What a woman might be wearing is irrelevant. You can sexualize anything, no matter how much you cover up. I’m sure that there are some in Afghanistan who find the burkha alluring, if only because you DON’T know what’s under there, and so your imagination can go wild.

Obviously this councilor lady has a very dim view of men. She seems to think that men can’t control their desires. Well, men (and women) have to – the world is filled with temptations of all kinds. Mercedes Benz, anyone?

IMPORTANT QUESTION: Since Migara refers to the Press Card, may I ask: how many journalists holding the Government Press Card belong to publications that have membership in this ‘Editors’ Guild’? Perhaps this would help clarify things about criteria for recognising journalists!

” Now, there are young boys and priests here and when they see you dressed like this, you give them temptation. And that is not good for you”.

She has missed out a few things I guess and she may have sounded better if she said ” Now, there are young boys, oldmen, young girls, women, third genders and priests, doctors, lawyers engineers and what not here and when they see you, they may get turned on.”

Ok. So what is wrong with turning people on? And what is wrong about getting turned on?

People are sexually attractive and people do get sexually attracted and people do use their sexual attractiveness to their advantage. And yes, some people are more sexually attractive than others and they may be at an advantage. I do not think that the response to such an advantage is to ban sexual attractiveness.

So what was this counseler getting at that made the journalist get so mad at her?

Perhaps she was a nasty old crone who whatever she may have said actually meant something like “Those who tease cockerels get pecked”…

David,
When you say ‘a mild hold’ I think we must be talking about different things. I realise the fundamentalist religious movement in the USA is hugely influencial. However, and here’s the parallel, I don’t think they publicly campaign that entire races should return to where they came from (eg. that the Native Americans are better off in Canada?), that the country belongs to Christians by *devine decree* as written in ancient writings, or publicly demonstrate a political mentality which goes counter to the purpose and ethos of their very existence. To that add the fact that – and something like this will never have happened in SL under the religious political right – the current President of the USA is of African-American origin with a Muslim name … no I don’t think we’re talking of the same thing. The attitude of the religious fundamentalists in the American bible-belt has not fueled a major civil war costing tens of thousands of lives of Americans.

However, I too agree Sri Lanka is a beautiful country with beautiful people, and with beautiful weather. Which is why this is so sad.

(Apologies to Gypsy gain)

Pearl – Well said.

This was an event that I was covering with a television crew as a journalist. I had stated that in the letter. And also that there were priests and nuns – all of whom treated me with the utmost respect – but that it was not in a church.

I am NOT describing my outfit to anyone – that is simply ridiculous and takes away from the whole point of this letter. I have already stated that I was dressed as I always do – for work. That should be enough.

This article was not meant for publishing – it was sent to her first and foremost and if context is lacking, it is because she knows very well what I am talking about. And in the end, that is what matters. When I was asked if this could be published, I provided a few hurried paragraphs of the events that led to the letter and I think that is sufficient.

In the end, this has nothing to do with religion or even feminism – it is simply about the right of a professional to go about his/her business and not be questioned so rudely based on what they were wearing.

But, aren’t we getting just a little carried away by the ‘authenticity of the story’? Isn’t this story an example of bitchiness among women? This is the competitive nature that exists in any society (I expect) and certainly exists in SL society, like it is prevalent in the West. So what Gypsy ‘actually wore’ is a red herring. What kind of function it ‘actualy was’ is an equally red herring. What it is is that narrow minded attitudes exist in SL, they always did. The story gives this forum a vehicle to discuss the topic in a wider sense.

As for the priests/monks – you misunderstand. What I meant was, the priests/monks (may) need to confirm *to themselves* that their resolve/commitment is genuine – or at least one expects that they would. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t – that’s their business. All I’m saying is, this kind of temptation gives them an opportunity to do so, if they wish. If the priests detect a stirring in thier loins then they need to take that into account and reconsider their mission/profession/tactics/results/whatever. Some of them who wear robes for convenience/political reasons/compulsion/wrong reasons may show themselves up (perhaps even literally!) and disqualify themselves from the unchallenged respect they seem to demand. At the moment anyone can become one. A big con in the big land of con. Conflict, conspiracy and incongruance.

Previous comments had asked her what she wore etc.

If you want us to fairly judge your case, YOU MUST STATE YOUR CASE. Why not put this dress on a plastic model and post the picture?

We even had someone (Kalusudda) claiming that wearing tempting clothes is a good way of testing Buddhist priests, and the author seems to agree.
So we see the mindset.
So in effect, the author HAS ADMITTED that she had worn clothes that most main stream people would consider unsuitable, inappropriate dress for a sober event involving religious dignitaries.

In a conservative chruch in New England-Boston area it would not have been a polite lady coming and speaking to the author. Instead an usher would have come and asked her to get out.

Check the dress code for visiting the Vatican, or any church in New England, and note how many movies have been banned by the Vatican for various reasons! I am not a Buddhist or a Sinhalese, but I see that this is all part of the bashing of “Sinhala Buddhists” that the ground-views website community is famous for. It is good to have such a website too, but readers should be aware of the strong bias of its writers, and the possibility that they might make up situations for their own “journalistic” needs.

CheeLanka’s comment does have some relevance to Gypsy’s issue. I remember reading somewhere that the mainstream religious establishment was trying to ban Valentine’s Day, and then to re-schedule a pop concert for religious reasons. So to say that the mainsteam religious voices are not concerned with what a woman wears I don’t think is the case.

Taking up another of your points, though I realise going way off the topic of this thread, every country/tribe/race considers its system of morals to be the best. Even despots and their followers like we saw in Germany in the last century. And it is sheer ignorance to think that universal principles of morality are unique to one’s own religion. It does not matter whether you recite them in Pali, Latin or Spanish. Or whether they are 5 items or 10 items, or indeed consolidated into 1 item. What is more important is not the language it is recited in, whether they know the words in Pali or Latin, or they know what it means … or whether it is recited at all … but whether the people live by it. I personally don’t think any society can claim not to be hypocritical in this regard. In SL it is hypocritical in a big way, though I realise not immediately obvious from within. I do wish these calls for ‘Five Precepts’ or the ‘Ten Commandments’ or the equivalent in ‘The Q’ran’ to be replaced by a call for ‘Universal principles of morality’, because they are the same. To suggest otherwise is just being divisive. And ignorant.

Wow! So under your system we will have no idea what’s going on, for example, in Iran right now? Ed, Citizen Journalism is real and it’s here. YouTube, Twitter and so on. Much of the news items, images/video, come from your ‘unregistered, unauthourised, non-kosher’ people. Are you saying we must apply in triplicate on the appropriate form and wait for approval in six month’s time … before we blog? Did you, before you added your comment? Idiot.

Whether Gypsy qualifies as a journalist has nothing whatever to do with the validity of the issue she raises.

You have misconstrued Gypsy’s comment about her background. I think she needed to mention it in order to eliminate any suggestion that her general behaviour or manner might have been at fault – the training she received removes that possibility. I think we needed to know that if we are to get a better picture of the situation we was describing.

Gypsy is NOT saying that a person who did not go to such a school has no sense of decency.

To Gypsy,
Surely, this must happen a lot in Sri Lanka, particularly under the ‘regime’ that CheeLanka alludes to?

Anyway, what’s wrong with turning on young men and priests? I was a young man once and these fleeting thrills were very welcome indeed As for priests, isn’t it exactly what they need, to test their resistence to temptation, their commitment to god’s work? If they are tempted then they are in the wrong business, no?