When The Female Libido and Female Gaze Is Acknowledged in Religion – and the Shirtless Boston Terrorist
Just like some segments of Islam, there are some schools of Christianity, notably conservative evangelicals, and some Southern Baptists, and Good Lawd knows your Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, who blame women for mens’s sexual trespasses. Women are made accountable for the sexual failings of men, ergo women are given a bunch of man made rules to follow, such as how long their skirts should be and so forth.
Women in all these religous groups are told, or it is strongly implied, that if they are raped, it’s because they were wearing revealing clothing. In some of these faiths, women are told by wearing a low cut blouse or short skirt, they can cause a man to have lusty thoughts, and they, the women, are to blame for this.
Recall from previous musings on this blog I’ve pointed out how conservative Christian males live in this odd bubble of denial where they do not like to admit to themselves, or to each other, that women do notice what men look like, most women prefer sexy, fit, attractive men, and women have sexual desire too.
This brings me to an interesting phenomenon I’ve noticed among some Muslims.
I am by no means an expert on Islam, but I’ve read about it off and on over the years and had to study it a tiny bit while in college.
I recall reading in one book that some Muslim men (and I don’t remember what nation this was) wear long-sleeved shirts all the time, and their rationale for covering up in these long shirts is that some women might be sexually stimulated by seeing their forearms.
I don’t know personally of any women who are “turned on” by a man’s forearms, maybe they do exist, I don’t know, but this attitude was fascinating to me.
In news reports after the Boston Marathon bombings, I heard one reporter mention that the older terrorist, the 26 year old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, told someone months before that he was reluctant to go out in public shirtless, not even to play sports shirtless, was my understanding, because he didn’t want to create lustful thoughts in women who would look at his built frame and think, “hubba hubba.”
Ordinarily, in much of Islamic thought (from what I’ve read over the years), women can bring rape upon themselves, or cause men to commit sexual sin and lustful thoughts, if their bodies and faces are not covered, hence, the wearing of the burka.
Some imams (Muslim clerics) are nutty enough to even suggest that female infants wear burkas to ward off child molesters. Here are a few links about that (I am not necessarily in agreement with all views of all blogs and sites I link to), before I resume my discussion of this whole topic:
Burkas for Babies – at AtlasShrugs (Pam Gellar’s blog):
- Babies are sex objects? If not, why would they have to cover up? And don’t think this is just in Muslim countries. I took the above photo on Madison Avenue.
“Burkas for babies”: Saudi cleric’s new fatwa causes controversy Al Arabiya, February 3, 2013
A Saudi cleric has called for all female babies to be fully covered by wearing the face veil, commonly known as the burka, citing reports of little girls being sexually molested.
In a TV interview on the Islamic Al-Majd TV, which seems to date back to mid-last year, Sheikh Abdullah Daoud, stressed that wearing the veil will protect baby girls. The Sheikh tried to back his assertion with claims of sexual molestation against babies in the kingdom, quoting unnamed medical and security sources.
Recently picked up on social media, sheikh Dauod’s statement prompted wide condemnation from his fellow Saudis on Twitter. Some tweeps called for the Sheikh to be held accountable because his ruling denigrates Islam and breaches individual privacy.
Sheikh Mohammad Al-Jzlana, former judge at the Saudi Board of Grievances, told Al Arabiya that Dauod’s ruling was denigrating to Islam and Shariah and made Islam look bad.
There was a comment by an imam a few years ago that referred to female rape victims as “uncovered meat,” that is, he meant to convey that if you are a woman, and you are raped, it’s your fault because you were not covered.
There is little to no concept of MALE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MALE SEXUAL SELF CONTROL in any of these teachings, not in Islam, and not in some branches of Christianity. (This is an issue I may return to in a separate post in the future, because there is one slight exception to it.)
Getting back to the Boston terrorist and amateur boxer, Tamerlan, who said he was loathe to go shirtless in public lest it cause the ladies to go weak in the knees…
The irony! After the bombings, and after Tsarnaev’s identity was known, and especially after he was pronounced dead, the media- CNN, MSNBC, and FNC -kept showing the same 4 or 5 photos of this guy over and over, and do you know which of the photos they kept displaying, every two minutes? This one – a shirtless Tsarnaev practicing boxing:
In the days after the bombing and the manhunt for the Tsarnaev brothers, I was riveted to the television. I saw this photo of this shirtless guy a million times it seemed.
One of Tsarnaev’s goals in life, apparently, was to die in martyrdom killing infidels, and the other was to keep women from seeing him shirtless. He definitely failed both.
Oh yes, he died, he accomplished that much of his goal, but I don’t think upon death he went to Islamic heaven and was granted 72 virgins -more like, he never accepted Christ (I would assume, unless there was a very last- second conversion right before his brother crushed him with the car, which is highly unlikely, in my view), and is likely in Hell right now (which I’m not in glee over, just stating a likely fact)- and women every where have seen him shirtless. Repeatedly.
Related posts at this blog: