Leave a comment

Comments 26

joygibat March 18 2010, 21:31:07 UTC
Excellent point. You are most correct.
Thank you for your essay.
Best wishes.

Reply


dsummzzz March 18 2010, 21:52:57 UTC
I'm all for letting anyone who wants to run around nekkid.
Well, some people shouldn't be nekkid but that's a fashion statement rather than a moral statement.

From there, Dubai is only after the money. They have to let westerners do their thing in order o make money.
If they could enforce their laws and make money, you can bet the would.

Reply

qatar March 18 2010, 22:22:47 UTC
Certainly Dubai has an economic interest in attracting Westerners. The US has traditionally had economic interests in attracting immigrants, too, though; I don't know that you can argue that we became a pro-immigrant country because we just decided it was the Right Thing to Do.

Also, your argument is less true for Qatar. They really don't need to impress Westerners; they can be the richest people in the world just by selling us their natural gas. So they do have a choice about how much to protect their traditional culture, and they STILL choose to let me wear a bikini.

Reply

dsummzzz March 18 2010, 22:36:43 UTC
Well, yes. But my thought is that they need to show everyone how progressive they can be in order to make that sale.
I could be totally wrong, but that's my gut.

Reply

How so? shmuelisms March 18 2010, 23:04:53 UTC
How do you figure that? Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are considerably less progressive than either Dubai or Qatar, and they STILL have the world in their palm. Oil - you can't really get it anywhere else, so they don't really care about "being nice".

qatar, I think your point is very valid one. Another more private example is that a Muslim with multiple wives, can't really immigrate to the USA, at least not and keep their legally created family together. And this isn't even really an in-your-face "public" issue

Reply


anonymous March 19 2010, 02:16:29 UTC
On the other hand, I'd have no problem accepting the Sentinelese actions in public, although I'd rather they don't harpoon me.

Reply

rmitz March 19 2010, 02:17:03 UTC
oops, that was me.

Reply


gustavolacerda March 19 2010, 08:37:08 UTC
Interesting comparisons.

But if this couple goes to jail for a month for kissing in public in Dubai, that's no comparison. I don't think that people caught having sex in public in the USA would spend more than a week in jail.

Reply

syd___ March 19 2010, 19:51:48 UTC
actually, depending on the state in the US, they could possibly end up permanently on a sex-offender registry

Reply


anonymous March 19 2010, 14:27:00 UTC
Maybe the things you think are culturally impermissible in Qatar and Dubai are not so bad after all. How many Qataris secretly drink and look at internet porn? Perhaps what you currently think is forbidden is in reality far less forbidden than you have heretofore conceived it to be. What I'm trying to say is, your Dubai example sucks. :)

There are many ways to permit cultural diversity. Speech. Religion. Alcohol. Education. Clothing. The list goes on. In some categories, America wins, and in others it doesn't. But what really doesn't win are claims like: "What would the US have to do to show similar levels of tolerance? We'd definitely have to let those Sentinelese people run around naked, and possibly have public sex."

-Marshall Matherz-

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

anonymous March 20 2010, 09:13:42 UTC
You've just shown exactly what I wanted to show -- some things are widely practiced privately, and everyone knows it, and they are forbidden in public. To call such things culturally forbidden is nonsensical.

Because Dubai and Qatar endorse secret private boozing, doesn't that actually mean public foreigner boozing is a rather trivial thing? I think it does! Quit wasting my time.

Marshall Matherz

Reply

qatar March 20 2010, 09:20:59 UTC
I think saying it's "rather trivial" shows a lack of understanding of the importance of the private/public divide, particularly in this culture, but really everywhere.

Or do you think it would be "a rather trivial thing" in the US if someone started masturbating in public? After all, that's widely practiced privately.

The issue here is that the "forbidden" action is doing these things IN PUBLIC, not doing these things at all.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up