In Saudi Arabia, a high-tech way to flirt

[LuCkY]

An IntereSting way of Communicating or not.

 

-------------------------

In Saudi Arabia, a high-tech way to flirt

Bluetooth gives segregated sexes a way to reach out, discreetly

 

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - The restaurant, like all Riyadh eateries, has taken precautions to prevent its male and female diners from seeing or contacting each other.

 

Circular white walls surround each table in the family section, open only to women alone or women accompanied by close male relatives. Other male diners are on lower floors.

 

Yet despite the barriers, the men and women flirt and exchange phone numbers, photos and kisses.

 

CLicK HeRe

[Jacaylbaro]

kkkkkkkkkkkk , , , , , of course they'll exchange ,,, come on ,, nothing can stop da relationship btw men & women ,,,, things r not by force or so ,,,,,,

 

Markii ay haweenkii u diideeen sowkuwan Ragii isku jeestay maaha

[Som@li]

“I check her Bluetooth ID,†he said. “If it’s cute, then I’m pretty sure she will be pretty.â€

very funny,,so The ID says it all, i reckon the next step for the police to do is infect all phones, bluetooth enabled, with Virus.

[MR ORGILAQE]

Or better still bring out a law of STOP AND SEARCH and anyone caught with a cute text on there will be arrested for attempted Flirting and conspiracy to commit flirting

[-Serenity-]

^LOL. That’s just too funny. I can help but snigger at the name of their ‘morality’ Police – Police for the Promotion of Virtues and Prevention of Vice. What a catchy title eh?

 

KSA’s ultimate quest for the separation of the sexes knows no bounds. I cant even begin to wonder the number of close cousins wedding and how the reshuffling of genes effects the wider society.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by 7 0f Nine:

I cant even begin to wonder the number of close cousins wedding and how the reshuffling of genes effects the wider society.

There are no contemporary studies that indicate cousins have children with significantly higher than normal birth defects. Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age. Second cousins have little, if any increased chance of having children with birth defects, per the book "Clinical Genetics Handbookâ€â€“ courtesy of the March of Dimes. The frequency of cousin marriages in the USA is about 1 in 1,000. The frequency of cousin marriages in Japan is about 4 in 1,000. It is estimated that 20 percent of all couples worldwide are first cousins. It is also estimated that 80 percent of all marriages historically have been between first cousins! The range of consanguinity in Saudi Arabia is between 34 to 80+ percent. A study has been done on birth defects resulting from consanguineous marriages in this country. Read about it

 

Source

[-Serenity-]

Haddad…are you proving my point? Because it looks that way.

 

With 26 million population, 40% of which are 1st cousins (another 40% somewhat close related) … and 5/6% chance of birth defect = significant risk.

 

40% of 26,000,000 = 10,400,000

 

6% of 10,400,000 = 624,000!

 

I would say that’s alarming - from birth defects alone! Half of which can be prevented at least.

 

p.s. All approximations.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by 7 0f Nine:

5/6% chance of birth defect = significant risk.

chance doesn't mean it happens 4-6% of all time. Besides, the 4-6% figure is for first cousins; the birth defect figure for second cousins is comparable or equal to that of non-cousins.

[-Serenity-]

^ 5-6% chance means IT HAPPENS to that much of the population. duh. Stop being tedious now n playing with words.

[Haddad]

Originally posted by 7 0f Nine:

5-6% chance means IT HAPPENS to that much of the population.

It's not 5-6% (I don't know where you got that from); it's 4-6%. You have made a fuzzy calculation by implying only first cousins apply to the 4-6% chance, when all cousins-related marriages in Saudi Arabia aren't based on first cousins.

[-Serenity-]

Have you read your link? Go back and re-read. 39% 1st cousins and upto 80% are related.

 

ok... 4-6%.... happy? :mad:

[Haddad]

Originally posted by 7 0f Nine:

Have you read your link? Go back and re-read. 39% 1st cousins and upto 80% are related.

Have you read your fuzzy calculation? Re-read it:

 

40% of 26,000,000 = 10,400,000 (How many of 40% are first cousins?)

 

6% of 10,400,000 = 624,000! (Why not 4%, 4.5%, 5%, 5.5%?

 

You got here a fuzzy calculation that doesn't compute.

[-Serenity-]

Five primary health care centers were randomly selected from different sectors of the city in addition to the city's only Maternity and Children's Hospital. For inclusion in the study a wife must have at least one pregnancy that terminated in either full term liveborn baby, still birth, or abortion. A total of 1307 ever-married Saudis completed a pre-structured questionnaire during an interview.

The rate of consanguineous marriage was 52.0%

with an average inbreeding coefficient of 0.0312.

First-cousin marriages were the commonest (39.3%) of all matings.

:mad:

 

And my fuzzy math was to give you a more in-ur-face estimate. 4-6% can easily seem like an insignificant number... when it isnt in a large population.

[STOIC]

Hadad, the deleterious effect associated with consanguinity are caused by the expression of a rare recessive genes inherited from a common ancestor.A population where inbreeding is practiced increased level of morbidity and mortality ascribable to the defected gene can be expected more likely than an outbreeding family!.Do you know that alleles rare in larger population can increase in high frequency within an inbreeding communities? because of genetic drift(like first cousin marriage) :confused: .

[Haddad]

Let me put it in layman's term:

 

There are 26,000,000 Saudis. Someone stated:

40% of 26,000,000 = 10,400,000

The someone got it wrong. The link from where the someone made a fuzzy calculation states:

 

The rate of consanguineous marriage was 52.0% with an average inbreeding coefficient of 0.0312. First-cousin marriages were the commonest (39.3%) of all matings.

 

The statement talks about 52.0%. Out of the 52.0%, (39.3%) are First-cousin marriages. The statement clearly doesn't say 40% of 26,000,000.