People Who Accuse Others of Victim-Blaming Are Demeaning Women

Victim Blaming: Accusing someone on the receiving end of some calamity to be responsible for its occurrence. 

ex: "Telling women not to put themselves in situations where they might be sexually assaulted is blaming the victim. The only thing that causes rape is rapists."

Often heard from: feminists, "social justice warriors," change advocates of various kinds that are commenting on violence or gender related issues.

Please see my treatise on why this argument is only half true, and ultimately hurtful despite its being (maybe) well-intentioned: Treatise: Third-Wave Feminism's Irresponsibility Double-Standard

*  *        *  *        *  *

So how does accusing someone of "victim-blaming" demean women?, I'm sure you're dying to know.

I'll answer. But first let me clarify that it's certainly possible to be legitimately at fault for blaming victims, which is wrong.

Scenario A: "She should have known better. By getting wasted drunk around a bunch of frat guys, she brought this on herself."
Verdict: Victim Blaming. Disgusting assertion that she's responsible for someone else's sins against her.

Scenario B: "Rapists bear the full responsibility for their own actions. Even so, it's wise to be aware of risks and take action to mitigate your exposure to them. Please consider the way you dress, the people you socialize with, whether you walk alone, whether you carry mace/air horns/a gun, and whether you overtly sexually entice men around you, as ways to help protect yourself."
Verdict: Not Victim-Blaming. You can take action to protect yourself without implying that you're responsible for what others do to you otherwise.

And yet, this is often attacked as "blaming the victim" by feminists in online fora. I submit that this could be because the feminists a) really have no clue how to solve the problem and don't want to believe that they can fix it because that makes them feel uncomfortable and morally conflicted, and b) really resent men and want all the attention and responsibility to be theirs (men's).

1. Teaching someone how to drive is not blaming the victim if they are involved in a car crash.
2. Police officers wearing bulletproof vests are not blaming the victims of homicides for their gunshot wounds.
3. Teaching wilderness survival, gardening, hunting etc doesn't "blame the victims" of famine, starvation, or those who die of thirst or exposure to the elements.

Giving someone tips for how to protect themselves from getting hurt is not asserting that they are responsible for undesirable outcomes, when something happens that hurts them, which are out of their control.

Now that that has been emphasized, there are some direct consequences of this.

When someone discusses rape prevention in the vein of scenario B above, and someone responds to accuse them of "blaming the victim," then that person is actually demeaning women and promoting sexist attitudes that contribute to rape.

Say whaaat? Let me guide your thinking:

Paradigm shift 1
Taking away someone's responsibility takes away their ability. Taking away their ability takes away their power to effect change. Taking away their power takes away their freedom of choice, and makes them helpless victims of circumstance, at the mercy of their abusers.

This is what denying women their right to prevent rape (by denying that they have the ability or responsibility to protect themselves) accomplishes.

Paradigm shift 2
By asserting that rapists are the sole factor in rape**, advocates are denying the woman's responsibility over herself. By denying her responsibility, they assert that women are incapable of doing anything to protect themselves that might actually decrease the chances of getting raped. This makes women out to be defenseless. This view is sexist because it portrays women as weak and ineffective compared to men, who always get what they want because they alone have the power and are the sole determinant of what they will be able to do.

Paradigm shift synthesis
Taken together, the logical conclusions of accusing "scenario B men" of "blaming the victim" is the promotion of the belief that women are incapable, and men are capable. That women are irresponsible, and men are responsible*. That men can rape, but women cannot stop rape. That women don't have the freedom of choice, to choose their own destinies, in the context of whether they will be raped or not. That women are victims, and that men, by contrast, must be victors. That women are helpless and defenseless and at the mercy of the decisions that men make. That men get what they want, when they want it, from whom they want it. The buildup of all these contrasts encourages the subconscious prejudice in both men and women to see women as weak and inferior and men as strong and superior. It is the very epitome of sexism.

Therefore, though promulgated in the name of feminism and the defense of women, any attacks against the character or motive of a man, or the impact of his statements, if he encourages women to seek to protect themselves from the sort of men who would take advantage of them, nevertheless has the effect of PROMOTING SEXISM.

Feminism = sexism. Against women, no less. I could not be clearer.

Women, think twice about attacking any man that disagrees with you about some issue that touches on gender relations.

Men, take courage, and be careful to make sure you speak wisely on this issue. Sexism rules on "both sides," and it is your responsibility, as someone who seeks to honor woman, to fight against the things that hurt her even when it's what she believes with all her heart to be in her best interest.

~ Rak Chazak

* note the equivocation in these terms. It's nevertheless the impact of using these words without clarification and therefore the conclusion is sound.

** Rapists are solely responsible for their choice TO rape. But rapists don't exist in a void and strike at random. This is evidenced by the fact that most rape is "acquaintance rape." Rapists must CHOOSE their targets, and to do that they need motive and opportunity. You have the ability to deny them the opportunity, and to some extent their motives. If you have this ability, should you act on it? Then that is the same as saying that you're responsible for your own actions that can mitigate or exacerbate the risk of being raped. Please read this treatise to see that there are two senses of the word 'responsibility': culpability and personal governance. To say that you're accountable for yourself is not to say that you are to blame for what someone else does to you. The consequences of denying personal responsibility over your choices leads to absurdity.

Texting Treatise: Different Responses to Temptation

Texting Treatise: Different Responses to Temptation

The first section contains the types of responses or non-responses to sin, where a person rejects the idea that they should be repentant about it.

Blindness

Lack of Awareness: unaware of what you are doing

Qualified Unawareness: aware of what you are doing, but think it is good. Unaware that it is sin

Incorrigibility

Apathy: aware it’s wrong but don’t care to change it

Minimization: aware it’s wrong but deny the severity of it

Defiance: aware of the wrongness and severity and willingly indulge it anyway without contrition

In this next section are different types of responses to sin that contain a measure of contrition (feeling sorry) or repentance (genuinely desiring to flee from or overcome the temptation). For the sake of making it seem more interesting, psychologically, I’ve arranged them in a potential ‘maturity scale’ that the hypothetical average sinner might progress through while dealing with recognized temptations to sin in their life.

Contrition

                Sub-set: Vain Heroics

Halfhearted Abstinence: an attempt to break from it, but not strong enough in conviction to persist. Likely followed by binging on the particular temptation (shopping, drinking, sexual activity, surfing channels/websites, abandoning healthy eating or exercise, etc) upon crashing

All or Nothing: can lead to longer sustained abstinence, but more often leads to more time in between attempts, because of the fear of failure. Successive failure leads to disillusionment with pure abstinence and leads to a variety of different attempts to deal with the issue:

                Sub-set: Allowances

Hesitation: failing with abstinence doesn’t immediately lead to abandoning that method, but can cause a person to rationalize not trying right now, while they’re waiting for the perfect moment to start. They tolerate giving in to the temptation because they tell themselves that they’re planning to try to abstain from it soon

Banking: sinning more in the short term to satisfy an imagined quota that your flesh desires, so that you can hope to have better success in your abstinence effort. This leads to an expectation of high indulgence, which produces a cycle of periodic abstinence followed by binging, which is worse than the initial ‘halfhearted abstinence’ program.

Putting it Out of Mind: not thinking about it, in the hopes that it was one’s focus on trying to deal with the temptation so strongly that led to the catastrophic failures in the past. When this inevitably fails, it is modified to

Tolerance: not keeping track, and letting yourself get away with indulgence in the hope that by not “banking” it, you’ll end up indulging in it less, and that by not trying to abstain all-or-nothing-wise, you won’t have a “crash.”

                Sub-set: Searching for Loopholes

Rhythm/Scheduling: when tolerance doesn’t end up diminishing your gratification of your sinful desires, and you catch yourself, you may try to “out-think” yourself, by intentionally planning to give in to the temptation at certain points, but insert periods of focused abstinence in between. It’s basically a modified “banking/all-or-nothing” approach with shorter periods of abstinence that make success more likely. When the periods are extended in the effort of “weaning” yourself off of a dependence on the indulgence, you reach the level of

Gradual Improvement: this can be reached with or without the “scheduling” stage; it’s basically an attempt to “play a long game” and start comfortably with a high tolerance for your indulgence, gradually decreasing how much of an allowance you’ll give yourself. This is basically a more intentional version of

Fatalism: aiming for less than perfection because you can’t get it. Whereas the “gradual improvement,” “scheduling” and “banking” approaches tolerate sin for the sake of trying to build some sort of spiritual immunity to it (doesn’t work, by the way), fatalism is the final resting place of many people (note that this scale does not have to be limited to Christians). They decide that they’ll accept a certain amount of giving in to temptation over a certain length of time, indefinitely, because they’ve decided that they’ll never have victory over it. Such thinking can lead a person from being contrite  to becoming incorrigible. However, some people may make a few further desperate steps to dealing with the issue of their temptation

All About that Alto, No Soprano..."Empowering" Sexism in Mainstream Music

This is a lambast of the Main-Stream-Music song "All About That Bass." I recently read a TIME snippet where the song, along with a few others, was held up as an example of an uplifting message for girls about body image.


Talks about butts.

Ok.

Here are the lyrics from the chorus:

My mama she told me, 'don't worry about your size'
She said 'boys like a little more booty to hold at night'

WHAT?

Okay, let me get this straight: "(1)Don't care about your personal health, (2) because you're a sex object." Niiiice. Oh, and even better: "your personal worth lies in your rump's ease of being groped, and (sexism alert!) boys don't care about anything but sex, objectifying women, and being a pervert." And last but not least, it purports to lift up fat girls by dealing with their insecurity by telling them they're superior because of their body type. This is literally putting down skinny girls for the same reason, that they "don't have all that bass." Yay empowerment!

You don't improve someone's self image by telling them they're better than somebody else. That's the essence of what bullying is, putting someone else down to make you feel better about yourself. And that's even without the twisted fact that the thing that makes you better than the other person is your ability to be objectified and treated like a piece of ass, that you don't have value in yourself, only in being desired by immature sexually-obsessed boys!

Is this empowerment? No, this is an example of how messed up our culture is, when in the name of doing good for someone, the exact opposite is perpetrated.

Feminism is dung.

That is all.

~Rak Chazak

Don't Say "I Don't Have A Problem With Gay People"

The people who say this are invariably those opposed to homosexual marriage, or homosexuality per se. Yet, since behavior and identity are closely intertwined among people in this part of society, it seems to them as if you really do have a problem with them, and are being a lying hypocrite.

                So, don’t say “I have no problem with gay people” because it makes you look like a hypocrite to them. They think that if you have no problem with them, you won’t have a problem with their homosexuality, because they personally identify with it, and don’t separate it like you do. So it’s unhelpful to allow them to conveniently write you off as a doublespeaking bigot. 

Let's put it the other way. There are some who will say that they have no problem with Christians, or that they value the First Amendment, but then turn and say that they don't think Christian faith and doctrine should influence government policy, and that "you can believe whatever you like, as long as you keep it to yourself." This is essentially the same experience that homosexuals have had with others telling them to "stay in the closet" and hide a part of who they are out of shame.

Why would we treat others the way we don't want to be treated? This is the opposite of the Golden Rule, which is that we should treat others the way we DO want to be treated, even if we are not treated that way. The fairness toward others is a witnessing tool. When people realize you're treating them kindly and that you're not obligated to (or even that they're not deserving of it), they are more apt to listen to you.

But saying that you don't have a problem with gay people is not a kindness. It is confusion. True kindness would be to say in unequivocal terms, "I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do not hate you for who you are. Instead, I love you in spite of who you are, because that was what Jesus Christ did for me." Then go on to say that because you believe it's wrong, it would be unloving to encourage someone to do or be proud of what is wrong and harmful for them. True love shows itself in correction. When you demonstrate that you love them to the point of being hated and harassed for pleadingly showing them the way to be saved, you give the Holy Spirit an avenue to open their hearts to the Gospel. They'll see that you're not motivated by love of self but that you sincerely care. And some will still reject you. But at least they will not do so because you were an offense, but because the Gospel is what offended them.

~ Rak Chazak

Statistical Vindication of the Superiority of Pre-Marital Sexual Abstinence

That sounds like a scientific paper title. If you ever write for a technical journal, basically your header will encapsulate the conclusion of your research. Goes to show I really was paying attention in my writing-intensive elective seminar.

As I scrolled through the latest argument about sex on my university forum, I saw that the resident third-wave feminist had levied a research study's conclusions against a guy commenting on the same "slut survey" I wrote about in this post. He had said that he couldn't see why anyone would take pride in 'owning' the word slut and expressed that there must be something wrong with them. Feminista Number One's response made use of data from a blogspot article by The Social Pathologist to claim that women who had several sexual partners were less likely to divorce than women who had had a few, or women who had had numerous partners. This was supposedly evidence of the superiority of having more than one sexual partner. 

Nevertheless, FN1 couldn't deny the results also showing that virginity prior to marriage was far superior to any number of sexual partners, in serving as a predictor for the success (non-divorce over an extended period) of their first/only marriage. Intrigued, I went on to click on the link and peruse the article.

Here are some quotes of interest from the article at the blog link:

"...divorce rates are the lowest for those with zero pre‐marital partners. That part is unambiguous. Virgin brides are the least likely to divorce, all else equal. But why do  divorce rates rise with one or two premarital partners only to reverse and drop after two or more sexual partners? And next, why do divorce rates reverse and climb back up after the pre‐marital partner count goes into the double digits?"

"My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5‐9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience....Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5‐9 pre‐marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men."

From a table constructed by the analyst,

"One can see that the divorce rate is nearly 50% for women who had only one pre‐marital partner and if that partner did not develop into her husband. The divorce rate falls to half the above rate (25.6%) if a woman later marries her first and only pre‐marital sex partner. However, both these divorce rates are higher than the divorce rate for virgin brides. Pre‐marital sexual experience with one’s future spouse does not beat out having no pre‐marital sex at all."

Thanks, Feminista Number One!

I initially thought I was going to be led  to a pro-3WF site where I would have to read between the lines. As it turns out, that's what FN1 was doing, herself. Intriguingly, the study cited was called the National Survey of Family Growth and was published by the Heritage Foundation. So FN1 is reading research spearheaded by conservatives. One can only hope she doesn't fail to be persuasively influenced by her dabbling in the enemy's camp, over time.

It should be noted that it isn't the mere fact of virginity or sexual activity that has an effect on marital success, but what it implies, either in terms of the type of character or decision making that went into the choice to have or abstain from intercourse, or in terms of the type of effect that such a decision consequently has on that person. But if you're a foolish person, doing the right thing without knowing why is not morally wrong, it's just less beneficial to you; nevertheless, since it gives you time to figure out a coherent ethic justifying your choice, you will reap the reward for it over time, even if you do "the right thing for the wrong reasons." 

~ Rak Chazak

Texting Treatise: Flirting

Three texts I sent to a female friend, spontaneously, a few nights ago (the warm weather lets me text more because my thumbs don't get numb when I'm taking walks with the dog at night):

Euphoria After Talking With Young Ladies That Day

Man, I like flirting. Maybe they think I'm cute, but even if they don't, I get high on the privilege of being the one to pay them attention and make them feel that someone thinks they're interesting, wants to talk to them, and maybe even finds them attractive. Making girls happy makes me happy. Can't explain how, but the 'why' seems obvious: I'm made to gain pleasure from seeing pleasure in a woman's face. It's undoubtedly a biological hardwiring designed to create a positive-feedback-system in my courtship/marriage where I get ever more motivated to serve my wife the more I serve her and bring joy to her by doing so. And in the meantime, I get my "fix" by flirting and talking to pretty girls. It gives me enough cheer to keep up the hope of finding someone I can really turn up the romance for/with, some day.

Definition of Flirting

I dunno (in response to my friend saying they don't think they flirt much with people), as far as I see it, flirting is just another word for being nice IF conditions are such that you have interest in that person, or either of you may be subtly communicating attraction, even by the benign act of choosing to talk to (which is by definition showing interest in) that person, RATHER than, literally, anyone else. So talking to a guy you like, if you smile, is a low-intensity flirt, essentially. Various behaviors that make interest more obvious make a flirt more obvious.

How I Use Flirting In Daily Life

So there's even a sense in which certain things I say to you or [another friend] can be (seen as) flirtatious, simply because you're attractive young women and I personally find you interesting to talk to. I can't think of a concrete recent example at the moment, but if I say something to compliment your personality or appearance, whereas it is sincere and typically meant as an encouragement first, it's "cross-categorized" (lol technical) as a flirtatious remark. What should be understood is that I'm not using 'flirt' to mean something frivolous or insincere OR (very importantly) something said with, by necessity, the intention or hope of producing desire in the object for the subject. Many of my flirts are for that purpose, but many are defiantly* not, and aloof, and some are just my friendly personality but interpreted by somebody else in a more intentional way. Lol clear enough?

Epilogue

I finished the text conversation with another text explaining how I saw our communications--I don't talk to her as an "outlet for flirting," for example. I explained what I appreciate(d) about the texts I get from her and the other girl, namely that whether I find agreement, criticism or disinterest as the response for something I say affects how I think about that, and it gives me an opportunity to refine my thoughts and speech and become a better man. Basically, this is the essence of Christian fellowship--encouraging each other and enabling each other's spiritual growth--merely over text. It's a great time to be alive.

~ Rak Chazak

*By the way, "defiantly" is not a misspelled "definitely." I intended to say that it is with defiance that I refuse to only flirt with people I might have romantic aspirations for. 

I've Finally Arrived

Because of my personal history of not being frequently immersed in social situations with people my age outside of school, sports, or places where adults congregated, I've had far less experience in terms of the types of encounters I've heard from others that they were having or have had. 

Some personal information, non-explicit nor personally identifiable. Discusses being 'hit on' and romantic crushes.

It wasn't until after graduating high school that I had the experience of unrequited emotions toward me by other people. Well, that's not entirely accurate, because I was aware of a few crushes in middle school (I was cuter then), but they were overtly declared and fizzled, they've just taken me more and more by surprise as time has gone on. 

-  A girl who avoided me ever after touching me inappropriately (and not getting the reaction she was expecting, I guess) wrote a suggestive note in my yearbook indicating she had tender feelings for me.

-  A girl in my freshman year of college brought a movie over to watch in my dorm room. When we said goodbye, she kissed me on the neck. I was totally oblivious to the presence of any physical attraction up to that point, and I think my 'failure to reciprocate' explains why she and her three friends always seemed to interact with me awkwardly, though they would acknowledge me and wave if we passed each other on campus. 

-  Another girl that year sent me an email to say she was avoiding me because she liked me. Nothing came of that, for obvious reasons.

-  Someone I hadn't spoken to in two years, because she had asked me "do you hate me?" which I took as an offensive insult and said 'yes' in desperation to end her insecure texting, emailed me to try to reconnect, and shared that she'd really liked me/had a strong crush for some time. She again persisted with the "do you dislike me?" questioning, my best guess is because she wanted me to say I liked her, but I refused to take her lead, and she became offended and ragequit.

-  I went on a casual 'date' with a girl I'd flirted with in Fall 2011, and after talking for a long time she revealed that she had a boyfriend and was most interested in seeing 'what I was like,' because of persistent negative rumors about me on campus [as a result of presenting Biblical Christianity on the university forum] that she had become aware of. 

Nothing like being ambush-kissed or having to constantly defend your friend/family/partner in court because of false allegations by a 'crazy ex,' or being propositioned for a threesome, or going to a social gathering where a fight occurs or police arrive for whatever reason. Just a bunch of people failing to consider that their assumptions about how people respond to certain behaviors might be..let's say limited. 

*   *   *   *   *

Piggybacking off that last idea, I now come to the topic of discussion. A friend of mine had once informed me that they've been 'hit on' by people of "all 3" claimed orientations, i.e. hetero, bi and homosexual, both males and females. To me, I'd just assumed it was something that wouldn't happen because I just don't go out to places like clubs or parties or wherever else one might expect to be hit on (oh, almost forgot bars). The lack-of-alcohol factor also would play a role, since slightly inebriated people might be less inhibited and feel more confident or flamboyant. For that reason, I wasn't expecting to get handed a note by a coworker (from a guest) one day that said 'call me' (or 'text me?') with a number attached. A few days later, sitting at home, I let my curiosity lead me to send off a text.

It went sort of like this:

-Initial Contact
-Who's this? response
-Explanation; so we don't know each other?
-Respondent feigns uncertainty
-I suggest it was someone playing a prank giving me his number
-Suddenly remembers who I am
-Tells me I'm "seriously attractive."
-I reassure him and thank him for the compliment, then ask if he got the impression I had 'an animus, condemnation, disgust, meanness, lack of respect etc or made you suspicious that I harbor those emotions toward you'
-He replies no, tells me I'm nice, 'obviously very intelligent' and deserves 'props for being as respectful as you are.'
-I tell him "You happen to have stumbled upon one of the most conservative Christian 24-year-olds this side of D.C." and explain that my kindness is not in spite of my Christianity, but as a result, a derivative of my beliefs which "leave no part of life uninfluenced."

I decided to tell him that, I explained, "because tomorrow is not promised. There is no better moment than the present," to talk about such a serious subject.

This is the conversation, summarized. I'm including his final text as a whole, as an anecdotal evidence for any Christians out there who aren't sure/confident about whether they should be up-front with the fact that they are Christian and "preach" to people when they've just gotten to know them a little bit. I wasn't sure how he would react, because chances are he could be like the homosexual activists at my university who have gone out of their way to try to destroy for me, academically, professionally and otherwise. But I stepped out in faith. Here's his response:

I really think you're honestly an awesome person [Hakam]. I'm really glad you've been openly honest with me about this all. It brings a lot to mind, because a lot of people have reacted very negatively. & you being a Christian, & reacting as respectful as you possibly could, is sure a powerful thing to see. I'm more then open to answering any questions & talking to you about anything at anytime you'd like. In my personal opinion someone as intelligent & awesome as you should not be working at [Restaurant]. Keep up the good work & push for what you want, [Hakam]. I believe in you. You're for sure an awesome dude.  & again, I'll just say if there's any possibility of us becoming friends, I'd be more then happy too. You seem like a really cool guy with a great outlook on life. & I see you going big & making it just from the little I know about you! 

- Results not typical. Faithful witness is required by God of Christians regardless of the end result. -

I appear to have an open door for further witnessing, with a person who's now in a position to listen and care about what I tell them.

"Imitate me as I imitate Christ."
~ Paul
1 Corinthians 11:1

~ Rak Chazak

"60s Girl Grooves" on PBS

I've admitted before that I only have broadcast television at home. This means that I sometimes get to see interesting things that I didn't know about because I don't have a choice in the matter. If you have the freedom to choose to do whatever you want, you may choose to refuse to do some things on the basis of not knowing that you would actually like to do them. So not having total freedom of choice can be a good thing, sometimes.

In this particular case, I tuned in to PBS and saw that they were advertising a series of music videos and tracks of hit songs by girl bands from the 60s. The title to this post gives the name of the program. I myself am a stalwart 80s person when it comes to the style of music I like (not necessarily the lyrics...you'd be surprised how many of them talk about sex, euphemistically, if you haven't stopped to think about it before). Nevertheless, I recognized quite a few of the songs I heard. But what I was most intrigued by was not the music, but the women themselves. And not in the way you might expect of a guy in his 20s.

I was shocked by how they were dressed. Having not lived through the '60s, I've often heard about how the '60s was the decade of the Sexual Revolution, when modesty was thrown out the window. If you've heard of Hippies, this is the heyday of when they roamed the earth. Anyhoo, what I hadn't realized was that if modesty was lost in the 60s, then it must have been had, initially, in order to be lost. So in the early part of the 60s, you should expect to see evidence of modesty rather than immodesty. This is what I saw in the music videos.

Allow me to emphasize this observation: almost all of the videos shown on the broadcast depicted the performers covered from ankle, to wrist, to neck, with no skin showing in between. Only one had shorts that ended above the knee, and even she had a one-piece getup that covered her arms to the elbows. The "most undressed" of all were the ladies who had their arms uncovered:

Look at that! How scandalous.

Above are the Supremes. One might imagine when hearing the name of their hit, "Heatwave," that one should see bikinis and dancing on a beach. Nope. I couldn't find any still shots on line, but they were dressed ankle-to-wrist in whatever-they-call-those-things. I was stunned. 

Beyond the get-ups, their motions as they performed were extremely restrained by comparison to musical mainstream artists today. Again the 'guilty party' were the Supremes, who moved around the most on stage of all the artists that were featured. Guess what they were doing? Swaying their hips. Oh man. Yes, most of the artists stood still and maybe turned side to side or snapped their fingers with the beat. It was SO WEIRD, coming from a world where I've been able to see the dance moves of pop stars on television and on Youtube, which by and large utilize armies of sex-specific (depending on the performer's sex, that is..it's the opposite in the) backup dancers, elaborate sequences of choreographed steps and typically even a striptease or hip-thrusts that would put Elvis-the-pelvis-Presley to shame...or is that, 'to dignity?'

I ate it up. It was fascinating.

The 60s was only 40 or 50 years ago, depending on which end of it you're counting from. When you see what a difference that period makes in a culture's sense of acceptable attire--and stage performance behavior--it can make you wonder, what will the next 40 years look like? Will things become even more licentious? Or are we going to experience a bounce-back? A rebellion against the rebellion to the old culture, which has become the new culture? One hopes. Call me crazy, but I think I enjoy the type of artistic atmosphere that promotes female talent based on their musical skills and not their willingness to behave in shocking ways in order to "please" a crowd. 

I've always thought t-shirts and shorts looked better than string bikinis, anyway.

~ Rak Chazak

The Unfairness Trap: BSA On A Collision Course

The BSA National Council held a secret ballot vote to decide if the organization would allow openly gay boys into the organization. 757 voted for, 475 voted against. 

Timeless Values?

Albert Mohler summarizes this succinctly (link at bottom):

In 2000, the B.S.A. prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court when the nation’s highest court ruled that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude openly gay boys and leaders from the organization, so long as that exclusion is based in one of the organization’s core convictions — an “expressive message.” The B.S.A. won the case because that is exactly what they claimed. They argued that excluding openly homosexual boys and leaders from Scouting was necessary and required by the Scout Oath. [emphasis added]

In my previous article about the BSA policy change, I said this:

If the Boy Scouts of America lifts the ban on homosexuals, then it will be saying that its rules were not based on timeless values, but on arbitrary prejudice. Arbitrary prejudice can be arbitrarily abandoned. Timeless values cannot. If the BSA is built on values, then it cannot compromise those values. If the BSA compromises on homosexuality, it will be admitting that it does not stand on values but will give in to pressure. An interesting consequence is that the BSA will open itself up to lawsuits alleging wrongful discrimination, since lifting the ban would necessarily mean that the organization discriminated against homosexuals in the past without any reason to do so.

So now we know the answer to that. The BSA National Council has decided that its creeds are not timeless, but arbitrary. It is thereby implicitly admitting to wrongful discrimination against homosexuals for over two decades, since the policy was enacted. Let the litigation begin!

A Time to Tell

The BSA commissioned a video in the '80s which at the time I joined was required watching for all boys entering the program. This was called "A Time To Tell," and acted out 3 specific scenarios which were introduced through the context of a conversation between three friends after school. Its purpose was to educate the young boys (ages 10-12 when entering the program) to "Recognize, Resist and Report" sexual molestation. I think it might be worth introducing to the general public. It largely speaks for itself.

More info: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/boy_scouts_and_sexual_abuse_what_will_happen_to_it_happened_to_me.html

Unfairness

Now that the BSA has opened up its doors to homosexual youth, it's unfair to keep the doors shut to atheists any longer. It's actually ludicrous to allow the former and not the latter. Atheists can, at least in theory, be just as moral as any monotheist, with the only difference being their rejection of belief in a deity. Meanwhile, homosexuality is an evil in each of those religions, and so if those who break the law should be allowed in, by what standard do you aim to keep out those who do not break the law? Maybe one could suppose that even if "morally straight" has been abandoned, the BSA will still attempt to uphold "duty to God" as a point of the Scout Oath. This would exclude atheists, certainly. But isn't moral straightness part of one's duty to God? To purport that active homosexuals honor the God of any faith--Christianity, Judaism or Islam; even the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism) seem largely to oppose the notion that homosexual activity can coexist with religious piety -- to thus purport that homosexuals can honor the "duty to God" aspect of the Scout Oath is ludicrous, and therefore if they can be allowed into the program while rejecting this "timeless value," then so can atheists, by the same standard. We have thus utterly destroyed the Scout Oath. All that's left is this:

"Oh my honor, I will do my duty to my country, and to keep myself physically strong." 

Permit me to scoff derisively.

Prediction: the BSA will soon have to give in to further pressure and allow atheists to join. 

The question is, will atheist boys be allowed in first, or homosexual leaders? We could start a betting pool. Anyone interested? I'll stake my claim on homosexual adults. Any takers?

Further Reading 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/05/25/BSA-and-gay-phase1
http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-at-the-brink-the-moment-of-decision-arrives/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/rip-boy-scouts-of-america/

~ Rak Chazak

How Could Sexual Urges Be God-Given?

Culture tells us that there's two main ways to approach sex: as something shameful, or as just something people do. Yeah, there are some who have the idea that sex is something beautiful or romantic or special, but these are unilaterally presented as a minority and as being sheltered, naive and simply wrong. My suspicion is that those who have had sex very young because they saw it as something they 'had' to do, probably take the view that sex isn't special subsequent to having a less-than-wonderful first experience. Upon wondering "was that it?" they don't want to face up to that they did something wrong, so instead they blame the whole concept of sex itself. 

There's a better way.

I am one of those that Hollywood(movies) and New York(sitcoms) pretend don't exist: the romantic. The person who surely must be hopelessly naive if he thinks that sex can be something beautiful and exciting, not just prior to the first time, but every time from then on. But if I simply believed this about sex in general, I would be naive. Instead, my actual view, as with most of my personal beliefs, is very conditional. Depending on the situation, something can be very good or very bad.

Sex is a tool. Like any tool, it has the capacity to be used to create amazing things. But if used wrongly, it can cause horrific injury and even death. (I'm thinking of a circle saw as the metaphor, in case anyone's wondering :D ). If I approach a deadly tool thinking of it as an innocent toy that can only bring me pleasure, then it is inevitable that I will hurt myself, possibly severely, because I had no respect for the tool; I had not submitted my mind to the knowledge of how to use it properly. Sex, if used properly as it should, within a loving, committed-for-life, relationship between only one man and only one woman, then it can bring great blessings to the both of them -- even the greatest blessing of all, life. Sex, if used improperly, becomes an instrument of abuse and defilement, destroying the honor of both men and women and devastating the lives of single mothers and the offspring of men who were too cowardly to stand up and raise their families, as is the man's duty.

If there's a place for sex, then there's a place for sexual desires. And while the line between good desire and lust is nearly impossible for man to toe, and therefore should not be attempted, the fact that we have sexual urges is a divine message to us, telling us something very important about who we are and what our purpose is. 

Watch these two short videos. They'll explain the purpose of sexual desire from a Biblical perspective.

If you want more, here's a bit of further background from Josh Harris.

Taken together, these clips give great advice. The message is this: your sexual desires are not supposed to be an obstacle to you living a godly life. Instead, they are given to you as a motivation to get your life in order so that you can marry and fulfill those desires within the appropriate context. Imagine your desires as rain. It does no good if the rain falls in the ocean, but if it falls on fertile ground it can enable plants to grow -- it can create life. If you have sexual desires, you know you're not called to a life of singleness. Consequently, then, when you pour your energies into the appropriate pursuit, you will reap amazing rewards and be so much more fulfilled than you could possibly be if you had chosen a promiscuous lifestyle.

Just like Ecclesiastes says, "there is a time for every purpose under heaven." There is a time and a place to "glut" on your sexual lusts, as RW Glenn says in his clip above, and that time will come when you have laid the groundwork and entered into a lifelong covenantal marriage relationship. Don't sell your future spouse short by wasting your sexuality on other people, real or imaginary. Pour yourself into them. Enrich their life and yours will be enriched also.

~ Rak Chazak 

Journal Entry: Discovering, Then Struggling, With Masturbation and Fantasies

WARNING: Explicit Content

Notice: the original post that was here has been removed in order to protect the privacy of the author for the time being. It may yet one day return, but not until he's settled with a job and a good reputation in a community somewhere :)

In the meantime, a couple of observations have been excerpted out of the original article that may still be of interest.

*    *    *    *    *

Being an excerpt of a longer Journal entry I wrote that turned into a private confession to my future wife, this is written in the first person, and it's far too hard to edit it to change that aspect of it. Here's what I hope you get out of it, whether young or old, male or female, sexually active or not: some perspective you may not have thought of:
* how we try to justify lusts
* what's so insidiously wrong about porn
* the importance of not making the struggle for purity primarily about bettering yourself but about depending on Christ for your deliverance
* perhaps you'll get something out of this that I can't even anticipate. I hope you do.

What Is Lust?

I have a remarkable tendency to produce profound statements in obscure Facebook chat conversations. I need to make a habit of copying these down more often. Here's something from a while back, in response to a question from another guy, about what I though lust was.

Well, theoretically, it comes down to "desiring someone sexually." The question of course, is, what does THAT entail? Is it visualizing them naked or in a sex act? Is it in not doing that, but getting turned on when you look at them? Is it in imagining them in a relationship with you, ultimately leading to marriage, no matter how unsexual the fantasy might be in your mind at that moment? Is it solely limited to masturbating with the thought of them in your mind? Is it so broad that it encompasses even simply wanting to be with them in a relationship though you are not?

Clearly you can see that I think about this all the time, as well. I tend toward thinking, if you gotta ask, God is probably stricter about it than He is lenient. It's a purity issue. You can look at it from a 'fruit' perspective, as well -- does dwelling on someone in your mind all the time result in good things for you, or does it distract you from academic pursuits and lead to emotional havoc? If the product of thinking about someone in a certain way does so, then that could mean that what you were doing was not good--and if not sinful, at least not beneficial.

Verses referenced:
Matthew 5:27-28 -- ²⁷ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 
Matthew 7:18 -- A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
1 Corinthians 6:12 -- All things are lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by any thing.

~ Rak Chazak