Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Panty Protest: Kazakhstan Women Outraged by Lace Underwear Ban
NBC ^ | 2/17/14 | Alexander Smith

Posted on 02/17/2014 7:02:42 AM PST by workerbee

Women took to the streets wearing panties on their heads Sunday as they protested new laws banning lace underwear in Kazakhstan.

The legislation - which includes provisions covering the required level of moisture absorbtion in the garments - will come into force this summer in Kazakhstan as well as Russia and Belarus, according to the Moscow Times.

This sparked the so-called "Panties for the President" demonstrations in the Kazakh capital, Almaty, on Sunday.

"It irritates me the most that the authorities want to decide what I should wear," Iryna Davydenko, a bank manager who travels regularly between Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine, told Al Arabiya English. "As if all other issues in the country are solved and the only outstanding issue is ladies' panties."

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: irynadavydenko; islamiclaw; kazakhstan; micromanagement; panties; pantiesinawad; russia; sharialaw; ukraine; waronwomen
"Panties for the President"

Bill Clinton approves this protest tactic.

1 posted on 02/17/2014 7:02:42 AM PST by workerbee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: workerbee; Revolting cat!; Slings and Arrows

Lacy Burqas PING

“Women took to the streets wearing panties on their heads Sunday...”


2 posted on 02/17/2014 7:05:12 AM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
Honey ..
If these are your panties ...

What kind of moisture do you girls GENERATE ?

3 posted on 02/17/2014 7:06:14 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
which includes provisions covering the required level of moisture absorbtion in the garments

I guess they don't go much for thongs, then, either...

4 posted on 02/17/2014 7:06:37 AM PST by grobdriver (Where is Wilson Blair when you need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

Why is it Slick Willy comes immediately to mind?


5 posted on 02/17/2014 7:07:31 AM PST by shove_it (long ago Orwell and Rand warned us of Obama’s America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

And the Mohammedan police will inspect women’s undergarments? What a bunch of sick evil twits!! Oh, I forgot, they are followers of Mohammed who was an illiterate, murderous, pedophilic thug.


6 posted on 02/17/2014 7:07:52 AM PST by MIchaelTArchangel (Have a wonderful day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
Lacy Underall
7 posted on 02/17/2014 7:12:02 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee; NYer; zot

Sounds like a campaign that Gov Cuomo, Mayor Wilhelm (aka de Blasio) and Maryland’s Gov O’Malley can adopt for their own ‘nanny state’ diktats to protect the people from making their own choices.


8 posted on 02/17/2014 7:12:13 AM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
Good morning.

I've never seen the Kardashians, but read the title that way, and was initially totally confused.

Kardashian or Kazakhstan, what difference does it make?

I apologize.

5.56mm

9 posted on 02/17/2014 7:17:41 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
Lace underwear does not meet a 6 percent threshold for moisture absorption required by the new law, with the synthetic material reportedly reaching only 3 to 3.6 percent. It will come into force on July 1, the Moscow Times reported.

I apologize in advance for panty ignorance. I am not familiar with some of the intricacies of female undergarments (or females in general for that matter). I read this reason but cannot logically deduce even a ridiculous and illogical bases for such a law (religious or otherwise). They mention a moisture content. This does not compute. Moisture content of what? The panties are too dry? Women are suppose to start with wetter panties? I'm not even sure what I am picturing as "lace panties" is what is banned by the law.

I'm sure I am over thinking this, but pictures would be helpful. I'm trying to tie this into a "human rights" perspective. Is this a farcical obfuscation to institute a faction of Islamic sexism? Is that what this is?

10 posted on 02/17/2014 7:17:49 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

The guy on the right looks like he has already seen them in that underwear.


11 posted on 02/17/2014 7:17:49 AM PST by Mr. K (If you like your constitution, you can keep it...Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Maybe Russian like to diddle themselves at work ?


12 posted on 02/17/2014 7:22:04 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Just cool it, you are in way over your head.


13 posted on 02/17/2014 7:22:05 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

I think this is a soft, prop-up-Hillary piece.

It’s a vague story that links to
a 2012 article about Hildabeast saying Russia
was trying to ‘re-sovietize the region’.

Plus, it’s from NBC.

I wouldn’t give it too much attention or credence.
Just saying.


14 posted on 02/17/2014 7:23:06 AM PST by CaptainPhilFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ditter
Just cool it, you are in way over your head.

That is funny.

15 posted on 02/17/2014 7:24:07 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
The legislation - which includes provisions covering the required level of moisture absorbtion in the garments...

Now that might just give Obama the idea that panties should be regulated and covered under Obamacare just like birth control. It's every woman's right, right!!?? Let's see how many pairs per month would be allowed before a copay? Is there a discount for thongs? This opens up a whole new area to get the women's vote and attack the Republicans for denying women the basic human right to wear panties.

16 posted on 02/17/2014 7:28:47 AM PST by DeFault User
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

:)


17 posted on 02/17/2014 7:29:13 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

“6 percent of what?” is the crucial question here.

I mean volume, not substance.


18 posted on 02/17/2014 7:32:32 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Believe it or not, it’s an issue with wearing some synthetic fibers.


19 posted on 02/17/2014 7:33:09 AM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: grania
Believe it or not, it’s an issue with wearing some synthetic fibers.

Cotton vs. polyester? Silk Vs. Lycra? Paper Vs. Plastic? Is it legal for their woman to "not where panties at all"? How do they calculate the resulting "absorption rate" of that?

20 posted on 02/17/2014 7:38:09 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

In Soviet Kazakhstan, panties line you.


21 posted on 02/17/2014 7:39:27 AM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

I would also guess there are no Victoria’s Secret stores in Kazakhstan.


22 posted on 02/17/2014 7:40:26 AM PST by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Of course, it’s a silly law that takes away individual choice. I’m sure glad the US doesn’t have any of those.


23 posted on 02/17/2014 7:43:08 AM PST by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

I'm outraged for them.

24 posted on 02/17/2014 8:03:04 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
Cotton vs. polyester? Silk Vs. Lycra? Paper Vs. Plastic? Is it legal for their woman to "not where panties at all"? How do they calculate the resulting "absorption rate" of that?

The proposed regulation doesn't ban wearing, it bans selling. No new hygienic certificate for such pants anymore, and selling ungergarments without one is a misdemeanour punished with a fine.

The absorbtion is measured in a lab when a producer/importer provides a sample. The method, I guess, is weighting the sample before and after moisturizing it.

25 posted on 02/17/2014 8:21:48 AM PST by Freelance Warrior (A Russian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
"...legislation - which includes provisions covering the required level of moisture absorption in the garments...."

If Congress can dictate what toilets and light bulbs we can use why not regulate panties as well.

26 posted on 02/17/2014 8:29:28 AM PST by The Great RJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

next thing you know, they will be compothing a patriotic thong about this ithue.


27 posted on 02/17/2014 8:38:32 AM PST by left that other site
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

The scary thing is that if they’re throwing those numbers around, they clearly already have a bureaucracy that is dedicated to running around and measuring moisture inside womens’ panties.


28 posted on 02/17/2014 8:45:48 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I served in that bureaucracy — or at least a spontaneous college chapter — but that was before I met my wife ...


29 posted on 02/17/2014 9:13:56 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Another example of totalitarianism.


30 posted on 02/17/2014 9:16:03 AM PST by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: left that other site

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Please exit the thread in a orderly fashion ...


31 posted on 02/17/2014 9:46:54 AM PST by Tax-chick (The future is not going to take us seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

hee hee Hee.

Thanks! ;-)


32 posted on 02/17/2014 9:59:16 AM PST by left that other site
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Ping.


33 posted on 02/17/2014 10:29:53 AM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

ROFL!


34 posted on 02/17/2014 11:33:35 AM PST by workerbee (The President of the United States is DOMESTIC ENEMY #1!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

35 posted on 02/17/2014 11:37:00 AM PST by workerbee (The President of the United States is DOMESTIC ENEMY #1!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I have noticed a lack of attention to men’s undies...boxers or briefs....question.


36 posted on 02/17/2014 11:49:35 AM PST by Conservative4Ever (waiting for my Magic 8 ball to give me an answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservative4Ever; Revolting cat!
I have noticed a lack of attention to men’s undies...boxers or briefs....question.

Don't ask, don't tell!


37 posted on 02/17/2014 3:20:44 PM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
If Congress can dictate what toilets and light bulbs we can use why not regulate panties as well.

"You made a BINGO!"


38 posted on 02/17/2014 3:23:10 PM PST by a fool in paradise ("Health care is too important to be left to the government.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson