the burkini

Viola wrote:

If the burka is not a problem for you, for me, as a woman, it is.

And yet you live in a country where, in fact, it isn't... even in France it is starting to become a problem for women. Until about a month ago, no!

Marzapane wrote:

And with all the problems this planet has, do you think a judicial ruling must also contain how one should dress? Pareo yes and Burkiri no, why?

Viola wrote:

The usual mantra "with all the problems this country has..." does not work.

To spite them both, the regulations already govern this matter. Fortunately! I know that in Italy everyone knows the rules of football, but a little less so the constitution. See art. 19

http://blog.giuri.unibo.it/ecclesiastico/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Art.19.pdf

..and rereading art. 19, it only speaks of FREEDOM

Far from the Middle Ages

Gianni22 wrote:

And yet you live in a country where, in fact, it isn't... even in France it is starting to become a problem. Until about a month ago, no!

Gianni22 wrote:

And yet you live in a country where, in fact, it isn't... even in France it is starting to become a problem. Until about a month ago, no!

Who says that it isn't?

You, another hundred, a thousand...?

For many women, of every age group, the black bag (and what it implies) creates well-founded fears.

I do not intend to speak further about the "stupid-social" phenomenon of the burkini.

I won't comment on the issue, but I would like to debunk a myth

Viola wrote:

The problem is that in the future (very soon) whoever "chooses" to show their own "joys" will be judged as a woman of easy virtue.

As far as I know, if TODAY a woman shows her joys, she is ALREADY judged to be of easy virtue. Then those women don't like to believe it... men enjoy the show, but in fact they think it. Therefore, I don't think I understood the meaning of this sentence.

Gianni22 wrote:

..and rereading art. 19, it only speaks of FREEDOM

Far from the Middle Ages

Said by a person who says of a woman with contempt "free to shake her butt on the beach" or to "display her joys," it makes me smile (and also worry).

>For many women, of every age group, the black bag (and what it implies) creates well-founded fears.

I believe it, which is why there must be freedom... in every sense.

Viola wrote:

Said by a person who says of a woman with contempt "free to shake her ass on the beach"

I must correct you. I APPRECIATE it, welcome. For me, you can even go naked. But I do not tolerate being forced to do something, which is different.

Silbermann wrote:

I won't weigh in on the issue, but I would like to debunk a myth

AIt seems to me that if TODAY a woman shows her joys, she is ALREADY judged as being of loose morals. And those women don't like to believe it... men enjoy the show, but in fact they think it. Therefore, I don't think I understood the meaning of this sentence.

Oh my goodness!

How sad ...

Men, however, "ENJOY the show".

How wretched.

How hypocritical.

Seriously, but in your opinion, why does a woman who puts a black thong under a little white dress (almost transparent) ... do it?

There is only one answer, whether you like it or not: to be seen.

One just needs to be aware.

Gianni22 wrote:

I must correct you. I APPRECIATE it, welcome. For me, you can even go naked. But I do not tolerate being forced to do something, which is different.

Gianni (removing the 22), I appreciate what you write, now that you have made yourself even clearer.

As I appreciate Daniele's delicacy and respect.

But I fear that, in this case, you are too trusting. I truly hope I am wrong. But what I witness daily (and in person) scares me.

And I am not a fearful person (as you will have noticed). :-)

Marzapane wrote:

Seriously, but in your opinion, why would a woman wear a black thong under a white dress (almost transparent) ... why does she do it?

There is only one answer, whether you like it or not: to be seen.

One just needs to be aware.

She does it because there are eyes that take pleasure in enjoying the spectacle.

I want to say that I am a person with a great sense of modesty, but I would never dare to define a woman wearing a thong as a "slut".

What disgusts me, instead, are those who spit in the plate where they have "eaten" with their eyes.

Viola wrote:

Gianni (deleted on the 22nd), I appreciate what you write, now that you have made yourself even clearer.

As I appreciate Daniele's delicacy and respect.

But I fear that, in this case, you are too trusting. I truly hope I am wrong. But what I witness daily (and in person) scares me.

And I am not a fearful person (as you will have noticed). :-)

@Marzapane, it must be considered that there are instead those who have no intention at all of enjoying the show ... but are "forced" to do so.

Gianni22 wrote:

I must correct myself. I APPRECIATE it, welcome. For me, you can even go naked.

It would have been better to write I must correct myself.

If the interlocutor misunderstands, it is intelligent to ask why.

And in any case, it is intelligent (and respectful) to always assume that one has not made oneself clear enough (or at all).

I didn't explain myself well, instead of you didn't understand.

Do you agree? (at least on this point)

Silbermann wrote:

@Marzapane, it must be considered that there are those who have no intention at all of enjoying the show ... but are instead "forced" to.

Squalor is in the eye of the beholder.

Sure, sure, poor men "forced" to look at semi-naked bodies.

In my opinion, a person can dress however they want as long as their way of dressing does not represent an obstacle to identification and therefore a possible danger. If I enter a commercial establishment wearing a helmet, they make me take it off because I must be recognizable (I could be a robber). I think that in these cases the same rule should be applied. Also walking around the city with a helmet without being on a motorcycle is the exact same thing, besides being a senseless operation.

In a time like this, where there are attacks around the world at least once a month, recognition is of vital importance. Going to the seaside all covered up is, in my opinion, madness, but as long as anxieties and tensions towards others are not generated, I am of the opinion that everyone can dress however they want. Given, however, the alerts issued by the government regarding the risk of attacks on beaches—risks that have seen all street vendors being moved away—coming to the seaside all covered up could make people think that a bomb is hidden under the clothes. Here a crossroads opens up where everyone has their own idea. For me, coming to the seaside all covered up is unnatural; perhaps this idea of mine stems from the culture I grew up with: I have always gone to the seaside to sunbathe and swim, and I find the burkini a senseless thing, as well as just another way to hide dangerous materials or explosives.

As with all things, there are limits, and while it is true that everyone can dress however they want, there are contexts in which this argument does not hold up. I would never dream of going to a gala dinner in a Hawaiian swimsuit, flip-flops, a floral shirt, and surfer sunglasses. I would look ridiculous. Here, the argument seems analogous to me.

Religion aside, there are security reasons that take precedence. In my opinion, people's safety always comes first.

Different countries, different customs. Our culture is this, and it is not possible to think of modifying our roots by also exposing ourselves to dangers.

Responding to Viola....

I don't believe that Gianni wanted to categorize the entire female gender as "of easy morals." As I repeat, for me a person can dress however they want, it is an index of freedom, but there are situations that exceed limits and these situations are taken to the extreme by women who make Women (deliberately with a capital W, the real ones) ashamed. Because you understand well that if I go to a beach frequented by families and children and a girl starts sunbathing topless, perhaps even with breast implants, that is not freedom but exhibitionism. There are specific beaches where one can go to sunbathe showing nudity, and those are naturist beaches. My partner sunbathes in a Brazilian bikini, it has become common usage by now and anyway she doesn't show nudity, so okay. But when you have to sunbathe naked, there are specific areas intended for this purpose precisely to guarantee a person's freedom. Making a parallel with men, just to throw a spanner in the works, someone who comes to a beach where there are families and children to sunbathe like that is not a man to me, he is an exhibitionist jerk who makes me ashamed of him and if he ever came I would urge him to leave, and if he opposed it I would kick his ass.

TheSimon wrote:

Responding to Viola....

I don't believe that Gianni wanted to categorize the entire female gender as "of easy morals." As I repeat, for me a person can dress however they want, it is an index of freedom, but there are situations that exceed limits and these situations are taken to the extreme by women who make Women (deliberately with a capital W, the real ones) ashamed. Because you understand well that if I go to a beach frequented by families and children and a girl starts sunbathing topless, perhaps even with breast implants, that is not freedom but exhibitionism. There are specific beaches where one can go to sunbathe showing nudity, and those are naturist beaches. My partner sunbathes in a Brazilian [bikini], it has become common usage by now and anyway she doesn't show nudity, so okay. But when you have to sunbathe naked, there are specific areas intended for this purpose precisely to guarantee a person's freedom. Making a parallel with men, just to throw a spanner in the works, someone who comes to a beach where there are families and children to sunbathe like this Bikini-G-string-Thong.jpg is not a man to me, he is an exhibitionist jerk who makes me feel ashamed for him, and if he ever came I would urge him to leave, and if he opposed it I would kick him.

Thank you Simone for the clarifications.

Even though I don't know what a "brasiliana" is.

As far as bad taste in wearing somewhat osé clothing in unsuitable contexts is concerned, I can agree.

However, I find this thing curious (to use an euphemism): the nude pianist YES (highly appreciated by everyone, it seems to me), the nude shop assistant NO (vulgar, offensive...).

Should the message be identical or ...?

And anyway, LONG LIVE nudity with naturalness.

I will explain the burka in very Western terms. The burka serves to prevent a man from growing horns. It serves to neutralize any possibility of betrayal. However, they can do whatever they want... oh well!