Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Did Perez Hilton Post Child Porn?

You've probably already heard but apparently people are accusing Perez Hilton of posting pictures of Miley Cyrus on his website wearing a see through dress without any underwear and apparently all can be seen. The problem for Perez is that Miley is seventeen years old, a minor, so if the pictures were real then legally it was child porn and Perez is in deep trouble. No one knows for sure because Perez had them scrubbed from his server the same day after being accused of child pornography and immediately claimed that she did have underwear. Nice to know there are still some laws on the book that have teeth.

I'm not here to rehash whether Perez committed a felony nor here to discuss his character. It is interesting to note that this is the same Perez who verbally assaulted runner up Miss California in the Miss USA pageant after she gave an answer not to his liking about homosexual marriage.  I'm also not here to discuss my disappointment in Miley Cyrus and her all too revealing outfits.

What I want to discuss is our societies perversity of turning young girls into sex objects.

Before we begin this discussion there is one very important fact that we (particularly women) must understand about men. Once you understand this undeniable fact (because you can poll one thousand men about this and nine hundred and ninety five will agree with me and the other five are lying to impress you) then you will fully understand the dangerous waters that we are wading, nay, plunging into as a society.

The simple fact about men is when it comes to sex is that we are visual. Period, end of story and debate. If you are a married women you may have noticed that when you walk around the house naked you husband will attack you. If not he either has health issues or your marriage has serious problems. God made men so that it is the eye that attracts and trust me, don't think you have to have the curves of a supermodel to get his engine running.

Now I know women everywhere went, "I knew it! Men are all dogs!!"  I want to take a moment here to defend the good men in society. Men are not dogs. Men who sleep with everyone they can are dogs and give the good men out there a bad name. That's like saying because there are women who like to sleep around then all women are sluts. Just because a man sees something visually that he likes doesn't mean he has the right hit on it. In civilized society men are expected to show restraint, married men are allowed to go to only one well. Not all women are sluts and not all men are dogs.

But all men are visual. This is why the pornography business, even if exaggerated, is at minimum a billion dollar a year industry in the US. This is why ninety eight percent of the men in the US have used or use porn and the other two percent have trouble with lying. Porn appeals to the very core of a man's sexuality; his eyes. Women accuse men of thinking with the member between his legs but trust me on this one its the member between his eyeballs. If women really knew what went on in a man's head you would be more sicken than you are now.

Men do have the ability to admire the beauty of a women without lusting after her. When a man looks at a women and says to himself, 'Wow, she's beautiful', at this point he has not sinned. He is simply admiring her beauty, say the way I look after a 2010 Dodge Challenger (Wait, that might not be a good example). However, if a man looks a women and then begins to imagine her in a sexual way he is lusting and according to Jesus, has committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:28). I know you women out there want us to be attracted to your bubbly personality and winning heart but I am here to tell you it's what we see that catches our attention. For most men what we see is not enough to enter into a lifetime commitment but it does make us curious enough to find out if there is the other characteristics we are looking for in a mate (as was in my personal case).

Now past (and some present cultures) understood the effect the naked feminine body had on a man. Hence floor length squirts and it was scandalous to show an ankle; a thigh and a women was slut. Both Islamic and Christian extremes have unjustly blamed women for what they possess and have sought to severely restrict any view of the female flesh whatsoever to the point of head coverings. I don't think we should go back to severe restrictions on feminine fashion (we forget, it was just a hundred years ago it was dangerous for a women to show up wearing pants). But the pendulum has swung way, way too far the opposite direction and now we are endangering our children.

There is a fantastic water park within an hour from where we live and every year the family goes out and we have a good time. What I saw this year basically shocked me. If being shocked seeing 13 - 17 year old girls walking around in bikinis so tiny and revealing that they may as well have been naked makes you a prude then for me it's official. Most of these girls were not skinny prepubescent sticks either, they easily could have passed for older women if not for the baby fat and childish behavior. I was constantly looking at my feet the entire day but many men were openly lusting.

The question I have for the parents of these children, at least I think so, is fair: "Who the hell let these kids out dressed like this?" I mean really, get a clue. You think your daughter showing that much flesh is not going to be attracting unwarranted attention? Pedophiles and child molesters are looking for young women to exploit and you are apparently willing to provide the bait. Children in that age group have absolutely no business dressing that skimpy in public (much less mature women).

Disregarding the sickos in our society looking to hurt your young daughters what about men such as myself, faithful to our wives and respectful to women (open the doors for them, let them ahead in the line, etc) who train our minds not to go where its not suppose to go and your allowing your daughter to basically stand naked in front of us. We are honorable men and we won't do anything but don't expect us not to be disgusted.

What is frightening is that dressing girls in tight shirts showing cleavage with shorts that ride inches from the pubic area is becoming the norm. I have a twelve year old daughter and we are disgusted with the current offerings for girls from the ages of 10 - young adult. We have to shop and shop and shop just to find clothes that we are somewhat satisfied with. There is an apparent attempt by clothes designers to cloth young women with as little as possible.

When a women dresses in such a fashion that she is showing cleavage, belly, shapely legs and tight clothes that leave no imagination to the shape of her body whether she knows it or not she is advertising that she is sexually available. When women wear makeup they use blush which simulates flushing of the cheeks and lipstick which simulates the way their lips flush during sex. If I walk into my bedroom and my wife is dressed in lingerie with high heels and stockings and wearing makeup I don't look at her and say, "What a wonderful outfit. That really goes with your skin tone and hair color." I pounce. My wife is advertising her desire for sex and who am I to deny her?

When you send your little girls out in the world dressed in such a way that previous generations would have labeled them sluts their little bodies are sending signals to men that they are sexually active and when you let them wear heavy makeup it doubles the effect. Many men walk by and say, "Who am I to deny her?". You are allowing your daughters to dress inappropriately and provocatively.

Now I want a disclaimer here; no woman, regardless of how she dresses deserves to be sexually abused, manhandled or raped. I don't care if she is standing out in the street naked; if I see a man treat a woman that way my wife will probably be bailing me out of jail. No woman deserves to be hurt in such a fashion, period. But men deserve the courteousness of women dressing modestly. Women can wear pants or skirts and tops and come off pretty and not as a sexual billboard. Any men who protest this of course have one thing on their mind. I mean, come on women out there, who do you think invented the bikini? It was two Frenchmen of course!

But what is really disheartening is how nobody speaks against this discerning trend. If you are a full grown women and you want to display your flesh in all its glory then so be it but don't wonder why you are always attracting the wrong type of men. Allowing your children to dress this way is unconscionable. Do not let your daughters out the door without a clothes inspection and do not negotiate. Set boundaries for your child and stick to them and it helps if you model the rules yourself. I think a lot of this has to do also with too many fathers not in the house. If you are a father and you wife is allowing your young girls to dress this way she may not be doing it on purpose. Many women just don't get the visual aspect of a man's sexuality (I guarantee you I will get many women posting on this blog complaining that it shouldn't be this way. Sigh.) Please set your daughter and wife down and explain how men look at women. Be brutally honest. Set standards and enforce them.

Now I know some of you think that I am being as shrilly as Perez Hilton about turning our children into sex objects. So I want to show you some pictures I took at the mall the other day.

The above picture is right in the front of the store as you walk in next to this one:

Now your probably thinking this is the area for young women. Nope. Your wrong:

It's the Juniors section. THE JUNIORS. Notice how the younger girl (picture one) is in the more sexually suggestive position and is showing more leg than the older girl (picture 2). This is a major department store who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty.

We have to stop buying these terrible clothes for our daughters (vote by wallet) and we need to start complaining to the stores. I walked into this same store about a year ago and they had pictures of women in lingerie in poses that could only possibly be called 'soft porn'. I sent the children out into the mall and called a floor manager down to complain that I did not want my kids seeing those pictures. She quickly agreed and an hour later we walked by and they were gone.

Perez Hilton may be a menace to society and if Miley Cyrus was indeed flying free that day he had no right to publish those photos. But he is dead on when he shrills about young underage women dressing inappropriately. We as fathers and mothers need to protect our children and stop our society from turning them into sex objects. They deserve their childhood and we need to fight for it.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Response To Comments on Homosexuality Part II

First of all I want to thank all of you who have responded and have respected the boundaries of healthy debate. Living in the greatest country in the history of civilization (in my humble opinion) we sometimes forget that one of the things that astonishes our admirers and enemies alike is our ability to live peacefully among those we, sometimes vehemently, disagree with.

Having said this I want to say, particularly to the homosexuals who have responded to my blog, that I in no way condone violence towards those who choose that lifestyle and your welcome at my Church (not just my words, our Pastor's words). As a born again Christian I am called by Jesus to love the sinner (and that can't be just lip service, in needs to be action) and rightfully so; I am a sinner and I have no trouble loving myself.

The debate here is whether the act of homosexuality is a morally acceptable one. What is not in question here is whether Jesus or myself love homosexuals. He does and as he is my master so shall I. It is interesting that many of the commentators responded to my philosophical arguments with spiritual ones which is what I was trying to avoid in Part II; Part I explains where the Bible stands on homosexuality. Part II was from the view point of secular moral view point and not the Biblical truth.

There were some very, very good arguments presented that we could go around and around on till the second coming and not convince or change each others view points. (My best friend and I have argued consistently for the last ten years if 'Time' actually exists.) There were some arguments I could systematically dismantle but do not have the time or inclination. However, there is one that needs to be addressed.

It was articulated extremely well and I will quote the part I want to address verbatim:
I love my boyfriend. My lesbian friend loves her girlfriend.
I look at us both, and I think "What is different? We both kiss our partner, we both hold hands with our partner, we both talk to our partner, we both take pictures with our partner, and we both look at our partner's in the eye. What is society's problem?"
This is an excellent question and deserves an answer. I may have the left the impression that homosexuals are incapable of any resemblance of a healthy relationship and I want you to understand that is not what I believe. I've seen, unfortunately, many marriages dysfunctional to their very core. Marriage does not guarantee a healthy relationship and being homosexual does not guarantee (although I believe it does lend itself) to promiscuity. Then why should it matter?

Because marriage is not based on relationships. Now I know this is very contrary to what many of you have been taught. Many of you have been indoctrinated that someday when you are young and beautiful you will be walking along minding your own business when you will look up and see the most beautiful person in the entire world and your eyes will lock simultaneously with your hearts and you will instantly understand each other and hang on every word of your beloved and they will understand you in such a complete way they will meet your every need and you will have healthy beautiful well behaved children and grow old and happy with each other.

And it is utter hogwash. The reason that the divorce rate in the United States is approaching 50% is because people (especially young people) really believe the aforementioned love scenario and after about six months of marriage they figure out that the reality falls far, far, far, short of expectations.

Marriage to society is a contractual agreement that guarantees the survival of the society and its culture and it the raising of children who will further that society. There is really no other point of marriage. The concept that it should be based on love or relationship is a very recent idea. Now I know this sounds foreign to many of you but what may shock you even further is that modern studies indicate that arranged marriages are happier overall than Western marriages and India has the lowest divorce rate of any democracy, hands down. There are many misconceptions about arranged marriages (that they are forced for instance) but I have always thought that cultures that participate in these types of relationships always have a healthier attitude towards marriage than than Western culture. (Yes, I am sure there are abuses of arranged marriages just as there are abuses of dating in Western culture. Also, I am not advocating the approach in the USA but it would probably be healthier if young adults allowed their parents more input in the selection of their spouse). Whether there is a true correlation or not it is interesting to note that cultures that have the lowest divorce rates have the lowest toleration for adultery, sex outside of marriage and homosexuality.

I heard Ellen DeGeneres (I personally think her show is hilarious) once say how people on the far right always say that if you allow homosexuals to marry then you would have people marrying cats and dogs. Why do they always say that, she quipped, its always straight to bestiality. With this very funny statement though Ellen actually makes the argument I am presenting.

What she is saying is that homosexuality should be accepted but of course bestiality should not be. What she is saying is that just because people are homosexuals doesn't mean they are not moral and doesn't meant they don't have standards. That allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't meant that you should allow people to sleep with animals as there are still things that people should not be allowed to do.

But that is exactly the problem. The moment we say that marriage is no longer a contractual agreement between a man and a woman and society but based upon relationships and feelings we have now opened Pandora's box. If a man has feelings for two women why should he not marry both? If a man has feelings for a man and a woman why not all three of them marry? If a man has feelings for his daughter, why can they not legitimately marry. If a woman has feelings for her son why can she not legitimately marry him? If men have feelings for boys why should they not be able to have sex with them?

What your saying is that sex should no longer be allowed exclusively between a man and a woman in a marriage contract only but with whomever and whatever one has feelings for. Many are confused in western culture because we have already destroyed the first line of resistance which is sex outside of marriage which was not tolerated in Western culture as recently as 150 years ago. Marriage has become an option if one is having sex, not the only option for having sex. In Western culture sex is now based on feelings and emotions, not on marriage so of course it now makes perfect sense for people to sleep with the same sex.

The issue here is not really whether homosexuality is moral but whether sex outside of marriage is moral. Either it is not and we in the West have been very bad (and I think the destroyed marriages and children show the fruit of our behavior) or anything goes and we need to drop all the pretenses. Now some of you homosexuals are going to tell me that we cannot allow incest or sex with children but my question is where does your moral standard come from? Yourself? What tells you that you have the right to sleep with the same sex but a man does not have that right with his daughter?

If the moral decadence in our society continues and I was a dog or cat I would start looking for places to hide.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Homosexuality Part II

In Part I of my blog on homosexuality we discussed the Biblical views of homosexuality and the evidence is compelling that God is not in favor of the act and in fact outright condemns it in both the Old and New Testament. Now if you don't believe the Bible is the final authority of God's word or, worse yet in my view, don't even believe in a God then Part II is for you. Don't leave yet.

We ended Part I by asking the question that if you have a healthy, loving relationship between two members of the same sex then what can possibly be wrong with allowing them to marry? If your a Christian, the answer is obvious; not only should they not marry but they shouldn't even be engaged in the act. If your not a Christian the answer is not so obvious as you do not have a direct commandment from God. But I do believe that there are moral, philosophical and societal reasons why homosexuals should not get married, much less even be involved sexually.

Before we begin to discuss these arguments against homosexuality I would like to dispel some damn nonsense that I hear on a regular basis that is dispensed from the mouths of normally rather intelligent human beings. It goes something like this, "Each to his own." or "I should be able to do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." or worse, "There is no such thing as morality."

When someone says "Each to his own" he or she is telling me that they are doing things they know they shouldn't be doing but plan on continue doing them anyway. This maxim is usually tolerated until you become a terrorist, serial killer or a dictator bent on world destruction. If this mantra is true then why shouldn't serial killers be allowed to operate in peace? Oh, because they hurt other people. So this nonsense about everyone should be allowed to do what they want to do means as long as they don't hurt other people. But this doesn't hold true either because people who live by this mantra commit adultery and divorce their spouses but feel they should have the freedom to do this even though it leaves a trail of devastated lives behind them. When someone says "Each to his own" let me translate; "I will do whatever the hell I want and I really don't care whom it hurts." Society simply has limits on what type of pain you are allowed to inflict and this has changed throughout time and culture. Murder is still disallowed in most civilized societies but until the last fifty years adultery was severally punished by the courts in the form of alimony; alas this has sadly since stopped. Men are now free to leave their wife's and go play without penalty (and vice verse). Until Christianity infected and eventually overwhelmed Roman civilization it was common for fathers to turn their backs on new born infants; a sign the child was not wanted and was to be killed. Infanticide is no longer tolerated in just about every modern culture (outside the womb).

Morality is relative even in cases where it is not obvious others are being affected. I can think of no other better example than the two current demonized activities of smoking and obesity. Although not outright outlawed to the extent of say, smoking pot, it has become so repressive to smoke it might as well be and my once a month cigar habit may not be available much longer. And my wife says, 'Amen!'.  Smoking generally affects mainly the smoker himself (despite the persistent myth of second hand smoke) and his immediate family. Yet our society pretty much demands that this practice be abandoned.

Obesity is another example of a personal behavior that is no longer tolerated by society. It too lacks direct laws against it but they might as well pass them and parents who allow their children to become grossly overweight now face intrusion from the governments, rightly or wrongly.

Now some of you will argue that smoking does affect everyone and does have an impact in higher health costs to society as a whole and so does obesity. To which I say, exactly. Society does feel that certain behaviors are unacceptable because although there may not be direct harm to other individuals society as a whole takes it in the chin for these behaviors (I would include drug and alcohol abuse in this category).

This is exactly why homosexuality cannot and should not be tolerated in society and at best accepted but not condoned. They definitely should not be allowed to marry or form legal unions.

Homosexuality, at its very core and very essence is based upon one thing; selfishness. Homosexuality is the revelation that one can have his or her sexual needs satisfied with a member of the same sex versus a member of the opposite sex. This may not seem like a big deal in its impact on individuals, society or mankind in general but from a philosophical and moral standpoint there are implications for any society that condones such behavior. Some of you are threatening to fall asleep at this point. Stay with me, it's important you get this because your probably not hearing this argument anywhere else. Not even in the Church.

The first thing homosexuality destroys is the relationship between men and women. I was buying my son a replacement phone for the one he lost when the AT&T rep saw my wife and I interacting about how much money to spend on the boy (always a sore point between us) when the rep confided to me he was gay because it allowed him not to have to deal with the opposite sex. I confided to him I completely sympathized with his choice. I am unfortunately attracted to the female form and another hairy man's rear end does nothing for me (not to mention I am a born again Christian) so I am forced to deal with this deep dark mystery known as the female mind on a daily basis. Anyone who thinks men and women are compatible has never been married for more than three weeks. Marriage is not bliss; it is two sinners who cannot understand each other one iota forced to compromise and forgive on a regular basis and those are on the good days. Bad marriages are probably one of the closest representations of Hell we will have on Earth. I may have inadvertently converted some recent divorcee's with that last statement.

Homosexuals avoid the complications and general frustration of dealing with the opposite sex yet while allowing their sexual desires to be met. Selfishness pure and simple. No more selfish than a man who uses women as sex objects and discards them but still selfish. Both behaviors are wrong and neither should be tolerated.

The second way homosexuality is selfish is the avoidance of reproduction. For you 'naturalists' and 'Neo-Darwinist' out there please note that homosexuality in nature is rare and usually dealt with harshly. There is a very good reason for this; from an evolutionary standpoint it's a dead end. If a species mutates a homosexual gene that gene will last one generation as there will be no offspring to carry the gene forward. Please note that I am not discussing bisexuality, another topic we will discuss in Part III. I'm talking true homosexuals who do not find the opposite sex attractive.

Homosexuality in a society is detrimental to the existence of that society. Marriage is a contractual agreement that is the core building blocks of all successful civilizations. You may not like this truth but you cannot, as much as you try, to remove it. All civilizations that have become wealthy and have tinkered with this core building block no longer exist. Six thousand years of human history has taught us that successful cultures and civilizations require a man and a woman to enter a contract of sexual exclusiveness and for those two to be the main teachers to their offspring of their culture and morals. All other attempts, capitalism, socialism, communism, liberalism, ad nausea, have failed to find a better system to allow a civilization to expand and preserve its culture at the same time. In fact, all these systems can only achieve any type of success as long as the core family unit is healthy. The test on whether a civilization is on its way out is easy; whose teaching and raising the children, the parents or other forces?

I don't think I want to apply this test to our present culture.

The problem with homosexuality is that it attacks, whether intentional or not; the core building block of any successful civilization; the family unit. Homosexuality breeds contempt for traditional values for it is itself a deviancy that allows an indeed demands for sexual exploration. Homosexuals claim they have the same traditional values between couples but their lifestyles betray them and the level of promiscuity in their relationships approaches legendary status. They will point to heterosexual couples who are promiscuous but fail to acknowledge that those couples are not looked upon fondly by society as a whole (at least until recently). Again, both are wrong and neither is right.   

And neither is the environment to raise children. An acquaintance of mine related to me childhood memories of a strange men and women being at the breakfast table on a regular basis. He is still dealing with the devastation it wrought on his childhood mind and he has serious trust issues in his relationships not to mention that he is attracted to women who tend towards this behavior even though he is desperately looking for a stable long term relationship. My message is to sexual deviants is simple; don't have children. You have no damn business doing so.

Even though homosexuals preach peaceful co-existence with traditional family values it is at best delusional and at worse a deceptive farce. Anyone who disagrees with this statement has never attended a homosexual rally (I mean, really, did you need to use the rainbow for crying out loud, is it not bad enough that you have already destroyed the word gay). They are as much a anti-marriage rally as a pro-gay rally which is a rather confusing stance in my view; I am against traditional marriage but want the right to participate in the exercise. I mean, really?

And herein lies the rub. Homosexuals want the benefits of marriage but without the requirements. They want the ring and the federal laws and tax benefits and legitimacy that comes with marriage but they want to participate in a promiscuous lifestyle in the meantime. They want to raise children but if you can't even commit to the boundaries of traditional marriage then you have no business raising children (this holds true for heterosexual couples as well).

Why? Because a marriage that is healthy propagates a society and its culture and can raise healthy children that can take care of themselves and the society they live in cannot, will not and never will be based upon selfishness which all sexual deviancy (adultery, homosexuality, bisexuality, gender changers, etc) is rooted in. A society that is based upon and promotes selfishness over valor and sacrifice will not survive. Period.

There is one lest defense for homosexuality. It's the modern day version of 'the devil made me do it'. There are some that argue that homosexuality is a gene and since its genetic then they cannot help themselves and so we cannot stop that which is natural. Well, you will probably be shocked to learn that I actually agree that it is probably genetic (there is, by the way, no proof of the 'gay gene' whatsoever) and you will also be shocked to learn that I believe that even if it is I do not believe that makes a difference.

We will discuss this in Part III

Update: Response To Comments on Homosexuality Part II