Woman Fired From Christian Preschool Teaching Job For Having Porn Side Job

Woman Fired From Christian Preschool Teaching Job For Having Porn Side Job

Well. This is interesting for a few reasons, one of which is, the Christian school that fired her states that pornography is a form of fornication, but a preacher who writes sermon material for other preachers (Link): said that porn is NOT a form of fornication and so is supposedly not biblical grounds for divorce. LOL.

The woman in this story sounds as though she has a Geranium in her Cranium. I also feel rather sad about people who reduce sex to just a physical act devoid of any deeper meaning than finding it pleasurable. Women like this are objectifying themselves – sad.

(Link):   My side gig as a ‘slutty porn babe’ cost me my teaching job by Amanda Woods

June 2017

A Christian preschool teacher has been booted from her job — because of her X-rated side job as a porn star.

Nina Skye, who taught at an unidentified school in California, (Link): told Fox 11 in Los Angeles that school leaders fired her because her sex-work gig conflicts with their moral code.

Continue reading “Woman Fired From Christian Preschool Teaching Job For Having Porn Side Job”

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”

August 24, 2016 update: I added a new link at the bottom of this post: people continue to attack the idea of sexual purity by publicizing backlash against the Harris IKDG book.


I myself have never read the IKDB book, which was written by Harris. I have read about the book on other sites in the past, and it is my understanding the book discussed how to date, and other such topics, and is not strictly about sex or virginity.

The author uses this review of the IKDG book to bash “purity culture,” and in so doing, touches on the topic or staying chaste until marriage.

I am in the middle of this debate. I cannot completely agree with all the critics of “purity culture,” depending on what they are criticizing about it and why.

I believe that the Bible teaches both male and females are to sexually abstain until marriage, so I don’t believe in tossing out this teaching all because some young women feel they have been hurt or oppressed by it.

On the other hand, how some Christians have taught about sexual purity has been lop-sided – males are typically not addressed, only females – and Christians could do a better, or more sensitive job, in how they present the concept of remaining a virgin until marriage.

With that introduction, here is the link, with some excerpts (and note, I am not in complete agreement with all views in this piece; however, I’m not a supporter of a lot of Christian dating advice. Christian dating advice tends to act as an obstacle to singles who want to someday marry):

(Link): “‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ told me to stay pure until marriage. I still have a stain on my heart

Excerpts:

July 27, 2016

In 1997, Joshua Harris published “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” a book that was in part a warning about the harm that relationships before marriage could cause. Harris evoked images of men at the altar bringing all their past partners with them into the marriage to reinforce the point that love and sex before marriage took pieces of your heart and made you less.

At the time, Harris was just 21, but he was already a rising star.

…He [Harris] was what we, as young evangelicals, wanted to be. And so we strove passionately to attain the ideal of premarital purity he laid out for us. Now, almost 20 years later, even Harris appears to be questioning whether his advice did more harm than good.

…But Harris’s book was hugely influential.

…On the surface, I am a purity-culture success story: I am a heterosexual woman, a virgin until marriage, now with two small children and a husband I deeply love. We attend church. We believe in God. And yet, for me, the legacy of purity culture is not one of freedom but one of fear.

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.

The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.

Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.

Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.

gbLogo
Ghostbusters Logo

At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.

This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.

I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)

I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.

I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.

As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.

I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.

I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.

I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.

The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.

And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.

The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.

What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.

Continue reading “WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This”

Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley

Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley

If you are not already aware, Steve Harvey, whom this author discusses, is a Christian. He is sometimes a guest speaker on Christian network TBN.

(Link): Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ (page 1) (Link to Page 2) by D. L. D’Oyley

Excerpts:

  • Feb 2016
  • She Matters: If they’re men who hold shoddy views about sex and women, it follows that their advice to women will also be shoddy.
  • …It’s a common theme among men, including many so-called relationship experts. And that’s a huge problem.
  • It should be obvious why that’s an issue, but in case it isn’t: You have men who hold screwed-up views about sex and women telling women how to be better women to land a man.
  • If the perspective with which they view women is shoddy, then it follows that their advice to women will also be shoddy.

Continue reading “Women, Stop Listening to Sexist Relationship ‘Experts’ by D. L. D’Oyley”

Will The Left Turn On Sexual Freedom? by D. Linker

Will The Left Turn On Sexual Freedom? by D. Linker

(Link): Will The Left Turn On Sexual Freedom? by D. Linker

Excerpts

  • But more interesting is the question of whether criticism of economic libertarianism will be broadened to encompass the (Link): moral libertarianism that both underlies it and inspires the parallel drive toward the liberation of sexuality from moral judgment.
  • Understood in this wider sense, we’ve been living through an extended libertarian moment since the early 1960s.
  • Moral libertarianism presumes that no authority — political, legal, or religious — is competent to pronounce judgment on an individual’s decisions, provided that they don’t negatively effect other people. Thanks to this assumption, a grand edifice of inherited moral and legal strictures on sexuality have crumbled over the past half century, leaving individuals free to live and love as they wish, as long as everyone involved gives their consent.

Continue reading “Will The Left Turn On Sexual Freedom? by D. Linker”

Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards

Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards

This politician, Hastert, is now in his 70s and is in poor health. Some of his victims have stepped forward to say he sexually assaulted them when they were kids.

I’ve seen several articles say that he was a “family values” type of Republican.

Below is a report about it – probably by a left winger. I am right wing, but in the last few years, I’ve had some changing feelings about the Republican Party, conservative Christians, and how much they push this “family values” rhetoric.

This author does spend part of her report taking Bill Clinton to task for taking advantage of Lewinsky.

I will be placing more articles about this story below this first link and excerpt.

I’m not terribly fond of how so many right-wing “Family Values” spokespersons and figure heads later turn out to be hypocrites.

On the other hand, I’m not a supporter of the left wing – many of them not only participate in sexually immoral activity or champion sexual hedonism, but they have few to no sexual standards in the first place. And they don’t want any.

Maybe there is something positive to be said in having sexual standards in the first place, even if it means a person (or group of persons) who claim to believe in them occasionally violates them.

Continue reading “Family Values Republican Politician Hastert in Trouble for Sexual Assault of Kids / On Liberals and Not Having Sexual Standards”

Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Relationship Lasting Guarantee Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Guarantee for a Lasting Relationship – Contra Comic Chelsea Handler

The following blog post contains strong profanity in places and some frank sexual talk.
—————————————–
Not that I object to this editorial per se, but it’s being carried by the same site (a pro-life site) that (Link): usually denigrates female virginity – because they put too high a premium on people pro-creating, and if a woman is remaining chaste, she is, in their opinion, in sin, or error or some sort, for not having sex and making babies, because supposedly, a woman’s only purpose in life is to make babies (even though the Bible no where teaches this concept).

But here is a guest editorial they are featuring where the author is defending a person’s right to sexually abstain, and it’ okay.

(Link): Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin

Excerpts:

  • by C. Martin
  • Our society is obsessed with talking about sex, regardless if you’re having it or not. Take for instance the recent March (Link): cover of People magazine, which featured the title, “Bachelor’s Sean & Catherine, Waiting for Our Wedding night.”
  • To make things a bit clearer, they added below the title, “No sex until ‘I do.’” The cover may intrigue those who scratch their heads, wondering in earnest why anyone would (gasp) wait to have sex.

Continue reading “Virginity is a Sacred Choice, Not a Shameful Status by C. Martin / Giving Sex to a Man is Not A Relationship Lasting Guarantee Contra Comic Chelsea Handler”

How My Wild Sex Drive Killed My Marriage – review by L. Crocker of book by R. Rinaldi

How My Wild Sex Drive Killed My Marriage – review by L. Crocker of book by R. Rinaldi

I’ve read an article about this woman’s book (“The Wild Oats Project”) before. I may have blogged on it a few months ago.

Her story makes me want to barf. She made a mockery out of her first marriage.

One problem or area of weakness I have seen with Christian teachings on sexual purity (in which I include virginity and celibacy) is that if or when Christians bother to defend or promote sexual purity anymore (they seldom do these days), is that they tend to emphasize it only for singles who are teen-agers to about their mid-20s in age.

Anyone past age 25 or 30 who is sexually abstaining is ignored by Christians in regards to sexual purity encouragement or teaching.

Married couples are usually ignored in Christian sexual purity teachings as well, although every other testimony I see on Christian blogs and television is about married couples who are porn addicts, or one partner is cheating on the other with other sexual partners.

Note in the story below that sexual behavior has consequences. It can sometimes end in negative ramifications for yourself and/or your partner.

At one point, this review says that Rinaldi goes on about how much she enjoys penises and finds them beautiful, and that she enjoys sticking them in her mouth. Warning here for any men reading: the vast majority of women do not like penises or find them beautiful.

Rather, most women think penises look horrible or ridiculous, and most do not want to perform oral sex on men.

Most women don’t enjoy looking at penises and do not enjoy (Link, off site: Should You Send A Lady A Dick Pic) getting “dick pics” on dating sites, or anywhere else.

Christians – if bothering to support virginity at all these days – will tell singles that if they wait until marriage to have sex, the wait will be worth it, because the sex will be (this is their favorite phrase in this area of discussion) “mind blowing,” and it is implied by these Christians that married sex will be regular and frequent.

What this book shows that I am blogging about here is that after several years, plenty of married couples find their sex lives to be hum-drum, routine, and boring, not “mind blowing.”

Some of these spouses are fine with routine, boring sex, but the other partner in the relationship may get bored and tired of it. That is why some of them seek out affairs or weird, kinky sex moves with each other.

One of the few positive things I can say about the revolting information and story in this review about this book is that it lays to rest some secular and Christian stereotypes about female sexuality.

Here is a long excerpt from the review:

(Link): How My Wild Sex Drive Killed My Marriage – Review by L. Crocker

  • Robin Rinaldi wanted to spice up her marriage by having sex with other people—which ended up bringing a lot of heartbreak, and destroying her relationship.
  • Forty pages into her new memoir, The Wild Oats Project, Robin Rinaldi has mined every modern female anxiety: fear of being alone; boredom in monogamy; a ticking biological clock; a husband who doesn’t want children; a marriage devoid of passion.

    Rinaldi loves her husband, Scott, and has been with him for 17 years. He never wanted children, and when Rinaldi begs him to reconsider, he responds by getting a vasectomy.

    With no hope of having a family and desperate to feel passion that had long ago flickered out in her relationship, Rinaldi—then 44—negotiates an open marriage that permits both to see other people for a year.

    They jokingly refer to it as the “Wild Oats project.” She lays out ground rules—“no serious involvements, no unsafe sex, no sleeping with mutual friends”—and proceeds to break them all within a few months.

    … She advertises for hookups on Craigslist and Nerve.com (Tinder didn’t exist yet) and sleeps with men half her age…

    … Rinaldi’s husband is, for the most part, a saint. He frequently entreats her to quit the project and work on their marriage. He is patient and loving when she refuses, and reneges on his threats to leave her when she collapses in tears at his feet.

    Continue reading “How My Wild Sex Drive Killed My Marriage – review by L. Crocker of book by R. Rinaldi”

Sex, God, and a Generation That Can’t Tell the Difference – Millennials Are the “Judge the Prude” Generation on Sexual Morality (from the Millennial Evangelical blog)

Sex, God, and a Generation That Can’t Tell the Difference –  Millennials Are the “Judge the Prude” Generation on Sexual Morality (from the Millennial Evangelical blog)

This editorial is aimed primarily at Millennials, or is primarily about them, but as someone who is Gen X, I can tell you that the attitudes towards sex that this article attributes to Millennials also holds true for individuals who are older than the Millennials.

I, too, have noticed that our culture disdains judging any and all forms of sexual behavior except for virginity (or celibacy): both right wingers and left wingers, and many Christians and most Non-Christians, are very disparaging and disrespectful towards the concepts of virginity, and towards adult virgins themselves.

Virginity (and celibacy) is shamed, ridiculed, and mocked in our culture by just about every one in every age group, regardless of political affiliation or religious beliefs.

I do not see an author’s name on this page, but it comes from the Millennial Evangelical blog. (Edit. There is someone named Chris Martin listed at the bottom of the page; I assume he is the author?)

(Link): Sex, God, and a Generation That Can’t Tell the Difference –  Millennials Are the “Judge the Prude” Generation on Sexual Morality by Chris Martin (?)

Excerpts:

  • ….The only thing Millennials are black-and-white on when it comes to matters of sexual morality is that you aren’t allowed to be black-and-white on sexual morality.
  • Before, it was stigma to sleep with someone before marriage or with a partner outside of your marriage. Today, college students are shamed as cowards and prudes for retaining their virginity on campuses across the country.
  • Before, you kept your sexual activity quiet for fear of shame; today, you keep your sexual inactivity quiet for the same reason.

Continue reading “Sex, God, and a Generation That Can’t Tell the Difference – Millennials Are the “Judge the Prude” Generation on Sexual Morality (from the Millennial Evangelical blog)”

Hollywood Plays Around With Virginity by B Bozell

Hollywood Plays Around With Virginity by B Bozell

(Link): Hollywood Plays Around With Virginity

    Back in the 1950s, C.S. Lewis saw chastity as under attack with “all the contemporary propaganda for lust that makes people “feel that the desires we are resisting are so ‘natural,’ so ‘healthy,’ and so reasonable, that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them.”

    You can now safely delete the word “almost.”

    Today virginity isn’t a virtue but a burden. Chastity is a freak show and anyone who chooses to keep it is a carnival barker.

    Continue reading “Hollywood Plays Around With Virginity by B Bozell”

‘Old Fashioned’: Your Christian-Friendly, Kink-Free Alternative to ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’

‘Old Fashioned’: Your Christian-Friendly, Kink-Free Alternative to ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’

Yeah. And so many conservative Christians (and goodness knows the more liberal ones) insist that Christians are obsessed with virginity or make virginity an idol? No, no they don’t – the church is obsessed with SEX. Another piece of evidence:

(Link): Make Chaste: How the Faith-Based Counterpart to 50 Shades of Grey Came to Be

As a chaste single, who was totally Christian until about a year ago, I have little to no interest in seeing this movie. And I’m the target demo, supposedly (unless they are aiming only for 20 year old virgins and nobody over age 30?)

More links about the film:

(Link): New film “Old Fashioned” is 50 Shades of Grey for Christians, claims its creator

    Rik Swartzwelder says the movie – which will be released simultaneously with its rival – is more spiritual than sexual – a love story without BDSM

(Link): Faith Based Romance “Old Fashioned” Battles 50 Shades of Grey on Valentine’s Day

(Link): ‘Fifty Shades’ to be Challenged by Faith-Based Romance

(Link): Old Fashioned: 50 Shades of Grey without BDSM

(Link): ‘Old Fashioned’: Your Christian-Friendly, Kink-Free Alternative to ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’

Excerpt:

    If the (very tame) trailer for Fifty Shades of Grey made you clutch your pearls in horror, there’s a movie for you: Old Fashioned, a Christian romance opening against the bondage flick.

    Did you watch the new trailer for Fifty Shades of Grey and immediately think to yourself, “That looks okay, I guess, but instead of a parade of seductive stares, bondage, and Beyoncé, I’d much rather go see a chaste, Christian-friendly love story on Valentine’s Day next year?”

    If that was somehow you, your prayers have been answered.
    Variety reports that Freestyle Releasing, which distributed the successful anti-atheism, Duck-Dynasty-stars-featuring film God’s Not Dead, is serving up a Christian-friendly alternative to the kink and glamour of the Fifty Shades of Grey film adaptation.

    The indie flick—titled Old Fashioned — is also set for release on Valentine’s Day 2015, and follows the romance between a reformed frat bro and free-spirited lady.

    Freestyle co-president Mark Borde says the film specifically targets the “underserved” Christian-singles community. “Chivalry makes a comeback,” reads the film’s tagline.

    “I wanted to tell a love story that takes the idea of godly romance seriously,” Rik Swartzwelder, writer, director, and star, told Variety.

———————–
Related posts:

(Link): Goodbye to romance: Are rom-coms worse than porn? (How Hollywood Feeds Into People’s Tendency to Idolize Marriage and Turn a Spouse Into a Deity)

(Link): Sex, movies and the desperate attempt to shock audiences. (Hint: it’s not working.) by A. Hornaday

(Link): Virgin Shaming: Hollywood’s Attack on Purity (by B. Bowen)

(Link): Christian Hollywood Rorschach – seeing Jesus in every single show, movie, or fictional character

(Link): Movie About Female Virginity – The To Do List – released July or August 2013

Nick Jonas Losing Christian Image as ‘Racy’ Music Video Set to Release

Nick Jonas Losing Christian Image as ‘Racy’ Music Video Set to Release

Didn’t we just go through this about six months ago with Hannah Montana? (See link at bottom of this post under “Related Posts” for more on that.)

In the future, if we get anymore teen or 20 something pop singers, I hope music journalists ask them,

    “Look, you are only 14 years old now, you have a wholesome image, and you claim to be a virgin and sexually pure now…
    Is this just an act? Five or six years from now, can we expect you, like 99% of teen singers before you, to say all the “sexually pure” stuff was a put-on, that you found it restrictive and you were really just dying to pose half nude for magazines and grab your crotch in music videos?”

Because this crap seems pretty par the course now.

Why, why, does our culture – or kids in the culture – equate being sexy, or having sex, with full-fledged adulthood? (And… See link at bottom of this post under “Related Posts” for more on that.)

More accurate barometers of adulthood:

    -Having a tedious 9 to 5 office job with an incompetent boss and annoying co-workers and not hanging yourself or losing your sanity from it

    -(if you have your own home) paying a mortgage

    -realizing some of your dreams and goals, held since childhood, may never come to pass -and learning how to cope with that

    -learning to accept yourself, flaws and all, and not to care so much what other people think about you

If you’re over 40, you can probably come up with a few more things to add to that list.

I am going to guess (and I may be wrong, I’m just guessing based on this news story below), that the upcoming Jonas music video will include scantily clad females with really big, silicon-enhanced boobs (ie, standard video vixens), dancing around this Jonas guy, and him looking all “come hither” into the camera and possibly grinding on the next- to- nude models?

Being “skanky sleazy = adult” to this Jonas guy and to a lot of these Miley Cyrus types, sadly (see the article below for more on that).

Conversely, these guys think
being civilized, having standards, being respectable = “in chains, repressed,” etc.

I would like to inform folks who think like Jonas does that tarting yourself up and being overly sexual in music videos is not going to make you happy or bring you instant maturity.

Movie actress Marilyn Monroe, who died in 1962 and is still widely regarded as the world’s utmost sex symbol, grew to detest being known only, or primarily, as a sex kitten.

Monroe wanted to be taken seriously; it’s a theme that came up every so often in her interviews. She took acting classes at the prestigious Actor’s Studio at one point, in a bid to be taken seriously by everyone.

After years of making films in Hollywood, Monroe moved to New York and started her own production company to get out of the dumb and sexy roles Hollywood studio executives kept forcing her into. Her production company allowed her to take on slightly deeper, or more varied, movie roles.

Another funny observation here of how being skanky, sleazy, and sexy – or having a sexy public persona – won’t bring you the gravitas and “grown up” image you think it will:

If you paid attention to pop culture back in the 1980s (or, if you weren’t even born yet, pay attention and learn something), you may recall that George Michael, who was once the lead singer of the Brit pop duo “Wham!” and who later became a solo act – was so tired of being thought a dirty sexy sex symbol poster boy, he released the song “FREEDOM,” which included the lyrics expressing his desire to be taken seriously and his despair of being thought nothing but a pretty, sexy face:

    [FREEDOM LYRICS – GEORGE MICHAEL]

    Heaven knows I was just a young boy
    Didn’t know what I wanted to be
    I was every little hungry schoolgirls pride and joy
    And I guess it was enough for me
    To win the race? a prettier face
    Brand new clothes and a big fat place
    On your rock and roll TV
    But today the way I play the game is not the same
    No way
    Think I’m gonna get me some happy

    I think there’s something you should know
    I think it’s time I told you so
    There’s something deep inside of me
    There’s someone else I’ve got to be
    Take back your picture in a frame
    Take back your singing in the rain
    I just hope you understand
    Sometimes the clothes do not make the man

    … Well it looks like the road to heaven
    But it feels like the road to hell
    When I knew which side my bread was buttered
    I took the knife as well
    Posing for another picture
    Everybody’s got to sell
    But when you shake your ass
    They notice fast
    And some mistakes were build to last

Yeah, see, that whole pop song was an expression of how empty it was to be a public sex symbol.

And in the 1980s, George Michael was pretty popular, especially with the young teen ladies (this was years and years before his homosexuality became public).

Yet, these teeny bopper, or young 20 somethings of today, think if they show some skin, sleep around, that this will make them feel or look like an adult. It won’t. They should learn from people such as Marilyn Monroe and George Michael who went down that road and found out it’s unsatisfying.

By the way, I’m tired of the Virgin Shaming and Celibacy Shaming inherent in such moves by these entertainers.

These pop singers, who are now about 25, are basically saying they resented once having stood for sexual purity. After marketing themselves as sexually wholesome stage acts when they are 13 or 16 years old, they turn around when they are 23 or 24, when they are about to drop a new album or video, and say how much they actually despised the virginity shtick in their younger days – well thanks so much, pal!

(Link): Nick Jonas Losing Christian Image as ‘Racy’ Music Video Set to Release

    Nick Jonas, the youngest sibling of former pop band The Jonas Brothers, is set to release a new solo music video and sources say it might destroy his Christian image.

    The Jonas Brothers dissolved in Oct. 2013 as the brothers decided to go their separate ways in the professional world. Now the youngest brother is preparing to release a single of his own called “Chains.”

    According to Breathecast.com, the new music video is going to express his dissatisfaction with the years spent as the wholesome “character” of Nick Jonas.

    A source told the New York Post that Jonas “has emancipated himself from the squeaky-clean shackles of former purity ring-wearing boy band The Jonas Brothers.”

    “Nick has spent years experiencing a burden that’s hard to explain. He feels free now for the first time in his life. He’s making music he believes in. He’s done saying sorry for everything and trying to be perfect. He’s just going to be himself. If people like him, great. If not, he’s done giving a [expletive].”

    The Jonas brothers were previously known for their Christian upbringing; the group wore purity rings and spoke openly about their decisions to wait until marriage to have sex, but discarded the rings later on.

    An official release date for the music video has yet to be set.

I haven’t watched the video preview yet, which seems to be mentioned here:
(Link): Exclusive: We’ve Got Your First Look At Nick Jonas’ ‘Chains’ Music Video

(Link): Nick Jonas Disses The Jonas Brothers In New Single ‘Chains’

Freedom, by George Michael:

———————
Related posts:

(Link): On Miley Cyrus Being Sexual at 2013 VMAs – Hypocrisy of Secular Feminists

(Link): A Grown-Up, Not Sexed-Up, View of Womanhood (article) – how Christian teachings on gender and singlehood contribute to raunch culture and fornication etc

(Link): Salvation By Marriage Alone – The Over Emphasis Upon Marriage by Conservative Christians Evangelicals Southern Baptists

(Link): No Christians and Churches Do Not Idolize Virginity and Sexual Purity – Christians Attack and Criticize Virginity Sexual Purity Celibacy / Virginity Sexual Purity Not An Idol

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin

(Before I get to the link proper, here is a long introduction by me.)

I agree with this guy’s editorial (linked to farther below). I’ve written of this phenomenon before on my own blog, going back a year or maybe as long as three years ago (see links at the bottom of this post under the “Related Posts” section).

I do not like legalistic jerks. I don’t think Christians should be rude, mean, hateful jerks to other people, even when condemning certain behaviors as being sinful.

However. HOWEVER.

I can’t say as though I’m a whole-scale supporter of legalism’s opposite characteristics, either – which amounts to extreme leniency and “watering down of standards” in the name of Love and Tolerance.

I have seen some Christians so very afraid of hurting the feelings of Non-Christians (or even that of fellow Christians) who are in sin, or in confronting Christians who are openly supportive of behaviors the Bible condemns, they tip toe around the sin in question to an absurd degree – where they end up practically supporting, condoning, or excusing said sin (whatever it may be).

These Christians are hyper-sensitive to other people’s feelings, and it is a huge annoyance to me.

This tendency to treat other people’s feelings with kid gloves has gotten so bad in Christendom (particularly in regards to sexual sin), that some preachers have admitted they are afraid to speak out against sin in public, in their blogs, TV shows, books, or from the pulpit.

It’s also very common among Christian lay persons, or by ex-Christians or liberal Christians, who confuse God’s propensity to love and forgive with the notion that God (and Jesus Christ) are hunky-dory with behavior the Bible thoroughly condemns, such as hetero pre-marital sex or homosexual sex acts, for example.

(Transgenderism is a sexual state which has become the new liberal Christian, moderate Christian, Theology of Hurt Feelings Christian, ex-Christian, and left wing secular Sacred Cow that you may not criticize at all.)

It’s also intriguing to me that on the spiritual abuse blogs I have visited, whose owners and members champion the downtrodden (i.e., adults who have been mistreated by churches, or victims of sexual abuse whose abuse was swept under the rug by their fellow church members), have forum or blog participants, who will, on one hand, quite understandably call for the heads of such abusive church members on a platter, rightly call out Christians as being naive fools about abuse in churches, but – many of these same people are also very dismissive of, or blind to, abuses by Muslim militants and homosexual militants.

They are very naive of abuses by Muslims and homosexuals. They seem to have a huge blind spot in those areas.

How they can so easily spot and repudiate Christian and church bungling of spiritual and child sexual abuse, or of preachers who exploit their church members, but fail to recognize the dangers of Muslim and homosexual militancy in American society and other regions of the world, I will never understand.

The blindness and naive nature by folks on those sorts of forums and blogs also extends to Roman Catholicism.

I have had a few Roman Catholic friends in the past, and they are fine people, but their church? No.

The Roman Catholic Church used to burn people at the stake, but one Roman Catholic individual recently thanked a (Protestant) blogger for bringing to everyone’s attention the anti-Roman Catholic commentary expressed by yet another blog (a Protestant one which was critical of perceived sinful RC behavior).

I mean, really? Some Protestant writing a critical comment about Roman Catholic behavior in general on a blog is thought somehow worse than the Roman Catholic Church in years past doing things such as:

-Covering up priest sexual abuse of children, or….

-Burning people to death for refusing to convert to Roman Catholicism, or for (Link to Wiki page): translating the Bible into English, or….

-The same Roman Catholic Church that historically has held the position that the Gospel (which includes sola fide) is anathema (to be damned)?

        (Off site link for more on that:

      Roman Catholic Church condemns the Gospel itself

          )

        Seriously?

        But you can’t easily point these issues of the Roman Catholic Church out at some forums or blogs – the ones who are into The Theology of Hurt Feelings – as it might offend a Roman Catholic somewhere.

        The Roman Catholic Church historically persecuted a lot of people (see again: burning people to death at the stake for things like not converting to Catholicism), but criticism on the internet of their church is considered by some of them to be the height of persecution against Roman Catholics.

        At any rate, I agree with the gentlemen quoted below.

        There is most certainly a Theology of Hurt Feelings, where-in some Christians are so incredibly concerned with not offending various classes of sinners (e.g., hetero fornicators or active homosexuals), they think Christians speaking out publicly (on blogs, radio shows, in church services, etc) is “unloving” and therefore Christ would object to it.

        The mind boggles at this. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for hetero fornication and homosexual sex acts, among other sins of humanity. But these “lovey dovey” types want other Christians to pipe down about all this and act as though God is totaly fine with, and accepting of, all manner of sin.

        The Bible presents a God who is not only loving, forgiving, and gracious, but also one who is Holy, just, and who does not tolerate sin, he does not like sin, and he won’t put up with sin indefinitely. God is not fine and dandy with sin. And the Bible does in fact call out hetero pre-marital sex, and all homosexual sex acts, as sin.

        I suspect that this well-meaning, yet wrong-headed, tendency to want to be Very Loving, Very Accepting, and To Spare People’s Feelings, is partially responsible for what gave rise several years ago to the ridiculous, non-sensical, un-Biblical habit of referring to fornicators as “Born Again Virgins,” “Spiritual Virgins,” and similar monikers (see links below, this post, for more about that).

        (Link): Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities

        Excerpts.

            BY ALEX MURASHKO , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER 
            July 25, 2014|8:33 am

          Advocates for behavior considered immoral by Christians who believe the Bible is God’s inerrant word, have successfully used the idea of “love” to affirm homoerotic behavior, to redefine marriage and family, to justify pedophilia, and as theologian and pastor James Emery White recently pointed out, to justify assisted suicide.

          The problem, White writes in his blog, Church & Culture, is that the “love” described to normalize these behaviors is “not the biblical idea of love.”

          Continue reading “Theologian Says ‘Love’ Is the New Cultural Apologetic Affirming Immoral Activities – Theology of Hurt Feelings – Why Christians Are Reluctant To Call Out Sexual Sin”

          Our sex-obsessed culture is turning men into pigs By Naomi Schaefer Riley

          Our sex-obsessed culture is turning men into pigs By Naomi Schaefer Riley

          I do not know what Ms. Riley’s religious views are, or if she is a theist or not. But a lot of what she writes here can apply to Christian culture.

          A preface: I know that not all men are sex-obsessed pigs (so if you’re wanting to sign up for this blog and leave a post about it, don’t bother), but I do think a huge percentage of men are these days.

          I also think a large percentage of American men have been sex obsessed pigs for decades, due to a combination of factors, including, but not limited to, society telling men that the more women they have sex with, the more masculine they are. So, men grow up thinking it’s an expectation, proof of, or demonstration, of manliness if they boink around with the ladies.

          Churches and Christian culture also buy into this mentality, with their own spin on it – that only “real” men are married and having lots of sex (and apparently, according to Rev Mark Driscoll, lots of kinky sex, not just vanilla sex).

          Maybe if secular culture and Christians stopped upholding sexual experiences / marriages as rites of passage into adulthood, that would take pressure off people from fornication, from marrying too young, or from marrying the wrong person.

          By the way, women are extremely visually oriented… one of the pigs mentioned in this article (who is around 51, 52 years old) was judging his 55 year old female lover as having a “wrinkled” body – most 50 something men are not prizes, either, in the physical attractiveness department. I don’t think idiots like him realize women are judging him for his looks, too.

          (Link): Our sex-obsessed culture is turning men into pigs By Naomi Schaefer Riley

          Excerpt:

            These men and their attitudes about women and sex are not as unusual as we’d like to think. Their actions are the crude but inevitable consequence of the way we have come to view sex now — as something public and ordinary, something to be measured regularly and something that is ultimately only about individuals and their peculiar preferences. If men and women are in relationships just to have a good time, then why shouldn’t they “tell each other how they really feel.”

            Of course, these are the kind of attitudes that breed not gentlemen but something else entirely. Oink Oink.

          ———————-
          Related:

          (Link): Pouty Husband Sends Wife Spreadsheet Detailing Sex-Life Dissatisfaction

          (Link): Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof

          (Link): When Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men – and how the stereotype flipped

          (Link): Follow Up Part 2 – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

          (Link): Women Judging Male Physical Appearance – Body Fat Percentages

          (Link): Christian Gender and Sex Stereotypes Act as Obstacles to Christian Singles Who Want to Get Married (Not All Men Are Obsessed with Sex)

          (Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

          (Link): How Christians Have Failed on Teaching Maturity and Morality Vis A Vis Marriage / Parenthood – Used as Markers of Maturity Or Assumed to be Sanctifiers – Also: More Hypocrisy – Christians Teach You Need A Spouse to Be Purified, But Also Teach God Won’t Send You a Spouse Until You Become Purified

          (Link): Preacher Mark Driscoll Was Not A Virgin When He Got Married – He Admitted So In Book and Blog

          (Link): Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

          ‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

          ‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

          (Link): ‘When Women Refuse’ Proves Violence Doesn’t Usually Come With a Misogynistic Manifesto

            • Male violence against women who refuse sexual advances isn’t merely the domain of a college student suffering from mental health issues. It’s an epidemic that’s a troubling part of the fabric of America. That’s the message sent by (Link):

          When Women Refuse

            , a Tumblr blog created on Monday in response to Friday night’s horrific mass shooting in Isla Vista, Calif., near the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

          The blog’s creator, feminist activist, author, and Lux Digital cofounder Deanna Zandt, told Think Progress that she was inspired to start the site because “we still don’t view gender based violence as a large cultural issue—we tend to think of these as isolated incidents.”

          In the aftermath of the shooting, media detailed the mental health challenges of the shooter, 22-year-old Elliot Rodger, who targeted women who had spurned his advances. Rodger killed six people before turning a gun on himself. Snippets of Rodger’s 137-page manifesto to friends and relatives have been published, and then there are the chilling videos he posted on YouTube.

          “I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it,” Rodger declared in one video just hours before he embarked on his shooting spree.

          In an effort to distance themselves from Rodger’s deadly misogyny, men took to social media with the hashtag #NotAllMen to post tweets like, “Dividing men into the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’ is short-sighted.” Zandt told Think Progress that she noticed that several guys in her social networks also shared the belief that Rodger’s actions were an exception. Then, after seeing writer Kate Harding sharing news stories on her Facebook page of men who’d used violence after being rejected, Zandt decided to launch the Tumblr to show Rodger’s actions weren’t an isolated incident.

          Anyone can submit a story of a woman who’s been the victim of violence because she rejected sexual advances. Scrolling through the When Women Refuse submissions shows that Rodger’s actions aren’t unique. There’s the story of a 16-year-old stabbed to death after refusing to be a guy’s prom date, and the tragic (and all-too-common) tale of a woman whose controlling ex couldn’t get over her and stabbed her, her mother, and her new boyfriend.

          ((read the rest))
          ————————–
          Related posts:

          (Link): Bitter, Frustrated 22 Year Old Male Virgin and Member of Men’s Rights / PUA Groups Kills Several Women Because He Couldn’t Get Dates – what an entitled sexist doof

          (Link): Female Dragonflies Are Pretending to Die in Order to Avoid Irritating Males

          (Link): Nice Guys: Scourge of the Single Woman

          (Link):   Dude Writes to Miss Manners Advice Columnist: “Miss Manners: No one Ever Replies to Me on Dating Sites”

          (Link): ‘It’s Not Me, It’s You’: A Loser’s Guide to Dealing with Rejection by The Guyliner

          (Link):  Nice Guys Aren’t So Nice After All: Men in the “Friend Zone” Often Have A Hidden Agenda, Say Psychologists (Daily Mail article)

          (Link):  Dudes, Stop Putting Women in the Girlfriendzone

          (Link): Testosterone-Deficient Gamma Male Whines About the ‘Friend Zone’ (post from The Other McCain) – AKA, Ugly, Fat, Weird, Awkward, or Poor Nice Guys Who Unrealistically Expect to Attract Rich, Pretty, Thin, Socially Normal Women

          (Link): Guy So Depressed Over Being Single He Cut Off His Own Penis (article)

          (Link): When Adult Virginity and Adult Celibacy Are Viewed As Inconvenient or As Impediments

          The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

          The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off

          ✮ From the liberal corner:
          (Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

          ✮ The conservative reaction:
          (Link): Engagement rings are barbaric because men are awful or something

          ✮ My reaction:
          This is another time the secular, left wing feminists are off their rockers (I sometimes agree with them, usually do not and this is one of those times, no, I don’t agree). I see no harm or inherent sexism in a freaking engagement ring.

          Here are excerpts from the Salon page, with commentary about it, by me, below it:

          (Link): Engagement rings are barbaric

            Sparkly rocks remind us of an age when women were considered a form of chattel
            by SHANNON RUPP, THE TYEE

            Unsavoury custom

            … The engagement ring is not, as diamond advertisers of the last 80 years or so have insisted, a symbol of love: it’s a sort of down payment on a virgin vagina.

            I’ve always thought giving engagement rings was a slightly unsavoury custom, given that it began in an era when women were chattel, more or less. It’s hardly romantic. The rings remind me of a time when women couldn’t own property because they were property. Well, except for widows. There’s a reason that Merry Widow of opera fame was so merry.

            As Scott Fitzgerald noticed in the 1920s, the rich are different from you and me, and the custom of laying down an engagement ring was something rich people did in an era when marriage was recognized for what it really is: a business contract. It was done to secure property (and political alliances among royalty and the aristocracy) and to ensure there would be an heir and a spare to inherit it all.

            That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. Pre-DNA testing, no one could be sure who the father was unless the bride was irreproachably chaste. And no one wants to see property going to bastards. Post-delivery of the requisite sons, everyone was free to go about discreet amusements, and the country weekend at the manor house came into vogue.

            … Then, engagement rings functioned as a sort of retainer — a lease-a-womb scheme, if you will. The unspoken part of the deal was that an engagement often allowed for a sampling of the goods.

            … Frances Gerety (who incidentally was a spinster) cleverly connected romantic love to diamond engagement rings, forever. She obscured their creepy origins as down payments on chattel, and diamond purveyors are still profiting from her sharp thinking.

            …That’s not a coincidence, and it’s not just the wedding industry ramping up. Apparently about half of couples were having premarital sex in the 1940s, and researchers believe that women were looking for some sign of commitment from a man before doing the wild thing. In an era of unreliable birth control, a ring was still seen as a down payment and a sort of insurance policy in the event the man bolted and left her holding the baby.

          Since when is a woman having a “virgin vagina” or entering into marriage with one, an “unsavory custom?”

          Is this another sign that secularists, left wingers, and others, are biased against adult virgins, or biased against the idea of a woman choosing to remain a virgin until marriage? Because it kind of sounds like it.

          As to this:

            That’s why female virginity was such a big deal. It had financial value because it was connected to property. (etc)

          This is another dismissal of virginity, another tactic I have seen used not just by secularists and left wingers, but one I’ve seen used a time or two on Christian, or ex-Christian sites, especially by women who are red hot infuriated over “modesty” and “purity” teachings.

          Women who are opposed to virginity try to argue that the only reason any woman at any time in history has remained a virgin until marriage is due to patriarchal concerns about tracing the family tree, and at that, with monetary inheritance concerns.

          Continue reading “The Christian, Liberal, and Feminist Tendency to Intellectualize Away the Meaningfulness of Female Virginity; Also: Are Engagement Rings Sexist? Liberal Vs Conservatives Sound Off”

          ‘It’s a break from the kids’: Why parents cheat more than childless couples

          ‘It’s a break from the kids’: Why parents cheat more than childless couples

          But Christians preach that marriage and parenthood makes a person more godly, mature, and less likely to be selfish and engage in sexual sin….

          (Link): Couples with children likelier to cheat

          (Link): ‘It’s a break from the kids’: Why parents cheat more than childless couples

            By Kate StoreyJuly 16, 2014 | 8:56pm

            Turns out, it’s not the seven-year itch couples should fear, it’s the nine-month one.

            Parents, a new survey reports, are nearly twice as likely to cheat as married people without children. In the online study of 1,000 18- to 49-year-olds, followed up with focus groups around the country, 18 percent of parents said they’ve strayed, compared to only 11 percent of childless married people.

            “When you have children, you get lost in who you are as a woman,” a 40-year-old Florida mom of six tells The Post.

            She says she began cheating after learning her husband had strayed. Her two children at the time were 2 and 5. Though she had initially wanted to get even, she found the confidence boost exhilarating.

            … Her first marriage lasted 13 years. She married again six years ago and had four more children.
            She says she thought she’d stay true to hubby No. 2, until their sex life dried up.

            .. They were having sex just once every six weeks, and their conversations revolved around soccer practice and carpools. So she signed up for AshleyMadison.com, a website that caters to those looking to have affairs. She says the attention makes her feel “sexy and alive again — it’s like having two lives. I’m a mom and wife, and then I’m living this romance-novel life on the side.

          ((( click here to read the rest )))

          h/t Janet Mefferd
          ————————–
          Related posts:

          (Link): You May Be Surprised How Many Born-Again Christians Use Ashley Madison (web site for married cheaters); story from Huffington Post

          (Link): Marriage Does Not Make People More Loving Mature Godly Ethical Caring or Responsible (One Stop Thread)

          (Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages

          (Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Chastity / Celibacy For All People Even Married Couples Not Just Teens

          Follow Up – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

          Follow Up – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)

          This is a follow up to my post from yesterday,
          (Link): Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist, Pervy Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up

          Here are other people’s reactions to the insufferable, obnoxious, ageist, and sexist Junod editorial on Esquire.

          (Link): Older women don’t need mansplaining boner prose in praise of their sexiness

            by Jessica Valenti
            theguardian.com,
            Friday 11 July 2014 07.15

            An homage in a men’s magazine to the ‘carnal appeal’ of 42-year old women is no great win for feminism

            Breaking news! Men’s magazines have determined that it is not abnormal for men to ogle and objectify women over the age of 40! Women of the world, feminism has won! Rejoice!

            Or not.

            To kick off its annual women issue, Esquire magazine on Thursday published an essay called “In Praise of 42-Year Old Women”, assuring the normally-depressed old hags that dudes (or at least the writer Tom Junod) still want to bang them. Junod – who has an “interesting” history writing about women – writes that, while “[t]here used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman”, they now have “carnal appeal”.

            — start Junod quote
            A few generations ago, a woman turning forty-two was expected to voluntarily accept the shackles of biology and convention; now it seems there is no one in our society quite so determined to be free. Conservatives still attack feminism with the absurd notion that it makes its adherents less attractive to men; in truth, it is feminism that has made forty-two-year-old women so desirable.
            — end Junod quote

            Protip to male writers gorging on self-congratulation as they deem grown woman fuckable: leave feminism out of it.

            Junod, careful to qualify that the 42-year-old women worthy of praise are those who “have armored themselves with yoga and Pilates even as they joke about the spectacle”, seems to believe that he has done women a great kindness with this piece. But when he writes that 42-year-old women are “superior” to men and that “the best thing that that forty-two-year-old American men have going for them is forty-two-year-old American women”, he does so with the same benevolence of a lazy husband praising his wife’s laundry skills. (Or financial skills, in his case.)

            It’s easy for men to call women “superior” in a society that privileges men at nearly every turn: they’re not the ones being grossly objectified under the guise of a compliment.

            Certainly, women over 40 deserve more reverence and respect than they typically get – and I’d love to see women of all ages receive that … outside of women’s magazines and day-time talk shows. We live in a culture, often driven by the media and Hollywood, that paints women over 25 as desperate and pathetic: we’re considered past our prime, never to be “nubile” (a word worth banning from our collective consciousness if there ever was one) again!

            But the validation that women seek is generally not of the erection-producing variety. It’s very nice and all that writers are catching on that women of all ages can be sexy, but framing that as an amazing new discovery makes it more about men than it is about us (which feels about par for the course).

            For example, in a companion piece on Esquire’s website, writer Stephen Marche urges us all – in a slightly less cringe-inducing way than Junod’s overwrought boner-prose – to retire the word MILF. He writes that “there’s another explanation for the rise of 42, one that’s even more revelatory. Maybe it isn’t fashion at all. Maybe it’s what men wanted all along.”

            Right. But maybe, just maybe, what men want isn’t – and doesn’t always have to be – the damn point.

          (Link): BREAKING: Esquire Declares 42-Year-Old Women Now F-ckable by Tracy Moore

            Why, used to be, a woman at the age of 42 could hardly be glanced at, much less taken to bed and ravaged shame-free in broad daylight. No longer. Esquire has sent word across all channels that 42-year-old women have been removed from the Do Not Bang list and are no longer off-limits to respectable men. In other news, FIRE SALE AT CHICO’S.

            Forty-two year-old broads everywhere can now pack up their loose but crisp linen shirts, let their slightly graying hair down, and select their finest modest but sexy cocktail dress and get back out there.

            Behold the clarion call courtesy of author Tom Junod:

            —- start Junod quote
            Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman. With half her life still ahead of her, she was deemed to be at the end of something—namely, everything society valued in her, other than her success as a mother. If she remained sexual, she was either predatory or desperate; if she remained beautiful, what gave her beauty force was the fact of its fading. And if she remained alone… well, then God help her.
            — end Junod quote

            We’ve all seen those women — you know, the beautiful aging ones who just seemed so pathetic for existing at all. Also, he is right, I can’t think of more forceful beauty than the fading kind. The not-fading kind is great — don’t get me wrong — but if you think about it, it’s just not quite as potent, all said. However, a hint of beauty once there is just, well, sickening. Really sad, too.

            The only thing more ludicrous than Tom Junod’s feelings about 42-year-olds are the misguided assumptions that lurk beneath them… like a 42-year-old woman clawing at the icy surface above her, desperate to escape the tomb of her old age and fading beauty, trapped in part because she acknowledges that icy cold water could significantly invigorate her appearance.

            Continue reading “Follow Up – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)”

          Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist, Pervy Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up

          Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man, Tom Junod: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up
          —————
          WARNING: This post contains the “F” word in it a lot, mostly by other people who I am quoting. I am not going to sit here and edit out all the “F” words. Proceed at your own risk if naughty words make you blush

          Edit. There is a follow up to this post on this blog here:
          (Link): Follow Up – Reactions by Other Writers to Sexist, Condescending 50 Something Men Who Think They Are Final Arbiters of If Women Are Attractive Past Age of 40 (Re: Esquire Editorial by Junod)
          —————-
          I do acknowledge that there is a lot of sexism and ageism in our culture. Women are thought to have “sell by” dates – and I notice this age varies.

          (By the way, the same thing has caught up to men now. See for instance: (Link): Men Become ‘Invisible’ And Lose Sex Appeal At 39 – Article from Daily Caller)

          This attitude about women and women’s ages varies from person to person, and from decade to decade.

          I remember when I was a kid, age 40 was thought to be a little on the “old” side – not by me personally, but by the wider culture, the TV shows, magazines, newspapers, people in their 20s and maybe 30s at the time.

          (Starting when I was around age eight, I began reading the newspaper almost daily, even the front section, that had the political and cultural news, and I watched the evening news with my father every night. That’s how I can say with confidence I’m pretty well attuned to how people viewed things back then.)

          In the last few years, sexist PUA and MRA guys have said a woman’s expiration date is age 25, while others of them say no, it’s 30, while others might say 35. Of course, all of them overlook the fact that women do not even have an expiration date to start with.

          That none of these males can agree with each other on when a woman supposedly loses her hotness testifies to the truth that it’s all bogus.

          Even in the sub-heading of this nauseating editorial, it is stated from the out-set,

            In our occasional ranking of the ages, we found that this year’s most alluring is not what you’d expect. It’s not 27 (honored in 1999) or 39 (2008) or 86 (1937 and 1983). No, this year it’s 42. Because it’s not what it used to be.

          You might be tempted to think, well, if that is so, if this magazine is honoring 40 something women, wouldn’t you be thrilled that a magazine is writing an editorial saying that 40 something women are no longer considered old, past their prime, or old hags? No, not entirely.

          Because the editorial is condescending, and the author, Tom Junod, says insulting things, such as, a woman’s beauty is fading when she is in her 40s (no, it’s not).

          This reminds me of an editorial at a Christian site, by a married man, who tried to reassure adult singles that we are fine dandy dan just they way we are.

          I appreciate that the Christian author was trying to be helpful or compassionate to older singles, but the condescending attitude was more of a put down (read that page here: (Link): Oh geeze. Another married Christian condescendingly patting single Christians on the head, reassuring them they are dandy as-is, and to remember they have the fictional Gift of Singleness)

          It’s the same thing with this editorial. The male author, who is 55 or 56 years old, says he would gladly have sex with a 42 year old woman.

          I saw photos of this guy at Gawker, and I find him terribly unattractive. I am in my early 40s, fit, attractive, and I would not give him the time of day. What on earth makes him think I’d want to do him, out of gratitude that he says he finds women of my age still attractive? No, no, no. That is condescending.

          As an author at Gawker summarized the Esquire editorial:

          (Link): Esquire Writers: We’re Willing to Fuck Early Middle-Aged Ladies, (from Gawker)

          The original ed is here:
          (Link): IN PRAISE OF 42-YEAR-OLD WOMEN, by Tom Junod (on Esquire’s site)

          Yeah, see, I don’t need a dude more than ten years my age reassuring me I’m fine as I am. I already know I’m fine as I am.

          Here’s the intro:

            by Tom Junod
            Published in the August 2014 issue

            Let’s face it: There used to be something tragic about even the most beautiful forty-two-year-old woman.

            With half her life still ahead of her, she was deemed to be at the end of something—namely, everything society valued in her, other than her success as a mother.

            If she remained sexual, she was either predatory or desperate; if she remained beautiful, what gave her beauty force was the fact of its fading. And if she remained alone… well, then God help her.

          From the Gawker author’s take on Junod’s editorial:

            Esquire magazine (Motto: “The Inactive Ingredients of Erection Pills, in Magazine Form”) has a very important message to all the 42-year-old women out there: Esquire writer at large Tom Junod might like to fuck you.

            That’s right, ladies of a certain age (42). Tom Junod has decided you may still be hot.

            This was not always the case. Once upon a time, 42-year-old women were not really worth wanting to fuck, or if Tom Junod did want to fuck one, it made him sad.

            [snip Juno intro]

            Now, though? Now 42 is awesome. Tom Junod can name several famous women who are 42 who he would be willing to fuck. Right in their 42-year-old vaginas. Cameron Diaz. Sofia Vergara. Leslie Mann. Amy Poehler.

            He would fuck these women, despite their age, and even share a joke with them, because the 42-year-old woman, she is a person, or at least a person-like idea:

            [Gawker author quoting Junod]:
            It is no accident that every woman mentioned here has comic as well as carnal appeal, and entices with the promise of lust with laughs.

          But it’s not all easy. Being sexually attractive to Tom Junod at the age of 42 is a real job:

            [Gawker author quoting Junod]:
            Of course, they have to work for their advantage; they have armored themselves with yoga and Pilates even as they joke about the spectacle.

            Still, what has made them figures of fantasy is not that they have redefined the ideals of female strength but rather their own vulnerabilities.

            Go to a party: There is simply no one as unclothed as a forty-two-year-old woman in a summer dress. For all her toughness, and humor, and smarts, you know exactly what she looks like, without the advantage of knowing who she is.

          Were you afraid you might go to a summer party, as a 42-year-old woman, and not have a magazine writer mentally appraise what you would look like without your clothing on? Fear not (as long as you’ve been doing yoga and Pilates)—Tom Junod is so thoroughly prepared to undress you with his mind, you’re already naked.

          What accounts for society’s and Esquire’s sudden tolerance of women of this age, 42? Tom Junod, according to Wikipedia, was born in the Eisenhower Administration, and is currently either 55 or 56 years old. Nevertheless, Tom Junod is gracious enough to admit he’s capable of wanting to fuck women who are within 13 or 14 years of his own age.

          I, myself, by coincidence, am 42 years old right now. But I am male. As such, I would like to follow Tom Junod’s lead and reassure all the 28-year-old women of the world that I do not believe their advanced years should render them sexually unattractive to me.

          Or maybe he’s using a percentage, rather than a spread of years. Tom Junod is willing to entertain the thought of intimate relations with women all the way up to 75 percent of his own age.

          Tom Junod, age 21, cruises into the high school parking lot to tell the 15-year-olds they’re still OK. (He shakes his head at Sweet Sixteen parties, though.)

          Tom Junod, age 30, is ready to consider dating a summer intern in his office, even if she has already finished college. Tom Junod, age 85, tells a 63-year-old woman not to worry, she’s still got a little something going on, in his eyes.

          It boils down to feminism, you see:

            [Gawker author quoting Junod]:
            A few generations ago, a woman turning forty-two was expected to voluntarily accept the shackles of biology and convention; now it seems there is no one in our society quite so determined to be free.

            Conservatives still attack feminism with the absurd notion that it makes its adherents less attractive to men; in truth, it is feminism that has made forty-two-year-old women so desirable.

          This is what it was all about, ladies.

          But Tom Junod is, after all, only one man. You may be asking yourselves: Do other men also want to fuck 42-year-old women? Do they ever!

          There’s a double feature playing at the Esquire Drive-In, and the second show is by Stephen Marche, who is not quite even 40 yet. Guess what?

            [Gawker author quoting Marche]:
            Women who are 42 are grown-ups, they are in control of their own lives, or as in control of their own lives as they are going to be anyway, and it is altogether good that American men desire women in this state. Desirability and self-possession should go together.

          Marche, though, is not sure this is so nice. He is writing to express the fact that he is uncomfortable about the use of the term “MILF,” when applied to these 42-year-old targets of male desire.

          Why? Possibly because it is a porn indexing term, inherently and exclusively used to objectify women? Well, yes, but no. The fact that “MILF” is a popular pornographic search term, to Marche, indicates not that it is a constructed concept, which is shaping men’s sexual expectations, but the opposite—that it reflects some deeper or prior impulse. You can ((( click here ))) to read the rest.

          No, I don’t find it flattering or reassuring that a wrinkly looking 55 year old writes an editorial telling women of my age he’d still like to boink me.

          The guy who wrote this travesty apparently thinks this is a one way street, where only men are visual and only men care about what a person looks like. Wrong! Women are visual and care about when men look like.

          I find that condescending on so many different levels, that for one, he assumes I’d find him handsome or charming enough to want to boink back (and the answer to both is no, I don’t).

          I don’t need anyone reassuring me it’s okay to be 40-something. I already know that. Trying to convince me it’s okay is actually insulting in a way.

          Here are a few of the reader comments from Gawker that were underneath this article:

          by NoLackawannaTom Scocca
          Yesterday 8:04pm
          I find it sadly comical that men— aging, fat, balding— always think they can attract women half their age. (Actually, they often can—if they’re rich or famous or both.)
          I wonder if they ever considered that some hot, beautiful women ten years older than them would drink battery acid before they would fuck them.

          by baddoggy
          Thursday 2:05pm
          This is fucking jaw dropping.

          It takes a lot to get a rise out of me but this Tom Junod guy has hit a spot I didn’t know was there. I’m a 40 year old male and this sickens me.

          This guy is disgusting.
          I couldn’t even finish the article.

          The parts I did read made me puke in my mouth a little bit. He’s what? 55 or 56? So who in the hell is he lusting after in real life? What age is the lady he’s dating or married to? Jeez.

          by courtneys_keyboard
          Thursday 1:58pm
          What the shit is this shit.

          This is nauseating to men and women. The idea that women have a sell by date is ludicrous, and the idea that men should determine who to sleep with based on chronology is moronic.

          The truth is that people will sleep with almost anyone. People (mostly in Florida) will have sex with relatives, with animals, with warm soup.

          The attempt to make yourself feel more successful by only copulating with what the Esquire staff considers acceptable is pretty pathetic. Fuck who you want, provided they also want you, and shut up about it.

          Continue reading “Obnoxious, Condescending, Sexist, Pervy Esquire Editorial by 50-Something Year Old Man: “In Praise of 42 Year Old Women” – Condescendingly Reassures 40 Something Women He’d Sex Them Up”

          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric

          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric
          ——————————-
          REMINDER

          If you are new to this blog, I possibly need to remind you that I am socially conservative, right wing, and a Republican.

          (Edit, Sept 2016. My views have shifted somewhat in the last couple of years, since I last wrote this post. I am still right wing but more moderate now.)

          Although I do criticize my fellow right wingers, as well as Christians, time and again on this site over some subjects, I am not liberal, progressive, Democratic, left wing, nor am I pro-choice or pro-homosexuality.

          I do not despise the notions of, belief in, or practice of, moral absolutes, Christianity, the nuclear family, traditional marriage, sexual purity, Christians, the Bible, or a literal biblical hermeneutic.

          (However, I do not always agree with other conservatives about topics, or how to handle those topics.)

          If you’re feeling very confused or duped at this point, as in, “Hey, I’ve been visiting this blog for months now, or I followed you on Twitter, and I thought you are liberal, and that you hate conservatives and Christianity like I do?!”

          No, you have misunderstood me or my positions.

          Just because I am sometimes critical of Christians, or how Christians and conservatives sometimes pontificate about certain matters, does not mean I am against either one or that I am automatically a liberal who supports abortion, Democrats, Obama, or homosexuality.

          You might want to see this blog’s “About” page for more about my views. I tend to criticize other right wingers more so than left wingers on this blog, but this is one of those posts where I have to criticize the left.
          ——————————-
          Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or “Not All” Rhetoric

          Secular feminists hate men who interject into feminist conversations online – or in real life – about sexism and rape apologia to say, “But not all men are like that; I am not.”

          Feminists are annoyed over this common behavior to the point they started using the “#NotAllMen” hash tag on Twitter and blogs.

          If you’re not familiar with the history of, or the bruhaha over, the “Not All Men” phenomenon, you can read more about it on Time magazine’s site here:
          (Link): Not All Men: A Brief History of Every Dude’s Favorite Argument, by Jess Zimmerman.

          (Edit. Since I wrote this post, I read one source that says that it was men who started use of the “#NotAllMen” hash to counter balance the feminist “#YesAllWomen” hash, but by the time I started seeing “#NotAllMen” it was being used by feminists against sexist men.)

          Not too long ago, in a conversation in the comments on a left wing site under an article criticizing a famous conservative journalist’s position about something related to sexism, I pointed out that not all conservatives and Republicans see eye- to- eye on every issue, so please don’t assume that one journalist’s views on that one issue are indicative of all conservatives – as the author of the article I was commenting on seemed to imply.

          I also pointed out in that same post that I myself, who am a conservative Republican, did not totally support conservatives on the particular topic under discussion, and some rude, liberal, Democratic jackass at that site gave me a sarcastic comment and dismissed my view by sarcastically using the “#Not All Conservatives” hash.

          (Among other snarky commentary from that person. This person was truly being an assh-le for no good reason.

          I said nothing to that point to provoke snarky, condescending remarks from anyone.

          After that person was rude to me, and only afterwards, did I tell her she was rude and could kiss my ass, but prior to that, before her rudeness, I was being polite.)

          On the one hand, I can certainly understand why, for example, women may find it rude or annoying when their feminist conversation about male privilege or sexism gets interrupted by some man interjecting to say, “But I am a man, and I respect women” because that can seem to diminish the experiences of sexism by women who are discussing the topic.

          On the other hand, nobody likes seeing a group they are a member of, or sympathetic to, being generalized unfairly, or painted with a broad-brush.

          Liberals are often hypocritical on this point. And they are also terribly blinded to their hypocrisy.

          #NOT ALL MUSLIMS

          For example, any time a conservative points out that quite a number of Muslims are terribly sexist against women (e.g., honor killings of female rape victims, extreme modesty teaching which blames women for male sexual crimes or male misbehavior, the practice of female genital mutilation, forced marriages of young girls to old men – are all common beliefs or practices in Islamic communities)-

          Or, when conservatives make the true observation that most terrorism in the world today is carried out by Muslims (enjoy this site, or this one (*and see a few more links at the bottom of this post)), your left wingers will quickly exclaim,
          “But not all Muslims are like that! I’ve even known some Muslims personally, and they are very nice people.”

          Hence, we see #Not All Muslims at play by left wingers in conversations about terrorism. Often.

          #NOT ALL ATHEISTS

          When I have visited theologically liberal or ex- Christian sites, which are sometimes populated by self-professing atheists (who usually claim to be former Christians), they get angry when Christians point to news stories of atheists who get arrested for murder, or rape, or what have you.

          Immediately, the atheists, or theologically liberal Christians, start saying (this one seems to comes up on Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group about once a week it seems, eg. in (Link): this discussion),
          “How long until conservative Christians point to this news story of this atheist murdering this child as proof that all atheists are unethical, murdering slugs? Don’t they know that not all atheists are killers or child molesters?”

          Yes, I sometimes see anti-Christian atheists bring out the “#NotAllAtheist” commentary.

          However, many times, these same atheists like to bring up the Christian “#Not All Christian” habit of saying, “Maybe the preacher arrested for child rape was not a ‘real’ Christian,” by mentioning the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (you can read more about that here or here).

          You can see examples of Non-Christians complaining about the alleged Christian use of “No True Scotsman” (Link): here (link is to SCCL Facebook group page, a group which runs from theologically liberal to atheistic).

          Let us review.

          Some atheists get angry at Christians who assume all, or most atheists, are immoral scum balls, but atheists do not mind assuming these things are true of all Christians.

          Atheists detest the #NotAllChristians tactic by Christians, vis a vis the “No True Scotsman” stance, but atheists don’t hesitate to scream #NotAllAtheists in similar contexts.

          Oh, I see. We want to make exceptions for our side but not the other side; how convenient.

          We want to be angry atheists snarking on Christians all day long and pointing out Christian flaws, but Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid if Christians mention crimes or misbehavior by atheists! Talk about a double standard.

          NO TRUE SCOTSMAN

          I hate to disappoint the die-hard, irrational, frothing- at- the mouth variety of atheists out there (and many of you are indeed irrational – your hatred for God and Christians is based on emotion or personal dislike of Christians, not due to intellect or dispassionate reason as is often claimed), the “No Scotsman Fallacy” does not totally apply to Christianity to start with.

          Jesus Christ himself taught that not all who consider themselves Christians are in fact actual, real, genuine followers of his, even if they do claim to be so.

          See for example, (Link): this biblical passage or (Link): this one or (Link): this one.

          #NOT ALL HOMOSEXUALS

          I’ve noticed that any time crimes or bigotry by homosexuals against heterosexuals, other homosexuals, or other groups, are brought up on blogs or news sites, especially on forums or blogs that tend to have a large segment of left wingers, most of the left wingers are quick to jump in with the “not all homosexuals” argumentation.

          One case in point was a recent letter to the “Ask Amy” advice columnist.

          Here is a link to the letter:
          (Link): Mom worries about gym teacher in locker room

          Here is the letter:

          DEAR AMY:

            My seventh-grade daughter’s female gym teacher is openly gay. None of the parents or kids has a problem with this.

          The issue is that she observes the girls changing into and out of their gym clothes, and my daughter and many of her peers feel very uncomfortable having a lesbian watch them walk around in their underwear.

          I’m afraid to say anything because I worry that my daughter will be given a “special area” to change, and it will make her feel awkward.

          I understand that seventh-graders need supervision in the locker room, but it seems to me the school should know that it may not be appropriate to have a lesbian in the locker room with young girls!

          By the way, the teacher has never behaved unprofessionally — nor is anyone worried that she might — it is simply an issue of discomfort.

          What’s the right answer that respects everyone involved? — Concerned Mom

          Here is part of Amy’s reply:

          DEAR CONCERNED:

            …You might start this conversation by letting your daughter know that there is a likelihood some of her fellow students at school or on sports teams are also lesbians, and that in this environment, along with trusting her instincts, she also has to trust other people (gay and straight) to have integrity.

          You seem to think that because this teacher is a lesbian, she may also be attracted to — or be an unhealthy presence — for girls.

          Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one.

          — (end Amy letter)—

          First of all, notice that Amy’s tact here is pretty much a “Not All Homosexuals” argument. She even goes further to use a “Most All Heteros” argument.

          Amy is telling the mother who wrote the letter not to assume that just because a female gym teacher is lesbian that this necessarily means that the teacher is viewing the students in a sexual manner or will “hit” on them.

          That may very well be true, but note the “Not All Lesbians” rhetoric is being employed in the first place.

          When I visited sites that published copies of this letter and had a comment section, I noted that many of the commentators left statements to the effect of “the gym teacher’s sexual preference should not be an issue, as not all homosexuals prey on children.”

          It was remarkable how often the “Not All Homosexuals” cliche’ kept popping up under this particular “Ask Amy” letter and previous ones like it, that mentioned homosexual people.

          Secondly, per Amy’s comment that

            “Judging by the preponderance of recent alarming news reports of improper sexual relationships between teachers and students, a student is much more likely to be hit on by a heterosexual teacher than a gay one”

          there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals in American culture, so it would mathematically figure that there are more hetero predators than homosexual ones, based on “counting noses” of sexual offenders alone.

          However, based on various studies I have seen over the past ten or more years, there is a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of pedophiles among homosexuals than heteros.

          Continue reading “Hypocrisy of Left Wingers and Atheists and the #NotAll Hash Tag or Rhetoric”