Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 10

= January 10 =

Mistakes in the Qu'ran?
I've heard that there are mistakes in the Qu'ran. See the sections Mistakes in the Quran, number 18 in page 11, and Major Mistakes in the Quran, number 19 in page 12, in Islam - A Case Of Mistaken Identity in the Answers Book. But is that true?

Islam is just one of the many different religions in the world today. There are so many different religions in the world today. Many of them have so many believers, millions and millions of them around the world. Many of them have existed for such a long time, for hundreds and thousands of years throughout history in the past to today. Religions have had such a big impact on the world’s history, art, music, societies, culture, recreation, holidays, people, philosophy, politics, government, and countries.

So I don’t understand. Is that it? Is it that simple? Can religions be disproved, proven wrong and false, and proven not to be the one true religion just by finding, looking for, and searching for mistakes and errors in its holy religious book or books?Can religions really be proven false so simply, easily, and quickly? Bowei Huang (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly generally impossible to "disprove" religions in their own terms, based on their own source materials, to faithful believers.
 * Whether the Qur'an contains "mistakes" as such is a somewhat polemical question, but it's certainly true that Muhammad was illiterate in all languages other than Arabic (whether he was illiterate in Arabic itself is a much-disputed question), and that no written translations of the Christian or Jewish Bible were accessible to him. That's why he seems to have gotten all his early information about Judaism and Christianity purely orally from random Jews and Christians who happened to come through the Hejaz (and who were by no means always particularly knowledgeable or doctrinally-orthododox in their own religion).  This means that Muhammad did not always have realiable information, and did not distinguish between the Bible itself and non-Biblical popular traditions.  So there are such anomalies in the Qur'an as Haman from the book of Esther working with Pharoah from the book of Exodus to build what seems to be the Tower of Babel from the book of Genesis.  Or an accusation that Jews worship Ezra as the son of God.  Or giving late Jewish folktales (such as a midrash about the visit of Queen of Sheba to Solomon, which never had scriptural status in Judaism) scriptural status in the Qur'an.  Or changing the name of Saul, king of Israel, to "Talut" in order to make it rhyme with "Jalut" (the Arabic version of the name of Goliath).  Muhammad also seems to incorporate stories from the Alexander Romance (a very fanciful account of Alexander the Great's life, embroidered with apocryphal legends) into the Qur'an.
 * When some Jews and Christians look in the Qur'an, and discover (for example) that where the Bible describes Solomon's reign with multiple names of people and places, and detailed narratives of events, while the Qur'an largely reduces Solomon to a figure in a history-free folkloric-occultistic legend about conversing with ants, or that the Qur'an portrays a Jesus that never died on the cross and is reported as denying traditional mainstream Christian doctrines, then overall they're less than impressed... AnonMoos (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Though the proper one word answer would be "Depends.", it is better to write "No." Religions cannot be proven false so simply, because religions are not set in stone. We do not have thousands of years of theology for nothing. Usually, when errors (or more commonly, anachronisms) are found, the religion itself changes, and is not "proven false". A good article on the subject is Exegesis. One could, for example, interpret certain things liberally as a "product of its time". This is relatively popular when analysing the morals in a holy book from a secular point of view. More orthodox interpretations that rely on a holy book to be the true "word of god(s)" sometimes attribute statements that seem false or anachronous to figures of speech. Read some of the articles linked here for more information. User:Krator (t c) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bowei asked something similar before. I would say simply that any website claiming to prove any religion false is a load of crap and should be ignored. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The main monotheism divine books are Torah ,Psalms of David ,Evangel and Koran. the same Abrahamic religions.But actually the God's religion is one :And they say: Be Jews or Christians, you will be rightly guided. Say: Nay! the religion of Abraham the True, and he was not one of the polytheists.(Koran, sura 2,sign 135) and Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was a true man and muslim, and he was not of the polytheists.(Koran, sura 3,sign 67) The true Evangel and Torah are accepted by Koran, but they have been corrupted largely. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," so that they may purchase a small gain therewith ...(Koran, sura 2,sign 79) So they can't rule out anything ,actually not credible. Koran is the God's words book, and is protected by him from being corrupted, as he says:Surely we have descended the Koran, and we assuredly it's guardian.(Koran, sura 15,sign 9) So if we say it has mistakes, so we'll mean the God has mistakes (mark well)... . .Flakture (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How dare you ask like about our holy book of our religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia encourages asking about almost anything, as long as the question is in "good faith" as it were. (There is a bad pun in there somewhere; I just can't quite put my mouse on it.) Sometimes, of course, Wikipedia doesn't know the answer, but that does not, in and of itself, invalidate the question. Bielle (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But have any of you read the section in that article? If not, then can you please read it? Another website that claims that there are mistakes in the Qur'an is Wikiislam. Bowei Huang (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

ٌ

Wikiislam is a insulting website for scurrility and a trying to defame Islam .in the websites "about" its claimed that its not a neutral point of view. It's main editors and administrators are Selfworm (in his page:I am an atheist ... who wants to free Muslims and the world from the burden that is Islam) and Whale (so active in slandering ...). they have awarded each other for these doings. an example of the pain of the world. Flakture (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Death watch beetle and nativity song
In the article about the death watch beetle, the author states: "The death watch beetle appears in a nativity song in which the innkeeper complains repeatedly that "there's death watch beetle in the roof."" I have done my best to comb through lots of sources and have plugged many many search terms into the google box, but have come up empty-handed. I would love the source for this Nativity song and its text and/or history if possible. I wonder if the author might comment on his/her source?

Betsyme (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Betsy


 * That appears to have been in the article since it was created by User:Goodgerster. No source is given; you might perhaps leave a request at his talk page for further information. - Nunh-huh 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Imperialism
I have some questions about Imperialism.

What is Darwin's theory on natural selection?

Does Darwin's theory promote imperialism?

What is social Darwinism?

How does Darwin's theory influence the thought of Herbert Spencer?

How does Rudyard Kipling justify imperialism in his famous poem "The White Man's Burden"?

What arguments does Jules Ferry advance to justify imperialism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to look these up and read them. Here are some links: natural selection, imperialism, social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, Rudyard Kipling, The White Man's Burden, Jules Ferry. If anything is unclear, come back and ask. - Nunh-huh 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest the page Darwinism - it seems like enough a nice starting point for the answers you seek. Random Nonsense (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I got the answer for Social Darwinism, but the article about natural selection didn't say how or what is Darwin's theory on natural selection, it didn't say how his theory promote imperialism and influence the thought of Herbert Spencer and the article about Jules Ferry, it didn't say about his arguments that advance to justify imperialism. Please, answer these questions. these articles doesn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The articles help, if you read them. For example, in Herbert Spencer we see: "He is best known for coining the term survival of the fittest, which he did in Principles of Biology (1864), after reading Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. This term strongly suggests natural selection, yet as Spencer extended evolution into realms of sociology and ethics he made use of Lamarckism rather than natural selection.". In the article on Jules Ferry, we read "After the military defeat of France by Germany in 1870, Ferry formed the idea of acquiring a great colonial empire, principally for the sake of economic exploitation. In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on July 28, 1883, he declared that "the superior races have a right because they have a duty: it is their duty to civilize the inferior races.". If you don't see how the concepts in our Social Darwinism article relate to imperialism, perhaps you'll do better by reading this essay. - Nunh-huh 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jules Ferry justified imperialism for 3 reasons :
 * economics : France needs for its developpement both access to natural ressources and markets for its products ("La politique colonial est fille de la politique industrielle");
 * civilisation and humanity : France has the duty to civilize backward peoples. It is the duty of the superior races to bring emancipation, by the mean of reason, to the inferior ones.
 * politics : France, lest it became a second rank power, had to take part in the contest for land and countries between European nations. ("rayonner sans agir, sans se mêler aux affaires du monde, en regardant comme un piège toute expansion vers l'Afrique et vers l'Orient, c'est abdiquer, c'est descendre du premier rang au troisième et au quatrième"). (source: Raoul Girardet, L'idée coloniale en France, Hachette, collection "Pluriel", p. 81.) Gedefr (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Imperialism
What are the benefits and liabilities of Imperialism? Don't refer me to your articles about Imperialism because I have read it and it didn't say about the benefits and liabilities of Imperialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Benefit: you get to take their stuff. Liability: your descendants will feel guilty about it.  --66.57.81.201 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the guy just said it all. Benefits are that your country will have some economic benefits and more land. A liability might be running the risk of the people rebelling, and all the trouble your country might go through to get the country in the first place.--Dlo2012 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some liabilities:
 * Dependency. The centre becomes dependant on periphery. On the "why is this a liability?" question with this I refer to "do your own homework" above.
 * Generally bad things of contact between strange parts of the world. This includes diseases people in other parts of the world have no resistance to (e.g. tropical diseases) and environmental hazards (the infamous rabbits in Australia),
 * The well-phrased "you get to take their stuff" above creates wealth, which can lead to decadence. Read The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
 * User:Krator (t c) 01:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you told me about the liabilities, what about the benefits? What were the benefits of imperialism? Can you guys answer properly?

How do I lead a double life?
Can someone point me to a howto for leading a double life?

I'm thinking, for example, that I should find work that's only 3-4 hours but pretend to work 8 hours, in the remaining time living my double life.

Any other pointers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Q. Doe Jr. (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to start by working out why you want to lead a double life. What needs do you have that cannot be satisfied by a single life? Why would it not be better to make significant lifestyle changes in a single life instead? Leading a double life usually entails some element of deceit, whether of family, colleagues or government. Who would know what? What would be the consequences of being found out?  (Note that we cannot answer legal questions.) Bovlb (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people satisfy such an urge by becoming an actor, impersonator, or drag queen. It really all depends on what else (or who else) you want to be.--Shantavira|feed me 16:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll need loads of money, because having two houses, two cars, two phone/gas/water bills and two anniversary presents to buy, won't be cheap.--Yamanbaiia (free hugs!) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the above has been very helpful! However, you all are assuming too much. I just want to be socially integrated. As opposed to the full two thirds of MIT graduate students who have never had sex. Any concrete ideas? (Other than sshing into a server rather than keeping one in my home, obviously) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Q. Doe Jr. (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the lack of free time really the problem? &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Did I miss something? I’m unclear about exactly what you want to do. Be a student mostly, but have a double life as a Goth bicker dude so you can have more sex (unlike the MIT guys) or somthing like that? --S.dedalus (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * YES - exctly. you've hit the nail on the head. can you point me to any resources please or share any thoughts/advice/pointers you might have?  Thank you!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Q. Doe Jr. (talk • contribs) 10:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tardis hotclaws 08:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously a drastically different look and style will help. Wearing leather jackets (that is, if you can pull it off) as oppose to jumpers and sandals will go along way. But if you don't look the part you'll stand out like a thousand candles at a gas station. If your seeking to have a cyber double life, it should be fairly easy. Choose radically different usernames (like "James84Student" and "razorblade"), and develop some quirks in your writing. Deliberately misspelling some words, for example, while spelling them correctly in your real life. This can be extended to the real world with your handwriting. So learn to write with both your left and right hands. You'll also want to adopt a different style of speech (more / less aggressive, faster / slower etc) and if your trying to pull off the college dropout look then words such as "dude" should become a staple of your speech. Think outside the box 16:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This would be more likely to work if you found employment where there is no direct supervision. In the US, there are occasional stories of utility, municipal, state or federal employees who are paid to do something like inspecting traffic lights or bridges, or supervising work crews at various locations who have "side businesses." One utility worker spent a lot of time on the phone managing his apartment while getting paid for utility work. While they are making their rounds on the government job, they also conduct personal business like  doing home improvements, or selling things.  There was a news story 5 or 10 years ago about a college professor who while a full-time professor at one college, taught part time at one or more other colleges. One full time tenured professor was also a full time farmer. There are some "full time" relatively unsupervised jobs which can be handled in 2 days a week, where only the productivity is judged, not the time behind the desk. Then there is the "mole" or spy, who might work in a job for government or industry while secretly working for the competition. There have been news stories of police officers who were also burglars, hauling away the loot in the trunk of the police car, or police officers who were simultaneously dope dealers or hitmen. The funniest cases are where the double dipper uses different names, and runs into an associate from one job while in the presence of an associate from the other job. Then there are the "double lives" which are lived by public figures, who on the one hand decry sin and immorality, but spend many hours in tawdry pursuits (until they get busted in some awkward situation). Edison (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You could have a problem is any of your sexual liaisons or whatever get serious. Undoubtedly a woman will be a bit surprised (to say the least) when they discover your other life. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NON PROFIT FOUNDATION
Hello, I would like to start a non profit foundation,How would I start? Thanks [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Depends. To which nation state do you owe fealty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's some useful information at Wikipedia's article on Non-profit organization.Yamanbaiia (free hugs!) 18:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Killing in the name of...
Which religion has killed more of its enemies in the name of their god? Has this ever been calculated? Could it be calculated? Should I be banned from Wikipedia for life for asking such a naive question? Thank you. Beekone (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you culd calculate such a thing. But I also think you shouldn't be banned :) . What do you mean by religion? Lutherans, Catholics, and Russian Orthodox, or broader, like Christians, Muslims, and Jews? Wrad (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * for the sake of even just ball parking the figures they would have to be put into broad terms. Nazis, KKK, the Crusades all being Christian, for example.  You got to admit it would be interesting to see, right? Beekone (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'd like to retract my Nazi example if it's shown that there was a stronger influence than religion in the persuasion of German citizens to commit atrocities. WWII buff I am not. Beekone (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and by participating German citizens I mean the willing ones of course. Beekone (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism. Followed closely by Communism. Just kidding. or am I? Jossy&#39;s Giant (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that's a really interesting point. There's definitely something to be said for the worship of money. Beekone (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are similarities between both ideologies and religion, particularly in the case of communism. And each ideology has led to the deaths of more people than have been killed in all of history's religious wars put together. Oh and I forgot to mention the State, which like God is an abstract concept based on mythology, which is worshiped. With killers like these religions would be hard pressed to keep up. Jossy&#39;s Giant (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of argument then, between the major contendors, Christianity, Islam and any Eastern religions (defined by praise and direct credit given to a non-existant being) what does the scoreboard look like? Beekone (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, start naming some wars... Wrad (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The big ones that come to mind are the Crusades (obviously the numbers would be staggering for both sides, but probably more for christians when accounting the pre-war slaughter of Jewish communities in Europe), WWII, Iraq and all related and unrelated terrorist/insurgent killings (not counting the US's since their numbers aren't attributed to whether or not they get into Heaven), and probably a lot of the Manifest Destiny type activities where Native Americans were killed in the name of cleansing the land of heathens. I'm sure there are a lot more, that's why I'm hoping someone's already done this whole thing. Beekone (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Check Religious war and Religious violence, and Category:Religion and violence. Also see List of wars and disasters by death toll, picking out the wars that were mostly religious. The thing is many 'religious wars' are to some extent also to do with other things like money, power, resources, empire, nationalism, politics etc. Jossy&#39;s Giant (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical comparison of death tolls is generally awful because the world population increased a lot over the past millennia. User:Krator (t c) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well first of all killings have happened for all kinds of differences of opinion.... I would say overall, the most killings have been in the name of a woman... just a thought... Overall as religions go, you gotta say Christianity and Islam are the two frontrunners, although things like the Holocaust cannot be blamed on being in the name of a religion... in fact it actually bodes another interesting question... which religion has had the most people killed for practising it? I'd say Christianity and Judaism, but there really are no real numbers for any of this. It is all a matter of opinion, which someone might disagree with me enough to kill me in the name of it someday. Croat Canuck     If I were from Laos, The Laotian Croatian would fit    09:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether Judaism really fits. Most anti-semitic killings were and are more about ethnicity then religion. I would say Christianity and Islam since as you said, they are the top two frontrunners for the number of killings and they were often killing each other as well as a large number of other non-believers. And the people they killed sometimes faught back. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This question comes about from an argument I was having with an acquaintance that was regurgitating some Ann Coulter concerning Obama's heritage. Because the man has ties to Islam in general this person feels he's inherently Al Quiada trying to infiltrate the Oval Office. While this may seem biased and ugly and borderline insane to some it's a completely valid argument to the Evangelical vter base trying to put his campaign down. I realize this isn't a forum of discussion on the issue, I just htought it would help clear this up if I mentioned my motive. Does a Christian have any reason to fear a Muslim and hold inherent biases against them? In my opinion christian atrocities far out weigh Muslim, but I don't have any kind of number to back that up. thanks again, everyone, for your participation in this inquiry. Beekone (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well no evangelical Christian is created equal... there are some who hold biases but there are some who aren't. Basically a Christian has no more reason to fear a Muslim than an atheist has reason to fear a Christian for the sole reason of being a Christian. The problem lies not with religion, but when bad people twist it to fit their own ideals and justify doing evil things.... or when ignorant people are preaching something they really don't understand. Croat Canuck     If I were from Laos, The Laotian Croatian would fit    20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to hold all Evangelicals to the same light at all, I hope I didn't come across that way. On the contrary, it's my acquaintance that wishes to hold all Muslims under an extremist light.  I don't think it's unfair to say that that bias is common in America right now.  What I'm asking is, in consideration to both religions violent past, does either side have a reason to be inherent;y afraid of the other?  Obviously the answer is no, but that's not what I'm here to ask.  My question is, does anybody have any ballpark numbers on the subject?  If not I wouldn't expect you to reply.  Thanks again.  Beekone (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if you could somehow come up with numbers, what could they possibly mean? It's not as though Hitler decided to cap the number of dead Jews at 6 million out of some vestige of Christian compassion. The Nazis killed that many Jews because that's roughly how many Jews there were in areas controlled by the Nazis. For serial killers and mass murderers a larger body count doesn't mean greater evil or greater danger, it means they were lucky enough or skillful enough to get away with it for longer. -- BenRG (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is nearly impossible to find an answer to this question. To do so, one has to make a distinction between religion as a professed reason (i kill you in the name of god) and religion as a causal reason (religion as a sociological explanation of war and killings) that is nearly imposible to make. For instance, Hitler killed jews, and he did not do so because of any religious creed, but for the "purity" of the race, and to save Europe from the "jew conspiracy" and so on. But, as a matter of fact, the modern antisemitism that underpinned Hitler policies is the heir of the traditional, christian, antisemitism. So, you can argue that christian beliefs are, somehow, accountable for the holocaust. Gedefr (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian or Jewish name
As part of a genealogy search on family, the name Balthassa has tured up. He was from Germany, born about 1820. Would that name have been given to a Christian, a Jew or possible both.scutchie 17:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the first time i have heard about the name Balthassa, but i have heard numerous times about Balthazar. It seems to be a Christian name, but a secularized Jewish families sometimes have given their children Christian names. Mieciu K (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

About Panchatantra
Panchatantra was influenced on who?T3hStoner (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your question is unclear. There is quite a lot of information in our article on Panchatantra. Does that tell you what you wish to know?--Shantavira|feed me 08:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

actually i'm sorry that was pretty much my first time trying to use i'll look there if that doesnt help me well then thanks anyway =)T3hStoner (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bara bröst
The Swedish feminist movement "bara bröst" has been noticed in the Finnish press. Feminists in Sundvall want women to be able to go topless in public swimming pools. Their reasoning is, if men see enough women topless, they will accept them as commonplace and stop lusting after them so much. I can certainly understand that. There have come three arguments against this: I can only answer the second question myself. As much as I like women's breasts, I am (lesserly) excited by their bared arms and legs too. If they have no problem showing them, why shouldn't this be extended to the breasts? What are your thoughts about this? J I P | Talk 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Protecting the children. This creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Children (boys?) can't see topless women until they've accepted them as commonplace. But they won't do so unless they've seen them often enough. Adult men have no such problem because they can see topless women anyway, just by going to the nearest strip club.
 * If men accept topless women as commonplace, they will no longer get excited by them. This creates a problem when a woman wants a man to get excited.
 * It is (I hear) more difficult for a woman to swim topless than when her breasts are bound against her body.
 * Children have better things to do than hang around pools all day and look at women (what? I don't know, but they don't do it now to see women in bikinis or thongs or whatever). As for swimming, I don't think a woman swimming topless is going to be going for any lap records or anything. Presumably, it would be a comfort issue, in which case she can wear a swimsuit if she's more comfortable that way. Recury (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, folks, this is not supposed to be a debate forum, remember? --Anon, 21:34 UTC, January 10.
 * . . .and this doesn’t appear to be a debate. The quest is apparently what validity if any these three arguments have; a standard political/moral question. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This may well be the stupidest (and funniest) idea I've ever heard. I was tempted to post "hahahahahahahahahahaha" and leave it at that. It just goes to show how little women understand the male sex drive. Why don't they also have sex with every man they see as often as possible, hoping that the men will get tired of it? The feminists are tired of sex, the men will never get tired of it. Or maybe they're looking at their own elephant-scrotum-like tits in the mirror and reason that they'll gross us out of our lust. What a hoot! --Milkbreath (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To be strictly practical, women don't just wear bras for modesty and shapeliness, they ear them for the same reason guys cover up their lower parts—to protect a sensitive part of their body that tends to flop around a lot. Awkward to picture in your mind, but true. I don't know if you've ever read Clan of the Cave Bear, but it touches on this issue. A woman lives in this cave-man society but she's kind of a rebel and goes hunting, which the women aren't supposed to do in her society. She finds that her breasts are being ornery and notices that the men cover their parts with a loincloth to alleviate a similar problem. She copies them by creating the first bra. Of course this is all fictional, but you get the idea. Wrad (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Milkbreath, I disagree. There is some evidence (tapestries, illustrations) that breasts were not treated as particularly important sexual characteristics in medieval Europe. They were seen as a way to feed children and women didn’t even bother to cover them in some social circumstances. (This is in sharp contrast to the ankles which were often treated as highly arousing anatomy.) Friends of mine also tell me that in many Asian countries public partial or even complete nudity is not uncommon under some circumstances. Strangers, houseguests, etc. simply “don’t see it.” I believe Europe is moving in this direction. As far back as in the 50s directors like Bergman were making films such as Summer with Monika which depicted nudity frankly. The sexual appeal of secondary sexual characteristics has a lot to do with the circumstances. I’m sure that it would also be a huge step forward for the world if we stop imposing silly prudish customs on people. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As for the “boys might see breasts!” argument most boys have already seen a breast or two by the time they reach high school anyway. (If not live then on Wikipedia.) In fact for many boys the first breast they see is their mother’s. :) I’m sure if breasts and sexuality were treated a bit more openly in public it would help take some of the glamour out of pornography for tweens. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly. It would just move the focus south. Imagine how Swedish women will have to dress in public to discourage that....- Nunh-huh 03:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like it’s the Swedish women (or at least feminists) who want to do this in the first place. The focus already is on “the south” for guys and we cope just fine. Perhaps I should counter that social focus by wearing a hoop skirt in public (or conversely go nude, but it’s kind of cold up here). :-) --S.dedalus (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think allowing women to go topless in public swimming pools is a good idea.
 * Short-term effects: Men get to see more topless women! Yay!
 * Long-term effects: Men get accustomed to topless women, so they stop being so obsessed about them, and women can choose to either cover or bare their breasts as they see fit. Everyone's happy. J I P  | Talk 01:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And, because this is all about allowing women to go topless, not about forcing them, even if no one gains anything, no one loses either. Men will only benefit from seeing women topless, and as for women, before men have been accustomed to them, those who go topless are already brave enough not to mind, and those who don't, can go about as normal, and after, it's all the same. So I really can't see a reason not to go forward with this, given it's all voluntary by the women. J I P  | Talk 21:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)