If you were a Muslim woman, would you wear a hijab?

[Mopsus]

If I were a Muslim woman, I'd be too busy being absolutely beautiful to join this useless forum and answer your inane questions.

That's actually a pretty good answer. Although it also implies that you wouldn't wear one.

Excuse me!? *slap*

Arab and especially Persian women usually have beautiful hair though. Obscuring that with a hijab is pretty wrong and repressive. Not that most Arab and Persian-American women do of course.

I'm not fond of arguments that hijab is oppressive in general (although I also don't buy that it's intrinsically liberating; it strikes me as one of those things that is what you make of it), but at least such arguments tend to be more valid than 'if part of a woman is physically attractive, it's wrong and repressive to cover it'.

Human beauty is an expression of God's goodness, and teaching people that they should be ashamed of their beauty is immoral.

Is that a more valid argument?

[Mopsus]

Human beauty is an expression of God's goodness, and teaching people that they should be ashamed of their beauty is immoral.

Is that a more valid argument?

Yes, except for the fact that it presupposes that hijabi women are or should be acting out of shame. Surely some are--again, I don't buy the 'hijabi is intrinsically liberating and secretly feminist!' argument either--but it hardly strikes me as fair to claim that all are.

I'm sure the hijab can serve as a Muslim equivalent to the crucifix or the yarmulke, but the fact that it's only worn by women, and that it's specifically designed to cover parts of women's bodies that man find attractive, leads to me to believe that symbolism is more of a secondary factor.

Besides, the idea that human beauty is an expression of God's goodness has very disturbing implications.

Perhaps... but I can only think of positives.

[Mopsus]

Besides, the idea that human beauty is an expression of God's goodness has very disturbing implications.

Perhaps... but I can only think of positives.

Really?

I suppose that a cynical person could accuse unattractive people of being cursed by heaven, but then one would just have to point out that only good things flow from God.

If a person is physically ugly, it's a punishment for sin (slothfulness, gluttony, lust), or the persecution of Satan.

[Mopsus]

If a person is physically ugly, it's a punishment for sin (slothfulness, gluttony, lust), or the persecution of Satan.

That's ridiculous.

The fact that you think so means that you haven't let Satan tempt you into vanity.

+1 for you, my friend.

[Mopsus]

If a person is physically ugly, it's a punishment for sin (slothfulness, gluttony, lust), or the persecution of Satan.

That's ridiculous.

The fact that you think so means that you haven't let Satan tempt you into vanity.

+1 for you, my friend.

I don't think that's what it means.

I was trying to be optimistic.

[Mopsus]

^ The sage is strong in this one.

That cuts deep, bro.

[Mopsus]

Besides, the idea that human beauty is an expression of God's goodness has very disturbing implications.

Perhaps... but I can only think of positives.

Really?

I suppose that a cynical person could accuse unattractive people of being cursed by heaven, but then one would just have to point out that only good things flow from God.

If a person is physically ugly, it's a punishment for sin (slothfulness, gluttony, lust), or the persecution of Satan.

Hmm, interesting that you'd say that.

Does being able to afford to get work done in the name of beauty a sign of the morals of capitalism? Those who produce, the most moral?

Producing beauty may be humanity's purest moral action, as it brings unequivocal joy into the lives of others. Historically, a certain economic necessity has put a stop to the infinite multiplication of the beautiful, but in an ideal world, "those who produce" would be a synonym for "those who produce beauty"; one of the crimes of capitalism is that it perpetuates an artificial poverty, thereby putting off the realization of such a world.