Secular world and its backwards views on dating, marriage, sex and procreation.

It's assumed that, if not a given, that if you're dating someone that you're also having sex with your significant other. If you're not having sex then that's seen as utterly bizarre and foreign. 

"What do you mean you're not having sex?"

"Your relationship must be so boring."

In great irony the secular world divorces dating with marriage and sex with procreation. If anything, if wanting and succumbing to sexual urges within dating is natural if not okay, then so is seeing dating as one step towards marriage and where procreation is seen as the natural consequence of sex. But that's not the case in the secular world.

Marriage is seen as something only one does in their late twenties - the earliest. Or marriage is optional. Dating is just that - dating and the concept of marriage isn't really orbiting around the concept of dating.

If sex and dating go and in hand, while the idea of marriage is given the hand and kept at a good distance, then at least the idea of procreation is in the back of their minds, right? Yes and no. Non-religious and plenty of Christians know that there's a chance they could get pregnant while dating (we're assuming they're having sex) so they willingly sterilize themselves via artificial birth control. 

All of this to me is obvious and is a broken approach to relationships. This is like people wanting to drink alcohol excessively or suck up some nicotine without getting drunk or get addicted. And those are just the surface negatives of engaging in such soft drugs. Beer bellies, smelly clothes, being dependent on the feeling that nicotine gives you - it's almost as if one is a sex addict and cannot control the urge get off or to engage in sexual intercourse with whomever and weever - they just need to slap some skin and to orgasm. That dopamine effect is what they live for. Pathetic? Yes. Sad. Immensely more so.

To ignore that dating is the natural stepping stone to marriage and that the main purpose of sex is for procreation, to feel uncomfortable when people make such connections isn't the issue with such connections or the person making them - the issue lies with the person being uncomfortable if not disagreeing. When you isolate dating just for romantic and sexual needs you create something that was never meant to be used that way. This the great irony of the modern world. 

This also ties into sodomy and open marriages - using our bodies and societal institutions (given by a divine) in ways they weren't meant to be used. 

The curios case of Sumner Stroh and Adame Levine: 23 yr old said she was "naive and young." What about the whole 18 is an adult thing?

In pop culture news, lead singer of the American band Maroon 5, Adam Levine, had an affair with a young woman named Sumner Stroh. Stroh is an OF model. Oh boy. Levine has been married to a Victoria Secret model since 2014. Hoo boy. Levine and his wife are expecting their third child. Please let me out of the room!

On the public finding out of the affair this is what Stroh, now 23, said - "I was young and naive." Hmmm. Well, given she was probably around 22 during the affair that lasted a year wouldn't the "young and naive" part be odd given society, particularly Western society, keeps using the "it's legal" alongside the "she/he is 18 yrs old so it's fine" card? If a 22 yr old who has an OF account and manages to sleep with a married man - let alone a celebrity of Levine's stature - counts as being "young and naive" I wonder what counts as being a real adult because being at or older than the age of consent proves that the concept of an "adult" is relatively meaningless in Western society. 

Stroh argues that she was "manipulated" by Levine because she believed his marriage was over (for whatever reason). Really? Wait, if we play the "two adults" and "consent" card then it really doesn't matter who manipulated who because Stroh isn't saying he raped her. By the logic of sexual libertines cheating doesn't do any harm to anyone - but only to the person stepping outside of a relationship in order to fulfill their libido if their feelings are hurt, either by their sexual partner or by their oh-so-mean significant other.

Gee, I thought a 22 yr old, fours years past 18, would be a veteran adult! Levine is a man child if you are aware of his past political rants. He isn't an adult. 

The whole story is a mess. Apparently she took pictures of her and Levine's affair and sent it to "people she trusted" thinking they would keep the whole thing private. First, if this was true, yes, the friends she trusted shouldn't have done what they've done. But they did. Let's move back a bit. How could this have been prevented? How about not taking pictures in the first place! Ah, sorta like when people take nudes of themselves - whether for themselves or for their significant others on their smartphones then their phone or iCloud gets hacked. "Did you see Jenny's nudes? She's bigger than I thought!" Not a good idea in general. Probably take the nude with a polaroid maybe, if you're so compelled to take that kind of picture.

And Levine, if the the texts are legit, wants to name his third kid after her. I hope to God that this isn't true because it further proves my point that the whole "as long they're adults and there's consent" is so utterly shallow and meaningless when sexual acts are involved. 

They're not all that different. Actors and the "unofficial" hierarchy of nudity and sex acts.

1. mainstream actresses (tv and/or film)
2. runway model, luxury goods model (perfume, fashion, jewelry)
3. glamour model
4. stripper, softcore porn actress, OF with no sex content (hardcore or solo)
5. hardcore porn actress, OF with hardcore content

This list isn't saying one is better than the other, like saying a mainstream actress performing simulated sex with her chest showing is better than a glamour model or even a hardcore porn star. It's to say that this is how society (unofficial) views #1 in relations to other jobs that makes women strip.

Plenty of #1 do some sort of #2. Sometimes they do #3 (which includes Playboy). Some in #2 make the transition to #1. #3 can either be found in #4 or #5. It's harder for those in #5 to be either a #1 or #2, but there have been those in #1 who have switched to #5. 

What do they all have in common? Each level has plenty of women, or all, willing to shed their clothes to some degree. Only enough #2 is the most tame; it's tamer than #1 given #1 there can me either partial nudity of top half of the body, full and/or full frontal. 

There are a lot of similarities between #1, #3, #4 and #5 on what can be done in front of camera due to age and how sex scenes are setup.  When you have those in #1 supporting their past coworkers who decide to do #5 that's telling. And it ain't telling in a "aren't they so supportive, compassionate and openminded people!" sorta way.

People defend sex scenes in tv/film saying the actors feel awkward in doing them since there are cameras staring back at them, but they don't bring up the very fact that the same thing applies to porn to some degree. Porn actors also receive direction, there are cameras staring back at them, they need to show certain angles (which is "hitting your mark"), there is acting involved contrary to belief, and often times the act of performing sex when needed once the camera rolls can be tiring - just like switching on for mainstream acting once the director gives the green light. Mainstream actors will say that shooting a tv series or film isn't glamorous - well, ask a pornstar whether or not shooting a hardcore scene is glamorous. It's not.

How often times a young, unconnected aspiring actor goes to NYC or LA in hopes to become an established actor to be only shuffled into doing porn work, either soft or hardcore? I bet there are plenty. Why? Because producers and casting directors system of casting is relatively shallow: need a warm body, need to be somewhat decent looking and can read with the ability to memorize lines. 

Am I saying #1 is the same as #5? Not quite, but again they're much closer than you'd think. If anything they're the more posh identical twin of #4.

You see, tv and mainstream acting when nudity and sex scenes enter the picture are not that much difference than their more seedier cousin down the road that is porn.

Mainstream actors can get all offended that their sex scenes are being equated to softcore porn, or even hardcore porn (there have been many plenty of events where actual sex was done on set in a mainstream film), but what you see is what you get as a viewer. You can cut and put a softcore scene right next to a mainstream sex scene, so they're side by side, hit the play button and you'd be hard pressed nowadays to tell the difference. What scene would be the mainstream tv/film scene and what would be the softcore film? Sometimes you can tell due to better cinematography and lighting, but often they can make us hesitant with our confidence to differentiate.

Why so many posts talking about nudity and sex scenes?

 Good question. I think it's good for me to come out clean.

Probably at the age of nine - maybe eight I was exposed to video games like Tombraider and comics like X-Men. I loved video games and comics when I was a kid - and I still do to an extent. Their depiction of women made an impression on my young mind. It would later pave the way to me being receptive to hardcore porn. I do not remember when I began watching hardcore porn, but let's say it was around the age of 10. As the years past I would eventually become a porn addict. With this addiction came other complications healthwise that would arguable jeopardize my ability to start a family. Later, I would actually spend hundreds of money buying hardcore porn. 

In my early twenties I also got into film, so much so I entertained the notion of becoming a film producer. I learned as much as could about funding and casting, the politics of it all and how movies were bought and distributed worldwide. It's an interesting business to be a part of - on the business side of things.

When nudity and sex scenes came up I was sorta kinda indifferent - and this was the best of my reactions. At worst I felt uncomfortable if not disappointed - for the actors and for the storyline. I adopted a "it depends on the context" perspective. Later did I realize that a vast majority of such acts weren't needed, at best they could've been implied, and that if the explicit sex acts and nudity were excluded the story would've been just fine if not better. But given my experience with hardcore porn as a consumer something in me thought "something is really off" about this normalization of sex and nudity on screen. I recognized that they might be more related than different and that those who partook in it weren't nearly the sophisticated "ah-tists" that they believed themselves to be.

I've seen, read and observed many things about the porn industry and what I've seen, read and observed in mainstream tv & film when nudity and sex scenes are involved is that the mainstream process is awfully similar to both softcore and hardcore film making. People who try to separate the two seem desperate at times; their arguments and talking points aren't convincing.

Given today's growing acceptance of sex workers doing OnlyFans and the willingness of young women to shed their clothes to hump their co-stars in the name of "art" and "storytelling" in mainstream tv and film once they turn 18 (if a 17 yr actresses is offered a role that does have nudity in it, some studios and directors actually wait for them to 18 specifically so they can sign the "nude is a go" clause, this would sometimes delay principle photography i.e. Thomasin Mckenzie), I will not go gently into the night and be quiet when such things happen. I feel sorry for such actresses.

Like Beckett Cook or Jospeh Scriambra, both homosexuals and atheists turned Christians, whose mission is to object the LGBT+ lifestyle; like Katy Faust, product of a same-sex household, who advocates for a two parent opposite sex household; part of my reason I bring up sex & nudity within mainstream entertainment a lot on this blog is to talk about the overlapping similarities between them and the adult industry (which includes the likes of OnlyFans and stripping).

Unlike them I am not as articulate, intelligent, patient or charitable as they are. I wish I was. But I will tell it like I see it. Kirk Cameron may not be the best actor in the world, but he has awareness that nudity and (fake) sex acts in front of the camera for "art" is just bizarre. I want to expose this bizarreness - this debauchery for all that it is in hopes to deter actors, actresses, directors, screenwriters, producers and the audience from partaking, normalizing and approving of such acts. 

The medium of tv and film has overstayed its welcome when it introduces bare skin in such a way. We as a society have given it too much power that it does not deserve - and never did deserve. 

Am I being a prude? Who cares. Okay, maybe I am. What's so bad about being a prude? Prudish? Maybe more people should be prudish. If we can question our parents, then we can question tv & film actors and the system that they earn their living from. After all, their tv shows and films are advocated for and whatever nudity and sex is depicted is defended, but not the values of our parents - our parents are finite while tv and film, just by sheer invention of a device they did not build, live on forever. 

Yes, 99% of nudity and sex scenes depicted in mainstream tv and film are softcore porn.

The word in bold are often the same words, or group of words, used to justify nudity and sex scenes in mainstream tv and film. This does not include implied sex scenes where there is no nudity.

The defense of "it all depends on the context of the nudity and sex scene" holds very little traction.

Calling someone a prude because they object to 99% nudity and sex scenes is admission that you don't have an argument. It's like calling someone racist these days or a Nazi.

Accusing someone that if they didn't view sex as taboo then we wouldn't be having this conversation is not a good talking point. One can object to softcore porn depicted on screen yet enjoy sex or have a more healthier mentality towards sex at the same time. The two aren't mutually exclusive. 

Trying to turn the tables and say that you're sexist because one is putting shame on women fails because most nudity is done by actresses, so it's natural to focus on women. I say so what - politically we put shame on others for not voting and thinking the we want them too. There are countless archives of female celebrities with their nude screen caps. Plus, shame is good at times. In this case, I think it's good - for both men and female actors.

But wait. You probably got to this point and said I'm the asshole. I'm only the asshole because I say things that make you upset - not because what I say is necessarily false. Don't believe me? Read on.

When a softcore porn writer and producer sorta kinda admits that, yes, the nudity and sex scenes seen today are equal to the nudity and sex scenes in softcore porn films then it's just confirming what we already know - or least should know. So much for the "it all depends on the context" talking point. 

In the adult industry, work like Bridgerton, Normal People, and a lot of HBO’s lineup would be categorized as “softcore porn”—frontal nudity, but no penetration or visible “money shot.” This is clearly not mainstream Hollywood or media’s definition. A Vulture article described Normal People’s sex scenes (which occasionally dominated up to a third of the episode) as “never pornographic but quite explicit.” If explicit sex does not make a scene pornographic, what does? As sex-forward shows only seem to get more graphic—and more popular—the need to hold on to this distinction is looking a little dishonest, and maybe a little desperate.

Hey, take it from the horse's mouth not mine. 

When actresses like Amanda Seyfried comes out to say that she felt pressured to do nudity once she joined the age of majority then you have face the reality that there's something really off within the tv/film world. 

When you have the likes of Sarah Bolger who said she'd have zero issue with going nude because of the opportunities that it might afford her, or that a character with nudity might let her work with actors and directors she admires, then we have evidence that actors are no more than strippers on demand who literally sell their bodies, though in different ways than sex workers.

No, "selling one's body" in the form of nudity and sex scenes in mainstream tv and film isn't the same as "selling one's body" for a job or even the military. Why? Because there isn't sex or nudity involved you dumbasses. It's like people who equate getting a tuition free education because you're a Division 1 athlete is the same as being enslaved since you don't get paid (pre-NIL). Okay. Um, you're a moron. 

When you have the likes of Emma Stone insisting on showing her breasts after an implied sex scene even though such nudity wasn't written in the script in The Favorite because she thought it would add to the screen, then you have a fine example of someone who volunteers their body that is the vacuum of today's nihilistic entrainment industry in the name of "art" and "storytelling." Maybe she confused her work with nude modeling with art students. 

And no, depicted violence isn't the same thing as nudity and sex, though excessive violence is both disgusting and tiring. In fact, violence and nudity were never were the same thing - neither were two sides of the same coin. People know sex sells. People follow certain actors' careers because, mainly, of their sex appeal. If we can complain about porn violence in the form of The Purge or Saw franchise (with the former also inserting sex scenes into its script), then we can also complain about the nudity and sex scenes - even if there's just one or two or three of them in a single movie or series. 

In the movie Charlie Countryman, actress Rachel Evan Wood objects to a simulated oral scene that was that her character receives by a man. This scene was cut. She states -

No, Rachel, it's not a double standard. The people in charge aren't unaware that women are sexual being too and enjoy sex - whether giving or receiving pleasure. The thing is society still views sex as a private matter and somewhere in their brain and soul they know that the oral scene is borderline softcore porn. If left in, it would be 99% awkward for the audience. The allowance of violence isn't even the same thing given violence has been depicted in film long before any sexual act was explicitly shown.

What does it make it okay if a younger person seduces an older person but not the other way around? (Given the younger character is 18 or older.)

Lately I've been stumbling upon opinions and thoughts on relationships depicted on tv and film that involved two characters with a relatively large age gap. The amoral-moral relativists and feminists (sometimes one in the same) will say that is all depends on the context of the relationship. What they mean by this is if the younger character, usually the female, has has the upper hand (aka initiates the seduction) then it's amoral if not a good thing because the cards are flipped where normally it's the older character, usually a male, that seduces the young woman.

This strikes me as immensely shallow and hypocritical because according to their reasoning, when they play the age of majority card, that as long as there's consent it doesn't matter who seduces who unless one party later regrets the sexual encounter.

Let's move to real life. Sexual education isn't a crime in the States but there are questions asking if it can be counted as rape to a degree. Sometimes seductions can be said be an art form of manipulation. Again, if we shift back to tv and movies, if the female does the manipulation there won't be much talks of how it's weird that a young female is having sex with a much older male with a healthy "she's 18/an adult she knows what she wants ... " rhetoric thrown in, but if the seduction was done by the older male there'd be a good chance forums and discussion boards would bring this element up and raise concern about it.

Why is it okay for a fictional female character who is 18/19/20/21 to seduce an older man but not the other around? Wouldn't it be cringe either way?

Age of Consent

When people say "X or Y is 18 he/she is an adult. He/she can make their own decisions i.e. do drugs, have sex with whom they want etc.)" when casually dismissing any questionable acts of this 18 year old, I ask them that if the age of consent was 17 or 16, would they act the same way and if, say, the act was sex, would the the older party still engage. 

I ask this question because it's what I've observed in Western society. All of a sudden what is supposedly forbidden is now on the table without any discernment if one should do X or Y action. 

It's utterly bizarre to see nothing wrong with an 18/19 year old having sex with a 30 year old, especially if that 18/19 year old is exceptionally naive and not wise, yet has issues with people getting married in their early twenties and having kids before 25. 

I suppose this is the modern day feminist and the fruits of the Sexual Revolution - dulling the critical thinking skills and making all sexual things amoral unless there's consent of between the "adults." I mean, with this logic, don't get pissed of if two adults decide to have six kids - to say that one's a baby maker and they're actively destroying the earth with their carbon footprint would so immensely amusing.

Online Meltdown By Leftists/Social "Progressives" Concerning the Overturning of Roe v. Wade

 Reddit -

Evangelical Leaders and their Public Downfalls.

 I suppose it's the same with Catholic priests, but then again the issue with Catholic priests going all socially "progressive" because either they have same-sex attraction themselves or some other sexual disorder doesn't have much of the same effect as a prominent Protesant's fall from grace.

• Jerry Fallwell Jr., the then face of Liberty University, and his wife Becki Tilley's unknown open relationship with a pool boy starting in 2012 that carried on for a few years after the initial meeting. Like really?
• A number of children of Protestant pastors either losing their faith and going to atheism (i.e Abraham Piper) or even making a living as a pornstar.
• A female Protestant pastor in order reconcile with her bisexuality, found more liberal Christian viewpoints but ultimately decided to leave her faith to eventually become a stripper and "life coach" (a most likely unlicensed and self-serving position). Her husband accepted her bisexuality but that wasn't enough - she divorced him (somehow she was able to gain child custody of her three kids as she was reported to laugh about her divorce) since she yearned to make money where being a SAHM (stay at home mom) wasn't financially fulfilling. In one month she made 47k in her new profession. On an old YouTube vid of her preaching a commenter wrote - "She was an exhibitionist before she decided to go professional."
• Protestant youth group leaders turning out to be homosexuals unknowingly to their girlfriends or even wives. I mean, can you not know or suspect? Even if the guy isn't an outright queen or flamboyant there are signs (timber of voice, body language). When a young Jesuit priest came to say his first mass at his home parish his voice sorta-kinda gave away his sexuality. 
• Devout Protestants losing their faith as they learn about deconstructionism, where, logically, they go to agnosticism and then to atheism. These types of atheists are more well-verse in the Bible but also tend to be Gnu Atheists. Or they're ex-conservatives turned atheist in the form of Hunter Avallone (supposedly he was influenced by his wife to leave conservatism). 

Do you see anything that most of these stories have in common? Sex, sexuality and then money. Or as one podcast entitled their episode about the Fallwell Jr. scandal - "In God We Lust." And the influence of women arguably acting as Eve with an apple. 

Part I: Thoughts on the Entertainment Industry - Sex Scenes and Nudity

Rating: R (for mature content; locker room language)

What's the difference between tv/film actors and, say, glamour models, strippers, and soft and hardcore porn actors?

The answer? In my eyes, not much, especially if the actor/actress agrees to do nudity that often does not move the story forward or adds to the their character.

As I mature my passion and enthusiasm for tv/movies has dwindled. Due to COVID and lockdown I've watched more movies in the past six months than I have in the past three years. I use to be very into movies, wanting to become a movie producer, though I did not know how. This didn't stop me from learning the politics and procedures of how films were made, how casting was done (for the most part), what needed to happened for a movie to make profit, and how the movies were distributed. It's a fascinating industry in those aspects. But that story is for another day. 

I never was fully comfortable with nudity on screen, mostly because when there was nudity it was always done relatively cheap in the sense that it was nonsensical and trivial. The characters were either in affair or were never going to get married; rarely were the sex scenes between a married couple. It was also more or less the same thing in terms of sex positions. The actress riding the actor with her breasts frot and center, either gyrating her hips or bouncing up and down. Or when she's in doggy-style and we see her breasts swing as the actress tries her best to put on her "this-feels-real-good-face" accompanied with moans. Or when the actors are in missionary position where we see the actress' breasts, once again. I wonder how many takes were needed. And of course,  not all actresses do nudity where some opt for a body double. 

I don't necessarily consider myself a prude given I don't mind nudity in say, paintings, life size stone figures, or even nude modeling for a paining. These mediums tend make one admire the bodily form of a woman (or man). There is no true technique of "shooting a sex scene" in movie or tv unlike knowing how to make stone look like flesh and how to make curves of a butt, hips or chest, or how to shade properly when sketching a nude model. What technique is there when a film director shoots a backside, butt and side breast scene (i.e. The True Story of the Kelly Gang - 2019)? Usually when a nude/sex scene is being done only the needed cast and crew are allowed on set with the actors being "very comfortable" and "trusting of" the director (you see where this is going?). 

As the audience, you don't know if there will be nudity or sex scenes unless word gets around after early previews. If not, it's all unraveling before you. Only those who have worked on the film will know. With soft and hardcore porn, photoshoots for glamour models and strippers you definitely know what you're getting. But why does this even matter? What's was the statement about pornography? "You know it when you see it." Now nudity in tv/films aren't porn, but some sex scenes are pretty close to soft porn. 

Defense of nudity will say that American are prudish and are "afraid of sex"; this is a ridiculous accusation. Most nudity and sex scenes are tasteless and aren't needed for the plot to move forward or does it add anything to the character. It's meant purely for titillation. Speaking of titillation ....

Another issue I have is that tv/film industry is predatorial. Take for the example The True Story of the Kelly Gang (2019) as previously mentioned. The actress, Thomasin McKenzie who rose to fame with Leave No Trace (2018) and Jojo Rabbit (2019), with The King (2019) and Kelly Gang (2019) being much smaller roles, just turned 18 when her nude scene was shot (backside, butt, side breast) in the Kelly Gang. On the movie's wiki page it was noted that production was postponed for an unknown reason until July of 2018; shooting was originally schedule for early 2018. Mckenzie's birthday is in July. A coincidence? I think not. It was probably a calculated move to allow an underage actress to come of age in order to shoot her nude scene; after all, when Kristen Stewart turned 18 while filming Twilight, in celebration, they shot throughout the night given the days before they could not due to working hour restriction on minors. 

Now I'm not sure what compelled McKenzie to take the role given it probably wouldn't be seen as a "strong female role" (at best it's neutral), then again she did play a young prostitute who already had a baby (more on actual prostitutes later). I suppose in her mind that scene was her "nudity for beginners" scene, and simply she saw the role as a way to add to her already growing credits (actors like Nicholas Hoult and Russell Crowe were cast), so anything helps I guess. I would not be surprised if within three years we see her breasts on the silver screen. Mom, especially mom (more on mom later) and dad would be proud. 

Other actresses like Rooney Mara and Sydney Sweeney have done nudity where their scenes don't add much to their character. Sure, Mara's sex/nude scene in Side Effects (2013) was between Channing Tatum who played her husband, but was it necessary? No. Did it move the plot forward? I can't say it did. And the scene was relatively "raw" in the sense (if you spot it quick enough) that Tatum was wearing a skin colored piece to cover his penis as Rooney vigorously and loudly dry-humped him, as her character fell back onto the bed after her climax. Rooney's all-too-wet makeup scene between Catherine Zeta Jones added more to the movie and her character. Sweeney's role in the tv-series Euphoria is playing a sexual promiscuous teenager who's boyfriend is having his own sexual identity problems (SPOILER: he's a homosexual; his character it portrayed as totally uninterested in a naked Sweeney riding him - good acting on his part, really). The scenes are raw and literally has Sweeney showing her breasts in all their glory. Yes, glory. I used that word for a very specific purpose and it isn't me getting all riled up as I write. I have never watched an episode of Euphoria (some say it's the US' version of UK's Skins), but besides the series being promoted by HBO Max and receiving a number of Emmy nominations, one would've thought that Sweeney's breasts were given their own Emmy nomination.  Ditto for Alexandra Daddario in True Detective whose filmography hasn't really improved since then, so if she wished showing her amazing rack to all would gain her more prestigious roles and respect (?) that has failed. Men have respect for her chest. Sorry, Daddario - you did this yourself. 

Glory. You see, actresses who are busty in comparison to more flat chested ones (Daddario vs Mara) is what they're known for - especially if they reveal them on screen. (In this aspect, Daddrio's chest has more prestige than Mara's.) How many guys have searched the internet for screen caps of Sweeney's and Daddario's breasts? Hundreds. Thousands. Millions probably. They aren't really known for their acting. Daddario is 34. She's not getting younger; she isn't in the same acting prestige bracket as Mara. Both McKenzie and Sweeney are in their 20s so they have time to build their credits and connections, and if promise of more prestige and better roles means shedding their clothes and having simulated sex then they'll do it. Even better if the director is a "respected" director. 

There is something to be said for all of this. The actresses need to be willing; no one is actually forcing them. Some say it's part of the job. This is partially why I think actors/actresses are just glorified strippers and soft porn actors when need be. If the director and distributing company decide to make a still of two actors in the film being distributed, posing in bed nude, waist up, implying sex, that, by definition would be categorized as an erotic still entering it into soft porn.

Being "trusting" and "comfortable" with a director and actor that you're doing a nude/scene with just raises red flags because it opens up a door into asking "what are you really willing to do for 'art'?" One can do lot of weird and degrading shit they normally wouldn't do when they're trusting of someone and comfortable around them (see: kinky sex, BDSM etc.). Actor Eric Dane of Euphoria, in a sex scene where supposedly a fake penis was used but half the audience wasn't sure of it admitted he'd do "whatever the scene/role called for" if it meant showing his actually penis. In fact, if I remember correctly, he'd say he would've done it anyways. His character was having a sexual encounter with a teenage transgender girl. I wonder if he'd be for actually having sex with a transgender girl, after all he said he'd "do whatever the scene/role called for." Also, why on earth would anyone want to see a tv series about teenagers and their sexual encounters? Yes, that's what Euphoria basically is. One doesn't need to watch a single episode to come to this conclusion. It's basically pushing the "teens have sex okay!" and "you can fall in love with a transgender if you just let it happen ya know!" narrative.

Another question that enters my mind is what does all this seemingly nonchalant view of nudity and sex (scenes) get society? More "bravery" in talking about sex? I mean, Emma Watson, who said she wasn't willing to do sex (used a body double in Regression), instead admits she's interested in reading about sexual kinks and admires couples who are in open relationships because of their transparent communication. Oh vey. 

"Hi I'm Amy. 

"I'm Peter."

"I'm Scott."

"What you're about to see are consensual acts between consenting adults . If at any point any one of us feels uncomfortable and says stop, the action will stop."

In the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) there's a scene that encapsulates how I feel when an actress does their first nude scene that, in 99% of the time, adds nothing to the film (besides an R-rating) and to their character. In this scene Mila Kunis' confesses that the owner of the bar she works at makes the girls who need to use their restroom for the first time flash their breasts where he takes a Polaroid of them and posts it on the wall of the bar's restroom for all to see. It hangs there forever. There's an actual database for tv/film nudity, partial or full, for practically every actress living today. It's called Celebrity Movie Archive. As soon as the tv/film hits streaming platform it'll be posted. Rooney Mara. Sydney Sweeney. Alexandra Daddario. They're all there. No Emma Watson (yet). And then there's nubile Thomasin McKenzie, who arguable is the youngest in the past fives years that I'm aware to do nudity, at 18. Ah, another one bites the dust and joins her fellow thespians into being a "professional actress." Where's that hardy handshake and warm hug? Welcome to the fold. Who will you undress with your eyes next (as her character in Kelly Gang says her lover)? 

There are parallels as well to this when it comes to pornstars. Now this is where I get a bit graphic in my language. I'm entering smut talk here now. As people seek out the scenes and screen caps of actors who have done nudity, those that haven't their admires are waiting patiently. It's only a matter of time - until the right role and director enters some say. Not all pornstars do anal sex. Some refuse to. When some noticed that pornstar Gianna Michaels had never done anal sex, some where "praying," "begging," and "wishing" their hearts out till the day she finally did her first anal scene. Her admires, when looking back on her career, said that she did porn her way and on her terms. Like some actors (i.e. Kate Mara, older sister of Rooney Mara), where the atmosphere needs to be just right to do nudity, some porn stars will do anal. I'm not sure if Michaels ever did an anal scene. Maybe she did. If so, her admires got their wish. But I bet they wanted more.

So what separates a "professional actress" and a glamour model and pornstar? Each can show up on IMDB with their credits given pornstars have been cast in some roles. Even real life escorts were cast as they were. The biggest differences is that aspiring tv/film actresses believe what they do is "art" and the promise of red carpet galas on an annual basis with the big bucks. It can be. A small percent of working actors make a living off of their craft. But we have to remember that actors were once considered bottom barrel "professionals" in the age of Shakespeare; there was no prestige in it and that some of the first actors on stage were prostitutes. Today's actors, if they "make it," are relying on the market and other professionals to make them look good, make them sound good, and guide their careers. Actual strippers that shed their clothes for a living (so do actors, but not as often and not under such unsavory conditions) where some make the crossover to porn, they know what they are. They're strippers. They make no fuss on what they really want: they work for the money. Their patrons don't make them anything more than that. Who wants to date and marry a stripper? Practically no one. Pornstars know what they are; some admit they're modern day prostitutes. Who wants to date and marry a pornstar? Maybe one person. Both the stripper and pornstar, more or less, calls it quits before the age of 40. Let's be honest, no man wants to see sagging breasts, and the stripper and pornstar know it unless they get the bolt-on ones. Actors? Only in today's modern world can they do what they do with the respect they garner (and think they should garner - worldwide). 

Actors are the jocks of the performing arts community so to speak. But they only play jocks on screen; only a few actors actually are athletic let alone know the rules of a sport. Some play strippers but they never go in and out of strip clubs hustling for the money. And they probably despise being compared to a pornstar. What do strippers tell their parents and friends what they do for a living? "Oh, I'm a dancer." What do pornstars tell their parents and friends? "Oh, I'm an actor/actress." What do actors say? "Oh, I'm an actor." 

I'll have the audacity to say that strippers, glamour models and pornstars should garner more respect, whatever left there is, from the public than actors. Unlike Thomasin McKenzie and Emma Watson, the former whose mother is also in the acting community in New Zealand, who had the groundwork paved out for them in terms of who to look up to in acting, strippers and pornstars tend to come from broken backgrounds who have some sort of mental disorder. They don't get the red carpets and the stylists to fit them in beautiful dresses and gowns to celebrate their film. They aren't dotted on by talk show hosts or film journalists. They don't get to work with prestigious directors or producers to either further or stabilize their careers. They get really nothing in comparison to actors who "make it." But here's the thing: the porn industry generates anywhere between $6-15 billion dollars. Strip clubs were deemed a necessary business during COVID lockdowns. Actors? Arguable not as necessary. Society only turned to film during lockdowns because they were bored. I know I did. I forgot about the films that were suppose to be released in 2020 but got delayed. I don't have much interest in going to the cinema in 2021 if society ever opens up to that point. My interest has faded. Filming continued in late July and early August and people got pissed because, in some controversy, small businesses next to film sets couldn't open up.

So what about this rant? It's to say that actresses who pursue a role with nudity that really doesn't add anything to their film besides a mature rating and their own place in Celebrity Movie Archive are actually on the same plain as strippers, glamour models and pornstars. I'll even add cam models. 

Is there any nudity or sex scene I thought was beneficial to a movie? Why yes. The only nude scene that I'm aware of that made sense and moved the story forward wasn't even a sex scene let alone nudity after implied sex. I'd argue this nude scene was, in the most rarest cases, forward thinking. It was the nude scene of Kate Winslet as she posed for Leornardo DiCaprio's character Jack in James Cameron's Titanic (1997). Yes, people were talking about that scene but it wasn't in some salivating way. Unlike Thomasin Mckenzie's nude scene in Kelly Gang (2019), which indeed hovered over her exposed backside, butt and side breast  (there's little doubt in my mind that this was exploitation on behalf of the director and producers), the talk was about how it tied the story together with the fact that it was James Cameron's hands that were shown sketching. The camera didn't focus on Kate's breasts or vagina, but more so on how nervous her character was posing and the talent of Jack's character as an artist. 

With all that said, putting her politics aside, this is why I respect Emma Watson more as an actress - at least for now. She did say that revealing less is better and creates a grander mystery, or something to that effect. I can stand beside that. 

A Quick Comment on Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

It is said that people could not marry of the same sex and that this was unfair. This was marriage inequality. 

Originally the landmark case was because a person of the same sex could not have visitation rights, inherit money or have tax benefits etc. as compared to couple of the opposite sex who were married. On the national stage the narrative morphed into "bigots don't want gays to have equality via marriage." Now this is an interesting case on both the state and federal level. For now I'll just focus on the national narrative.

The national narrative is more or less false. The concern was that marriage was between one man and one woman. Pretty simple. But then The Left threw in the concept of love. This further muddled any sort of actual fair reasoning and logic. Here's the raw truth that defeats those in favor of Obergefell v Hodges: As previously noted, homosexuals (and bisexuals) had the right to get married all along - to the opposite sex. The standard was the same for every single person in the States. And it's been done before.

Numerous people with same-sex attraction have married people of the opposite sex. Probably a good amount of spouses had no idea that the person they married was either a homosexual or bisexual. The latter party had to "come out" to their partner. Maybe some had an idea that something wasn't "straight."A number of couples even had children. Some "came out" decades into their marriage. To parrot and drum on that people with same-sex attraction weren't allowed to enter marriage is a complete and utter lie. It's a false belief. 

Exceptions to the rule make for bad law. Obergefell v Hodges is a case that led to bad law.

Sex Education Doesn't Really Matter (Sort of)

 The push for "comprehensive sex education" has always made me tilt my head to the side in interest and concern. As a product of parochial schools from K-12, the concern to learn how to put a condom on properly or to know the "options" of how to delay pregnancy when a female is in her early teenage years has truck as immensely odd and disturbing. People will say it's a health concern. I say it's a campaign disguised as concern to infiltrate the homes of parents without being the student's parents. It's an insidious plan. It's the invisible social worker influencing the very intimate actions of a child. It's government saying they're just merely concerned.

One reason I think sex education, at least how public schools handle it in general, is one big joke is that the act of sex isn't rocket science. Boys are naturally curious. Girls are naturally curious. Growing up, for whatever reason, no one that I knew of in either my grade, the grade below me or the grade above me, got pregnant before the age of 20. I suppose we either had decent parenting or just had good self-control. I think both. I don't think we were anymore mature than our public school counterparts, just that we had been taught that sex is intimidate and "special." I mean, I'd bet that we instinctually knew this and we respected more so than others, especially in comparison to any teenage John Hughes characters. 

The approach to public school sex education is also warped. It's mostly done out of a public health concern. It indirectly says that sex outside marriage is okay and that to avoid pregnancy and STDs you can use many options of artificial birth control (ABC). Physicians in the forms of OB-GYNS support this push for ABCs on young teenage girls. Why? Simply put: it reduces STDs and pregnancies. Fair enough. But they are oddly not concerned about the effects of ABCs on what is biologically natural in the form of ovulation and eggs and so forth. Public studies triumph over the decline of teenage pregnancies due to the advent and use of ABCs. No concern is followed up by how ABCs effect the view of sex, children and marriage. No OB-GYN that I know of has raised an eyebrow. It's an odd mix. an OB-GYN deals with something that is natural yet they don't care much about the effects of what they push onto their patients.

Another reason I think public sex education is a crock is that it's rather immature. Sex is seen as something you sorta snicker at and if you've listened to the OB-GYN, Masters in Public Health expert, and you're "taking control of your sexuality" you might get an IUD implanted in your uterus. You want to the O but not the child. People mock abstinence in that it doesn't work, citing the failure rate. Stupidly enough they don't cite the failure of alcoholics getting a sip of wine instead of abstaining from it. Proof that abstinence is 100% effective are those who dedicate themselves to religious life or those who choose not have sex in general, either out of religious or health concerns. No sex. No kids. No STDs. If people are going to tout the brilliance of ABCs in its effectiveness while laughing at abstinence then they should also laugh at the failure rate of not using ABCs and having sex. Hello pregnancy. 

Self-education, in this case, is better than having some government program waltz into your classroom or gymnasium or library extolling the wonders of ABCs. Heck, anecdotally, most of my friends who never had a "comprehensive sex education" never had any real issues regarding sex. They dated, got married and had kids. Unless you're some weird pasty loser, religious or otherwise, with underdeveloped social skills a Chesil Beach isn't likely gonna happen. 

Better yet, I think my own sex education which was regulated to an annual visit to an outside secular agency dedicated to relatively neutral sex education starting in six grade (though I'm not sure how much the agency has changed since then), was more dignified and respectful to sex in general. Aided with my school's religious themes, we walked away with a somewhat balanced view of sex minus the touting of ABCs. At the end of the day we realized that if you don't want to get pregnant the best way is to not have sex. We were reminded of common sense that isn't all too common today.

Public "comprehensive sex education" is an exercise pushed by your agenda driven Masters in Public Health Overlord of Wokedom. This Overlord doesn't trust that kids can indeed figure it out without the government's help. 

Well that's just prejudice!

 WARNING: This is going to be rather crude.

Says an anon when commenting on homosexual anal plunging and sex between infertile couples, whether due to old age, choice, or medical issues.

Anon writes:

"What you need to add to accept sex between infertile people (either from old age, medical condition, the use of contraceptive or not the right time of the month) and refuse it to gay people is prejudice. So yes, it worked better in the good old days.

Any time a straight couple have sex knowning that they are not fertile, they are doing it only to give pleasure to their partner, which is arguably one of the primary function of sex.

You can't have it both way. Pleasure-sex is either moral or immoral, for everyone.

Each "exception" (rape, non-committed or non-monogamous relationship, ...) has to be considered as immoral on its own."

Now sure what "good old days"  mean unless you're referring to a time where you'd personally feel uncomfortable where "pride" wasn't seen as awesome.

The above quote is an argument that is used by those want to point out the supposed hypocrisy of allowing sex between opposite sex couples who know that they will not conceive, or know that it's highly improbable. The argument doesn't work out - at all.

Why? Because even though couples who have sex strictly for pleasure they haven't misused their sexual organs: it's still penis in vagina, not penis in anus. Only the fucked up do anal. The primal urge to have sex with the opposite sex is as old as time; couples have sex without abandon giving no thought to whether to use contraceptives or to get fixed (this is a relatively new phenomenon for modernists). The natural consequence is a child - if the role of the dice allows it.

Homosexual acts are intrinsincally disordered. Let's face it, the act of two guys anal humping each other is neither beautiful nor erotic to a vast majority of the people on planet earth. The same with two girls rubbing their clits together. The vagina and clit are like "Where's my dick?" It's like other depraved sexual act e.g., fisting. that step one good step away from what what raw sex is: penis in vagina. Ain't that hard of a concept to understand.

Comparing real sex with homosexual acts misses the point of what makes opposite sex couples so different than same sex pairings. They just aren't the same no matter how much the LGBT+ activist wants it to be.

If old people have sex knowing that the chances of the woman becoming pregnant is quite low it's not actually a mistake nor equal to homosexual acts because the couple is still using their sexual organs for its main purpose written in our DNA. Even if the consequence of child bearing was not met it still a natural good due to the urge to mate. That's what sex is irregardless of whether the couple wants a child: mating, and all the emotions leading up to it.

You see, this is the issue with those who want to play the "gotcha card." They suck at it. The anti-sodomy camp says that the main purpose of sex is to conceive a child (which is true) so then the LGBT+ activist says "Well X  opposite sex couples can't conceive so what now! Homo sex is okay!" Not the silver bullet as they thought it would be.

Then there's this on birth control:

"There is nothing inherently morally good about creating life. Just as there is nothing inherently morally evil about not wanting to create life."

When the couple actively does not make themselves infertile, yes there is inherent good when life is created. With that said, using birth control to stop the creation of life is evil since it obstructs the natural purpose of ejaculation and when are "in the heat." It detaches the very real consequence of sex and children. But is that the same as two people committing homosexual acts? Nope. Not even close. Penis and vagina. It's that simple.

Cohabitation

I never truly bought into the arguments of why people should cohabitate. One reason is because "it's the next step in our relationship." This is mostly bullshit because it means practically nothing unless it's symbolic of commitment (I doubt it). Some say "it's the next natural thing." Also bullshit. Many couples move in with each other because it's the norm - a norm that really has no basis in its purpose. Now, I can understand moving in for financial reasons since a roommate cuts down the cost, but that's probably the minute number.

Cohabitation is playing house when you're not even engaged let alone married. And yea, I heard the "test the waters" - also bullshit. Testing what waters? How many had a "successful" test and later broke up? How many boyfriends and girlfriends have you been through? How many moved in to only cancel the lease a year later? Can't you live alone and be in a relationship at the same time?

Call me old fashioned but when I seek a roommate I seek someone that isn't my significant other.

I simply don't play house. 

Pathetic courage and faux class.

I just got done watching Sidney Lumet's Murder on the Orient Express. I liked it; it was humorous in more places than I expected. I did also read the novel on which it is based off of, inked by Agatha Christie. This I also liked, but not as much as I hoped for. Nonetheless decent entertainment.

SPOILERS

Now, onto the post's heading. I was particularly intrigued by the portrayal of Greta Ohlsson played by legendary screen actress Ingrid Bergman. I found her execution of her lines very amusing. For example her character becomes pious after seeing Jesus in the clouds surrounded by brown children and it is this revelation that her character is inspired to go to Africa and "help little brown children." Of course, credit should also be given to Paul Dehn, the script writer, for giving a talented actress like Bergman to work with. In the dvd's special features Bergman insisted that she wanted make the character "a crazy nanny" and so she did. Honestly, her interview with Poiret was one of a kind. By far the best interview that Lumet had set up, which was rather different than what happened in the novel.

But, ah, admiration for Bergman's acting talent is wear my admiration stops. Forget her fight with cancer. Many have died with cancer and I see her as no difference, after all she had people drooling over her and forgiving her for every since, or "sin", under the sun. I quickly wiki'd her and learned that, to no surprise, she went through several marriages. The first marriage she had two affairs that is known. The first affair she luckily didn't get pregnant, but the second one she did. While on shoot I believe. So shortly after her second child was born (first child born within marriage to her first husband), she divorces her first husband and marries the director who impregnated in Mexico. After five or so years of marriage, and with the birth of a set of twins, he cheats on her and then later leaves her. Karma is a bitch. Later she remarries in which it would be her third marriage.

The Daily Beast deeply cares on how she was treated by US Senator in the 1950s. As Marlow Stern writes, " Senator Edwin C. Johnson (D-CO), a rank moralist who opposed FDR’s New Deal policies, slut-shamed the actress on the Senate floor." What? Do leftist moral relativists always add in X policy that a politician opposes that is beloved leftists at that time? Seems like it. And of course the "you slut-shamed" card. But what exactly did the senator say?

“Mr. President, now that the stupid film about a pregnant woman and a volcano [Stromboli] has exploited America with the usual finesse, to the mutual delight of RKO and the debased Rossellini, are we merely to yawn wearily, greatly relieved that this hideous thing is finished and then forget it? I hope not. A way must be found to protect the people in the future against that sort of gyp,” he proclaimed.

Sen. Johnson then proposed a bill wherein movies would be approved for licenses based on the moral compasses of those behind the picture, insisting that Bergman “had perpetrated an assault upon the institution of marriage,” and going so far as to call her “a powerful influence for evil.”

In Johnson's defense he wasn't too far from the truth. It's now 2018 as I write this and given how many think sex outside of marriage is totally A-OKAY the sexual adventures of a Swede (go figure) being treated nonchalantly by so-called progressives comes to no surprise.

What more interesting is how Bergman responded when she decided to return to the States.

“No, I have no regrets at all,” she said, unleashing that radiant smile. “I regret the things I didn’t do—not what I did. I have done what I felt like.”

This ties in a very narcissistic mindset on what is said earlier in the Daily Beast article when Bergman ponders about the films that either inspired her or which she acted in.

It’s the tale of a gal from Stockholm who grew up obsessed with the story of Joan of Arc, marveling at how this young, rebellious woman followed the voices inside her head, social mores be damned.

Well, that doesn't mean to sleep with whomever you "fall in love with" (it wasn't love). Stern attributes a line said by her character, Joan, in the film to how she lived her life.

“I don’t want any roots,” Bergman says in the film. “I want to be free.”

And, despite her marriage to Lindström—which produced a daughter, Pia—Bergman lived freely, much like many of her male movie star contemporaries.

Freely? Well damn social mores of fidelity and commitment, eh?

"She’d won an Oscar (for Gaslight) and purchased her family a luxurious home fitted with a gigantic pool in Benedict Canyon, yet still suffered from what she calls “a daily sadness.”

“I never understood the kind of happiness I was longing for,” she recalls in the film. “We finally got a house, fixed it up the way we wanted. But then that bird of passage started to flex its wings again.”

It seems Bergman wanted the next excitement after the material goods of earth bored her.

But shortly after the 1960s, the height of the Sexual Revolution, another politician wanted to address  Senator Johnson's remarks.

“Twenty-two years after Sen. Johnson’s disgusting tirade, on April 19, 1972, Senator Charles Percy (R-IL) read an apology to Bergman on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, one of the world’s loveliest, most gracious and most talented women was made the victim of bitter attack in this Chamber 22 years ago. Today I would like to pay long overdue tribute to Ingrid Bergman, a true star in every sense of the word.“I know that across the land, millions of Americans would wish to join me in expressing their regrets for the personal and professional persecution that caused Ingrid Bergman to leave this country at the height of her career,” he continued. “Miss Bergman is not only welcome in America; we are deeply honored by her visits here.”

The issue here is that I see no apology needed. One wanted to warn the American people of how zombie like devotion to an actress who's private life was a mess (but she was a wonderful mother! some may say) and to not let it influence their sexual morals and actions while another, for whatever, went the fanboy route. Percy would have probably pre-ordered Notorious: The Life of Ingrid Bergman. (Apparently the book reads like it was written by a fanboy.)

So yes, Bergman is a "true star in every sense of the word." Multiple divorces. Multiple marriages. Multiple kids from multiple marriages and affairs. Rootlessness. And the ever so smug "I regret nothing," mentality. But is she a "class act" as Stern writes? Only in the eyes of people like Stern. They are the ones that produce phrases like "rank moralist." Well, you can't cover up urine smell with makeup, costumes and the industry's highest acting award. Urine is urine even if it's named of Ingrid Bergman.

You're drunk, modernism. Go home.

Every now and then you'll get a person who supports abortion to admit that yes, the "lump of cells"/"goo" is a person and that it's fine to kill that person and it's okay for various reasons: would be mother can't afford a child, doesn't want the baby, to population control. It's all about "reproductive rights" and "choice." If you think this is absolutely evil then you're clearly judgemental and backwards.

Now let's turn our eyes towards IQ. If you say certain races have, in general, different IQ than others, say whites over blacks, then you're committing a crime against humanity: you are indirectly calling for race subjugation and demoting blacks to that of a 2nd class citizen.

Askthebigot moves in new direction + new link.

Katy Faust's site, askthebigot, is adopting a new angle on advocating for real  marriage and for children who were raised in a same-sex household. She gathers their stories to show what a same-sex parent household cannot give a child: a household with two, loving parents of the opposite sex. Check it out.

NOTE: Those who do not see the nuclear family as, well, nuclear say that you technically only need one good, loving parent to succeed - even better if it's two people of the same sex in a relationship raising you. It's too bad that (A) common sense and (B) solid social science studies have shown that kids being raised in a two parent opposite sex household fair better than both. Of course there are exceptions since I personally know a handful of my peers that were brought up in single parent households that are married or soon will be and  have career success, but here's the thing: they all expressed disappointment in their parents' splitting and had their grandparents fill in where the missing parent would be.

To add to this there is a belief that has rolled out of the mouths that despise the nuclear family, which is good because the cat is somewhat out of the bag: that a father isn't necessary (hello third wave feminism). Does the feminist have the audacity, or even the feminist mom who has a husband, turn to the fathers or their husband and say they're truly optional, and then turn to their kid(s) and say that their father can be nullified by (A) just her own love and (B) a person of the opposite sex acting as "mom #2"? I bet not.

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.

Liberals, "being judgemental" and sex.

The people that tend to complain about being judged are liberals. I'll probably eve say it's an actual fact, at least in the US. Do people liked to be judged? Of course not. But if they are, to what degree and in what context? This is where liberals show some sort of pathology - no judgement whatsoever unless it's judgement towards those that disagree with our views. When liberals feel judged they think it's an attack on their character, which may be the case.

I don't agree with same-sex unions, whether some religious sect approves of it or the secular state does. I'll lay out my case the best way I can. I'll most likely be called a bigot, as if my stance is true bigotry. I don't agree with premarital sex. I view those that who do engage in it part taking in a mini-tragedy and, yes, they are unpure. Premarital sex is a form of depravity and a lack of respect for both parties involved. Does this make me judgemental? Yes, but so what. If a woman switches boyfriends every two years and has sex with them does that mean she's a slut? No, she's sorely misguided. Does this make me a jerk? I don't believe so. Am I offended if some woman says I am? Not really.

Say if a person says they aren't going to do all the "bad stuff" in college (e.g. premarital sex, drink, do drugs) and quotes the bible are they being judgemental? Maybe. If anything, the feeling of irritation or shame, if one feels those things, when met with this type of person should reflect on why they feel irritated or shameful. The "judgemental Christian" may have a very good point.

In general, I find this "you're being so judgemental" immensely weird. Liberals feel slighted even at the mention of restraint, especially when it comes to the topic of sex. Paranoia disorder? I'm just entertaining the idea. They love to talk about sex, or at least have a sense of comfort, when it's brought up. But be critical of modern practice and thought on sex? An avalanche of judgement is thrown your way, ironically. The standards of the social conservative world is clear: no sex before marriage. Being a virgin is the ideal. Not being a virgin before marriage is a sin and one should repent via confession; one should also "sin no more." Mention this on a comment section in youtube and watch heads explode or people typing, "Ugh. I hate your kind."

But hey, I'm a guy - an honest one. If you have no standards the "world" will barely disappoint you. If you're anything like me, you hold out hope yet at the same time realize that their is forgiveness, from yourself and from the divine. Yea, I went there.

'Extreme' Catholic traditionalists vs Theology of the Body.

I've recently learned that some traditionalist circles, some would deem them extremists even, are at odds with Saint John Paul II's Theology of the Body (TOB) and Chris West, a prominent advocate and presenter of the late Pope's famous (or infamous, if you're an 'extreme' trad) work.

Now I think TOB is quite good when it concerns sex and sexuality, and being someone who recently is taking his faith more seriously I was rather disappointed to learn that TOB is not liked at all in some circles in the traditionalist strain. I sort of view this like when I started actually cooking for myself. I was learning how to be more independent and learning through trial & error. I got better at certain dishes and I found out I was good at making various breakfast items. I learned that when it came to lunch my creativity lacked. I also learned that making dinner was plain fun.

Imagine thinking of what type of meat you'll purchase from the butcher to make that awesome dinner recipe Gordon Ramsey made in a mere 5 minutes on yotube. He's your "man". Soon after you come across non-meat eaters -- vegetarians and vegans. They say meat is bad and that one should abstain from meat entirely if you truly care about animals and not add to the deteriorating health of Mother Gaia (cow farts and whatnot). Now if you follow their advice you can't make that Gordon Ramsey dinner. In fact, you cut out a good portion of all the dinners you want to try. You feel deflated. You're just sharpening you cooking skills and a group of people say nope, sorry, put that brisket back. That brisket is murder. That brisket is an injection of poison to your body as well as to the earth. What? you think your yourself. You buy the brisket anyways. The non-meat eaters then throw around all these arguments, some paragraphs long (much longer than this post), that seem sorta right yet sorta off. What? That's how I feel when I think about the 'extreme' trads and their issues with TOB.

Like the non-meat eaters, those who are vehemently against TOB haven't said explicitly why it's a bastard work besides "ew modernity." I don't like modernity but c'mon. You got to  give me more than that. They write long paragraphs, typing much, but saying very, very little.

I'm taking TOB and I'm gonna enjoy it and proclaim it's rather good. If any Christian or Catholic asks about it or if the topic of sexuality and family comes up I'll recommend it.