Down Time

Brief Introduction, in case you scroll right passed it

Due to the end of the semester and potential health issues, I have been forced to take a hiatus from this blog. Since I do have time now, I'll give my quick thoughts on some recent stories.

Michael Brown

Something Creepy

Introduction

As my profile says, I read up on many different issues related to Christianity. When I'm reading about "gay rights," one of the phrases I see the most is "I liked boys/girls when I was young," in terms of homosexuality. I'm writing today because after reading an exchange in Youtube's comments, the epitome of cheap entertainment, I realized just how creepy it sounds if the words are instead spoken by a heterosexual.

Seriously, Try It

Do it. If you're a heterosexual man, say "I liked girls when I was young." First, many of you will refuse to because it's an outright lie. Girls had cooties. But let's say you were like me, having friends of both sexes. What does it sound like? Now try it for the same sex as yourself. So if you're a heterosexual man, say "I liked boys when I was young."

Let me illustrate further. When I was in first grade, I was good friends with the girl that sat next to me in class. Even 15 years later, I can remember a field trip where I had no lunch to eat and she shared with me. She moved away after that year. The point is, we were close as far as kids go.

Now take "I liked girls when I was young" in the context of determining present sexuality and a heterosexual man. Does it not sound like a guy had sexual inclinations at that age by using that context? Let's remember, this is all in the line of being "born that way." The problem is, it doesn't make sense.

Two Options

This post can only refer to homosexuals using said line in the introduction if I want to be honest. Still, it shows how, aside from the evidence against "gay genetics*," how the reasoning fails. The first option I have already stated. That is, there are people claiming that their sexuality as a kid and at present reflect each other. Excuse me while I vomit for having to type "sexuality as a kid."

The other option is that it is an excuse and there is no link. If there is no link, then the excuse is moot. My ultimate point of this post isn't even about morality. It's about honesty. I highly doubt that homosexuals had strong enough, if any, sexual feelings as kids as to be able to decide on their sexual orientation.

To expand on my earlier point, I thought a teaching assistant I had in second grade was really pretty. So did a lot of girls in the class. None of the girls that I keep in contact with are lesbians. Not exactly scientific, I know. I'm just reinforcing the point that linking childhood attraction to current sexuality is stupid.

Try it Again

Now say "I liked (same sex) when I was young." It either sounds really dirty or mundane. In the general sense, the phrase means what most people think, having had friends of whatever sex in youth. Being around kids of whatever sex that you enjoyed playing with. Say it in terms of present sexuality, and you sound like you were a pervert as a kid. 

Conclusion

This isn't some proof or piece. It's not some treatise either. It's just my thoughts, using a bit of logic, to show how creepy it is when anyone says a certain phrase in a certain context.

*There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

Abortion: Curtain Call

Introduction

As any of my previous readers can attest, I often blog while I’m angry. Usually I take to my blog to vent about a major issue that is important to me. My method is often a mix of logic and politics, and then I show how it connects to the Bible. Well, this post is different. This will be my first post calling someone out. Me, an internet nobody, will be burning someone a the stake to show what's wrong with a movement.


But who could it be? The CEO of Planned Parenthood? An author of a neo-feminist website like Jezebel? I'm out of examples so I'll just tell you: Abby Johnson. If you're not familiar with her, she was an employee of Planned Parenthood, saw the light, repented, and is now a major voice in the Christian pro-life movement.

Lest I sound as if I am referring to my own faith in the third person, I mean this distinction for a reason. The pro-life movement can be classified as religious or secular. The most active voices I hear under the religious banner are Christians, which makes sense due to the prevalence of the faith. In this post, I will be contrasting these two main branches, the Christian vs secular pro-life movements.


The Background

If you're familiar with both secular and Christian pro-life groups, skip to the next section.

The main pro-life message is "Life begins at conception." Indeed, the most heated debates are "What counts as life?" Is conception immediate? After the zygote is implanted on the uterus? The main idea is not to destroy potential life. After all, conception occurs but for some reason pregnancy doesn't occur, then that's that. The pro-choice logic of "Well you don't know," is begging the question. Generally, but not in all cases, this "wait and see" approach means things like Abortion and Plan B are out of the question.

The Christian message is usually "life is sacred, thou shalt not kill, Jesus loves you, please reconsider." Or some such form. When I see Christians back off from all four of these factors (or three if you combine the first two), I get anxious. It's the same feeling I get when Christians say to put aside disagreements on doctrine. After all, if putting aside doctrine was so easy there wouldn't be so many denominations.

Go to Abby Johnson's Facebook page. Scroll down if you're reading this at a later date to posts on 14 November. It's right there. I'll even quote the first sentence "If there was ever a time for ALL people of faith to put down their disagreements on religious doctrine, it is now." This is a problem.

Consider that Johnson is a Catholic. If I remember correctly, this means no contraception. So my issue is, what does putting aside doctrine have to do with anything? Some denominations allow contraception, but none that I am aware of allow abortions or Plan B. Additionally, as far as I remember, all denominations are against premarital sex. Catholic doctrine might have material from Popes and other high ranking members of the church, but the message is still the same across Christianity. This isn't to mention the dangers of ignoring doctrine.

It's always a bad idea to ignore doctrine because "set aside" really means ignore. We can't be ignoring the part about being pro-life by default as Christians, after all. I'm guessing if I went to a Catholic church, they wouldn't just set aside doctrine at my demand as a Protestant. There would be no point in being Catholic, or any denomination, if things could just be set aside.

This is all unless she is referring to other people of faith. Are we talking about the “not-mentioneds” like Muslims and Jews? Does it include pagans? If so, this is even less reason to not put aside doctrine. Unity in the pro-life movement is good, we don’t have to set aside doctrine to do it in any case, whether Christian and Atheist, Christian and Muslim, or any pairing.

The entire quote is either dangerous or vacuous. I'm not the FB status police, but there's more to this.


Problems in Paradise

I have taken the liberty of taking a comment on the thread of the aforementioned status (grammatical mistakes in original):

I think the focus needs to be more on not having a woman get to the point where she feels like she needs an abortion. we have no paid maternity leave. not a lot of single moms have a good support system (including child care and housing options). we shame moms who are young, single by telling them they should have kept their legs closed if they didn't want to get pregnant- saying nothing about the man who impregnated them. we tell our girls to say no, but not how to say yes with using protection, we deny our daughters birth control by insisting they take a purity pledge and when they suddenly end up pregnant- wonder why. we have girls who are in abusive relationships, parents who will disown their daughters over a teen pregnancy. women who are up over their heads in student loans who were raped at a party and can't pay their rent let alone raise a child. doesnt take a genius to figure out that socially we have a lot of work to do. instead of just focus on how to save the babies. save the women who have the babies.

It has some good points. Johnson herself liked the comment and replied that she completely agrees. It's the completely part that sent me into mental convulsions.

Maternal leave and support for mothers in general is a good thing. As a conservative, I want such matters taken care of responsibly by business that hire women, but I can see how the more liberal viewpoint is taken. If a business does give leave, it's usually not much. Method aside, the fact is that it's ridiculous to expect a woman to have a family and work the whole time, even while very pregnant. I have no fancy solution for this; I'm just saying I agree. The same goes for support and quality child care.

As for shaming single mothers, I agree that it isn't a very Christian response, which is implied in the comment. On the other hand, as Christians we're not supposed to have premarital sex. Period. Call it as it is. That doesn't mean you don't love the heck out of the single mother and her child and help if possible, but dammit, don't lie. I do agree that if a woman wants to have sex, she should use protection, though as you know I am against things like Plan B*. So here we are, already ignoring doctrine, as in the Bible, as in regardless of denomination.

This is the part where someone says "But Lu, maybe Abby doesn't agree with that part." To that I say "Great, then she should unlike the comment I reproduced, edit the reply comment to only agree with the relevant parts, and get rid of the doctrine part of the status while she’s there."

Moving on with the comment dissection, abusive relationships, being cast out of a family, and rape are touchy subjects. While I am firmly against all three, they are somewhat red herrings. If a woman is raped (God help the rapist, because I won't), or abused (same comment for rapists), I wouldn't want them to have an abortion. Why do we have to set aside doctrine to help them? And how can the person making this comment say how horrible abuse and abortion are, but say use protection? It’s a big mixed message.

May as well drop the Christian part and join the secular pro-life movement. Following the quotes I’ve used, that’s the bottom line.

Closing

If Abby Johnson means what she says, she should continue being Catholic but drop the Christian label from her work. Doctrine is core to Christianity and cannot just be set aside. If a denomination has to set aside doctrine to do pro-life work, it isn't Christian; the same goes as far as interfaith pro-life work.

Endorsement of the popular "If you're going to do it, use protection" is ludicrous. That's what non-Christians are doing with mixed results. It's a bad idea for a Christian and since methods can fail, it's a bad idea for pregnancy. In fact, proposing help sources for pregnant women and that old tagline about protection are the hallmark of the "They're going to do it anyway" approach. Isn't that what got us here in the first place, Christians or not?

Create the resources, yes, but be consistent. Be Christian, or don’t bother. Endorse opposing ideas (use protection vs don’t do it at all) and modern political correctness (put aside doctrine/our differences when it’s not necessary) and you may as well leave the church.



*The research says it doesn't cause abortions is from places like PP; it's not that I'm giving my view the default win because it says the opposite. It's that I'd rather be cautious about something so absolute.

Taking Back "Manning Up"

A Brief Intro

Sometimes I write when I'm angry. Those journal entries and blog posts usually stick out and the tone often hurts my arguments. After all, why would someone affected by something as sensitive as, say, abortion want to read something by an angry young man? On the other hand, sometimes I find it necessary to write when I'm mad. When I'm so passionate about something that I can't hold it back any longer, I find no other choice than to say exactly what I feel. This is one of those posts.

Manning Up

I've always found the modern use of this phrase to be insulting. In the case of my uncle who first used it, at a time when I was 12, he was deeply interested in me growing into a responsible man. He had nothing but positive motivations, though I recall he was quite pissed at the time he said it. He overcame his obvious anger at the time and, as a role model, tried to improve me. Since then I worked on being assertive, while admitting when I was wrong, making eye contact, and keeping my hands out of my pockets. I hated the phrase then because he was right, which was an obvious turning point in my life. Now I hate how people self-righteously and incorrectly use it today.

Despite my personal demons, I can recall being told to "man up" various times, but I'll use examples of my senior year of high school. I was told to man up to lying about a workout sheet, except I wasn't lying; the man accusing me couldn't man up to his inflexible schedule and the dangers it brought in lifting, God rest his soul. I was told to man up to the fact that I raised my voice to a class of belligerent students despite my mentor being unable to man up and admit he had done the same thing.  That was senior year.

I was told to man up about lying about a Calculus 2 textbook and homework debacle, but I didn't lie. The professor was a woman, but she couldn't take responsibility for being unclear with what she said, let alone how she applied that standard unfairly. I was told to man up to my crippling social anxiety, which I'd later find out to be clinical depression. It was an impossible situation, yet I was emasculated for it. I was told to man up and "formally" ask out a girl who said she had no interest. That was freshman year of college.

I was told to man up and explain why I was getting bad grades, even though my health was obviously crap while I struggled to maintain a 110 pound body weight, which would drop to about 100 (I'm now still 5'7", but 150ish pounds when causally working out).  I was told to man up about not going to class with a particular individual, except that individual had campus safety watching me without my knowledge. Even once I knew, I was told to man up and go anyway, despite the personal danger due to the incredibly strict harassment codes at that university. That was sophomore year of college.

I was told to man up and apologize for being smart. For being critical. For being unwilling to needlessly confront people. For even being angry. For situations I couldn't control. For yes, having feelings and having them hurt. I was made to apologize for my reactions. Rather than being taught not to have pride, vent anger on others, and how some situations weren't as hopeless as I thought, I was emasculated. Why are these things "manning up?" Does it even resemble the phrase as originally used?

The Point

"Manning up" used to be something tough, necessary, and good. When my uncle used it, he did so to make me see my weakness, accept it, overcome it, and move forward. Now it's used to emasculate men, making them into doormats. You refused to try to control a hopeless situation? You weren't aggressive despite your personality? You didn't "man up!" You didn't take that woman home because it would violate your integrity? "Man up!" 

Absurd! These aren't qualities of "manning up!" Just today I was told to "man up" and "own" my feelings about a particularly painful memory. I didn't find a joke funny as a result of this memory. I didn't flip out; I respectfully explained why I responded the way I did. "Man up?" What about respect? That's something the men in my life taught me growing up. It was missed by the person in question. Men respect others by letting them function, as long as it's fulfilling the original meaning of manning up: taking care of business with integrity, owning mistakes, and treating others with respect, even when their ways are different.

My grandpa respected how emotional I was despite his generation seeing being emotional as not masculine. For him to act completely counter to his entire upbringing is a massive show of respect. My uncle (different one from earlier) would make fun of my brother and I and we'd carry on. Once, I said "Yeah, I am a wuss," his favorite term, "the guys at school are saying I don't act right." My uncle turned really serious and told me to have self-respect and stop giving a crap what those guys thought; to him, having self-respect was "manning up," not bowing to the crowd . My dad told me to only get into relationships I was comfortable with. No "manning up" and chasing a woman to get a girlfriend just for the sake of it. Notice how that term, "getting a girlfriend," is possessive? It's based on insecurity, not masculinity. True men earn a woman's trust and affection. Notice how "manning up" contrasts with the manning up of these men being respectful, yet sticking to their guns. They didn't compromise themselves, but they built me up through their use of the term.

Conclusion

I've put a lot of personal detail into this post. The integrity of this post depends on my vulnerability and letting go of ego and pride. My sincerity is reflected through my obvious anger at the misuse of this phrase and how it excludes guys who aren't archetypical. The effectiveness of this post relies on the willingness of people to let go of the modern use of the term and to see it's original use. It's time for men to start acting with integrity and doing the right thing for the sake of it, not to fill society's view of a man. It's time for self-assessment to see if we're doing the right thing and owning our mistakes so we can improve as men. It's time to truly man up and stick to our guns, not society's.

Hobby Lobby and Entitlement

Introduction

I'm sure by now we're all familiar with the SCOTUS decision about Hobby Lobby, and by extension, other closely held companies. Some people, like Wil Wheaton (@wilw), have fantasies about Rastafarians, as seen by his retweet of a @JohnFugelsang. Or to better illustrate, Wheaton's nearly concurrent tweet says that "women need to incorporate, if they want to have things like 'rights' and 'freedom'" No educated individual should conflate such things as "freedom" with "you aren't entitled to a company giving you what you want."

Making an Example

Wil makes the following mistakes: strawman (attacking the ideas of rights and freedom rather than addressing the ruling); makes a red herring (he might have a point, but it's irrelevant to the case and how it was decided), loads the question (or implication, as if women have no rights or freedom at all unless they incorporate); and perhaps some appeal to fear or emotion. In a single tweet, especially with the tone of the other tweet mentioned, Wil Wheaton not only makes a complete ass of himself, but he shows the sense of entitlement I often see in social media.

Perhaps some reductio ad absurdum is in order. Let's say I'm working for a warehouse, as I did a few summers ago. I had no benefits. Likewise, in this pretend example, I sue the company, not only for not having benefits, but because I'm not being provided contraception, let alone something that is an abortifacient. Odds of success: 0%. Odds may increase if I was a woman. I feel dumber just for typing this. Women and men alike can work elsewhere if they don't like what Hobby Lobby or any company does or doesn't offer, including but not limited to,  pay, benefits, time off, and promotions. I am no more entitled to benefits at the warehouse than others are entitled to contraception. Note that this is not a legal argument, but a moral one.

Closing

A great irritant to me is celebrities who do stupid things like Wil Wheaton did. They step out of what they're good at, influence the masses, and are usually much less informed then they think they are. The issue isn't "women's rights." It's that people aren't allowed to follow their conscience. If you'll excuse me, I need to order a cake from a Muslim Bakery with a hot lady on it. After all, I'm entitled to it.

That One Thing

Notice my posts? I mainly cover abortion, LGBT stuff, and evolution. I think I’m missing something, something a bit less mainstream but a bit more in need of coverage. If you answered “mojitos,” then you’re a good guesser, but you’re wrong. No, I’m talking about pornography. For years I’ve debated on posting about this issue. For one, it’s not too popular to sit down and criticize it, especially in today’s more sexualized society. Sadly, it’s also “Christians,” the “puritanical” ones, that make it difficult. As if not speaking about it will make it go away. Or maybe topics about sex are icky. Whatever the case, the main thing preventing me from posting is my future career as a teacher. Now that employers will stalk the crap out of a potential employee through the internet before hiring, I’ve avoided this and other subjects. As can be seen here, I’ve decided to take that risk, along with any other backlash that may come up.

Enough about me. Anyone reading this post is probably wondering how this post will be any different than other posts by Christians about pornography. If you read my last post, it will differ in two ways: first, to make a “secular” argument and show how it supports Scripture instead of the other way around, and secondly, to use real situations and effects of the matter to show the human condition. After all, if porn wasn’t appealing to people or filled a need, I wouldn’t even write about it. It’d still be disgusting and manipulative, but then I could leave it to rot and not worry about legality or other arguments.

To sum up a thesis, I intend to cover two points. First, what is porn? Is it just stuff hidden away or is it more prevalent? And does the content even matter? Second, what effects does it actually have? Is it actually harmless and some people just have a problem with sex, the internet, etc, or does porn have negative effects on the brain?

Watch anything past 9pm, especially on cable. You’re bound to run into a sexy commercial or two. The kind I’ve encountered most are Victoria’s Secret commercials. Notice how such ads have nearly as many effects as a Michael Bay movie. Close ups, wipes, smoky effects, gloss effects, the list goes on. This isn’t to mention the come-hither looks, the body language, and the group shots (I can’t remember a VS commercial with less than three women, and honestly, I’ve tried). I refer only to number due to novelty, of which something porn offers an infinite supply.

Compare this to something more clinical. I distinctly remember a commercial because of the hilarious comment I made to my father while watching it. It was a commercial for a bra for bustier women. Despite the close up, the commercial was short with only a monologue explaining the product. While the VS commercial is sexed up by effects and directing, the latter commercial, despite having underwear and boobs as well, is simply a demonstration.

The point I’m making here is of two things, arousal and intent. While the VS commercials are about sexiness and intent to sell the product for the consumers’ (and their lovers’) enjoyment, the clinical commercial was functional despite sharing some elements. Its intention is to sell a product, yes, but also about comfort and other aspects of the product. Sure, both can be appealing, but the VS commercials attempt to capitalize on that. Some would say because of this, such ads like those of VS, regardless of product and company, are softcore porn. While that may be an extreme conclusion to some, there’s a point to which I’m leading up.

Even more revealing, pun intended, is that VS commercials and their ilk have no nudity, portray no sexual acts, and I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say that the women aren’t in those ads to make porn. No genitals, no sex, nothing like that, yet there’s a case to be made for porn here. To satiate all of the literalists out there, let’s take a look at the definition of pornography. Meriam-Webster defines it as “movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement.”

Let’s be real here. The VS commercial doesn’t show naked people or sex, so it’s not porn, right? I’d argue otherwise. Even if the intent isn’t to get men turned on, it probably does. I argue that porn is, metaphysically, “any material causing sexual arousal, not limited to nudity or focus on genitals.” In softcore porn galleries, there are plenty of lewd shots without nudity or sex. Yet it’s still porn. Does removing the nude/sex pictures from such a gallery suddenly make the other pictures not porn? Obviously not. Now, not all comparable cheesecake shots are shot as pornography. But the reaction to the material is the same. If a woman is beautiful, it doesn’t take underwear shots to prove it, and if a man is searching for such material then “porn” becomes completely subjective, hence my broad definition.

This is why Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue fares so well. What, you thought guys like checking out expensive swimwear for their girlfriends or wives? Again, the women involved are probably not thinking of producing porn and the photographers are just capitalizing on sex appeal. Yet it is generally consumed as pornography, thus blurring the line most people see. The question isn’t “is it porn?” and becomes instead “can it be used as porn?”, classic cases of porn standing on their own still.

To make a quick disclaimer: first, I’m not calling for the outlawing of sexiness. Second, while I’m using men as the primary examples here, women use porn as well. Third, I’m not saying to use my definition legally. It’s a metaphysical outlook and thus would be a legal mess. I also digress about sexy magazine covers and the like, but that’s a different issue.

Now that we have established that porn is different in intents and perceptions, let’s look at effects porn has on the brain. Is it damaging? Or are mindless surfing, compulsive masturbation, and OCD-like behavior to blame individually or together? 

This article here has technical speak and talks about the reward deal and the chemicals involved. Plasticity does indeed seem to happen with sex addiction as related to porn (read the second and third to last paragraphs of the linked article for that specifically). Addiction to seeking material and/or compulsive masturbation are thus separate issues that may or may not be involved as well.

Anyways, I think I’ve proved my point. Porn is addictive. It makes sense that Christ warned us against adultery in the heart. He doesn’t want us enslaved to sex, which is exactly what porn does in many cases. It seems safe to say that God has it right, and that’s why He tells us sex is for marriage. Thus ends my “secular” case, leading into Scripture as a sort of “soft proof.” You don’t have to be a Christian to accept the argument, but it still supports the biblical view.

Share your thoughts, reblog. Even if you don't agree, let's get a conversation started. It could go places.

A New Direction

After a sabbatical for finals and a bit of vacation, I find myself returning to my blog. Every so often, I find myself promising a different direction to my blog, but never getting it onto paper. For a long time, I've wanted to advance this blog beyond canned Christian issues and hot topic outrage posts.

What I mean by this is not posting safe, obvious responses to hot news stories and attaching Scripture just to make sure it sounds Christian. Instead, I wish, to delve deeper into issues and demonstrate Scripture. For example, showing that life begins at conception by science confirms the Bible, but can stand on it's own if someone is really adverse to the Bible. In other words, I take "secular" arguments and show that God got it right. Compare this to "proving " Scripture. It can get kinda circular to a non-Christian. Thus it's preaching to the choir and largely useless as an outreach tool. I also find the former method better for convincing people.

To sum up, rather than post rhetoric, I wish to analyze the human condition and connect it to Scripture. After all, we're all human. If someone wants to reject my end pieces that demonstrate the Bible, they can. Look at Frankenstein for a great example. The doctor plays God and pays for it. His condition was one of proving himself at any cost. We can all relate to trying for too much; pride and greed, two big Biblical principles. Take his creation, who only wanted a mate and to be left alone. The doctor wasn't ready to afford his creation human status, despite that others did so. The creation's condition is one we all know: belonging, a need for love, socializing. Not exactly a Christian novel, but I can connect it to God's Word and show these things. In English and Philosophy classes, some of these things are "universal truths."

If it convinces you of God, great. If not, the rest of my point exists on its own to show whatever my aim is. Someone might say God doesn't exist, but they still have to get around life beginning at conception, per my earlier example. Leave a comment and let me know what you think.