An atheist is still an atheist.

You will know a non-prog's an atheist when that person comments on morality and ethics. It's just the tone - you can smell it like alcohol on ones breath. To the left, someone who doesn't support homosexuality is equal to a racist. An atheist, regardless of their political bent, will equate you to a bible believer (pejoratively) if you do not support that morality, like humans, is being perfected by evolution.

Even if leftism looses its power, atheists on the right are the new leftists. 

Faux equality is king. Darwin is king. Both are false gods.

Sexual Morality is Non-Existent to Modernists/Libertines

Modernists don't think things through, do they? Saying a "woman can do whatever she wants and sleep with whoever" and casting it as "A-OKAY" is a saying "No big deal." That's an indirect way of approving it, which is a judgment call.

I can think of a few big way it affects me: Sex is seen as trivial yet not at the same time which then creates confusion between the two parties (or more) that engage in casual sex. This is basically having ones cake and eating it too. If the "no big deal" attitude is seen as fine then sleeping around isn't looked at anything morally degrading or perverted. Sleeping is then seen as "normal" and anyone who raises an eyebrow is seen as judgmental, sexist or a prude - or all three.

There's a dissonance and I'm not sure why there is one.

It is not necessarily that a woman has slept with ten guys that it concerns me the most - for all I know she could be desperate for money needed to pay off a debt or pay for her child's schooling, or maybe she's just a slut (the only "good" slut in my mind is the one that finds herself in dire situations as noted above) - but the attitude that follows directly after it, "it doesn't affect me" attitude, just makes the whole scenario a pool of feces. The "it doesn't affect you" is probably held by the slut who does sleep with ten  men; oddly enough when the "slept with ten men" story is brought up it will most likely be cast aside like a story that no one wants to hear with a "Who cares?" or maybe a "It's non of your business."

But if someone bullied or teased a classmate? It's a big deal. If someone doesn't vote for gay "marriage"? It's a big deal.

What also gets me confused the "every man is an island" when it comes to sex but all of a sudden I have to care about the whales and the trees. It's like personal responsibility and restraint in the modernist/libertine's mind is not really a solid foundation for a sound society, but supporting "green" products, so called "civil rights" and practicing tolerance (the extreme kind of "it doesn't affect you" types) is. Amorality naturally sides with debauchery.

Does this make a moralist? Maybe so. Does this make judgmental? Yes. 

Forums are a gold mine of modernity.

Rated PG-13 for vulgar language. 

This small segment on imdb discussing actress' Jennifer Lawrence's hacked pictures:

Why would anyone take a nude selfie and save it on an iCloud? Heck, why would anyone take a nude selfie in the first place unless they're vain enough?

 which was followed by

 Many reasons why someone would take a nude selfie...for themselves, because they feel good in that moment; for their partner; to document weight loss; because they freakin want to. But...that is entirely not the issue. A person's private sex life is a person's private sex life, and they are entitled to do what they want without you casting judgment on it; especially in this case since these are photos that she did not intend to be made private.

Anyway, how would this affect her status at all? Did people really not think that a beautiful 20-something did not have a sex life? That she did not have an erotic side to her? These photos are just evidence of something that is as self-evident that she brushes her teeth, eats in the morning, etc. I really don't think these will be an issue... if anything she will be more famous.

The worst she will have to face is to be the butt of a couple of jokes for a couple months... but after Mockingjay 1 comes out and this issue is rehashed a bit nobody will give a crap.

You got to be kidding me. Nope. It's modernity speaking.  Thou Shall Not Judge Others Sex Lives. But modernity judges what car one drives (whether it's eco friendly or not), if one supports certain social issues (homosexual "marriage" or ASL Ice Bucket Challenge) or if one cares about starving kids in Africa. If you express anything less than support you're labeled a "hater."

Anything sexually related?  Off hands. Except for pedophilia and other deviant behaviors, but that's another topic all together. So, modernists want traditionalists - or those that are critical of the act - to cast no judgement and render the critics into a bag of potatoes when discussing personal sexual matters, whether they be sex acts or vanity pics like nude selfies yet they want support for thing like "equal rights" for homosexuals and bisexuals, support "pro-choice" and go "YOU GO GIRL!" when a woman flaunts her sexuality or react in a way that's akin to "This is totally normal. What's the big deal here?" Commenting on what happens in the bedroom is a no no, but traditionalists have to support whatever happens in a bedroom in the name of "equality" and the ideal state of being "non-judgmental." Neutrality is indirect support, since the liberalism feeds off neutrality if support is not directly given.

F_ck that sh*t. I'm gonna judge away. You ain't gonna stop me from being opinionated, as I can't really stop one from taking a nude selfie or engaging in other juvenile acts in disguise of "maturity."

Now it's interesting that the word used to defend such things, nude selfies, is "entitled." Like one deserves such an action to freely do, like they accomplished something and that's their reward - a nude selfie. If the person is going to take a nude seflie I can't stop them unless they're right beside me or texts me saying "Hey, GRA, I'm gonna take naked picture of myself." In fact, whether one is "entitled" to do such an act is besides the point. It's whether one should do it in the first place. Of course, like the second poster explains, there are various reasons take such a picture (all the weight loss pictures I've seen, the ones in google's "image" tab were all showing clothed people, so nude selfies to show weight loss are probably in the minority); but just because you "have a reason" - whatever that may be - doesn't mean one should do it. It's like wanting to punch someone.

If I'm being provoked and my temper gets the best of me, and I physically harm that provoker, would I be in the right of punching him? No. Though one can understand why I punched him, that does not mean the action I took was wise or appropriate. The person assessing the situation would  be right in saying that my action was a poor judgement on my part, that I should've practiced more restraint. Here's the thing: If that's all the person says, without damning my soul to hell, then I, hopefully, would take the criticism maturely and think to myself "You're right. I shouldn't have done such a thing even though the provoker was out of like in his actions as well." Accountability is what's lacking.

Another interesting thing the defender notes: The poster, obviously a fan of the actress, admits to a common tactic that many (extreme) fanboys use. Anything controversial that puts the actor in a negative light is dealt in a very "Don't worry guys, this all will go away with time." He also spins it into a positive light, that once it's all over that she'll more famous for it because it's another "natural" thing a 20 year old would do. So in the end, she wins. And the fans win.

I find this attitude that the defender holds both pathetic and sickening. It perfectly speaks about the mentality of opportunists (the fan in this case) squeezing whatever they can get from an initially controversial topic. In a way it's making lemonade out of lemons, but this sort of lemonade I wouldn't want to drink let alone be proud of.

If you're fan of any actor and if they get caught in some questionable acts, don't worry. As long as they become more famous because of it you're A-OKAY. I wonder if O.J. Simpson admires followed the same attitude? Okay, that was an extreme comparison. But I wonder ..

Upon thinking about what the poster stated, the towards the end of the first paragraph, it also shows that today it is natural to assume that any attractive 20 year old is sexually active. An attractive virgin? That's messed up. An attractive chaste 20-something year old? Unheard of. Honey, you need to get your hips pumping & slappin' skin by midnight tonight. Author John C. Wright touched upon this.

In modern times, it is being cultivated to not assume that a stranger is straight. If I found a member of the opposite sex attractive, muster up the courage to talk them and maybe ask then out for lunch or coffee, I'd most likely be held as inconsiderate & ignorant if I thought that person was straight. The person maybe bi or a homosexual. What's totally okay to assume is if that person we are attracted to is sexually active.

So take note: Okay - assume that an attractive person is sexually active. Not Okay - assume a given person is straight.

(OT: Film actors are pretty much the most protected class of people in America right now, besides homosexuals and illegal immigrants. A 12 year old child growing up in a middle class home has more accountability than film actors.)

 It gets even more pathetic. Mary Anne Franks, from the NY Daily News, states:

The suggestion that the female celebrities whose private nude photos were hacked are somehow at fault is false; they have been deprived of dignity and equality. The law must be reformed to make invasions of sexual privacy punishable.

Is this another war on women? I'm surprised I didn't come across someone saying this.

An interesting use of words: Dignity and equality. Setting up the narrative of "girl power in the face of social injustice" I see. Too bad I'm not buying it.

And another reformed law in order to cater to such incidents? This is coming very close to reforming traditional marriage in order to accommodate same-sex pairings. 

Libertines are fiercely protective of their sex lives when it comes from outside judgement, but they are fiercely comfortable in showing their sexuality and saying "Take me as I am!"

This all looks like "blaming the victim." I won't disagree with that. I am putting responsibility on Lawrence's shoulders, but not all. I do believe that cloud systems, in which the pictures were hacked from, should be more solid in their user's privacy. I do think the hacker should be jailed & fined. I do think it's unfortunate that all these young women were exposed this way (100+ celebrities). But, like the hacker, actions have consequences, whether it's good or bad or a mixture. My sympathy is hard to get and to distribute to the parties involved.

What I can't help but laugh if this happened to 100+ politicians. They would be crucified by the media - not protected like the celebrities in painting them as complete innocents and getting the freakin' FBI involved.  It won't be just talked about in political magazines or political circles - it would be discussed in the morning news, in the evening news and comedians would be all over any Republicans (not that I'd defend them). It be like a Sarah Palin Media Frenzy.

What I like about this issue is that it branches into several topics: privacy in general. actions & consequences, perverts and fanboys. It is a topic that reflects modernity and its mentality.  

Now, do I think Miss Lawrence is a bad person? No. Do I think she's a slut? I don't know since I don't know if she sleeps around with other people. Do I think she's a good role model? She never entered such a category, in my mind, even before this incident, though I do like how she doesn't take PETA seriously (yet).

UPDATE: Some responses having the 'This wouldn't be a big deal ... " mentality suggest that if nudity wasn't seen as socially immoral then this incident - nude selfies being hacked - wouldn't garner the current media attention. Again, this reminds me of people saying "If people saw gays like 'everyone else' (as in "married", raising kids etc.) they would be in favor of marriage "equality."' It's all about stripping away the social stigmas & taboos when it comes to anything sexually related, really.

The late Lawrence Auster commented on modernity's romance with body art. I find this entry (alongside the comments talking about plastic surgery) very appropriate with the 'art' of selfies. At first, selfies were seen as vain actions. It started with the 'duck face' and now has evolved into nude selfies, with maybe the 'duck face' smacked on the face of the photographer. Now, they're seen as normal actions done by anyone under 25. The next step is releasing nudity from any stigmas so nude selfies would be met with no negative reaction and, as the imdb poster notes above, be seen in a healthy light. (But what if the girl isn't as attractive as Lawrence?)

Combox #2

So I was perusing comments on an article commenting on another article on what bigotry consists of. To no surprise at all the bio of the writer of the this commented article noted he wrote about LGBT topics. And to no (big) surprise one poster who defended homosexual acts, or at least held an indifferent attitude about it, said this:

Sometimes, it’s not very easy to engage in cool headed disagreement. For example, imagine you’re reading a blog post with which you mostly agree. But then at the end, the author calls your relationship with the person you love “nonsensical” and “obviously wrong”.

When you hear such things regularly, and that statement is yet another voice in the chorus, that can really hurt.   

I'm not sure if the poster was referencing the article being commented on (since the article was pro-homosexuality) or the thoughts being critical of the it (since the critical author is a proclaimed Christiana whose views are direct opposite of the commented article). Or maybe he was referencing another article that might have a "God is love and we all should respect each other and mind our own business and we should not judge since God is our judge. Oh and homosexual relationships are nonsensical" vibe to it.  

 Then I later discovered he admitted to being in a polyamorous relationship. And he did this:

For example, I routinely engage in rather “extreme” BDSM.

Go figure.

And this is coming from a self-proclaimed atheist.

Also why do modernists and securalists tend to incorporate their "lack of belief" in their handles? Something like TruthSeeker or TheFriendlyAtheist or Mr.Skeptic. Something along those lines.

Of course the poster wasn't married (I don't he ever was nor does he ever want to be). And a bit OT, I also would like to know what drives a person to adopt a "there is no god" worldview AND adopt such extreme sexual relationships.

A comment did spark my attention (as in: good point) :

An ethic of consent also assumes that nothing—absolutely nothing!—is wrong in itself, but only in someone not liking it.

Is that a problem?

I think so. If nothing is wrong in itself, is anything right in itself? If nothing is bad in itself, is anything good in itself?

I'm amused when modernists and secularists trivialize sex (e.g. "As long as there is consent, who cares."), yet it become a BIG deal when criticism is being directed at the trivialization and whatever acts are involved in this "trivial" topic (e.g. homosexual acts, state of homosexuality or any deviation of heterosexuality). And to include BDSM, simply because of the precedent parentheses, there was actually comments defending it on this AT article. Note the ever popular "consent" and even the "you just don't 'get it'" card pulled.

 

Yes, thank you, Arthur. It also doesn't mean it's right. Then again, what's there to "get" about deviant & perverted sexual acts?
                                              
As written before on my Combox #1 post: These types of articles tend to attract its particiapants. I mean, do they search for such articles being critical of their chosen lifestyle? It seems like it. What are the chances of such an article being popular on the day (or few days after it was published) unless someone circulated it, especially on a site that is non-progressive?

Rejecting the "role model" label ... but not really because "they're talented"

It's been my observation that actors who start to get a little "risque", and then when they're confronted by these questionable decisions raised by the interviewer, they often times say "I'm no role model." I take this as a self-preservation tactic and in a way, on the actor's part, to have their cake and eat it too. It's one of many "Get Out of Jail" cards that actors use.

Here are some scenarios:
- Actor advocates for some social cause (mainly a 'progressive' one, like PETA, It Gets Better, Human Rights Campaign, any LGBT advocacy group, Kill Malaria, some Go Green cause etc.) and actor is seen as a "role model' (actor feel good about themselves)
- Actor takes nude photo, receives a DUI or just performs some action that is mainly due to pure narcissism; actor says "I'm no role model", blames the media or their fans becomes apologists for the actors sake

Like I said, "Get Out of Jail" card.

I'm not saying entertainers should act "perfect"; most likely they're going to act like idiots more often than the Average Joe simply because (A) they have the time and (B) they have the means and opportunities to do such things. Add the six figure income, yearly, and you get an entitlement to do whatever you want. What I'm saying is there's little to no accountability - no actual real scorn or dismissive tone towards the entertainer by their fans. The DGAF mentality is usually adopted between late teens (in Justin Bieber's case once he turned 18) and early twenties. If any scorn or critical judgment is put upon them they usually resort to this "no role model"/DGAF mentality; when praise is put upon them it's usually "Thank you to all my fans, your support and your kind words. Believe in your dreams, all you need to do is to believe in yourself and let the haters hate." (Which is basically telling all their followers to adopt the DGAF mentality.)

I stumbled on a conversation talking about Miley Cyrus. One poster was critical of her - this is when the dancing bear and twerking began and caused a commotion - while the other said that Miley would make a fine motivational speaker. That's right, Miley Cyrus as a motivational speaker. The poster was serious. He noted that what Miley's going through - the whole #YOLO mentality - was what he was going through at the moment. He said "I won't let anyone get in the way of my dreams." Yes, because there's a roadblock of "ME! ME!" in your way.

When the "common people" don't admire a certain entertainer (e.g. athlete, actor, singer) the accusation hurled at the "common people" is of jealousy or lack of talent or any other shallow jabs. Besides those jabs, "laughing to the bank" to "inspiring millions worldwide" to "you work in a menial/9-5 job" ad hominems are the stock darts.


In some bizarre twist, the common man is expected to admire them and to use them as motivation (even though a good percent of the common man, I'd wager, do not want a career as a singer, actor or any unconventional creative job) while at the same time to see them as "just like us" (fair enough). This "just like us" is thrown out the window once the entertainer releases his "tell all" autobiography, or when one discovers how privileged they are, since "just like us" is drowned in their exclusive parties filled with other creatives; private transportation and, most likely, deviant relationships or multiple marriages. Such entertainers are always heralded as to have "lived a full life" since the common man are just stuck in their everyday menial jobs and routine. But, as always, when they screw up the "they're just human" is presented without fail. Their apologists will say "Like you're so perfect," in attempts to  play the "throwing stones as a glass house" card. I'd say throw the stones when needed. If it crashes then it crashes -- I mean, the common man is also "just human", right?

In all honestly, I don't even believe that most of the common man - those in the USA at least - really gives two sh*ts about entertainers as the media, their handlers and their fans often times lead on. Is this some way to use the common man as a scapegoat when entertainers commit one very stupid mistake after another?

What makes parents proud? Bodily autonomy, ownership, not caring.

Don't ask me how I got to this video -- it's was one of those "I clicked here and there, found this video interesting and found another, and then I found myself in this part of youtube" type of scenario.  It's not the cute animal part of the site.

One of the commentators gave this response,

"The actress' parents must be very proud her."

 which was followed by this (which received an up vote),

"they definitely are. she's making more money than any of us and she looks great."

The critical post gave an interesting point, as well as the other. Given that actors, working actors that is, do get paid a handsome amount of money - and often times more than their parents, family members and childhood friends make in one month, probably all combined - I think any parent would be glad in that regard. Their child, by just cashing that check(s), would be financially independent.

Who knows how the parents of the actress feels. They may be proud - given no opinion about the career choices of their now grown adult child. (An interesting group of words that is - adult child.)  They may not. I don't know.

Now I am aware that highlighting this rather trivial concern brings up many questions and backlash. "Who cares?", "It's non of your business" to "she's laughing to the bank and you're not." But I think this is just the surface of the problem. I think the issue deserves much more respect and to dig into the philosophical realm (which should be explored by far more skilled, intelligent writers than I). Many will say "As long as no one gets hurt, it's okay." Many will also say "It's her body, career and choice. Your opinion therefore does not matter." Fair enough, but whose opinion counts? Those that support and agree with such career moves? Most likely yes.

For those who have found my blog, are you familiar with Adventure Time? I think this clip couldn't have been shown to me at a better time. I'd even say it was a "sign" for me to start talking about this issue (among others) since I have been meaning to express and write about.

"You've been telling me the answer all along. The only way to defeat parental disapproval is not caring about anything."

I think this goes both ways, I believe. A parent can not care what the adult child does and the adult child cannot care what they parents think. "Whatever makes you happy." To me, a bizarre mantra. I remember reading on a sports forum a poster saying people will do whatever they want to do. True enough. Though a somewhat poor example, if my parents don't like me maintaining a blog I'd most likely ask why, disagree with their reasoning, and justify my action: I'm not hurting anyone physically or breaking any laws. I am not sharing information that is privy to the US government (not that I'll ever be in such a position to be a receiver of such information).There's an absent of moral reasoning (that I know of) that says sharing/writing thoughts on numerous subjects via internet, setting on non-private, is poor judgement or morally wrong, unless one says exposing such thoughts is close to narcissism. Like I said, somewhat poor example.

Of course it could be said that, if my parents read my blog, and expressed disapproval of the thoughts written - not being aware that such thoughts were that of their own child, would it be "permissible" to continue? Or what if they were aware that it was the thoughts of their own child, would I be in the wrong doing?

To play on a modern day thought process, one should not care what ones own parents think - regardless if it was supportive - and "to do what you do" - whatever that thing you do is. Stripper? Prostitute? Porn star? "Fake" BDSM & explicit sex scenes? Sure, go at it. In the name of art and commitment. You only have one life to live, might as well live it to the fullest. As long as you don't hurt anyone, as long as you're happy and as long as you make tons of money while looking great doing it -- any parent would be proud. Or, don't care; don't think about it. Just shut off your brain. If you do care to comment in a disapproving way, "deal with it."