February 7th, 2018
Congrats to Mel from Vegas, the winner of this month’s raffle prize: a signed and dedicated J&M book.
You can join the fun here:
Congrats to Mel from Vegas, the winner of this month’s raffle prize: a signed and dedicated J&M book.
You can join the fun here:
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by the amazing NearlyFreeSpeech.NET
Protected by the mighty CloudFlare
I think the Yoda-like structure of Jesus’ remark in the second frame needs some work! 🙂
Omit “I don’t understand”.
…after all that is why Jesus is asking the question.
My English teacher would’ve said; bless him.
He asks the question in frame 3. It’s correct the way it is.
Since burkas are typically female attire, that makes Mo a transvestite.
Under the burka, is he also wearing makeup and feminine jewelry? A bra? Lacey panties?
My guess: Spanx. Probaby a mid-thigh body suit like this one: https://www.spanx.com/shapewear/bodysuits/oncore-mid-thigh-bodysuit
I have no financial interest in that company. It just seemed funny, that’s all.
Funny and sad….
I’d like to imagine beneath the burka that Mo is modelling himself on this:
@laripu: thanks for the mental image, i don’t think that’s ever going away.
Is there anything wrong
To under a burka wear a thong?
If plumbing you’ve got
And it ties in a knot
You’ll get a crimp in your ding dong.
Another one of your brilliant punch lines, Author. There is a huge disconnect between the function of the burka and the rhetoric justifying its imposition. You nailed it. Again.
BTW and off topic, here’s an update on my petition to free the naked rambler. As of right now, 54 people have signed it. Fifty-four. Five four. I’m grateful for each and every one of these signers, and every name matters, but really, given the numbers on the Internet this is pathetic in the extreme.
Meanwhile, Calgary scrapped a naked swim when ten thousand people signed a petition demanding it be cancelled, with some sending in threats of violence.
Where the hell are our people, people? We’re losing the battle for the hearts and minds, eh.
According to what are, as far as I can ascertain, authoritative sources Mo received his ‘revelations’ whilst dressed in Aisha’s clothes!
Stopped digging with the revelation he would sometimes flash his thighs as there’s no known cure for such mental scarring.
Speaking of mental scarring what the hell goes through a 9 year old girl’s mind whilst being raped by a fat 50 year old Mo Fo dressed in your clothes????
That’s all? SHAME!
And I have not yet noticed the Dutch NFN having reacted. Disappointing. I would expect several dozen (hundreds?) of reactions from there….
The burka or abaya-with-hijab-and-niqab is a tricky proposition on both sides. My experience in Saudi Arabia is that fully covered women (which is just about everyone except female expats who usually omit the niqab) RARELY get whistled at, ogled or overtly propositioned. Thus, the covering has the beneficial effect of not “objectifying” women in the common modern sense. (Now, there WERE a flurry of postings on various websites about fully covered women still being hassled by Saudi men at a major downtown shopping landmark, but it’s not clear how credible those reports were or long-lasting.) So, although the latest episode of J & Mo is certainly thought-provoking. let’s not immediately dismiss the idea of covering as a way of avoiding leers and unwanted advances. True, it also removes a woman’s individuality to a large extent no matter how a covered woman may accessorize in subtle ways with a purse, shoes or abaya embroidery.
Now my personal theory is that the culture of covering really shifts the burden of moral and ethical behavior to EXTERNAL factors rather than requiring men to behave well strictly on the basis of their internal moral compass. But we might then ask: “So how’s that working out for you ladies in American society?” Not so well, it seems.
@jveeds in Iran women are required to cover “modestly” (though many push the boundaries quite hard) but groping in public places can be quite a big issue. I suppose that serves as a counter example to your experience in Saudi Arabia.
For me this issue of covering up has lots of problems. When they say they want to be modest, what do they mean? that women who don’t cover themselves are whores? Because that seems to be the implication.
When the excuse for covering is to not tempt men, what does that say about the men, and why should women bear responsibility for men’s weakness?
The issue of the oppression of women is not exclusive of islamic societies, but the detailed codification of the oppression makes it stand out.
@jveeds, excuse me but you seem to have missed the idea of her personal freedoms, of choice and self expression.
Indeed along with Monotheism in general you seem to be objectifying the most important part of the species (think uterus). Not only objectifying but totally absenting them from any conscious choice or control over their own lives.
It appears that some christians also like to dabble in codified misogyny:
His open-crotch panties are too tight,
His brassiere, padded and off-white.
But, who is that lurker
Beneath the black burka?
It’s Mo! – He’s a Muslim transvestite.
DH — The Rambler’s political philosophy appears to be “If I think a law is illogical then that should entitle me to break it, because what I think is so much more important than what everybody else thinks.”
Is this really a philosophy you endorse?
jb asked “Is this really a philosophy you endorse?”
Would you say the same about Rosa Parks?
There’s a difference between civil disobedience, and “laws apply to me only if I agree.” I don’t know anything about any naked rambler, but there is such a thing as too restrictive conventions and laws about covering up … and there is such a thing as exhibitionism, which I’ve seen and wouldn’t defend.
oake — Would you say every social policy you dislike is equivalent to racial discrimination?
Actually, if you are a leftist of some sort you might, since that is the most heavily used argument in their arsenal. “We were right about Civil Rights, and that means we are forever right about everything. Society was wrong, so society must submit to our superior moral judgement. If you disagree, you are a bad person who probably supports racial discrimination.”
The thing is, man is a social animal, and to live together we must make rules. If you dislike a rule you can try to convince your society to change it. If you really, really dislike a rule you can go into open rebellion, but in that case you had better be prepared to accept the consequences. And you had better have support! Rosa Parks did not act on the spur of the moment. She was carefully chosen as a sympathetic victim, and her actions were planned well in advance, as was the media campaign that followed her arrest. And since there were millions of people in America who strongly supported her cause, she acted with some chance of success.
As far as I know, there aren’t millions of Britons who strongly support the Rambler’s right to dangle his bits in front of their eight year old daughters, so his rebellion seems ill considered. Also, does he really believe that being asked to put on some shorts counts as serious oppression? I actually don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with nudity, and I wouldn’t mind if society became more tolerant of it. But the Rambler strikes me as a self-indulgent jackass, and jail seems like the right place for him.
jb – Would you say every social policy you dislike is equivalent to racial discrimination?
No I wouldn’t. But nothing ever changed for the better without people prepared to confront what they saw as injustice, and, yes, accept the consequences of their actions.
Of course this bloke’s protest doesn’t have the social significance of that of Rosa Parks, so we find it easy to condemn him, but we should also remember that many people at the time, possibly a majority, condemned Rosa Parks and her organisation in similar terms. From our current standpoint, it’s easy to see that she was instrumental in righting a serious wrong, but it took a major change in public attitudes for us to reach our current position.
We’ve also managed to get homosexuality decriminalised, but there is still some way to go in changing public attitudes, especially among the religious.
So, no, I don’t actively support the Naked Rambler, nor do I actively oppose him. From what I’ve read, he’s a harmless eccentric who prefers not to wear clothes, and he’s never been charged with any indictable offence, least of all dangling his bits in front of 8 year old girls. And, as far as I can see, he’s not complained about his treatment under the law.
@jb. You immediately suggest that the N.R. is a paedophile because he rambles naked? I don’t have daughters but I suggest that the parents reaction to a naked man in a non sexual setting is more damaging to the daughter than her seeing his penis!
M27Holts — I did not mean to suggest that the Rambler is a pedophile, and in fact it was precisely the parents’ reaction that I was trying to evoke when I wrote that line. It isn’t possible to walk around naked without dangling your bits in front of everybody, including eight year old girls, and many of them will have parents who will be outraged. Now you might think they shouldn’t be, and I might even agree. But they don’t agree, and what they think counts too!
That was my original point. The Rambler lives in a society that includes millions of people who, rightly or wrongly, are offended by nudity and feel that it is in some way a threat to their children. He seems to believe that they think counts less than what he thinks; a jail cell is society’s way of telling him “nope!” If wearing clothes were actually more than a trivial burden I might have some sympathy for him, but as it is I have none.
BTW, if you really want your society to become more accepting of the human body, then importing millions of immigrants from the most repressed countries on Earth might not be ideal. But the people who run Briton are much more concerned with making displays of multicultural virtue than they are with the long term consequences of their policies, so the British people are probably going to have to get used to covering up even more than they do now.
As one of my friends keeps telling the goddites:
“If your your creator would have wanted you to wear clothes, why then made he you born naked?”
It seems to me that the ‘nice t-shirt’ on the right sums it up more succinctly than most others here have.
jveeds – I’d say it’s working out much better for the ladies in “American” society than it is for women from the middle east. While assaults do still occur they are on a distinct decline (despite some radical feminist attempts to expand the definitions to plump up their stats). We are currently at a watershed moment in “American” society where even less severe versions of assault and discrimination are being called out and dealt with.
That’s a far cry from requiring a male chaperone and women being punished more severely than men for adultery or honour killings and finally being allowed to vote in some countries …. and ….gasp …. drive a car!
I would concur that naked rambling seems to be a hippy political stance since I would definitely prefer to have my penis and testicles kept in check to avoid contact with nettles and thistles. And it’s mostly too cold on Britain for nudity outdoors anyway!
Darwin, thanks for drawing my attention to the naked rambler. So he’s spent nine years in prison? Apparently we don’t hand out sentences like that to, oh, I don’t know, multiple rapists these days.
It’s unclear exactly whom the law is trying to protect here. One suspects the answer is “itself”. While its important to not have people be able to cock a snook at the law, his crimes seem to be mostly “contempt of court” when the court is not behaving in a way that invites anything else.
His barrister has suggested charging him with a real crime, like public nuisance, and then seeing if witnesses/a jury of his peers are willing to actually convict him. This seems sensible. Otherwise we have the law making itself look absurd. Like the sort of person who says “I demand respect” in such a way that invites ridicule
Darwin – I’m with you on this, and have added my name to the petition, even if it does seem doomed.
Hey look, more inappropriate nakedness involving children!
🙂 🙂 🙂
I think @jveeds has flounced, but this is relevant to his claim about the effectiveness of women’s cover as protection from harasment in Saudi Arabia
Me Not: not clear what “flounced” means, but your link to the Hajj report is very helpful and informative. I suspect that women in crowded places are always going to be subject to groping, etc, but it’s especially egregious when it takes place in a sacred setting! We even find it in Western society in Christian churches.
David Hartley: I don’t think I have missed the Western concepts of freedom and choice. Now, I know of many Saudi women who believe that wearing the hijab is their freedom and their abaya style is their “expression.” (Though, frankly…and perhaps to your point…I suspect that these women are simply indoctrinated, but doesn’t every culture indoctrinate its people?) My anthropological side tells me not to try to judge a very different culture by one’s own standards of “freedom,” “expression” and “choice.”
jveeds … it’s obvious you’re just making shit up. Provide a source for you assertion that groping happens in crowded Christian churches or stfu.
Jveeds: flouncing means to post in a forum and then dissapearing without engaging with the responses. I was too hasty in judging you on that respect. Sorry.
I agree that harasment in crowds is not exclusive in muslim crowds, despite DCToronto’s protestations, it is an issue in catholic crowds. Though the same as with islam it is brushed off and minimised.
The groping of well covered women, however, belies the assertion that covering protects women from the attention of men who can’t control themselves. What it boils down to is that none of the reasons given to justify the imposition of covering bear scrutiny. So what we are left with is that the only use of covering is as a means of control.
me not … jveeds didn’t say in Christian crowds, he said in crowds within Christian churches. The Christians typically do it in the church basement on-on-one.
If you start at the beginning, this conversation is in the context of the usefulness of the burqa and jveeds contention was that it protects women. An obvious troll with nothing of importance to add to the conversation, he/she should be treated as such. You’ll note that they have not produced a source for their trolling as is typical.
DC Toronto, I saw jveeds first post and the reason I accused him of flouncing was because he failed to address my points in two replies to him.
Regarding the issue of groping in catholic settings, catholic celebrations where large crowds gather are as bad as what is reported from the haj, and the reaction tends to be the same, denial and victim blaming. It is the sort of thing you only hear about in hushed voices.
Me not – source? which was my original question.
there was a program on our cbc radio this morning regarding the issue. I missed the actual interview, but the teaser was that the norms of not touching another mans wife was suspended at the haj for some reason. I will have a listen in the next few days and let you know if it is worth your time.
If that is true, I would say that is not the case for Christian celebrations
DC Toronto, I grew up in a catholic country, my source is my personal observation of my surroundings.
me not – I call BS.
If not, you need to be more specific. What type of celebration was it? How many people were groped? By whom? Where was it reported?
my contention is that it does not occur in a fashion similar to the story that began this thread. You need to provide more evidence than you have to be at all credible.