That wrapped/unwrapped candy metaphor…
How compelling can it be when it applies only to women? If women get all fly-blown and filthy because their heads are naked, why don’t men? If women with fly-blown hair are gross and disgusting, why aren’t men?
Butterflies and Wheels
Gnu atheism, women's rights, internationalism, universalism, and gossip
The image of a woman as a piece of candy is more disgraceful than the image of flies on a piece of candy. At least the piece of candy really IS an item made of sugar, thereby attracting flies. But a woman is flesh and blood, not sugar and preservatives.
And the image of some man unwrapping me as a piece of candy on my wedding night? Yuck.
Good thing the hijab is to prevent women from being a mere consumer product as was claimed in some video…
If you get flies when you’re not wearing your head-scarf, the problem is your grooming habits, or perhaps not wearing meat hair-pieces.
Does this photo endorsing only wrapped candy mean that religious people are now opposed to circumcision?
It seems a strange way for the three Abrahamic faiths to announce a major policy reversal.
Oh I thought this was about using condoms. Nevermind.
This is real objectification. Ugh.
Well I don’t think this is actually anything new, and comes back to the essential difference between men and women.
Combining the body of research on invertebrate behaviour with the older work on the root nature of men and women provides the answer to why one, and only one gender has to cover up.
Flies are drawn to sugar and spice and all things nice (but especially the sugar) but have little interest in slugs and snails and puppy dog tails (except, of course, for the Antarctic Slug Wasp – but that isn’t a really factor in more temperate climates).
Because men are people with sexual desires, and women are objects intended for men for the satisfaction of said desires (among other uses.) If a man is going to pay for one of those objects, he deserves a shiny new well-packaged one. Not an icky used one.
Duh.