Penis and tits.

Okay, I got your attention. Warning: this is probably my crudest post. Just sayin'. This is something I don't want my parents to read, but hey, sometimes you gotta tell it like it is.

When women, not all, say that men are shallow and that all they care about when measuring a woman's worth, whether or not they want to have a sexual relationship with the, is based on how big a woman's chest is. This might be true for some men. But in reality men, once you get down to it, really aren't that superficial when it comes to dating at least. There are probably more men who date women that have no bigger than B-cups. There are plenty of known actresses who aren't blessed with sizeable breasts; I bet many men would like to date them. You go to any American major city, say NYC to LA to DC. I will bet that there are more men dating women who are have small breasts than there are men dating those who are busty. It's also a numbers game: there are more women who don't fall into the busty category, say the more large side of C-cup.

When the clothes come off for "happy hour" men don't wish damn I wish your tits were big as that one actress from Mad Men. No. They're thinking fuck yea I'm gettin' some! Truth be told breasts, once the friction starts, aren't treated the same as a vagina. A vagina is a vagina (transgender "women" do not count, sorry but not sorry), let's me honest. Same with breasts. As Al Pacino's character says in Scent of a Woman, "Tits. Hoo-ah! Big ones, little ones, nipples staring right out at ya, like secret searchlights. Mmm." Men are simple creatures when it comes to sex.

Women, if you're worried that you aren't attractive, or if you're unhappy that your breasts aren't "big", you're just putting more angst into your psyche that isn't needed. When it comes down to it men (I) don't really care.

But what's the equivalent to breast size for men? Penis size. This is pretty straight forward and I'm not sure why no one, that I've come across when reading about modern dating, has touched upon this. Like breast size for women, penis size can really make a man question is worth. Let's face it: too big can hurt a woman; too small the women is embarrassed for you. If anyone knows anything about sex is that a woman's g-spot is the clincher. You hit that right she'll be melting with aid of stimulus of the clitoris.

When she pulls down your pants and is met with a little pecker she might think What? In today's dating landscape I hope you have a lot of money to keep her from leaving; if she's considered a seven or above there will be men who want to date her. Like bank accounts, a man's penis size is another form of it. Unlike breasts, a penis plays a large part in a woman's sexual pleasure and a man's self-esteem. When a woman takes off her shirt, whether she's flat chested or not, it's a sight to behold because a woman's body is innately beautiful. When a man pulls down his pants a woman is thinking I wonder how big it is -- OMG that's one good lookin' dick.

Once you get down to it the breasts may be small but they're breasts and any guy without some messed up psyche will be happy with 'em. The penis, on the other hand, can make a girl embarrassed when she talks sex with her girlfriends at Sunday brunch in DC. Simply put, the penis is linked to sexual pleasure than breasts ever were since breasts, for a male, are seen for sexual arousal. Yes, men may goggle as a busty woman but that doesn't mean he'll leave his B-cup girlfriend for her. If anything, men may leave their significant other for "prettier" types.

A woman can break up with a guy for many reasons - not tall enough, penis too small; if the penis is too big at least it's big, not making six figures, doesn't have elite academic pedigree, doesn't make a living as a lawyer, actor, doctor or youtuber etc. As a guy the pressure is on us. In some ways it's a good thing: you're forced to stay in shape and to be learned; you're forced to not be a pansy and find ways to provide for your family or girl.

So again, ladies, if you're upset that you don't have big breasts like this cute thing here (she indirectly expressed jealousy towards a co-worker's bigger bra size only to be met with breast cancer a year later; she then said that after chemo she can finally get new breasts), there's no true need to worry.

And no, I will not tell you how long my schlong is nor its girth.

Tradition? What's that?

Person A: I think it's crap that the NCAA removed that university's mascot on the grounds of "racism." It'll only be time before other sports traditions are scrapped.

Person B: Look, I understand the bitterness of some fans. The traditions that are still there have no connections to the mascot, so I think they'll stay. What you're doing is an appeal to emotions and has a smell of NCAA conspiracy theory. It's silly.

Person A: How does a slippery slope equates to a conspiracy theory?

Person B: It's over. I've moved on, and IMO the rest of our fanbase ought to do the same.

Person A: So what you're saying that an image, once an integral part of this university's public image, scrapped, and the future students should just not give a damn? What if, one day, the songs used by the marching band that have taken some heat due to its loose connection to the now band mascot are banned? Now what?

Person B: Like the mascot, they should get over it.

Person A: I get it. You're the type that really doesn't give a damn about tradition. How's the shitty block letter of the university in replace of the mascot's face? It's looks like crap. You're the kind that will be totally fine with corporate take over and when new "traditions" are started, you'll be there saying it's 'just as good' as the old ones.

Person B: It's just a silly tradition.

Person A: No, it's not a "silly" tradition. Tradition gives character. It gives life. 

The Idiot Parade

of leftists is just as bad as the Gay Pride Parade.

Like clock work we got a couple of ACLU lawyers saying that terrorist attack on the gay Florida night club was stoked by "200 anti-gay laws" and The View host Kristine Haines said that conservative religious politicians should keep their religion "in their homes" and "out of politics" where they can impress it upon people.

How did Haines make an act of terrorism into "them Christian folks"? Well, she's on The View so that might explain her aptitude of just going with any modern day talking point.

Hate crimes against Muslims have risen 3x says Hillary Clinton! Interesting. Though anecdotal, my parents live near a community called "Little Palestine" and local news have not reported any crimes against the Muslim immigrants in the area. This area is nestled between "Little Poland" and blue collared neighborhoods whose residents are old-school white Americans. After all these years, as Little Palestine grew, there has been peace amongst the old and new residents. Something tells me the MSM and Mrs. Clinton are just making shit up as they go.

Chicago Archdiocese: Low priest numbers, possible church closings. And NCR.

The third largest Catholic archdiocese in the USA (after LA & NYC) is facing possible closings of multiple churches due to a lack of priests and building dilapidations reported by the Chicago Tribune. This is horrid news and I cannot but feel that the multiple closings are inevitable, as what happened to the NYC Archdiocese a few years ago. I will pray that some will be saved and that young men will be inspired to enter the vocation of priesthood. If there's a calling for employment and need, this is one area that really needs it. (Do you clergy show up as a national statistic as jobs?)

Now, I want to concentrate on the link. The link brings you to the National Catholic Reporter, not known as an orthodox or traditional Catholic news site. The mentality of the commentators in the comment box further proves that heretics are within the Church and if the patriarchy of the Church would just embrace "progress" the Church's health, the numbers of vocations and membership would increase, creating a more modern atmosphere and reflecting the makeup of America both in plurality, skin color and sexual orientation. This sounds mightily familiar.

Poster "AP" commented on the lack of diversity and supposed exclusion of almost every group that that Episcopalians

And most of us are moving toward progress and away from the past. Visioning church as: "inclusive and harmonious, respecting and appreciating diversity in all its forms as an asset in worship and community life" is a great theory. Means nothing until laity, clergy, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, all stand up for said diversity and insist on equal value in our church for women, LGBTQ, married priests, children, and people of color. Heartbreaking to lose what we had because the Catholic church cannot move into the new century.

Yea, how are the sects and congregations that put "social justice" and inclusion as their rallying cry look like? Not good. The US Episcopalian Church is in much worse shape, priest wise and membership wise. So go fuck yourself you may want to re-think that, AP.

Another poster, "Patricksday," said a lot of stuff but showed his true face near the end -

And when we heal our Hearts and Minds that have been damaged by misguided information from the Celibates of the Catholic Church we have the power and freedom to find healthy ways to connect with God and Jesus that do not torture us and reject us. The Catholic Church management believes God makes junk and its up to them to make us "perfect" as they view it. God who Loved us so much to craft us each uniquely to bring Joy, Peace, Laughter and Happiness to a dark world, the Church would rather have us be lowly down trotten victims, attending morbid boring repetitive services, with people who cant even extend the sign of Peace with each other, because of the lack of Joy the Catholic Faith seems to bring to their lives. The Catholic Bishops who find joy lost in the past that no longer exists for the majority of Humanity are bringing this tired old relic down by them self and are doing a fine job of it, Jesus would be proud! We will have Peace on Earth and Humanity is coming together to make that happen, sadly the Roman Catholic Church is not leading the way, its lost in the past that no longer exists. Pope Francis has made an effort, but all the people put in place by John Paul and Benedict had their own back to basics plan with Nuns in full habit, couture gowns, gloves hats, slippers and arrogance one would expect. Thankfully that plan serves the smaller fanatical Catholic Church that is being formed in limited locations[.]

Blah blah blah spirituality blah blah blah look a squirrel blah blah blah archaic traditions & rules blah blah blah Jebus blah blah blah dressing in full habits is for the small group of fanatics.

Hmmm. I believe that the full habit orders are actually increasing, slowly, while the orders who embrace modern dress are not seeing such growth. In fact, seeing nuns in full habit have inspired young women to consider cloistered life as a serious possibility.

One's Status According to Modernity.

I've always enjoyed The Art of Manliness website, mainly managed by Brett McKay. Today I came upon a fine article about how to build status (not necessarily monetary or celebrity-wise) within one's community. Ya know, for the Average Joe who isn't in the entertainment business, a state senator, or making bennies in i-banking.

Here's a snippet -

For the last few months, we’ve been discussing the complex nature of status — an individual’s position within a group of people and how much approbation, respect, recognition, and attention he or she receives from others.

We’ve talked about the fact that status encompasses way more than wealth, and can constitute anything and everything that offers others some kind of value. It can be linked to our physical appearance, skills, fitness, intelligence, insights, creativity, personality traits, social connections, and even the ability to find and share information. Status gains and losses are thus not only felt in the size of one’s bank account, but whether or not people laugh at your jokes, compliment your appearance, like your social media posts, respond to your texts, invite you to a party, envy your cool vacation or job, admire your integrity or resilience, seek your advice, think you’ve got great taste in music or books — and in a thousand other ways.

We’ve shown that because the traits and behaviors that different groups value can vary, status is relative and context specific; you can have high status in one group, but low status in another.
We’ve demonstrated that men are more sensitive to status losses and gains than women, and that the status drive is hardly a mere cultural construct, but rather is deeply rooted in our very physiology. Status defeats and wins in fact affect nearly every system of the body, and intensely activate our neurocircuitry.

The series, linked above, is sobering for those that have been pompous and insufferable due to status success and  a wake-up call to anyone who has been slacking.

Accurate beyond belief.

This excerpt from an article written by Peter Hitchens is how I felt when I subscribed to liberal views during my teenage years. I get that this same snobbery is alive & well in other liberals.

The liberal mindset isn't hard to figure out when it comes to their impressions of non-urban places and non-progressives. I'll list them.

• The military is for the stupid. Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Coasties can't think for themselves. They're the epitome of the "yes" man, taking orders, never questioning them.
•  The military is the mafia for the greedy business and oil men. The reason why wars start is for profit - military personnel are killers, killing innocent civilians and mistaking people who defend their country as "the bad guys." They are the henchmen for the CEOs.
• Rural places are devoid of culture, filled with narrow-minded people. These people are called rednecks, hicks or townies. 
• Rural places are filled with ignorant people, racist people, sexist people and homophobic people. 
• State universities, for the most part, are people who weren't smart enough to get into the Ivies, a top private or an elite LAC. Don't even mention community college.
• People in rural places drive trucks. Lamborghini they are not.
• Those in rural places and suburbs shop at malls and where clothes that are devoid of uniqueness. These malls are also filled with moms and dads with strollers, screaming kids and annoying teenagers.
• Suburban teenagers have no fashion sense. They dress in Ugg boots, North Face jackets and crowd Starbucks. They then attend a sate university and move to the city to be known as a "Chad & Trixie."
• Rural and suburbs tend to favor sports as a way of entertainment. Sports mostly appeals to the unsophisticated; soccer/football is the exception because Europe likes it. Soccer/football is the one sport that open-minded and intelligent crowd prefer unlike the brain bashing American football.
• Suburbs is a soulless place. Same architecture in the more newly developed divisions. 
• The suburbs is car centric with little options for quality stores. Target, Walmart and K-mart are looked at as places where you can find the ever popular overtly patriotic, heavy weight and dimwitted American.
• Many of those who work in the suburbs work 9-5 jobs, doing boring soul sucking tasks. For example, car insurance, retail, food services etc.These are uncreative jobs, if not dead end.
• If you work a corporate job aka cubicle farm worker then your the second best example of the "yes" man.
• The suburbs is the sign of dead dreams: Married with children. Instead of trips to Paris and canoeing in Canada's lakes, it's trips to Disney World and cross-country minivan trips to The World's Largest Yarn Ball.

If anyone cares to disagree, there's the comment section. I'd be more than happy to discuss this entry.

Having conversations with a non-conservative is almost pointless.

I'm starting to become convinced that most people who are products of public education and university are dumber than when they entered. 

It's always makes me chuckle when someone admits to a stance that may discriminate against a certain group - specifically not agreeing or supporting so-called LGBT "rights" - and the person listening says "So you're fine with being a bigot?"

This indirectly makes the person being accused of being a bigot feel like an idiot. Living in the 21st century you're suppose to be up-to-date and "cool" with 'equality' and whatnot, it's seen similarly as having a smartphone and having the yelp app installed. The logic goes if you don't want to be bigot (a bigot is like showing up to class without your homework done or totally forgetting that there was a scheduled quiz) then either agree or at least vote in favor (appeal to separation of religion and state) of gay mirage and same-sex adoption.

It in the similar vain as not attaching the label feminist if you agree upon equal wage to the same job, with the same hours under the same boss. "What do you mean you're not a feminist?" It's expected that everyone under 35 be one because it's the default position.

All of these "Yes, I'm for 'equal' rights" and "Yes, I consider myself a feminist" to the average modernist/non-conservative is akin to "Yes, of course I love my pet gold fish." How could you not? That's the main feeling that runs through the veins and hearts of the Millennials. When confronted to explain their position they, the well-read and those who gave though to it, usually babble something pseudo that if you asked me when I awoke from slumber I could've grumbled the same thing as I prepared my mornings oats. When you present your position they either laugh or just ask "Why?" repeatedly or pull fallacies left and right, and when you point it out because it's messing up the conversation they say "So?" or "You see that's different ... "

Modernists/non-conservatives don't play by the rules. Their ace is relativism and their king is subjectivism. Their queen is feelings/emotions and "the heart." Their joker is saying "It's been documented/written, go look it up," as convenience. I do believe they think what they say is of sound body. No leaks, no holes, or least stronger to be deemed the winner with a nice gold shiny star. They (cleverly) use the tide of momentum to shut the opponent up. "Hey, we're winning. Deal with it," or appeal to the bizarre libertarianism card "They aren't hurting anyone, whats it to you?" or the libertine card "Not your life, not your body, so your opinion doesn't count," or the horrid mantra that counts as wisdom "As long you're happy, then do whatever you want."

Yes, there are many people who follow these cards, just take a look at tumblr, youtube and instagram.There are many who admire these types, just look at their defenders and the amount of "likes" and "reblogs" they receive. These people are considered role models. That prude and "nobody" down the street? What about that coward?

Just admit you run on relativism. It'll save me the time.

I mostly observe (aka lurk) on CAF (Catholic Answer Forum) and I remember when I fist joined spotting the 'questionable' members. These can range from Catholics who disagree with Church teachings and non-religious being annoying and practicing horrid arguments. This is not to say I don't like opposite views; for from it. It's when such people act indignant and their tone is "I and others are SO fed up with the Church and its oppression and injustice! Change or forever be slowly forgotten by society as we progress towards the shining sun of progress!" See below.

And then there's posters like "epan" who, after years of posting and acting like a complete arrogant douche, finally lets the beans spill depending on the subject at hand.

Why the fuck would I have to apologize? That's like me going up the a Japanese and saying to them "Apologize for killing my Filipino ancestors during WWII! Apologize!" or walking up to a random Wall Street banker/trader and asking an apology for the 2008 financial recession.

The poster doesn't specify what religions when he says "role of religion in the persecution of homosexuals" so I'm not sure if he meant Christianity or, say, Islam. If Islam then my question still stands: Why the fuck would I have to apologize? Then again epan is the type of that came across as someone who held a grudge against religion in the first place, so it's no big surprise that he'd want this type of repentance by Christians.

It's not a complete mystery on the things people are angry at the RCC. Let us count.

1. Homosexuality is not 'normal.' It's considered a disorder. Acting on same-sex temptations is considered a sin.
2. RCC is seen as oppressive & sexist towards women. (Most of the morally strong women I have known have been Catholics).
3. RCC has stances on sex that is deemed strict and archaic.
4. Crusades.

That's basically it. If you don't see a theme between most of these I'll say it now: Many of the things modernists despise the Church for is about its stances on sex. Who's obsessed with sex again? The social conservatives when they object to explicit sex scenes and unwarranted nudity on screen or print, or straight-out porn? I don't think so. My finger is pointing to all the butt hurt "BUT IT'S MY BODY AND I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT! IT'S SEX IT'S NATURAL THEREFOR IT'S BEAUTIFUL WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?" people. They want their cake and eat it too: They want people to be indifferent or support their sex, but when met with criticism they cry foul. And let's not pretend that such a group aren't aware of what they're won't cause strong disagreement - they aren't innocent lambs stupidly walking across the street only to be stuck by a Chevy pickup. They are fully aware of how certain groups are going to react or else they wouldn't say things like this:

"American's are afraid of sex"
"Good art is provocative and controversial."

First World Problems: "Cultured" people complaining about small towns.

It's like "doing time" as one poster said.

Some are actual legit complaints, like cost of clothing and lack of jobs. The rest?

Badge of Honor

What's with non-conservatives being "proud," like a "oh yea,  so what?" type of chip on the shoulder?

Some examples:
1. LGBT "pride"
2. "Army officer. Iraq veteran. Liberal and proud."
3. Abortion "pride"
4. Slut Walk

Three out of four deal with sexuality. This isn't the least bit surprising. The one thing that is probably the most coveted on the left is sex. Not in "it's sacred" but "it's personal yet you can't be judgmental." That is - either support the action or be silent if the view is less than favorable.

What is Up is Down; What is Down is Up.

The left salivates over those who join their ranks.

Vets who are anti-war.
Straights entering same-sex relationships (some leaving a family behind), be their 'true sexuality' a homosexual or bisexual.
Liberal priests.
Rogue nuns/sisters.
Parents/friends supporting same-sex once dear ones "come out of the closet."
America turning into a more secular society.
Young adults turning away from their orthodox or traditional religion.
Monogamy to polyamory.
Cheating turning into "not a big deal."
Square to wild/free child.
Small town kid disowning his past (friends, family, neighbors) for a worldly living.
Melodic, rich tone for "noise."
Women dressing in androgynous ways to subvert "female expectations." As fashion designer. Stella McCartney, said "to be nothing," or when masculine and feminine characteristics meet as an equal point, so her theory goes.
Children of parents who work 9-5 jobs seek out work that is "non-conformist"; the be "ones boss", not an inferior to "the man."
Societal norms are perceived as bigoted; taboos are accepted.
Evil is turned into "ambiguity"; right & wrong are blurred lines.
Love & sex can easily be separated if we just let go of our sexual hangups.
Sexual partners are always referred to as "lovers."
Military & community service (firefighters, nurses) personal aren't seen as role models, entertainers are.
Teachers don't teach, they preach (about social justice, "equality," global warming, diversity).
Parents don't discipline, they become "friends" of their children; they let kids raise themselves to avoid being "helicopter" parents.

They use these situations as "proof" of the inferiority of so-called archaic, oppressive, non-creative, and claustrophobic Bronze/Victorian Age, 1950s society where everyone except white Christian males were miserable.

Religious, Agnostic or Atheist

Every now and then these types of threads on IMDB, in its Movie Awards forum, show up. It's always interesting to see what the responses are and the explanations some give to their answer.

Follow Your Dreams...Eh, Not So Fast.

I'm not sure if "follow your dreams" is a new slogan. What I'm sure about is that it, and other slogans like it like #YOLO, "do what makes you happy", have been the cry for a certain set of people. They're either one of the following:

a. A person who blogs full time and "is his own boss" - mostly blogs about fashion, food, travel or movies

b. a person wanting to have a career in the entertainment world - be it an actor, singer or dancer

or

c. a person who gains money from making YouTube videos - mostly reviewing beauty products, electronics or clothes (e.g. sneakers)

And there's the fitness YouTube people (whom I'd put in a.) who probably opened up their own gym, and now are giving advice on the biomechanics of doing a skull crusher.

What do all three have in common? All are unconventional jobs and all intersect at the "Me!"

It's without fail. Go on a YouTube vid about some celebrity giving a commencement speach and the combox is filled with this sh*t. Usually the (celebrity) speaker is going on about "Haterz gonna hate" or "You're gonna change the world!"

I was watching one channel were the guy went on a tangent how he was self-sufficient at the age of 13, that no one gave him any money and that he was homeless once. What was his "job"? Reviewing sneakers. He was a "sneaker head." And this was a video about "How to find cheap sneakers." 

Look, I'm genuinely glad that he survived his homeless period and is now financially stable. 

Another channel was a weight lifting channel. The host seems sorta intelligent, but ALWAYS goes on a tangent that he tries to make philosophical even though he fails every time. It is clear he is reading too many New Age BS books or some humanistic philosophers.

The people who bake & cook: I don't have much to say about them because they really just stick to their channel's theme without any modern day self-masturbation. They just want to make awesome cookies filled with sugar and dinners filled with carbs. I like them for this. It's like a consolation prize for not making it on the Food Network. Good for them.

Do people in corporate say "follow your dreams"? Not that I'm aware of. They're professionals. Do people in the medical field say "follow your dreams"? Not that I'm aware of. They're too busy saving lives and telling aspiring medical students to get straight As and to not f_ck up on the MCATS. Do people who work in construction, or any "we make stuff" vocation, say "follow your dreams"? Not that I'm aware of. They're too busy actually fixing & making things, while looking out for the apprentice so he doesn't cut off his hand. How about those who enter religious life? Not that I -- Yea you get it.

People who want to make a living making YouTube videos or want to enter the entertainment world? All. The. Damn. Time.

All The Damn Time.

If you're entering the entertainment field it will be filled with personality disorders, narcissism and massive insecurities. You're going to have a self-esteem booster "when the world gets you down"; cause, ya know, it's always the world's fault. Be prepared for the "Us vs Them" card being pulled as well. 

"Man, the world doesn't get us."

"It's about what you feel and what your gut tells you."

"Thank god for us artists; the world would be such a dreary place." (Film director Steven Soderbergh said something like this in his Oscar speech)

People who are in front of a camera, or careers that are about 'expression', tend to wear this slogan on their sleeve (if the moment is right). Everyone thinks they're the next Madonna, Audrey Hepburn or whatever art icon. I don't think they want to be "that famous and so and so" -  I think they genuinely believe that they possess some sort of unique talent that all 'normal' people don't have, or some sort of courage that is absent in all the 'average' people. 

  

They don't like average or normal (which doesn't mean mediocre, contrary to popular belief) so they scoot away from it because it's "above them." This leads to bizarre contempt for middle America. 

The least obnoxious situation I can think of are the people on America's Got Talent. The current season finalists are not only entertaining, but also quite talented. Realistically, every single one of them won't have a a career in their chosen specialty, but it's a chance for them to literally shine (without doing rather degrading acts for "art"). After the show life goes on for them. 

UPDATED: A few more thoughts added on and grammatical errors corrected. 

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?)

When hipsters and so called "rule breakers" create their own (clothing) brand + company.

Do they think the invented the concept of 'business' or are they just absurdly arrogant and pretentious? I think all three. 

So I'm "into" fashion. Ever since I upgraded my jeans - since the ones I replaced I had no interest in wearing anymore and I wanted to update the material used and the fit; in other words, to purchase a modern looking pair of jeans - I slowly eased my way into becoming a more discerning consumer when it comes to buying articles of clothing. I pay attention to fit and drape. I pay attention to what the article of clothing is made out of.

I also noticed the attitude that came with this niche interest (at least for men). If the clothing line that's made in the USA and has a site, I tend to visit it for a peek. That peeking then becomes perusing through almost every tab. I educate myself about what the company "is all about."

Take the clothing company Everlane.  It believes in being transparent so that the customers know why the price of their article of clothing is priced the way it is. I think that's quite a good business philosophy. Jump over to their "Jobs" section, though. 

Here's what bugs me:

Always Ask Why

We constantly challenge the status quo. Nothing is worse than complacency, and as a brand our culture is to dissect every single decision we make at every level of the company.
We know our customers are also rule breakers and questioners, so we hope this philosophy is palpable in the products and choices we make. And by all means, challenge us too.

Okay, what status quo? In the business world in general? In the fashion world? There are many status quos (I bet there are status quos within Everlane ... ). As for complacency -- well, they sure seem smug about themselves in general. Keep reading so find out why I think this way about them.

Rule breakers? Questioners? That's like proclaiming you're a "free thinker" or some rebel without a cause (but with a cause). 

And this is my 'favorite':

They say you should start a business that you wish already existed, so we quit our day jobs.

Now this isn't so much advocating for entrepreneurship as it's quietly jabbing so called "day jobs"  and all the (many, many, many ... ) people who work (and are fine with working) "day jobs." You could even say those who work at Everland, the non-owners are working their own "day jobs." Unless they work at night in order to avoid such a label. This I doubt.

Then there's this:

 Dear rule breakers, questioners, straight-A students who skipped class: We want you.

 "Too cool for school" type of brilliance. Gotcha. What's next, "Dear swimmers who breath under water without choking. We want you."? So no "goodie two-shoes" need apply - you just don't fit the image and the atmosphere. No people who respect the rules, even those who may question them from time to time, yet, for the most part, understand why they're there in the first place.  

Enter PacSun. I was in one of their outlet stores getting some of colorful/fun socks and I noticed a banner hanging. It was a nice banner. Simple in design. It also had this written on it:

Is PacSun, and those in the fashion industry in California, claiming that this mindset is strictly their own, and that only in Ca. that such an ideal reality exists? I know it's for marketing, to get the young adults or whoever to buy their stuff and to buy into such an mindset. It's similar to the Empire State of Mind (see: Jay-Z and Alicia Key's song to learn all about it, or just talk to any transplant to the island of Manhattan or some trendy Brooklyn neighborhood). I haven't come across any clothing company located in the Midwest or South that holds this type of obnoxious mindset.

Now let me break this "Golden State of Mind" down a bit.

First, diversity. I have a feeling they mean ethnic diversity (maybe whoever was in charge of this banner just threw in the word 'diversity' simply because it sounds good and fits the narrative); but here's the thing: all the major metros and cities of Ca. are majorly segregated into ethnic enclaves. The east side of LA isn't the west side, for sure. Bloods and Crips still exist in LA and the last time I heard they weren't recruiting white or Latino kids. Most of the uber wealthy actors live in affluent neighborhoods away from the middle class suburbs, which (these affluent neighborhoods) are gated communities. I know there's a big population of Asians, but, at least in San Francisco, most the middle class Asians tend to live near each other. I mean, Daley City is approximately 50% Asian. And that's a stone throw away from the city of San Francisco.

Second, creativity. Okay, there's the Bay Area where tech is dominant; LA where entertainment (mainly movies) is the "theme." Add in the surf & skate clothing culture as well. There's Napa Valley in the NoCal which ads to the agricultural power to the state. I'm not sure if you count that as creativity, though. There's more weight in the creativity aspect of this #gsom.

Third, optimism. If you mean #YOLO and stupidly naive, then yes, there is plenty of that in LA and San Fran.

Fourth, do whatever you want wherever. That's a bit ironic because most of the time those that buy into this type of mentality - this whole "Golden State of Mind" - if they aren't already living in LA, NYC or SF they want in on those cities. So this 'anywhere' is mainly (self) restricted to said cities (I've touched upon this city 'thing' on a past post). 

Though not a clothing, a rum brand: Sailor Jerry. Oh Dear L_rd make it stop. Maaakkke iiittt stttoooppp! (Not the making of the rum, but the marketing.) I wasn't even aware of this marketing mentality until a couple of weeks ago.

Right away the narcissism is pouring out of the page, literally. What do you mean? Here:

People who are true to themselves may have scars, enemies and unpaid bills but they don't have regrets.

The people we respect and admire have one thing in common. At some point in their lives, they turned away from the crowd and followed their own path. They ignore what's considered normal and instead live in pursuit of what makes them feel most alive.

Here's to life outside the lines.

First paragraph is undeniable vacuous and screams "asshole." It's practically romanticizing and advocating for this narcissistic and arrogant "Fuck You" mentality. This type of attitude only survives in certain subcultures such as the tattoo world and movie world, and other worlds that commonly intersect with said subcultures. I don't think anyone who has unpaid bills would be all "I have no regrets in life and my life is MY life! Take me or leave me!" They'd probably be trying to pay that bill before it gets any bigger. If they had "enemies" they probably did something rude enough to make them into an asshole. I know by "scars" they  mean it metaphorically; that is "I've been hurt personally but now I'm better, and I'm the winner" sort of way. Hate to break it to ya, Sailor Jerry, I think almost anyone can claim this in one way or another. 

Second paragraph is hugely ironic. Now, there are personal portraits (vids/interviews no longer than one minute) of various people:

Mikey B's is bar owner and his vid description says: "He's a crusader who ditched the white collar bull to start his own bar where the only music you'll hear comes from his personal collection. A born prankster, he lives life on his own terms. "If I dream it up, I have to prove that I can do it. The biggest motivator is when someone tells me no."'

Jenny Parry's vid description notes "is a model and actress, embodies the free-spirited lifestyle we champion .... she also has the phrase "Keep Me Wild" inked on her forefinger."

Imogen is a silversmith living in LA. She owns her own jewelry shop. Probably the least obnoxious story amongst those taped.

Last, Daniel Mar. Mar is, like Mikey B., a bar owner, and fixes cars in his spare time.

Two bartenders with tattoos. A model & actress. A (female) silversmith and jewelry maker. In a way, "their own bosses." No 'white collar BS' as Mikey B.'s description confidently claims.

Now, if you put them all in a dusty saloon drinking Sailor Jerry they probably wouldn't stand out since they most likely have similar outlooks on life and in politics. They even dress alike as well. If you think Yuppies were victims of conformity then this group, well, excluding Imogen, would be the at the other end of the plague of conformity.  I remember in my sociology theory class (Ahem! Everlane, I went to class), a couple of the students and the professor were talking about non-conformity, and that being a 'non-conformist' one tends to enter a subculture that has its own status quos and "party line" thinking. I guess the marketing department of Sailor Jerry either did not have this discussion or maybe it did not personally dawn on them.

"Here's to life outside the lines." Most of the of people "outside the lines" either don't have health insurance and want it, so they seek out jobs that give them such access. The last time I heard any reference to "life outside the lines" were people living as crack whores, gang members and making means in highly questionable  ways. This slogan wasn't romanticized as well; it was to put seriousness into the issue.

Then there's the "ethos" part.

As soon as you push for people to stay inside the lines, there will always be people bold enough, stubborn enough, brave enough to live outside them.

We support all manner of creative individuals. And that's not restricted to musicians and tattoo artists. The creative life is one where you follow what's inside you rather than what's pushed on you from society, your family, the media and all the other things in the world that try to tell us who we're supposed to be and what we're supposed to do.

In our humble opinion, it's a better, more interesting world when everyone pursues whatever the hell they wish to pursue.

First paragraph: Whoa! We got a badass over here. What I got from the vids was pure youthful naivety and, again, narcissism. Not of them mentioned helping the poor by volunteering in a soup kitchen, teaching disadvantage kids about cars or seeking out other "bold, stubborn" souls to learn the trade of bartending. It was "Me. Me and Me. And don't you think I'm totally rebellious?"

Second paragraph (probably the most arrogant of them all): So Sailor Jerry would support even the not so good manners of these so called "creative" individuals? I also love the "that's not restricted to ... " Gotta get in those musicians and tattoo artists (Sailor Jerry, of course).  Supposedly the creative life is following "what's inside you rather ..... " The contempt for society is strong here. The contempt is for those who "live inside the lines", the squares and office drones. The non-creatives. Now, it wasn't actually said, but, if one followed the theme it's strongly implied. They're basically confessing that it's all about emotions -- nothing alluding to responsibility or duty. Nothing remotely adult.

What's weird is that this ethos truly believes that they (the company & the people taped) are going one way, while the world - society, their family, the media - is going another.

The media - entertainment in general - more or less, is on the same page as Sailor Jerry's ethos. It's not just in the Top 40 singles (if you listen to the lyrics), but also in the more sophisticated levels such as indie movies that may appear at prestigious film fests (see: Cannes, Sundance) and fashion houses. The people at Sailor Jerry seem ignorant of this. That's really suprsing to me. The influence of the media, at least recently to my knowledge, has changed society because of the naive buying into this #YOLO and extreme individualism cult. leading the young to reject their own family upbringing (if they see it as "too squared or conservative"). The world, at least the USA, is slowly following this Sailor Jerry ethos. Wouldn't that make the people who are seen as Sailor Jerry types (Mikey B. Jenny Parry) not as "bold, stubborn and brave"? It would make them rather square. They would be conforming to the new status quo of "pursue whatever the hell they wish to pursue." Ironic.

Third paragraph: Humble opinion? After all that was said and what came after? I kindly disagree. It wouldn't make the world interesting (the good type of interesting), but instead it would make it into one depraved, (immensely more) narcissistic world. I mean, look to the group of individuals that were rounded up as Sailor Jerry ambassadors - hardly what I'd call interesting save for Imogen. 

If you haven't noticed, all of these companies had some sort of California connection. It must be that "Golden State of Mind" that makes it all so obnoxious and unbearable.

Every attitude (which are similar to one another) that these brands exhibit all sound mightily juvenile. It just doesn't inspire me to be like them; it just makes me step back and reflect on why I see them as tools.

After all that was said, would I still purchase from Everlane? Yes. How about PacSun? Sure. How about Sailor Jerry? Of course - it's my favorite rum.

"I like your product(s). I do not like your people. They are so unlike your product(s)."

The Online Community. Oh dear.

Go to:

reddit (the atheist section, mainly)
IMDb (the forums - mainly the Awards forum and any actor who is popular)
youtube (the comment section)
tumblr (for the Social Justice Warriors & "Progressives")

Sites chock full of modernity. Relativism galore. Subjectivity around every corner. Amorality flowing like black gold.

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?