Challenge- Argue the Opposite Position 2010

PinkFridge

Wed, May 11 2011, 9:03 pm

Barbara wrote:

[

It all boils down to this. Audrey Tomasson was wearing a shirt that left the upper part of her chest exposed, and she's good-looking to boot. How would Hilary Clinton have felt if they had excised Ms. Tomasson, deeming her too attractive to appear in the newspaper, but left Ms. Clinton because she's not likely to excite most men. It was an act of kindness to her.

Other arguments? One word. fixation. Maybe most men wouldn't be attracted to a 104 year old, 600 pound woman with no teeth and a lot of hair growing out of moles, but that could be one man's fantasy.

I know what Ms. Clinton looks like, so I assume that's a fair description of Ms. Tomasson?

hadasa

Thu, May 12 2011, 2:21 am

I can't believe how today's modern world it has become acceptable for Frum men to insist on white shirts. Back in the old country, who paid attention to shirt color? You wore what you had! And not only that, but they need expensive suits and hats to boot! They even take care that the hat should be of a specific shape, and if it becomes slightly misshapen they go buy a new hat! What has become of this generation, that they pay so much attention to their outer appearance? Where is the focus on Ruchniyus, on Pnimiyus? And if someone does not have the money or time to spend on the exact fashion, then he is not accepted as a full member of society? He is called by various names, like "modern", "at risk" or "borderline OTD" because he doesn't have enough money to spend on suits and hats? When will the Rabbonim get together and do away with this focus on Chitzoniyus and start paying attention to learning, yiras Shomayim and Middos?

ora_43

Thu, May 12 2011, 3:30 am

Why Der Tzitung was right to erase Hillary Clinton

Sure, if we look at Clinton herself, we might think - why bother? She's an older woman, conservatively dressed, and it's not a particularly s-xy picture.

But we have to look at the broader picture, not just the individual case. Just google "Brooke Shields," or "Cindy Crawford," or "Charlize Theron." You'll see pictures of truly gorgeous women, who manage to be s-xy using their expression alone, even if only shot from the neck up.

Should those pictures be in a chassidic newspaper? Personally, given my community, I wouldn't be concerned if the pictures were in my paper. But I can definitely see why it would be a temptation to men. Remember, we're not talking about a temptation to adultery or the like chv"s - but to Der Tzitung readers, even just staring at a picture like that is something to avoid, so they'd want to avoid any picture that so much as causes a man to want to see it for longer.

So OK, pictures of supermodels are out. But why not print pictures of the rest of us?

Well, for one thing, there are very pretty girls who aren't supermodels, so of course their pictures should be avoided too.

And once you've avoided printing pictures of beautiful women, just think what an insult it is to a woman to print her picture! It's like saying, "You're OK, nobody will be tempted to look at your ugly face any more than is necessary." Ouch!

If there's one thing more offensive than a man coming up to you and berating you for your s-xy dress, it's the same man berating the woman next to you for wearing an identical dress, then turning to you, looking you over and saying, "eh, I guess on you it's OK."

Right now we're focused on the insult to Clinton because she wasn't pictured. But imagine the insult if she was. Now, Clinton is an intelligent woman, she knows she's no 1980s Brooke Shields. But it goes farther than that. What if Der Tzitung printed a picture of Michelle Obama, but not of Carla Bruni? Of Clinton, but not of Monica Lewinski? Now THAT would be insulting. You see the danger.

Der Tzitung's responsible policy prevents men from encountering tempting pictures of drop-dead gorgeous women when all they want is the morning news, while maintaining sensitivity to women's feelings by treating all women alike, whether they be old or young, pretty or not so pretty.

PinkFridge

Thu, May 12 2011, 10:03 am

hadasa wrote:

And you are arguing the opposite position of what, exactly? Wink

hadasa

Thu, May 12 2011, 11:53 am

PinkFridge wrote:

hadasa wrote:

And you are arguing the opposite position of what, exactly? Wink

Well, I don't let my husband or sons wear anything other than white shirts with a black or maybe dark navy suit. Clothing has a profound effect on a person's subconscious. You know how FlyLady says to dress to the shoes to make you feel like a home executive, and not to shlep around in a robe and slippers? The formal dress of a Yeshivah Bochur subconsciously makes him look, feel and act more mature and responsible than if he were wearing jeans and a T-shirt. Also, it identifies him as a Chareidi and gives him an image to live up to. The fact that all the other boys in his Yeshivah are dressed in exactly the same way gives him a sense of belonging and mutual responsibility.

PinkFridge

Thu, May 12 2011, 12:17 pm

hadasa wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

hadasa wrote:

And you are arguing the opposite position of what, exactly? Wink

For some reason I feel you're having a harder time with this argument than the prior one.