Tag Archives: Sexuality

Notes On The Super Bowl Halftime Show

Posted on by

Two incredibly talented women felt it was necessary to flash their bodies in order to entertain the crowd. What a shame. Their singing and dancing would have been just as entertaining with more clothes and less sexuality. It is a shame that they allowed themselves to be exploited in this way rather than simply insisting on displaying their talent.

Today a website called Faithwire posted an article about the halftime show. The title of the article was, “What I Want My Teenage Daughter to Know After Jennifer Lopez and Shakira’s Stripper-Like Super Bowl Halftime Show.”

Some highlights from the article:

I had to endure this with my teen daughter watching alongside me. Gee, thanks, guys! For a group of people who always trumpet the value of “safe spaces,” they certainly don’t seem to care about the consequences of jamming sexually provocative “performances” into programming that families will be watching.

And I wonder about Shakira and J-Lo. Like, are you seriously at this stage in life and still think it’s honorable or somehow “empowering” to writhe around on stage as if you’re trying to gain the attention of a bunch of frat boys? Sadly, this is nothing new. Culture’s misguided idea that sexuality = empowerment has been around for over a century, ever since the days of Edward Bernays it’s been a staple in the marketing industry. Hopefully, someday we’ll see marketing that reflects a society desiring Godly values. Given the current state of affairs, however, I don’t see that happening anytime soon — so the best we can do in the meantime is use opportunities such as this as teaching moments.

…Flaunting your body is not edgy or cool.

Your body is a temple. God made you and he made you beautiful. He made you in His image. He made you so He could be glorified through you, and there is nothing God-glorifying about dancing nearly naked on a stage for attention. Culture will tell you that expressing your “sexuality” is healthy, and even powerful. God tells us the exact opposite is true. In 1 Corinthians 6:18, we’re told to “flee from sexual immorality.” God says when we sin sexually, it is a sin “against their own body.” So we’re actually harming ourselves, not empowering ourselves when it comes to sexual sin. Appealing to the sexual instincts of man is the cheapest of all ways to get attention, it’s been done a billion times over, it’s degrading, it’s predictable — not edgy or cool.

You are not an object

Until women stand up and refuse to be exploited, we will continue to be exploited. I understand that there is tremendous pressure from the entertainment industry to display  overt sexuality in order to be successful in the industry, but until women as a group stand up against their exploitation, it will continue. These two women are extremely talented and have worked hard to be in the shape they are in, but they didn’t need to cheapen their talent with the antics displayed last night.

When Is Higher Education Against Diversity?

Posted on by

Yesterday Christian Headlines posted an article with the following headline, “Duke University’s Student Government Rejects Young Life over LGBTQ Policies.”

The article reports:

Duke University’s student government has denied the Christian organization Young Life official status as a student group on campus, citing its policy on sexuality.

The decision by the Duke Student Government Senate on Wednesday (Sept. 11) comes amid ongoing clashes nationwide between religious student groups and colleges and universities that have added more robust nondiscrimination policies.

Young Life, like many evangelical groups, regards same-sex relations as sinful. Its policy forbids LGBTQ staff and volunteers from holding positions in the organization.

The student newspaper the Duke Chronicle reported Thursday that the student government senate unanimously turned down official recognition for the Young Life chapter, because it appeared to violate a guideline that every Duke student group include a nondiscrimination statement in its constitution. 

Young Life, which is based in Colorado Springs, is a 78-year-old organization with a mission to introduce adolescents to Christianity and help them grow in their faith. It has chapters in middle schools, high schools and colleges in all 50 states and more than 90 countries around the world.

But the student government objected to a clause in Young Life’s sexuality policy. After the student government was told the organization would not change its sexuality policy, it rejected the group.

The Young Life policy states: “We do not in any way wish to exclude persons who engage in sexual misconduct or who practice a homosexual lifestyle from being recipients of ministry of God’s grace and mercy as expressed in Jesus Christ. We do, however, believe that such persons are not to serve as staff or volunteers in the mission and work of Young Life.”

So following the Biblical guidelines on sexuality (both heterosexuality and homosexuality) will prevent your Christian group from being recognized on a College Campus.

The article concludes:

Over the past two decades, many colleges and universities have attempted to exclude religious groups because of their positions on sexuality, among them InterVarsity and Business Leaders in Christ.

Greg Jao, senior assistant to the president at InterVarsity, said about 70 colleges and universities have attempted to exclude InterVarsity chapters over the years — in some cases because it bars LGBTQ employees, in others because its faith statement more generally violates school nondiscrimination policies.

In most cases, the issues are resolved, but others have ended up in court. InterVarsity is now suing the University of Iowa and Wayne State University.

“Most of the time universities back down because it’s a violation of students’ First Amendment rights,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a law firm that defends religious freedom cases.

Duke, however, may be in a different category as a private institution. Private universities don’t have the same obligations under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause that a government entity does.

As a private entity, Duke may actually be able to do this, but any Christian who sends their child to Duke is supporting an anti-Christian agenda.

Jumping The Shark In Children’s Television

Posted on by

Yesterday, WCYB Channel 5 reported that the writers of the children’s show “Arthur” have decided that this season Arthur is going to a wedding of his teacher Mr. Ratburn where Mr. Ratburn marries another man.

The article reports:

Following the scene that shows the teacher and his husband Patrick walking down the aisle, Arthur is shown at the reception saying he cannot believe that Mr. Ratburn is married.

“Yep. It’s a brand new world,” says Arthur’s friend Francine in the episode entitled “Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone” which can be seen by clicking here.

The article continues:

The Public Broadcasting System issued a statement on the episode on Monday to the publication People:

PBS KIDS programs are designed to reflect the diversity of communities across the nation. We believe it is important to represent the wide array of adults in the lives of children who look to PBS KIDS every day

Why is PBS doing this? Parents will introduce their children to diversity when they feel the children are ready for it. Children do not need to be indoctrinated by Public Television. Keep in mind that our taxpayer dollars are paying for this garbage. Children should be taught respect and tolerance, but it is up to their parents to teach them the values the parents espouse. I would never want a child to be disrespectful of a person because they were gay, but I would also want my child to understand the Biblical view of homosexuality, despite the fact that it is in opposition to the current liberal view.

Giving Our Children Information They Don’t Need While Not Telling Them What They Need To Know

Posted on by

Camille Paglia posted an article at Time Magazine yesterday entitled, “Put the Sex Back in Sex Ed.” It’s a rather odd concept, but she makes some very worthwhile points.

The article states:

Fertility is the missing chapter in sex education. Sobering facts about women’s declining fertility after their 20s are being withheld from ambitious young women, who are propelled along a career track devised for men.

The refusal by public schools’ sex-education programs to acknowledge gender differences is betraying both boys and girls. The genders should be separated for sex counseling. It is absurd to avoid the harsh reality that boys have less to lose from casual serial sex than do girls, who risk pregnancy and whose future fertility can be compromised by disease. Boys need lessons in basic ethics and moral reasoning about sex (for example, not taking advantage of intoxicated dates), while girls must learn to distinguish sexual compliance from popularity.

The first paragraph is something that was not an issue thirty years ago, the second paragraph involves issues that parents used to handle thirty years ago. Ms. Paglia is looking for a scientific approach to sex education in biology classes and a practical non-agenda driven approach to life issues in single-sex classes. This makes sense. Many parents are not telling their children the truth about the emotional and physical cost of abortion or the emotional differences between men and women.

Please follow the link and read the entire article. This is a very common-sense approach to an issue that has our society needs to deal with in a way that helps our young people grow up to be healthy and productive adults.

Enhanced by Zemanta