And unless one is
planning to display it, how often does one install a fairly elaborate
piece of jewelry on one's (supposedly going to remain covered by one's
costume) nipple? Even further, the total lack of any sort of reaction
(unless that grin I think she displayed just before the folks in the
booth cut to an external shot of the stadium counts) to suddenly being
undressed in front of an audience of who-knows-how-many-bazillion TV
viewers, not to mention the thousands in the stands. And it was clearly
intended to be a "thumb in the eye" aimed at either the FCC in
particular, or "The TV industry" in general - I doubt that more than a
microscopic handful of the folks seeing it in person even noticed that
anything slightly unusual had happened - My bet is that without the TV
cameras (and the ruckus that developed over the next few days), the
total number of witnesses who *ACTUALLY SAW IT* (as opposed to
"remembering" they saw it, despite not actually seeing anything at all)
with good ol' "Eyeballs Mk. I" would have been no more than a few dozen
- namely, the stagehands and physically closest members of the
"supporting cast".
Not that I actually CARE - it was a nipple. So what? But I have to
admit, the flap it caused was indeed quite amusing, mostly in a "Look at
all the idiots going into spasms!" sort of way.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
Don Bruder
Nov 2, 2015, 6:03:51 PM11/2/15
to
In article <d9pqjb...@mid.individual.net>,
Wearing nipple *STUDS* is indeed routine. Wearing a fairly massive
(looking, at least) chunk of gold and assorted stones in the form of a
sunburst, with sharp pointy bits going in all directions, not so much -
unless one plans on displaying it to SOMEBODY.
She planned on getting some naked boob on national TV. I don't care who
or what claims otherwise.
(looking, at least) chunk of gold and assorted stones in the form of a
sunburst, with sharp pointy bits going in all directions, not so much -
unless one plans on displaying it to SOMEBODY.
She planned on getting some naked boob on national TV. I don't care who
or what claims otherwise.
Catherine Jefferson
Nov 2, 2015, 6:04:27 PM11/2/15
to
On 11/2/2015 8:04 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> Goes both ways - the few times I've been to a synagogue, I've worn a
> kippah.
I wore a headscarf once when visiting a conservative synagogue, and
> Goes both ways - the few times I've been to a synagogue, I've worn a
> kippah.
usually do if I visit a mosque. It's simply good manners to follow the
expected practices of any church/synagogue/mosque/temple/whatever that
you visit. If you find the expected practice so offensive that you
can't do it, then don't visit. At least, that's what I've always thought.
At the same time, shortly after I became an Orthodox Christian, I met
some people who insisted that all Orthodox women should follow 19th
century Russian (or Greek) rules of modesty when anywhere in public.
IMHO that's nuts. I dressed in a long skirt, long sleeves, and
headscarf when visiting a women's monastery where I spent quite a bit of
time in the mid- and late 1990s, but to make the elderly Russian nuns
there comfortable. In the late 20th/early 21st century, dressing like a
Russian peasant in public all the time is IMHO the exact opposite of
modesty; it's showing off. :/
I suspect that there's a certain amount of that, as well as a certain
amount of wanting to identify with their new/chosen religious community,
involved when many converts (reverts) to Islam choose to wear a niqab,
burqa, or other form of face-covering full veil.
A hijab -- a headscarf that doesn't cover the face -- is a different
matter and much more widely worn by devout Muslim women.
Chrysi Cat
Nov 2, 2015, 10:47:05 PM11/2/15
to
government even in _liberal Fort Collins_ to get that legalized. I fully
expect that the next initiative by the equality people there will be to
forbid _male_ upper-body exposure as well. And I hope it passes;
liberated equality would have been best but is impossible, tyrannical
equality is the next-best; inequality is the worst of all.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Robert Bannister
Nov 3, 2015, 12:07:21 AM11/3/15
to
On 2/11/2015 11:17 PM, Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> On 11/1/2015 6:40 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 1/11/2015 10:04 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>>> The culture that goes with Islam thinks women's hair is so sexy
>>> that it must be covered or it will drive men mad. Taken to
>>> extremes, women have to be covered from head to foot, without
>>> even their eyes showing, because the very sight of a woman will
>>> drive men mad and it's always the woman's fault.
>>
>> Saint Paul too. There are still churches where women are expected to
>> cover their hair lest the men be driven mad with lust.
>
> Or just because that's considered appropriate behavior. Traditional
> Russian and Greek Orthodox churches expect it when you're at church.
> Don't overstate the case.
I can only see that St Paul is a typical middle-eastern man who wished
> On 11/1/2015 6:40 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 1/11/2015 10:04 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>
>>> The culture that goes with Islam thinks women's hair is so sexy
>>> that it must be covered or it will drive men mad. Taken to
>>> extremes, women have to be covered from head to foot, without
>>> even their eyes showing, because the very sight of a woman will
>>> drive men mad and it's always the woman's fault.
>>
>> Saint Paul too. There are still churches where women are expected to
>> cover their hair lest the men be driven mad with lust.
>
> Or just because that's considered appropriate behavior. Traditional
> Russian and Greek Orthodox churches expect it when you're at church.
> Don't overstate the case.
to maintain the superiority of men over women, so I'm afraid I do not
believe that what he considered appropriate is well argued. It is same
sort of thing you hear from Iran and IS, except that it's Christian.
None of this is based on anything Jesus is reputed to have said and it
conflicts with Jesus' behaviour towards women.
Silence in church (women only, of course):
1 Corinthians 14:33-35 states: "As in all the churches of the holy one,
women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to
speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to
learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is
improper for a woman to speak in the church."
Submission:
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord," and "the husband is the
head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church…."[Eph. 5:22–24]
Head covering - once again because women are inferior (according to Paul):
"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the
head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who
prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. But every
woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her
head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not
cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a
disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then
she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he
is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man
did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for
woman, but woman for man."[1 Cor. 11:3–9]
--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia
Thomas Koenig
Nov 3, 2015, 4:05:07 AM11/3/15
to
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> schrieb:
> What culture *would* you describe as "very modern"?
Beta Colony.
> What culture *would* you describe as "very modern"?
Robert Carnegie
Nov 3, 2015, 6:05:32 AM11/3/15
to
>
> Head covering - once again because women are inferior (according to Paul):
> "But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the
> head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who
> prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. But every
> woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her
> head--it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not
> Head covering - once again because women are inferior (according to Paul):
> "But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the
> head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who
> prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. But every
> woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her
> cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a
> disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then
> she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he
> is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man
> did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for
> woman, but woman for man."[1 Cor. 11:3-9]
> disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then
> she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he
> is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man
> did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for
As it happens and to be fair, the actual Paul may have
not written (or dictated) any of that, according to
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians>
under "Authorship". Apparently those bits in Corrie 1
even contradict the rest of the book.
Not that I'm a fan, these days.
The adjective for authentic writing by Paul is "Pauline".
The less authentic stuff is "Deutero-Pauline".
Scott Lurndal
Nov 3, 2015, 9:12:45 AM11/3/15
to
works well in the heat and sun.
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 3, 2015, 9:38:49 AM11/3/15
to
In the summer, when working outdoors, I wear a cotton fedora with a wide
brim (think of Indiana Jones) Its effective at keeping the sun off my
bald spot and out of my eyes, and makes light rain a lot more bearable.
In the winter, when out in the snow, I wear a toque or ski cap.
pt
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 3, 2015, 10:38:37 AM11/3/15
to
And I get headaches from having things on my head; I've learned to
tolerate headphones, but they don't *encircle* my head, so that may be
the difference.
Chrysi Cat
Nov 3, 2015, 1:25:39 PM11/3/15
to
On 11/3/2015 8:38 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 11/3/15 9:12 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>> On 11/2/15 1:10 PM, BCFD36 wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>> You must have a full head of hair. I'd sunburn my scalp if I didn't
>>>> wear
>>>> a hat at times.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Less and less full as time goes on. But sunburning means you have
>>> made
>>> the error of going out when the Daystar is up. I've taken to putting
>>> sunscreen on the balder areas, though. Better than wearing a hat; I
>>> *hate* the sweaty sensation.
>>>
>>
>> Not all hats are sweaty; A good straw hat or panama, for example,
>> works well in the heat and sun.
>>
>
> I assure you, those are sweaty too. And straight-up straw is
> prickly. And I get headaches from having things on my head; I've learned
> to tolerate headphones, but they don't *encircle* my head, so that may
> be the difference.
>
Sure your head hasn't grown maybe an eighth of a size or something? I
> On 11/3/15 9:12 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>> On 11/2/15 1:10 PM, BCFD36 wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>> You must have a full head of hair. I'd sunburn my scalp if I didn't
>>>> wear
>>>> a hat at times.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Less and less full as time goes on. But sunburning means you have
>>> made
>>> the error of going out when the Daystar is up. I've taken to putting
>>> sunscreen on the balder areas, though. Better than wearing a hat; I
>>> *hate* the sweaty sensation.
>>>
>>
>> Not all hats are sweaty; A good straw hat or panama, for example,
>> works well in the heat and sun.
>>
>
> I assure you, those are sweaty too. And straight-up straw is
> prickly. And I get headaches from having things on my head; I've learned
> to tolerate headphones, but they don't *encircle* my head, so that may
> be the difference.
>
was getting headaches from wearing my older hats (and winter headbands;
I have enough hair on top that I don't need a full winter cap, even when
skiing--though now I'd have to wear a helmet if I ever went and did
_that_ again, I guess!), too; then I checked to see if my size was still
the same and lo-and-behold I _had_ done a Barry Bonds impression and it
was the too-small hatband pinching off circulation that was causing the
headaches!
Brian M. Scott
Nov 3, 2015, 1:54:03 PM11/3/15
to
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:12:40 GMT, Scott Lurndal
<sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote
in<news:sh3_x.21914$Fe....@fx17.iad> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Not all hats are sweaty; A good straw hat or panama,
> for example, works well in the heat and sun.
Straw hats are horrible: they’re itchy-scratchy. I can
wear hats in the summer, and I do when I’m out in the sun
for any length of time, but I agree with Sea Wasp that
they’re sweaty.
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
<sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote
in<news:sh3_x.21914$Fe....@fx17.iad> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> Not all hats are sweaty; A good straw hat or panama,
> for example, works well in the heat and sun.
wear hats in the summer, and I do when I’m out in the sun
for any length of time, but I agree with Sea Wasp that
they’re sweaty.
Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 3, 2015, 3:05:34 PM11/3/15
to
On 11/3/15 1:25 PM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 11/3/2015 8:38 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 11/3/15 9:12 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>>> On 11/2/15 1:10 PM, BCFD36 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You must have a full head of hair. I'd sunburn my scalp if I didn't
>>>>> wear
>>>>> a hat at times.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Less and less full as time goes on. But sunburning means you have
>>>> made
>>>> the error of going out when the Daystar is up. I've taken to putting
>>>> sunscreen on the balder areas, though. Better than wearing a hat; I
>>>> *hate* the sweaty sensation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not all hats are sweaty; A good straw hat or panama, for example,
>>> works well in the heat and sun.
>>>
>>
>> I assure you, those are sweaty too. And straight-up straw is
>> prickly. And I get headaches from having things on my head; I've learned
>> to tolerate headphones, but they don't *encircle* my head, so that may
>> be the difference.
>>
>
> Sure your head hasn't grown maybe an eighth of a size or something?
No, doesn't matter what size the thing is. Something sitting on my
> On 11/3/2015 8:38 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> On 11/3/15 9:12 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>>> On 11/2/15 1:10 PM, BCFD36 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You must have a full head of hair. I'd sunburn my scalp if I didn't
>>>>> wear
>>>>> a hat at times.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Less and less full as time goes on. But sunburning means you have
>>>> made
>>>> the error of going out when the Daystar is up. I've taken to putting
>>>> sunscreen on the balder areas, though. Better than wearing a hat; I
>>>> *hate* the sweaty sensation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not all hats are sweaty; A good straw hat or panama, for example,
>>> works well in the heat and sun.
>>>
>>
>> I assure you, those are sweaty too. And straight-up straw is
>> prickly. And I get headaches from having things on my head; I've learned
>> to tolerate headphones, but they don't *encircle* my head, so that may
>> be the difference.
>>
>
> Sure your head hasn't grown maybe an eighth of a size or something?
head, encircling it, will make it sweat, and trigger a headache. Even if
it's doing so pretty lightly.
Robert Bannister
Nov 4, 2015, 12:59:13 AM11/4/15
to
read the book.
Robert Carnegie
Nov 4, 2015, 7:15:17 AM11/4/15
to
the team manager who had the headache?); the following is
closer to the relevant story that I heard - retrieved from
<http://www.funny.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Funny.woa/wa/funny?fn=C4S8Y>
(unwarranted).
A man goes to the doctor and says, "Doc... My ears are ringing
and my eyes are bugging out!" The doctor says, "It's your tonsils.
We need to remove your tonsils." The doctor takes his tonsils out
and it doesn't help. His ears keep ringing and his eyes keep
bugging out.
The man goes to a second doctor and says, "Doc... My ears are ringing and my eyes are bugging out!" The second doctor says,
"It's your teeth. We need to pull all your teeth." The doctor
pulls his teeth and it doesn't help. His ears keep ringing and
his eyes keep bugging out.
The man goes to a third doctor and says, "Doc... My ears are
ringing and my eyes are bugging out!" The third doctor says,
"I'm sorry to tell you. You have a rare disease and you only
have 30 days to live."
So the man decides "I'm gonna live it up my last few days."
He goes out and buys the biggest house that he can find.
He buys a Porsche. He blows his whole life savings and runs
all his credit cards to the max. He tells his boss to jump
in a lake and he quits his job. He goes to a tailor and says,
"I want 30 hand made silk shirts and 30 hand made suits."
The tailor begins to measure the man... " Waist size 36...
Inseam 34... Sleeve length 34... Neck size 17..." The man
says "16. I take a size 16 collar." "No," the tailor says.
"You need a 17 collar." "Look... I've worn a 16 for years"
the man says. "Well," the tailor says, "you keep wearing
a size 16 and your ears are gonna ring and your eyes will
bug out !"
------
If you have been affected by the issues in this story -
Walter Bushell
Nov 4, 2015, 1:29:13 PM11/4/15
to
In article <d9po02...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> The Germans have blue laws.
>
> The Japanese have all kinds of weird (to us) old stuff in their
> culture.
> --
The Queen is useful as she can take over the ceremonial duties
and let the prime minister deal with the work.
The state religions[1] keep people from taking religion seriously.
And COE is really several religions loosely associated.
[1] The Queen is COE in England and Presbyterian in Scotland.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
> What culture *would* you describe as "very modern"?
>
> The Brits have a Queen and a state church.
>
>
> The Germans have blue laws.
>
> The Japanese have all kinds of weird (to us) old stuff in their
> culture.
> --
The Queen is useful as she can take over the ceremonial duties
and let the prime minister deal with the work.
The state religions[1] keep people from taking religion seriously.
And COE is really several religions loosely associated.
[1] The Queen is COE in England and Presbyterian in Scotland.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Walter Bushell
Nov 4, 2015, 1:31:04 PM11/4/15
to
In article <n19tbt$ii8$1...@newsreader4.netcologne.de>,
Jackson's Whole. It looks like that is where we are headed,
and if we don't change direction we will end up where
we are headed. (nods to Walt Kelly)
and if we don't change direction we will end up where
we are headed. (nods to Walt Kelly)
Walter Bushell
Nov 4, 2015, 1:33:44 PM11/4/15
to
In article <6550eae3-b255-4fad...@googlegroups.com>,
I heard that he on doctor's recomendation go gelded.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Nov 4, 2015, 1:34:49 PM11/4/15
to
In article <proto-270251....@news.panix.com>,
The question was what does the OP consider to be, in fact, "modern"
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <d9po02...@mid.individual.net>,
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> What culture *would* you describe as "very modern"?
>>
>> The Brits have a Queen and a state church.
>>
>> The Germans have blue laws.
>>
>> The Japanese have all kinds of weird (to us) old stuff in their
>> culture.
>> --
>
>The Queen is useful as she can take over the ceremonial duties
>and let the prime minister deal with the work.
>
>The state religions[1] keep people from taking religion seriously.
>And COE is really several religions loosely associated.
>
>[1] The Queen is COE in England and Presbyterian in Scotland.
>
I wasn't arguing *against* the British system, just that it isn't "modern".
>In article <d9po02...@mid.individual.net>,
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> What culture *would* you describe as "very modern"?
>>
>> The Brits have a Queen and a state church.
>>
>> The Germans have blue laws.
>>
>> The Japanese have all kinds of weird (to us) old stuff in their
>> culture.
>> --
>
>The Queen is useful as she can take over the ceremonial duties
>and let the prime minister deal with the work.
>
>The state religions[1] keep people from taking religion seriously.
>And COE is really several religions loosely associated.
>
>[1] The Queen is COE in England and Presbyterian in Scotland.
>
The question was what does the OP consider to be, in fact, "modern"
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Nov 4, 2015, 1:57:01 PM11/4/15
to
In article <proto-737EFE....@news.panix.com>,
I've always been partial to this "Peanuts" strip:
http://tinyurl.com/omlfwdq
http://tinyurl.com/omlfwdq
Robert Bannister
Nov 5, 2015, 1:17:07 AM11/5/15
to
On 4/11/2015 8:15 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> A man goes to the doctor and says, "Doc... My ears are ringing
> and my eyes are bugging out!" The doctor says, "It's your tonsils.
> We need to remove your tonsils." The doctor takes his tonsils out
> and it doesn't help. His ears keep ringing and his eyes keep
> bugging out.
Totally wrong punch line. I know it with headaches rather ears ringing
> A man goes to the doctor and says, "Doc... My ears are ringing
> and my eyes are bugging out!" The doctor says, "It's your tonsils.
> We need to remove your tonsils." The doctor takes his tonsils out
> and it doesn't help. His ears keep ringing and his eyes keep
> bugging out.
but that's unimportant The rest of the story is the same except it has
nothing to do with collar size.
For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you dress?"
to evoke this story.
Robert Bannister
Nov 5, 2015, 1:20:03 AM11/5/15
to
proved wrong elsewhere, and mark my words, it will all end in tears.
Robert Carnegie
Nov 5, 2015, 6:04:46 AM11/5/15
to
yours is the south-of-the-Equator version. ;-)
I thought there was one less, er, violent than the version
I found, and with the symptom of "a ringing in the head
and a singing in the ears", and possibly told in Scots,
but that one didn't come when I called for it.
William December Starr
Nov 5, 2015, 9:43:19 PM11/5/15
to
In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to that
inquiry is "What?"
-- wds
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
> dress?" to evoke this story.
For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number of
> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
> dress?" to evoke this story.
American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to that
inquiry is "What?"
-- wds
William December Starr
Nov 5, 2015, 9:44:43 PM11/5/15
to
In article <n1852n$uq4$1...@news.sosdg.org>,
-- wds
Catherine Jefferson <spam...@spambouncer.org> said:
> I wore a headscarf once when visiting a conservative synagogue,
> and usually do if I visit a mosque. It's simply good manners to
> follow the expected practices of any
> church/synagogue/mosque/temple/whatever that you visit. If you
> find the expected practice so offensive that you can't do it, then
> don't visit. At least, that's what I've always thought.
Unless you're looting the place anyway. Everything goes with looting.
> I wore a headscarf once when visiting a conservative synagogue,
> and usually do if I visit a mosque. It's simply good manners to
> follow the expected practices of any
> church/synagogue/mosque/temple/whatever that you visit. If you
> find the expected practice so offensive that you can't do it, then
> don't visit. At least, that's what I've always thought.
-- wds
William December Starr
Nov 5, 2015, 9:49:33 PM11/5/15
to
In article <ps4f3b5bkb3512llj...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:
> Larry Moore <la...@wightman.ca> wrote:
>
>> AKA the "wardrobe failure"
>
> No, no -- "wardrobe malfunction." Let's keep these euphemisms
> straight!
Which, it occurs to me, has a whole different meaning if you're
talking about Narnia. (Basically it's the TARDIS going on the fritz
again.)
-- wds
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:
> Larry Moore <la...@wightman.ca> wrote:
>
>> AKA the "wardrobe failure"
>
> No, no -- "wardrobe malfunction." Let's keep these euphemisms
> straight!
talking about Narnia. (Basically it's the TARDIS going on the fritz
again.)
-- wds
William December Starr
Nov 5, 2015, 9:51:02 PM11/5/15
to
In article <n18q0f$cno$2...@dont-email.me>,
-- wds
Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
> She planned on getting some naked boob on national TV. I don't
> care who or what claims otherwise.
And a lot of us could have ended that sentence at 'care'.
> She planned on getting some naked boob on national TV. I don't
> care who or what claims otherwise.
-- wds
William December Starr
Nov 5, 2015, 9:56:41 PM11/5/15
to
In article <249d06dd-8f6e-4df9...@googlegroups.com>,
of sexual acts in public. But Town Manager Kenneth Knight noted that
breasts are not genitalia, and lawn mowing is not a sexual act."
-- Associated Press, 11/04/98 20:13 via the Boston Globe's web site, 11/4/98.
I don't have a URL, alas, but I did save this much of the article
along with the above-quoted bit:
In Newport, it all started on the Martin Stream Road a few months ago
when Mary Thompson called to complain that her neighbor's daughter was
riding on a lawn mower with nothing covering her breasts.
Topless lawn mowing, she said, was indecent.
Newport residents apparently were not swayed by Thompson's concerns.
With a vote Tuesday of 775-283, residents nixed plans for an ordinance
to punish women for displaying their breasts in public.
-- wds
pete...@gmail.com said:
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a
>> single visible nipple?
>
> There's some pushback against this now. In several states, female
> toplessness in public is no longer criminalized. Google 'Free the
> nipple' for the campaign (NSFW).
"The law in Maine prohibits the display of genitalia or the committing
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> Remember a very modern Western culture still going apeshit over a
>> single visible nipple?
>
> There's some pushback against this now. In several states, female
> toplessness in public is no longer criminalized. Google 'Free the
> nipple' for the campaign (NSFW).
of sexual acts in public. But Town Manager Kenneth Knight noted that
breasts are not genitalia, and lawn mowing is not a sexual act."
-- Associated Press, 11/04/98 20:13 via the Boston Globe's web site, 11/4/98.
I don't have a URL, alas, but I did save this much of the article
along with the above-quoted bit:
In Newport, it all started on the Martin Stream Road a few months ago
when Mary Thompson called to complain that her neighbor's daughter was
riding on a lawn mower with nothing covering her breasts.
Topless lawn mowing, she said, was indecent.
Newport residents apparently were not swayed by Thompson's concerns.
With a vote Tuesday of 775-283, residents nixed plans for an ordinance
to punish women for displaying their breasts in public.
-- wds
William December Starr
Nov 5, 2015, 10:03:50 PM11/5/15
to
In article <d9po02...@mid.individual.net>,
damn close to universal pixelization or black-box covering of
genitals in Japanese porn -- with regard to artwork I sometimes
wonder why Japanese artists even bother to draw the genitalia in the
first place -- is all a result of Emperor MacArthur enforcing his
own prudishness upon the land.
No idea if it's true.
-- wds
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) said:
> The Japanese have all kinds of weird (to us) old stuff in their
> culture.
I heard somewhere that the ban on showing pubic hair, as well as the
> The Japanese have all kinds of weird (to us) old stuff in their
> culture.
damn close to universal pixelization or black-box covering of
genitals in Japanese porn -- with regard to artwork I sometimes
wonder why Japanese artists even bother to draw the genitalia in the
first place -- is all a result of Emperor MacArthur enforcing his
own prudishness upon the land.
No idea if it's true.
-- wds
Robert Bannister
Nov 6, 2015, 2:13:18 AM11/6/15
to
On 5/11/2015 7:04 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 November 2015 06:17:07 UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 4/11/2015 8:15 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>>> A man goes to the doctor and says, "Doc... My ears are ringing
>>> and my eyes are bugging out!" The doctor says, "It's your tonsils.
>>> We need to remove your tonsils." The doctor takes his tonsils out
>>> and it doesn't help. His ears keep ringing and his eyes keep
>>> bugging out.
>>
>> Totally wrong punch line. I know it with headaches rather ears ringing
>> but that's unimportant The rest of the story is the same except it has
>> nothing to do with collar size.
>>
>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you dress?"
>> to evoke this story.
>> --
>> Robert Bannister
>> Perth, Western Australia
>
> I expect the story varies depending on where it's told;
> yours is the south-of-the-Equator version. ;-)
It most certainly is not. It is a classic joke that I heard round about
> On Thursday, 5 November 2015 06:17:07 UTC, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 4/11/2015 8:15 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>>> A man goes to the doctor and says, "Doc... My ears are ringing
>>> and my eyes are bugging out!" The doctor says, "It's your tonsils.
>>> We need to remove your tonsils." The doctor takes his tonsils out
>>> and it doesn't help. His ears keep ringing and his eyes keep
>>> bugging out.
>>
>> Totally wrong punch line. I know it with headaches rather ears ringing
>> but that's unimportant The rest of the story is the same except it has
>> nothing to do with collar size.
>>
>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you dress?"
>> to evoke this story.
>> --
>> Robert Bannister
>> Perth, Western Australia
>
> I expect the story varies depending on where it's told;
> yours is the south-of-the-Equator version. ;-)
1959-1960 in England either at school or first year university. It is an
essential part of the joke that the doctor tells the man that castration
is the only cure and that he reluctantly agrees. After that his life
improves immediately and he becomes rich and successful, which is how he
comes to be buying the clothes and how he finds out that the operation
need not have happened had his trousers been cut properly.
Perhaps you should check with your tailor.
Robert Bannister
Nov 6, 2015, 2:13:59 AM11/6/15
to
David DeLaney
Nov 6, 2015, 4:41:36 AM11/6/15
to
sense unless you've at least been _reading_ about upper-middle-class (or
higher) men's culture somewhere or other. Because you really need to be looking
at guys who go to actual tailors for their clothes, rather than buying off the
rack, to get to the level of fashion knowledge where that's a concern. As I
understand it.
Dave, for everyone else there's the jockstrap or fruit of the loomz
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Robert Carnegie
Nov 6, 2015, 10:31:23 AM11/6/15
to
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 6, 2015, 10:35:52 AM11/6/15
to
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 4:41:36 AM UTC-5, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-11-06, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
> >>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
> >>> dress?" to evoke this story.
> >>
> >> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number of
> >> American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to that
> >> inquiry is "What?"
> >
> > It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
>
> Well, you can't spell "classic" without "class", and the joke doesn't make
> sense unless you've at least been _reading_ about upper-middle-class (or
> higher) men's culture somewhere or other. Because you really need to be looking
> at guys who go to actual tailors for their clothes, rather than buying off the
> rack, to get to the level of fashion knowledge where that's a concern. As I
> understand it.
>
> Dave, for everyone else there's the jockstrap or fruit of the loomz
Exactly the point I was going to make. 'On which side do you dress?' is a
> On 2015-11-06, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
> >>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
> >>> dress?" to evoke this story.
> >>
> >> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number of
> >> American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to that
> >> inquiry is "What?"
> >
> > It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
>
> Well, you can't spell "classic" without "class", and the joke doesn't make
> sense unless you've at least been _reading_ about upper-middle-class (or
> higher) men's culture somewhere or other. Because you really need to be looking
> at guys who go to actual tailors for their clothes, rather than buying off the
> rack, to get to the level of fashion knowledge where that's a concern. As I
> understand it.
>
> Dave, for everyone else there's the jockstrap or fruit of the loomz
question which only a bespoke tailor is likely to ask.
How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
pt
pete...@gmail.com
Nov 6, 2015, 10:38:16 AM11/6/15
to
in pre-War 'Ukiyo-e' prints.
pt
Brian M. Scott
Nov 6, 2015, 5:42:44 PM11/6/15
to
On 5 Nov 2015 21:44:40 -0500, William December Starr
<wds...@panix.com> wrote
in<news:n1h46o$rer$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
Nah, only the good stuff goes; the rest just gets trashed.
<wds...@panix.com> wrote
in<news:n1h46o$rer$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 7, 2015, 12:43:49 AM11/7/15
to
Don Bruder
Nov 7, 2015, 9:42:46 AM11/7/15
to
In article <n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me>,
"packages his package", shall we say. In certain circles, mentioning
that I, for instance, dress left, could be considered something of a
TMI/overshare. In others, such as my tailor's (should I patronize one)
place of business, it would be vital information to let him to do his
job (namely, making me a pair of trousers (never something so gauche as
"pants", please!) that doesn't give me the impression that I've just
crammed my balls into a slowly closing vise anytime I try to wear 'em!)
Not sure whether the concept/phrasing is British or French in origin,
but it definitely comes from the east side of the pond - most American
"off-the-rack" buyers will have had little or no exposure to it. Those
who are, or employ, personal tailors, and *MAYBE* some of those who have
rented a tux for some event, will know EXACTLY what it means. For pretty
much everybody else, it's a "Huh? Wuddaya talkin' about?" concept.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> >> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
> >>
> >>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
> >>> dress?" to evoke this story.
> >>
> >> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number of
> >> American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to that
> >> inquiry is "What?"
> >
> > It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
>
>
> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
> On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> >> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
> >>
> >>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
> >>> dress?" to evoke this story.
> >>
> >> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number of
> >> American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to that
> >> inquiry is "What?"
> >
> > It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
>
>
> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
"packages his package", shall we say. In certain circles, mentioning
that I, for instance, dress left, could be considered something of a
TMI/overshare. In others, such as my tailor's (should I patronize one)
place of business, it would be vital information to let him to do his
job (namely, making me a pair of trousers (never something so gauche as
"pants", please!) that doesn't give me the impression that I've just
crammed my balls into a slowly closing vise anytime I try to wear 'em!)
Not sure whether the concept/phrasing is British or French in origin,
but it definitely comes from the east side of the pond - most American
"off-the-rack" buyers will have had little or no exposure to it. Those
who are, or employ, personal tailors, and *MAYBE* some of those who have
rented a tux for some event, will know EXACTLY what it means. For pretty
much everybody else, it's a "Huh? Wuddaya talkin' about?" concept.
--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q
Mark Zenier
Nov 7, 2015, 12:29:21 PM11/7/15
to
In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com
Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)
Greg Goss
Nov 7, 2015, 12:52:01 PM11/7/15
to
mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
>>How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
>>
>
>And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
I have a fairly large vocabulary, and what I don't know, I can usually
guess from the roots. "Bespoke" isn't in either set, and will likely
be forgotten again by this evening.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
>In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
>>How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
>>
>
>And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
guess from the roots. "Bespoke" isn't in either set, and will likely
be forgotten again by this evening.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Nov 7, 2015, 1:08:59 PM11/7/15
to
In article <da6s1u...@mid.individual.net>,
I figured out by context that you spoke to the tailor about a custom
suit.
Then, of course, there's Derek Landy's unfortunate "Ghastly Bespoke"..
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>
>>In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>>>How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
>>>
>>
>>And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
>
>I have a fairly large vocabulary, and what I don't know, I can usually
>guess from the roots. "Bespoke" isn't in either set, and will likely
>be forgotten again by this evening.
>--
It's not something I ever learned, but after seeing it a few times
>mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>
>>In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
>
>>>How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
>>>
>>
>>And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
>
>I have a fairly large vocabulary, and what I don't know, I can usually
>guess from the roots. "Bespoke" isn't in either set, and will likely
>be forgotten again by this evening.
>--
I figured out by context that you spoke to the tailor about a custom
suit.
Then, of course, there's Derek Landy's unfortunate "Ghastly Bespoke"..
Brian M. Scott
Nov 7, 2015, 1:36:21 PM11/7/15
to
On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 00:43:45 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which
>>>> side do you dress?" to evoke this story.
>>> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a
>>> vast number of American men with Bachelor's degrees or
>>> higher the answer to that inquiry is "What?"
>> It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew
>> it.
> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is
> supposed to MEAN.
If you wear Y-fronts, bikini briefs, or thongs it’s
probably irrelevant. If you wear boxers or go commando, it
might matter.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
in<news:n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
> On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which
>>>> side do you dress?" to evoke this story.
>>> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a
>>> vast number of American men with Bachelor's degrees or
>>> higher the answer to that inquiry is "What?"
>> It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew
>> it.
> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is
> supposed to MEAN.
probably irrelevant. If you wear boxers or go commando, it
might matter.
Brian M. Scott
Nov 7, 2015, 1:39:02 PM11/7/15
to
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:03:59 GMT, Mark Zenier
<mze...@eskimo.com> wrote
in<news:n1lcc...@enews4.newsguy.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> Exactly the point I was going to make. 'On which side do
>> you dress?' is a question which only a bespoke tailor
>> is likely to ask.
>> How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
> And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom
> made".
I don’t have much occasion to *use* either one; I’ve
*known* <bespoke> for as long as I can remember. And ‘On
which side do you dress?’, for that matter.
<mze...@eskimo.com> wrote
in<news:n1lcc...@enews4.newsguy.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> Exactly the point I was going to make. 'On which side do
>> you dress?' is a question which only a bespoke tailor
>> is likely to ask.
>> How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
> And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom
> made".
*known* <bespoke> for as long as I can remember. And ‘On
which side do you dress?’, for that matter.
David DeLaney
Nov 7, 2015, 2:53:37 PM11/7/15
to
On 2015-11-07, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>> >>
>> >>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>> >>> dress?" to evoke this story.
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>> >>
>> >>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>> >>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>
> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
> "packages his package", shall we say.
Or, in layman's terms, down which side of your pants your genitalia should hang
>
> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
> "packages his package", shall we say.
(I was gonna use 'dick' and 'balls' here but decided that went beyond layman
into vulgar - or, in other words, American).
Dave, some of us do not experience this issue
Cryptoengineer
Nov 7, 2015, 3:07:07 PM11/7/15
to
mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote in
news:n1lcc...@enews4.newsguy.com:
Dunno. As I've pointed out, my volcabulary is a mashup of
American and British terms - I moved to the UK at the age
of 10, and lived and/or was educated there until I finished
college. This included several years boarding at a Very Proper
British "Public School" (Millfield).
So don't rely upon me for any variety of 'standard' English.
'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to anything.
Here's another word you may or may not know: "Haberdashery"
pt
news:n1lcc...@enews4.newsguy.com:
American and British terms - I moved to the UK at the age
of 10, and lived and/or was educated there until I finished
college. This included several years boarding at a Very Proper
British "Public School" (Millfield).
So don't rely upon me for any variety of 'standard' English.
'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to anything.
Here's another word you may or may not know: "Haberdashery"
pt
Brian M. Scott
Nov 7, 2015, 3:54:29 PM11/7/15
to
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:07:06 -0600, Cryptoengineer
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA54B99BDFE...@216.166.97.131> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> 'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to
> anything.
Like German <maßgeschneidert>, which is literally
‘measure-tailored’ but can apply to anything.
> Here's another word you may or may not know:
> "Haberdashery"
Barry nebuly of six argent and azure, on a bend gules a
lion passant gardant or.
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA54B99BDFE...@216.166.97.131> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> 'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to
> anything.
‘measure-tailored’ but can apply to anything.
> Here's another word you may or may not know:
> "Haberdashery"
lion passant gardant or.
Cryptoengineer
Nov 7, 2015, 4:32:14 PM11/7/15
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:1j0f2gfzim5ey.jl9j9jl8sqih$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:07:06 -0600, Cryptoengineer
> <treif...@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA54B99BDFE...@216.166.97.131> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> 'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to
>> anything.
>
> Like German <maßgeschneidert>, which is literally
> ‘measure-tailored’ but can apply to anything.
I'll add that 'bespoke', in Britain, is generally an
'upper crust' word - a working man wouldn't use it,
except ironically.
>> Here's another word you may or may not know:
>> "Haberdashery"
>
> Barry nebuly of six argent and azure, on a bend gules a
> lion passant gardant or.
That's professional jargon, not in general use.
A haberdasher is a men's outfitter; when I started at
boarding school, I obtained most of my wardrobe in the
Haberdashery Department at Harrods (back then, you didn't n
eed Russian oligarch money to shop there). The word was
in general use outside the clothing trade, though, like
'bespoke' it carries upper class connotations.
[Wikipedia claims the term means only 'sewing notions' in
British English; I can testify that that was not the case
in 1968].
pt
news:1j0f2gfzim5ey.jl9j9jl8sqih$.d...@40tude.net:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:07:06 -0600, Cryptoengineer
> <treif...@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA54B99BDFE...@216.166.97.131> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> 'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to
>> anything.
>
> Like German <maßgeschneidert>, which is literally
> ‘measure-tailored’ but can apply to anything.
'upper crust' word - a working man wouldn't use it,
except ironically.
>> Here's another word you may or may not know:
>> "Haberdashery"
>
> Barry nebuly of six argent and azure, on a bend gules a
> lion passant gardant or.
A haberdasher is a men's outfitter; when I started at
boarding school, I obtained most of my wardrobe in the
Haberdashery Department at Harrods (back then, you didn't n
eed Russian oligarch money to shop there). The word was
in general use outside the clothing trade, though, like
'bespoke' it carries upper class connotations.
[Wikipedia claims the term means only 'sewing notions' in
British English; I can testify that that was not the case
in 1968].
pt
Cryptoengineer
Nov 7, 2015, 4:39:35 PM11/7/15
to
Cryptoengineer <treif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA54BA82A99...@216.166.97.131:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:1j0f2gfzim5ey.jl9j9jl8sqih$.d...@40tude.net:
pt
news:XnsA54BA82A99...@216.166.97.131:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:1j0f2gfzim5ey.jl9j9jl8sqih$.d...@40tude.net:
>> Barry nebuly of six argent and azure, on a bend gules a
>> lion passant gardant or.
Of course, I look that up *after* I post....
>> lion passant gardant or.
pt
Brian M. Scott
Nov 7, 2015, 5:10:09 PM11/7/15
to
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 15:32:10 -0600, Cryptoengineer
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA54BA82A99...@216.166.97.131> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:1j0f2gfzim5ey.jl9j9jl8sqih$.d...@40tude.net:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:07:06 -0600, Cryptoengineer
>> <treif...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in<news:XnsA54B99BDFE...@216.166.97.131> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
>>> 'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to
>>> anything.
>> Like German <maßgeschneidert>, which is literally
>> ‘measure-tailored’ but can apply to anything.
> I'll add that 'bespoke', in Britain, is generally an
> 'upper crust' word - a working man wouldn't use it,
> except ironically.
>>> Here's another word you may or may not know:
>>> "Haberdashery"
>> Barry nebuly of six argent and azure, on a bend gules a
>> lion passant gardant or.
> That's professional jargon, not in general use.
I know exactly what it is: it’s the arms of The Master and
Four Wardens of the Fraternity of the Art or Mystery of
Haberdashers in the City of London.
I also know what a haberdasher is.
[...]
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA54BA82A99...@216.166.97.131> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:1j0f2gfzim5ey.jl9j9jl8sqih$.d...@40tude.net:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:07:06 -0600, Cryptoengineer
>> <treif...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in<news:XnsA54B99BDFE...@216.166.97.131> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>> [...]
>>> 'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to
>>> anything.
>> ‘measure-tailored’ but can apply to anything.
> I'll add that 'bespoke', in Britain, is generally an
> 'upper crust' word - a working man wouldn't use it,
> except ironically.
>>> Here's another word you may or may not know:
>>> "Haberdashery"
>> Barry nebuly of six argent and azure, on a bend gules a
>> lion passant gardant or.
> That's professional jargon, not in general use.
Four Wardens of the Fraternity of the Art or Mystery of
Haberdashers in the City of London.
I also know what a haberdasher is.
[...]
Robert Bannister
Nov 7, 2015, 8:01:32 PM11/7/15
to
On 8/11/2015 5:32 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:1j0f2gfzim5ey.jl9j9jl8sqih$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:07:06 -0600, Cryptoengineer
>> <treif...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in<news:XnsA54B99BDFE...@216.166.97.131> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to
>>> anything.
>>
> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> news:1j0f2gfzim5ey.jl9j9jl8sqih$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:07:06 -0600, Cryptoengineer
>> <treif...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in<news:XnsA54B99BDFE...@216.166.97.131> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 'Bespoke' simply means custom made. It can apply to
>>> anything.
>>
>> Like German <maßgeschneidert>, which is literally
>> ‘measure-tailored’ but can apply to anything.
>
> I'll add that 'bespoke', in Britain, is generally an
> 'upper crust' word - a working man wouldn't use it,
> except ironically.
>
>>> Here's another word you may or may not know:
>>> "Haberdashery"
>>
>> Barry nebuly of six argent and azure, on a bend gules a
>> lion passant gardant or.
>
> That's professional jargon, not in general use.
> A haberdasher is a men's outfitter; when I started at
> boarding school, I obtained most of my wardrobe in the
> Haberdashery Department at Harrods (back then, you didn't n
> eed Russian oligarch money to shop there). The word was
> in general use outside the clothing trade, though, like
> 'bespoke' it carries upper class connotations.
>
> [Wikipedia claims the term means only 'sewing notions' in
> British English; I can testify that that was not the case
> in 1968].
I only know "haberdashery" as the shop or department in a large store
> I'll add that 'bespoke', in Britain, is generally an
> 'upper crust' word - a working man wouldn't use it,
> except ironically.
>
>>> Here's another word you may or may not know:
>>> "Haberdashery"
>>
>> Barry nebuly of six argent and azure, on a bend gules a
>> lion passant gardant or.
>
> That's professional jargon, not in general use.
> A haberdasher is a men's outfitter; when I started at
> boarding school, I obtained most of my wardrobe in the
> Haberdashery Department at Harrods (back then, you didn't n
> eed Russian oligarch money to shop there). The word was
> in general use outside the clothing trade, though, like
> 'bespoke' it carries upper class connotations.
>
> [Wikipedia claims the term means only 'sewing notions' in
> British English; I can testify that that was not the case
> in 1968].
that sells button, hooks, cotton, needles, etc.. I do have a vague
recollection of it having a wider meaning in the past, but I don't
remember any men's outfitters being called that.
Greg Goss
Nov 7, 2015, 11:00:14 PM11/7/15
to
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <da6s1u...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>>>How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
>>>>
>>>
>>>And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
>>
>>I have a fairly large vocabulary, and what I don't know, I can usually
>>guess from the roots. "Bespoke" isn't in either set, and will likely
>>be forgotten again by this evening.
>>--
>
>It's not something I ever learned, but after seeing it a few times
>I figured out by context that you spoke to the tailor about a custom
>suit.
I can SPEAK to a tailor all I want, but until he pulls out the tape or
>In article <da6s1u...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>>>How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
>>>>
>>>
>>>And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
>>
>>I have a fairly large vocabulary, and what I don't know, I can usually
>>guess from the roots. "Bespoke" isn't in either set, and will likely
>>be forgotten again by this evening.
>>--
>
>It's not something I ever learned, but after seeing it a few times
>I figured out by context that you spoke to the tailor about a custom
>suit.
fabric samples, we're not getting anywhere.
I kept trying to tie it into "spoken for" and failed.
>Then, of course, there's Derek Landy's unfortunate "Ghastly Bespoke"..
--
Brian M. Scott
Nov 8, 2015, 5:38:58 AM11/8/15
to
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 21:00:03 -0700, Greg Goss
<go...@gossg.org> wrote
in<news:da7vma...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> It's not something I ever learned, but after seeing it a
>> few times I figured out by context that you spoke to
>> the tailor about a custom suit.
> I can SPEAK to a tailor all I want, but until he pulls
> out the tape or fabric samples, we're not getting
> anywhere.
> I kept trying to tie it into "spoken for" and failed.
That is in fact where it comes from: the relevant sense of
<bespeak> is ‘to reserve something beforehand’. Something
that is custom-made for you will necessarily have been
reserved beforehand.
<go...@gossg.org> wrote
in<news:da7vma...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
>> It's not something I ever learned, but after seeing it a
>> few times I figured out by context that you spoke to
>> the tailor about a custom suit.
> I can SPEAK to a tailor all I want, but until he pulls
> out the tape or fabric samples, we're not getting
> anywhere.
> I kept trying to tie it into "spoken for" and failed.
<bespeak> is ‘to reserve something beforehand’. Something
that is custom-made for you will necessarily have been
reserved beforehand.
Alie...@gmail.com
Nov 8, 2015, 7:15:02 AM11/8/15
to
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 6:42:46 AM UTC-8, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > > On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> > >> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
> > >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
> > >>
> > >>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
> > >>> dress?" to evoke this story.
> > >>
> > >> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number
> > >> of American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to
> > >> that inquiry is "What?"
I knew what it meant and I have no degrees...
> In article <n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > > On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
> > >> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
> > >> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
> > >>
> > >>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
> > >>> dress?" to evoke this story.
> > >>
> > >> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number
> > >> of American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to
> > >> that inquiry is "What?"
> > > It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
> > Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed
> > to MEAN.
>
> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
> "packages his package", shall we say. In certain circles, mentioning
> that I, for instance, dress left, could be considered something of a
> TMI/overshare. In others, such as my tailor's (should I patronize
> one) place of business, it would be vital information to let him to
> do his job (namely, making me a pair of trousers (never something so
> gauche as "pants", please!) that doesn't give me the impression that
> I've just crammed my balls into a slowly closing vise anytime I try
> to wear 'em!)
>
> Not sure whether the concept/phrasing is British or French in origin,
> but it definitely comes from the east side of the pond - most
> American "off-the-rack" buyers will have had little or no exposure to
> it. Those who are, or employ, personal tailors, and *MAYBE* some of
> those who have rented a tux for some event, will know EXACTLY what it
> means. For pretty much everybody else, it's a "Huh? Wuddaya talkin'
> about?" concept.
BTW when we were issued fatigues, we were measured for waist and inseam but not asked The Question. Seems that fatigue pants are so loose it doesn't matter.
Also, I have a vague recollection of reading that off the rack pants in America are all "lefties" since that's how the majority of American men "dress". I have no idea if that's still true, and I can't seem to assemble a useful search string to find a cite.
ObSFnal: anyone know if it is/was a factor in NASA spacesuit design?
Mark L. Fergerson
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 8, 2015, 8:41:44 AM11/8/15
to
On 11/7/15 9:42 AM, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>>>>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>>>>
>>>> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number of
>>>> American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to that
>>>> inquiry is "What?"
>>>
>>> It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
>>
>>
>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>
> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
> "packages his package", shall we say.
Yeah... I wouldn't even know how one would answer that. "I pull on my
> In article <n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>>>> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>>>>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>>>>
>>>> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a vast number of
>>>> American men with Bachelor's degrees or higher the answer to that
>>>> inquiry is "What?"
>>>
>>> It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
>>
>>
>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>
> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
> "packages his package", shall we say.
underwear. There's no left, right, front, back involved here."
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 8, 2015, 8:45:28 AM11/8/15
to
On 11/7/15 1:36 PM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 00:43:45 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> in<news:n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>> On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>
>>>> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>
>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which
>>>>> side do you dress?" to evoke this story.
>
>>>> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a
>>>> vast number of American men with Bachelor's degrees or
>>>> higher the answer to that inquiry is "What?"
>
>>> It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew
>>> it.
>
>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is
>> supposed to MEAN.
>
> If you wear Y-fronts, bikini briefs, or thongs it’s
> probably irrelevant. If you wear boxers or go commando, it
> might matter.
I have to guess at some of those, because what I wear are what I simply
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 00:43:45 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote
> in<news:n1k2ub$m1$1...@dont-email.me> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On 11/6/15 2:13 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>> On 6/11/2015 10:43 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>
>>>> In article <da0aj0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>
>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which
>>>>> side do you dress?" to evoke this story.
>
>>>> For some values of "educated". I suspect that for a
>>>> vast number of American men with Bachelor's degrees or
>>>> higher the answer to that inquiry is "What?"
>
>>> It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew
>>> it.
>
>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is
>> supposed to MEAN.
>
> If you wear Y-fronts, bikini briefs, or thongs it’s
> probably irrelevant. If you wear boxers or go commando, it
> might matter.
call "underwear", but I would *guess* I wear what you're calling "Y-fronts".
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 8, 2015, 8:46:39 AM11/8/15
to
On 11/7/15 2:53 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-11-07, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>>>>>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>>
>> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
>> "packages his package", shall we say.
>
> Or, in layman's terms, down which side of your pants your genitalia should hang
> (I was gonna use 'dick' and 'balls' here but decided that went beyond layman
> into vulgar - or, in other words, American).
>
> Dave, some of us do not experience this issue
>
Er... yeah. WTF? Well, I learn something new here.
> On 2015-11-07, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>>>>>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>>
>> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
>> "packages his package", shall we say.
>
> Or, in layman's terms, down which side of your pants your genitalia should hang
> (I was gonna use 'dick' and 'balls' here but decided that went beyond layman
> into vulgar - or, in other words, American).
>
> Dave, some of us do not experience this issue
>
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 8, 2015, 8:58:55 AM11/8/15
to
to the extent that you have to shove it one side or the other, your
underwear isn't doing its job or your pants have an AWFULLY HIGH central
seam at the crotch.
Robert Carnegie
Nov 8, 2015, 10:08:04 AM11/8/15
to
On Sunday, 8 November 2015 12:15:02 UTC, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> > > > It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
>
> Another variant is the Texan midget (which, now that I type it,
> looks like the name of a "confidence game" as used on TV shows
> like Leverage).
I think that's new to me. Google obliges this time:
> > > > It is such a classic joke that I assumed everybody knew it.
>
> Another variant is the Texan midget (which, now that I type it,
> looks like the name of a "confidence game" as used on TV shows
> like Leverage).
<http://www.jokes4us.com/cowboyjokes/texanmidgetjoke.html>
David DeLaney
Nov 8, 2015, 10:29:32 AM11/8/15
to
On 2015-11-08, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> To me it's a meaningless question. If the item in question "hangs down"
> to the extent that you have to shove it one side or the other, your
> underwear isn't doing its job or your pants have an AWFULLY HIGH central
> seam at the crotch.
(which translates as a "low rise", if you want to learn another tailoring
> To me it's a meaningless question. If the item in question "hangs down"
> to the extent that you have to shove it one side or the other, your
> underwear isn't doing its job or your pants have an AWFULLY HIGH central
> seam at the crotch.
term)
I'll note that the issue in question comes up rather more with boxers, or other
loose underwear, than it does with tighty-whities, Speedos, thong underwear,
etc.; for those, "runs leftward/rightward" is more likely to be the case and
doesn't affect the tailoring of the pants crotch near as much.
Dave
Don Bruder
Nov 8, 2015, 12:22:11 PM11/8/15
to
In article <n1nkal$btq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Take the word of someone with a bit of experience: If you dress left,
and put on a pair of pants cut to dress right (or vice-versa) you'll
notice the difference, usually immediately, though sometimes there's a
bit of delay. It might only be "Yeesh, these darn pants just don't seem
to fit quite right", or you may find that you need to keep rearranging
your "junk" to be comfy, or in extreme cases, you might experience
anything from mild discomfort to fairly intense pain in the pertinent
parts.
The size of the individual's package might or might not contribute to
the severity of the problem - partly depends on what style his undies
are (Briefs/"tighty-whiteys", a jock strap, cache-sexe or thong style
skivvies will help minimize, but almost certainly not eliminate, the
problem. Boxers will tend to amplify it) but even if the problem is
minimal, he *WILL* have no doubt whatsoever that something "just ain't
quite right".
and put on a pair of pants cut to dress right (or vice-versa) you'll
notice the difference, usually immediately, though sometimes there's a
bit of delay. It might only be "Yeesh, these darn pants just don't seem
to fit quite right", or you may find that you need to keep rearranging
your "junk" to be comfy, or in extreme cases, you might experience
anything from mild discomfort to fairly intense pain in the pertinent
parts.
The size of the individual's package might or might not contribute to
the severity of the problem - partly depends on what style his undies
are (Briefs/"tighty-whiteys", a jock strap, cache-sexe or thong style
skivvies will help minimize, but almost certainly not eliminate, the
problem. Boxers will tend to amplify it) but even if the problem is
minimal, he *WILL* have no doubt whatsoever that something "just ain't
quite right".
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 8, 2015, 1:29:08 PM11/8/15
to
On 11/8/15 12:22 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <n1nkal$btq$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> To me it's a meaningless question. If the item in question "hangs down"
>> to the extent that you have to shove it one side or the other, your
>> underwear isn't doing its job or your pants have an AWFULLY HIGH central
>> seam at the crotch.
>
> Take the word of someone with a bit of experience: If you dress left,
> and put on a pair of pants cut to dress right (or vice-versa) you'll
> notice the difference, usually immediately, though sometimes there's a
> bit of delay. It might only be "Yeesh, these darn pants just don't seem
> to fit quite right", or you may find that you need to keep rearranging
> your "junk" to be comfy, or in extreme cases, you might experience
> anything from mild discomfort to fairly intense pain in the pertinent
> parts.
I've worn custom-made suits, and the question was never asked. If my
> In article <n1nkal$btq$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> To me it's a meaningless question. If the item in question "hangs down"
>> to the extent that you have to shove it one side or the other, your
>> underwear isn't doing its job or your pants have an AWFULLY HIGH central
>> seam at the crotch.
>
> Take the word of someone with a bit of experience: If you dress left,
> and put on a pair of pants cut to dress right (or vice-versa) you'll
> notice the difference, usually immediately, though sometimes there's a
> bit of delay. It might only be "Yeesh, these darn pants just don't seem
> to fit quite right", or you may find that you need to keep rearranging
> your "junk" to be comfy, or in extreme cases, you might experience
> anything from mild discomfort to fairly intense pain in the pertinent
> parts.
jeans or other pants don't make this demand, why should higher-quality
pants require it? As I said, if my pants are interfering with that part
of me, either the underwear isn't doing its job, or the pants are made
wrong.
Greg Goss
Nov 8, 2015, 2:04:06 PM11/8/15
to
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>On 11/7/15 2:53 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>> On 2015-11-07, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>>>>>>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>>>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>>>
>>> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
>>> "packages his package", shall we say.
>>
>> Or, in layman's terms, down which side of your pants your genitalia should hang
>> (I was gonna use 'dick' and 'balls' here but decided that went beyond layman
>> into vulgar - or, in other words, American).
>>
>> Dave, some of us do not experience this issue
>
> Er... yeah. WTF? Well, I learn something new here.
Which are you just learning? That some people hang down one side or
>On 11/7/15 2:53 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>> On 2015-11-07, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>>>>>>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>>>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>>>
>>> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
>>> "packages his package", shall we say.
>>
>> Or, in layman's terms, down which side of your pants your genitalia should hang
>> (I was gonna use 'dick' and 'balls' here but decided that went beyond layman
>> into vulgar - or, in other words, American).
>>
>> Dave, some of us do not experience this issue
>
> Er... yeah. WTF? Well, I learn something new here.
the other of their trowsers, or that some people don't?
I am one of the crowd that likes fairly snug briefs (sometimes called
bikini briefs). So the package curls down the center rather than
dangling to either side. I hate boxers because the package isn't
packaged and moves around annoyingly.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Nov 8, 2015, 4:14:30 PM11/8/15
to
On 11/8/15 2:03 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 11/7/15 2:53 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-07, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>>>>>>>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>>>>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>>>>
>>>> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
>>>> "packages his package", shall we say.
>>>
>>> Or, in layman's terms, down which side of your pants your genitalia should hang
>>> (I was gonna use 'dick' and 'balls' here but decided that went beyond layman
>>> into vulgar - or, in other words, American).
>>>
>>> Dave, some of us do not experience this issue
>>
>> Er... yeah. WTF? Well, I learn something new here.
>
> Which are you just learning? That some people hang down one side or
> the other of their trowsers, or that some people don't?
>
That "hanging them down one side or the other" is even a THING, so to
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 11/7/15 2:53 PM, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> On 2015-11-07, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For most educated men, you only need to say "Which side do you
>>>>>>>> dress?" to evoke this story.
>>>>> Definitely no. I have no idea what that phrase even is supposed to MEAN.
>>>>
>>>> It refers to the particulars of how a given gentleman ... uhm...
>>>> "packages his package", shall we say.
>>>
>>> Or, in layman's terms, down which side of your pants your genitalia should hang
>>> (I was gonna use 'dick' and 'balls' here but decided that went beyond layman
>>> into vulgar - or, in other words, American).
>>>
>>> Dave, some of us do not experience this issue
>>
>> Er... yeah. WTF? Well, I learn something new here.
>
> Which are you just learning? That some people hang down one side or
> the other of their trowsers, or that some people don't?
>
speak. From my PoV, underwear is there to support that area of your
anatomy so that it DOESN'T hang'n'bang, and thus will stay centered,
neither to left nor right.
Robert Bannister
Nov 8, 2015, 10:48:44 PM11/8/15
to
On 8/11/2015 12:00 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article <da6s1u...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>> mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>>>> How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
>>>
>>> I have a fairly large vocabulary, and what I don't know, I can usually
>>> guess from the roots. "Bespoke" isn't in either set, and will likely
>>> be forgotten again by this evening.
>>> --
>>
>> It's not something I ever learned, but after seeing it a few times
>> I figured out by context that you spoke to the tailor about a custom
>> suit.
>
> I can SPEAK to a tailor all I want, but until he pulls out the tape or
> fabric samples, we're not getting anywhere.
>
> I kept trying to tie it into "spoken for" and failed.
I had the same problem when I was about 8 or 9, but I asked my parents
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article <da6s1u...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>> mze...@eskimo.com (Mark Zenier) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <528bddd2-4001-4a09...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>>>> How many men get clothes made bespoke these days?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And how many Americans use "bespoke" instead of "custom made".
>>>
>>> I have a fairly large vocabulary, and what I don't know, I can usually
>>> guess from the roots. "Bespoke" isn't in either set, and will likely
>>> be forgotten again by this evening.
>>> --
>>
>> It's not something I ever learned, but after seeing it a few times
>> I figured out by context that you spoke to the tailor about a custom
>> suit.
>
> I can SPEAK to a tailor all I want, but until he pulls out the tape or
> fabric samples, we're not getting anywhere.
>
> I kept trying to tie it into "spoken for" and failed.
what it meant and that was OK. "Bespoken" or "spoken for" mean something
different again.
Robert Bannister
Nov 8, 2015, 10:51:43 PM11/8/15
to
On 8/11/2015 8:14 PM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> Also, I have a vague recollection of reading that off the rack pants
> in America are all "lefties" since that's how the majority of
> American men "dress". I have no idea if that's still true, and I
> can't seem to assemble a useful search string to find a cite.
I'm too lazy to check, but I seem to remember reading that for most men,
> Also, I have a vague recollection of reading that off the rack pants
> in America are all "lefties" since that's how the majority of
> American men "dress". I have no idea if that's still true, and I
> can't seem to assemble a useful search string to find a cite.
the left testicle is quite a bit larger than the right, which must
affect the balance.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages