Sex and "children"

Some of America is in a lather over a portrait by legendary photographer Annie Leibovitz of Miley Cyrus. There are a number of points about this incident that disgust me. They will have to be presented one at a time so only at the end will the full picture be visible with all of the pieces interlocking nicely.

People are screaming about this as "the sexualization of a child." She is fifteen and in most jurisdictions, this is egregious. The photo shoot was not just for this shot. She was not forced to do it and made the decision herself. She is conscious of her self and her image. She would expose more skin in a modest bathing suit that she revealed in the photo. One or more parents were present for the shoot. Recently, she has apologized - ostensibly to her fans but in reality it was for the parents of her fans and the Disney organization. Her media empire will be worth around one billion dollars in a few years, just to herself. Who knows what Disney's take of this is. She is part of a show business family. While the motives of her washed-up, one-hit-wonder of a father may be in question, it is unlikely that her career is exploitive as it has been for some other child stars. Those are the two flavors of child stars. She definitely is very aware of her career and the impact of her actions on her audience. I am certain that she has been making more intelligent and important decisions for herself than most people ever will.

The first point of contention is that she is a child. Legally, yes. In addition, she will always be a child to her parents. Is she a child, no. Why? We humans have a double standard on this topic. With regards to animals, humans consider them adults when the reach the age that they can reproduce. We even artificially adjust the ages of our pets to make them fit into our own mortality system. At fifteen, it would be a medical problem if she had not reached menarche. Even our closest - and in the case of some people, an equal or better - primate compatriots, chimps, recognize this and will drive away males because they now are sexual competitors. It also occurs for females but not to the same level of ostracizion. The same standard of adulthood can be applied to humans because they are base, stupid animals, too. Humans reach reproductive maturity several years before the legal age imposed by cultures and societies. That makes them adults.

So why are humans not considered adults when they reach this physiological milestone? Is there something wrong with it? I hope not because that would mean that Gawd made a mistake. Gawd made humans work this way for a reason. Humans certainly are not prepared for adulthood at such an age - nor at any time - but that is because society imposed an artificial governor to impede them. There are a number of ideas about why: a flooded labor force, strains on the welfare system, and others. It is also unfortunate that they are in America because America does not have an adulthood preparation system that is any good. School has a modicum of impact and in reality has more to do with job preparedness than adulthood preparedness. I see three metaphors of reaching adulthood in modern America. One) A parent walks with their child down to the freeway. They watch the traffic for a while and suddenly, the parent pushes the child into to traffic. If the child is lucky, the parent will offer the advice of not being struck by a car. Two) The parent walks with the child down to the freeway. They watch it together for a while, but in the end, the parent never lets go and the potential in the child dies. Three) The parent lets their child drive the car every now and then, shows them how to maintain it, what the parts of a car are and explains the concepts of driving and the freeway. At the end, the child already has a car and has been driving themselves for a while. Most fall into the first category. More are becoming the second category while few enjoy the third. It is all backward-thinking that is motivated by self-interest.

Finally, the photo itself. It is sexualized? Is it sexual? Not really. Again, some clothing and swimsuits show more skin than this. This question is more about an individual's values; and not meat in a religious way. It has nothing to do with ethics (or morals - ethics for people who have to have their hand held). The values in question is an individual's dislike of sex. A person either likes sex or does not. If a person is neither one way or the other about it then they do not like it. Why dislike it? Sex is physiologically pleasurable so that we will do it more. If our sense of smell was strong as it is in animals, that would work to impel us as well. What is sexual about a bare back with nary a hint of gluteal cleavage and a fully-obscured-by-opaque-material profile view of the front? Nothing. It is the human form. It is supposedly made in the image of the divine. It is not something bad to see. I believe that, like the high-profile figures who perpetuate racism buy screaming about it the loudest (and not surprisingly purport to be religious leaders), people who demonize the glimpse of skin of any human are themselves salacious, sex monsters who are a heartbeat away from succumbing to their animal lust. It probably makes them feel out of control. How? Faith and religion about yielding control. They command the super ego and most of the ego. All that is left is the id, that little voice that commands you to masticate, defecate, and fornicate. Lose control of that and what is left? If only the grandparents of these anti-humans had been just as anti sex as they themselves are. Even better: if only they had been Shakers. You know, the people that make simple-looking furniture. Their sect requires strict abstinence so new members have to be recruited. Not many Shakers left. Apparently people want sex.

For a more contemporary update to the time that this was finally published, there is now the same sort of scandal in New Zealand with a sixteen-year-old fashion model named Zippora Seven. Aside from the exact same points being applied - except for having a parent on the set - this one is different. Fashion is allowed more leeway. At least it is in more civilized parts of the world. Plus, models are recruited when they are this young and even younger. Some fashion is quite absurd but so what. Some people go apoplectic over what they see on the fashion runways. Perhaps they also close their eyes when bathing. For them , I suggest that it would be easier to go ahead and gouge out their eyes to avoid the temptation. Might as well make this a real physical condition since they seem content to approach life and the world in a state of blindness.

Technorati Tags:
religion, sex

Pat Condell: The Curse of Faith

Spirituality, faith, religion, children, and Jesus hates you.





Link: http://www.youtube.com/v/EPG3-1gogXU

Earth Day

Earth Day was two days ago. I like the earth but it has a few problems, about 5.75 billion of them. However, I like a scenic vista and natural space as much as the next person. Nothing warms the heart like walking in a quiet vale and watching wolverines tear a carcass apart. If you like the earth, the next Earth Day, protest the construction of any new church in your area. They are a plague significantly worse than golf courses; at least those are green. Churches are a hollow monument to man's selfish fears. Grow up, morons. Right up the street from me, there are three churches all within half a block from each other; two are across the street from each other. Then there are those mega-churches. Those should be dynamited on Sundays when they are full because those churches cater to a certain clientele that the earth definitely can do without who are worse than regular facilities.

Some additional thoughts regarding the Fundamentalist mormon cult in Texas

There definitely is no religious freedom in American but fortunately it works both ways. Personally, I would rather have splinter xian groups, like this quiet, contained, yet nutty Mormon enclave, dotting the landscape than wacky, disturbing, loud-mouthed fundamentalist groups like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or any of those sanctimonious luddites with TV ministries. I digress.

I have not kept up with this story because it is not an important issue to me. I have a position on child abuse but nowadays, abuse is as over-used and over-extended as hero. I once saw an billboard saying that teachers are heroes. No. They can be someone's hero but their actions are not heroic. Fighting fires and patrolling the streets also is not heroic. Running back into a burning building four times to rescue people and keeping innocents safe in a violent situation is. Unfortunately, those actions come as a high price. That is heroic. I digress.

Was this all a setup to allow the government to poke its head in and pull off a raid? Maybe but how did they know that this was going on? Someone would had to have reported it, even before an operation to plant someone inside. If Sarah - a good Jewish name - is real, she is probably sequestered as a government witness. I doubt that weapons were the reason because the Feds would have moved differently, despite Waco - because the government goes by the manual and never learns. No, I am sure that their interest was the the welfare of the children. The government loves children and in much the same way the adult males of the sect were. George Carlin has a wonderful routine about the government's love/hate relationship with children: it loves the pre-born but once you are born, you are F-ed (George Carlin : Back in Town/, one of his best shows).

This is biggest issue of the bunch: the kids. America has developed a culture and society that oppresses children. Some kids are impressive because, even at eight or ten, they can carry on an educated, adult conversation because its parents cared about their child. It was exposed to information and knowledge, allowed to explore the world of ideas and develop their own, even treated as an adult. Just imagine if kids today were given the opportunity to reach for the boundaries. I think that America would not be the five hundred pound retarded gorilla that it is today. We would be Europeans.

No matter how much people dislike the concept, humans are animals - just like a dog, cat, monkey, bird or fish. When animals reach menarche, they start mating. When young apes reach the age to reproduce, they are driven off because they are sexual rivals to the parents. That is adulthood. Society and its culture define an artificial - i.e., unnatural - boundary. It goes against our innate nature. Males reach their sexual peak at seventeen or eighteen - the societal age of adulthood.

What was hyped to no end in the media was that young women were being married to older men and having children. Oh, no! Young women were having sex. That is the red alert. I think that there were a few mentions of young males being married off but those quickly disappeared from the story because that is a badge of honor for men, or it was completely false to try and lessen the perceived gravity of the situation. Women were being the sexual creatures that they are. Is it abuse? No. Obviously it is not an issue to reproduce so young or the body would not work that way. Oops, I meant to say that gawd would not have fashioned to body to work that way. Society is to blame for the age of consent problem but it is understandable. Populations would become unmanageable and drain resources, lowering the quality of life of adults. Then we would become a third-world country. In reality, medicine is to blame for this. Old people live too long, but I digress.

Xianity is wholly to blame. Saint Paul, the Apostle, was celibate but at least he did not pound his chest about it. He has plenty of crimes to answer for as is. There is another Saint, maybe Augustine or someone else, who is responsible for the establishment for xianity's attitude towards sex on top of its existing fear and hatred of women. He is a mega-hypocrite because he only came to this realization after literally screwing everything under the sun (I do have a source to quote this that I will find and insert here) and finding gawd. It is unclear if the two are related. Augustine definitely is responsible for the concept of Original Sin - not the act of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge but A&E gettin' their freak on. The reason why is another topic altogether. I try not to digress.

So, to sum up: this incident is a hollow show of protecting female "children" because they were being married off to older men, breaking the artificial rule of the society surrounding their enclave regarding sexuality and children, also artificially defined, all because some old man, 1600 years ago, was tired of sex and additionally because of the fear of the inexorable power of female sexuality.

Technorati Tags:
idiocy, oppression, religion, cults, freedom

Once more from the man in the street...

Bed Found In Fundamentalist Temple

Authorities searching a temple in the Texas compound of the Fundamentalist Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints found a bed they believe was...

Technorati Tags:
religion, The Onion

Religions to get behind

A cheery hello to all rational thinkers out there…the rest I ask kindly for you to go visit the Great Big Sky Daddy and stop bothering us! We will be sad to see you go, we truly will, as you provide us such merriment (can you hear the sardonicism?) …all things must come to an end…even the Big Invisible Sky Daddy.

Well I have been asked to guest post. I want to bring to light those religions we can get behind or support.

Here are the rules:
1) The religion requires its adherents to keep this contagion to themselves.
2) The religion must be Polytheistic in nature.
3) The religion must be oriented towards the worship of nature.
4) The religion must require sacrifice (lots of sacrifices).
5) The religion must require lots of sex between its worshipers. Note: Sexual preference is a personal matter. A truly wise God would not care what is going into where on whom. Only Gods with psychological problems would make [sic] time to care how the sex gets done. Remember folks, these are Gods. We must wonder about those Gods who have time enough to be concerned about sexual practices of their worshipers. We all know they are far to busy running the universe to care. So you Gods out there who do in fact care and have taken the pains to have your “free willed” disciples write about sexual taboos go get some therapy. May I suggest Adachigahara, or Patecatl for your personal therapist or perhaps Freud “Sometimes a God with a lighting bolt is just a God with a lighting bolt.”
6) Faith, although necessary, is not founded in a big invisible Sky Daddy who loves us all but in a belief that most people are simple minded and need to be tended like sheep on their way to the abattoir--hence the creation of religion.
7) Not all rules 2-5 need be met but at least one of them must be met along with rule 1, which is mandatory.

Religions I can get behind. Although there are many religions out there that one could select as proper I will bring a few to our attention as examples of the kinds that we should get behind either singularly or as a whole.

Druidism: Note: The original Druid Religion not the watered down modern version.
Cult of Dionysus: That crazy god??? Who wouldn't love a drunken sex maniac like that!
Aztec Religion: But hey let’s not get too out of hand folks.
Loki: Even though this is not a religion he can be worshiped. And hey, everybody loves a trickster.
Adekagagwaa: Here is the spirit of summer. Everybody loves the heat and the skimpy clothes that follow.
The Ancient Greeks had it correct. Any of their Gods will do.
Witchcraft (or Bitchcraft depending upon the time of the month--can you hear the screams?). Now this is not a true religion. But the empowerment of oneself by oneself…Ahh divine!
(side note: Hey! Where are the feminists??? They need to be standing up for us men so we can practice mencraft.)

ABOVE ALL….PLEASE…if you find yourself desiring a religion that is monotheistic, Don’t.
Reference: For a detailed listing of the many reasons against this look up any of the tragedies of human history since monotheism became an option. Note: Monotheism is an optional religion this means that it is secondary to Polytheism.

Pat Condell rides again

This post is brilliant, especially if you look beyond the defined boundaries he uses. Replace Islam with Christianity and Muslim with Christian and you can barely tell the difference. There are only a handful of details to tweak that are specific to Middle East cultures with regards to Western Christian cultures, and to certain specific events which he references. Is it 100%? Of course not. Maybe about 90%, and that should be enough to scare you.



Link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4

Technorati Tags:
religion, Pat Condell