That is a very nice point, that I did not raise to avoid offending our Saudi friends.

In my country, if you are flirting with a woman and did not want your relation be publicly known, you would be very careful before you took her into your car or took her anywhere, for fear she would be recognized.

In Saudia, with all ladies covered, it is very hard to tell whose wife is in whose car.

 Actually AlphaF....from my experience those who wear full coverings are perfectly recognizable by their friends.  The criteria for recognition is not the same as for uncovered women.  For instance, things you do not normally notice, such as posture, way of movement become greatly magnified.

I had an American  lady friend who background is Chinese and Italian, her husband was British. When she was traveling with him in Afghanistan, dressed in Western garments, many thought she was a gone astray Afghani woman.  She got a Burqa thinking it would solve her problems.  Immediatly people could tell from a great distance that she was a foriegner.  They could hardly restrain their laughter at seeing her walk in it.

No one can be sure of the real identuty of a totally covered woman in somebody´´s car, unless that woman has her name printed on the back of her burka.

That´s an idea - introducing reggies for covered people, this way you may feel a bit like driving. and police would be able to stop you and check if you really are the person you want to pass as

You cant even be sure if the soul in burka is actually a woman...

I can rememeber noticing size 11 shoes under burkas, and wondering...

Look CANLI, I perfectly believe that there are women like you who wear any kind of cover because they

1) believe in the reasons behind it

2) don´t necessarily believe in reasons behind it but just do it because it is an order.

And yes, since anyone should have the right to choose their own clothing there is nothing wrong with it. But let me try to explain what my problem is with burqa. It reduces women to a sexual object and an a-sexual object at the same time:

1) Sexual object: she must hide her physical features (hips, breasts, hair etc) so that men will not be attracted to her. This implies that women are viewed by men simply as sexual objects (whether that sexuality comes from the emotions of the female or the male in that point of view, doesnt really matter. it might well be that they think all women try to seduce men by their bodies on purpose instead of thinking that seeing a little boob gives any man a hard-on)

, because if they were just ´human beings like men´, they wouldn´t need protection. Shortly said: by putting a woman in an hijab, you recognize that any man around her, might see her as something sexual and may act accordingly if she wasn´t hidden away.

2) a-sexual object: the fact that it is only women who need to protect themselves from men, implies that the woman is an a-sexual object. A man doesn´t have to ´protect his body from the female looks´, because only men can feel sexual desire, a woman simply doesn´t.

Can you understand that it is this idea behind burqa that I don´t approve of? And let me make this clear: I am not saying anything about women who willingly wear veiling. As I said, it´s everybody´s own choice. If they wear it because they believe it to be a divine order, so be it, if they wear it because they think every man is a potential (eye)raper and that women don´t feel sexual desire, so be it. Who am I to say something? My reaction is to the idea behind burqa. To put it this way: The fact that I am against religion doesn´t mean that I am againsts believers, not at all. The fact that I think covering yourself is stupidity, doesn´t mean I think women who choose to cover are stupid. I genuinely hope that you understand the difference and also understand the problem of covering that I have addressed above.

B"H

Funny you say that; after 9/11, there was a big hullaballoo regarding the Muslimah bride of a Jewish convert to Islam.  The woman, born Muslim, sported the full regalia, though not herself Afghani, and I believe burqa is a Pukhto word, is it not?  Regardless, police department was sued because they pulled her over for speeding and she had no driver´s license, not because she was driving illegally, but because the Department of Motor Vehicles refused to  issue her i.d. without her removing the veil for security purposes.  She won.  Look, I cover my hair, woman; security goes both ways, right, people?  Suppose G-D-forbid she went missing.  Police ask how may we identify her?  What are we looking for besides a giant black cloak?  How do officers know if the driver is really the authorized driver?  They can´t see her eye colour or hair colour, black makes you look svelte but with it all over, how can the officer read that she is 130 lbs or 230 lbs?

 Obviously you have not heard of the Bluetooth Burqa?

Alameda,

Imagine a very crowded LADIES ONLY NIGHT in an international exhibition held in a huge sports hall in Riyadh. The hall is full of ladies enjoying the fair unmolested,  and their menfolk (all assumed to be sex maniacs, hence not allowed into the hall) are waiting outside to take their ladies home, when they come out.

Please make an intelligent guess how in that crowd and the dark of the night the two parties successfully meet, when ladies eventually do come out.

Anyone else to try his/her luck is welcome too.

 Good question alfie....but an even better one is.....if all those sex maniacs are not allowed in the hall, therefore, not present to ogle at these innocent little women, then why do the women need to cover themselves at all?