"Nude Blogger Riles Egyptians of All Stripes"

robklurfield

robklurfield

eclipse
Local time
3:54 AM
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
7,848
Location
New Jersey, USA
View My Gallery
A headline from this morning's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/w...gypts-nude-blogger-stirs-partisan-waters.html
http://hemi-sphericalaberration.blogspot.com/2011/11/aliaa-magda-elmahdy-egyptian-blogger.htmlAnd, the "offending" blog:
http://arebelsdiary.blogspot.com/

The image in question:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZcYSzyrQo...55409886239_1272456574_32383067_2052744_n.jpg

A photographic composite of someone else's interpretation of the image, also posted on Aliaa's blog. Maybe the most insight and incisive commentary anyone could provide is wordless.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZcYSzyrQo...55409886239_1272456574_32383067_2052744_n.jpg

AND from the artist's blog...
http://makhlouf.tumblr.com/post/12712281565
 
I've never understood the hysteria or fear of the naked body. Under our clothes we all have one. Pretending that we don't is just ridiculous. I think she's a brave girl in a country where unfortunately such bravery can be a double-edged sword.
 
I was disappointed to hear of the reaction of so called secular Egyptians to the photo. All they seem to care about is that it makes them look bad as a movement which is really ridiculous IMO.

I think this is a beautiful photograph and it may become an important one as we look back on the Arab spring.
 
The flaw, of course, lies in "all stripes". No doubt there are plenty of Egyptians who are unoffended. But then, everyone knows that rabid social conservatives and religious fundamentalists are unique to Egypt, and that they and the prurient gutter press wouldn't raise a fuss in (for example) the UK or the USA.

Basically, it's a good editorial excuse to publicize a picture of a fairly attractive young woman with no clothes on. Who, after all, would bother to look at such a thing?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger, the young lady has had lots of traffic to her blog today, so no doubt you are right about publicity. On the other hand, one has to hope that she doesn't end being publicly flogged or stoned to death. To me the import of the story has nothing to do with her appearance and everything to do with repression. And, the Times did not publicize the picture (although, I am guilty of doing so).
 
robklurfield said:
Roger, the young lady has had lots of traffic to her blog today, so no doubt you are right about publicity. On the other hand, one has to hope that she doesn't end being publicly flogged or stoned to death. To me the import of the story has nothing to do with her appearance and everything to do with repression. And, the Times did not publicize the picture (although, I am guilty of doing so).
Click to expand...

Dear Rob,

Sorry, I did not express myself well.

The publicity -- the 'good editorial excuse' -- accruing to the NYT was what I was thinking of. Even without showing the picture, they are selling as much on prurient interest as on women's rights. I completely and utterly agree that repression is the fundamental point, and that she should be absolutely free to post that picture without fear of the consequences.

The point I tried to make (badly) is that there are plenty of people in other countries besides Egypt who would attack her savagely for doing exactly the same thing, be they Near Eastern, European, Far Eastern, American... But I think that perhaps it was an ill-considered point.

My apologies to you and (of course, indirectly) to her,

Cheers,

R.
 
The difference being Roger is that the danger is that unlike Europe, America, East Asia etc., for she could be attacked and it could be justifiable according to the state (less so in Egypt, but let's wait and see who wins the election). In fact I highly doubt that she will get out of this unscathed.
 
Roger,

Don't apologize. No need. And, of course, I did get your facetiousness on "no other countries." As you well know, the US of A has plenty of demented religious fanatics who, while declaiming their support of free speech and the like, try to police thought, speech, etc. 1984-style. Egypt certainly has no monopoly on this kind of behavior.

Rob
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Rob,

Sorry, I did not express myself well.

The publicity -- the 'good editorial excuse' -- accruing to the NYT was what I was thinking of. Even without showing the picture, they are selling as much on prurient interest as on women's rights. I completely and utterly agree that repression is the fundamental point, and that she should be absolutely free to post that picture without fear of the consequences.

The point I tried to make (badly) is that there are plenty of people in other countries besides Egypt who would attack her savagely for doing exactly the same thing, be they Near Eastern, European, Far Eastern, American... But I think that perhaps it was an ill-considered point.

My apologies to you and (of course, indirectly) to her,

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
2.8 million hits to the young lady's blog. I would guess that most of these have come since this story hit the news. Someone ought to help her to monetize that website. Indeed, Roger is right that prurient interests are driving lots of traffic to her site and all those third-party portals. I'm sure that some small percentage of visitors (and reposters) actually have some free speech concerns, but I have no doubt that many visitors just want to see someone naked. I would venture a guess that some of the folks just looking to see some skin are exactly the same people who get all bent out of shape about her posing naked. Funny how Bin Laden's hideout contained a stash of porn. Often those who doth protest too much... etc. Underneath all our clothing (and baggage) we're all programmed somehow with a similar set of urges, desires and curiosities and no matter how hard we try to pretend otherwise, we're all naked under that clothing.
 
robklurfield said:
2.8 million hits to the young lady's blog. I would guess that most of these have come since this story hit the news. Someone ought to help her to monetize that website. Indeed, Roger is right that prurient interests are driving lots of traffic to her site and all those third-party portals. I'm sure that some small percentage of visitors (and reposters) actually have some free speech concerns, but I have no doubt that many visitors just want to see someone naked. I would venture a guess that some of the folks just looking to see some skin are exactly the same people who get all bent out of shape about her posing naked. Funny how Bin Laden's hideout contained a stash of porn. Often those who doth protest too much... etc. Underneath all our clothing (and baggage) we're all programmed somehow with a similar set of urges, desires and curiosities and no matter how hard we try to pretend otherwise, we're all naked under that clothing.
Click to expand...

If I might play devil's advocate, I think the only reason to look at that blog is to see her naked. That's why I looked at it. I think that's kind of the point. Most of the art on there is incredibly crummy, but the idea seems to be that she and her boyfriend think it ought to be okay to want to see people naked, and to be naked, if that's down your street. And this is rather politically brave in her country.

I clicked the Times link to read about free speech in Egypt, but I clicked the blog link to check out the naked woman.
 
swoop said:
I've never understood the fuss over nudity.
Click to expand...

Evolution (hormones, brain function, survival etc.), social taboos (based on laws --some of which are fed on social taboos), moral and religious convictions (which make the laws, based on the society), guilt (see moral and religious convictions), over-protectiveness (based on society and other historical factors), bad people, good people...

Illogical, yes, but not misunderstood. Last time there was a sizable group of people who had no fuss over nudity (or anything dictated by nature) they were attacked by armed groups of people with deep convictions.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Evolution (hormones, brain function, survival etc.), social taboos (based on laws --some of which are fed on social taboos), moral and religious convictions (which make the laws, based on the society), guilt (see moral and religious convictions), over-protectiveness (based on society and other historical factors), bad people, good people...

Illogical, yes, but not misunderstood. Last time there was a sizable group of people who had no fuss over nudity (or anything dictated by nature) they were attacked by armed groups of people with deep convictions.
Click to expand...

Totally, agree but in the RoSF we have fights over these rediculous laws, taboos, hygiene issues.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/san-francisco-bans-naked-dining-amid-hygiene-fears/
 
When it comes to cultures and religions, what is "strange" and what is "backward" and what is "OK" is not really decided or approved by people from other cultures.

Some respect for other cultures must be in place or no decency in treating each other will remain.
Anyways, it is better if people comment on the photo and not on what is right and what is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Brilliant

Brilliant

robklurfield said:
Roger,

Don't apologize. No need. And, of course, I did get your facetiousness on "no other countries." As you well know, the US of A has plenty of demented religious fanatics who, while declaiming their support of free speech and the like, try to police thought, speech, etc. 1984-style. Egypt certainly has no monopoly on this kind of behavior.

Rob
Click to expand...

Absolutely brilliant commentary. Your insightfulness in American culture and religion is amazing. Beers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom