WARNING: Adult language to follow … seriously, if bad language offends you… you will be offended by the below quote.
Hat Tip to Fay and original post at Crunchy Con which includes the new commercial promo for the show Gossip Girl… my thoughts after the jump.
The campaign is slugged "OMFG," for "Oh My F–king God." Don't you just love this culture? Working 24/7 to turn teenage boys and girls into sluts, for the sake of selling stuff. These people — the creators of this garbage (the ad and the show) are the enemy. No doubt about it.
You know, some people think Julie and I are hard-asses about strictly limiting our children's exposure to popular culture, and teaching the kids to disdain the values celebrated by it. Yeah, keep talking. Fifteen seconds of "Gossip Girl" promo undermines everything y'all say. How could I possibly deny my kids exposure to the fabulous world of American pop culture, circa 2008? Easy. Real easy. …
Personal Sidenote: Crunch Con's article goes beyond this show to report on a school that is having to deal with bullies committing homosexual gang rape against weaker students. It's a distressing blogpost.
Why is it considered entertainment to turn youth into mindless sexual automatons? Most of the young people I know are not mindless or sexual automatons. Is it really empowering to strip away dignity and turn men and women into sexual objects for the entertainment of the masses?
This reminds me of someone who told me years ago that it couldn't get any worse. They said this in the context of the "homosexual agenda." I told them, and still contend, that we haven't seen anything yet and it is not simply about redefining marriage. It's an across the board sexual morality conflict where those with same sex attraction play only one part of the overall "culture war."
I think there might be something to that hypothesis.
Earlier yesterday evening I was watching the O'Reilly Show. He had a guest on defending attempts to legalize prostitution in San Francisco. He showed a clip of a lady with a bald head ( I don't know why she was bald, I hope it is a counter cultural statement and not something medical) but this lady is yelling, "San Francisco is a sex positive city … it's time to legalize prostitution here."
Are you shocked as I am? I had no idea that people actually had to pay for sex in San Francisco. There seems to be plenty of free opportunities at local fairs. (click at your own risk.) On a serious note, I was genuinely surprised that prostitution wasn't legal in San Francisco given it's sexually charged reputation.
Demeaning sexual intimacy and dehumanizing men and women as shallow sexual objects for hire, or mindless automatons for entertainment, is not sex positive … it's personally and socially degrading. It's trading what was meant to be transcendent intimacy between a husband and wife into fast food with a super-sized side of perceived entitlement minus the personal responsibility.
Not that I have any strong opinions on the matter 
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post. I love the fast-food metaphor–fits perfectly.
I had the tv on while I was editing conference pictures this weekend and an episode of Gossip Girl came on. In mere seconds the juvenile banter and smutty, sophomoric drama were too much to bear even as background noise.
Mikes last blog post..A New Day Part 3 on … http://mikeensley.vox.com
@Mike -
Thanks Mike. It seems like the wall of noise is just getting louder and louder. It’s hard for me to do anything, other than clean the house, with the hellivision on in the background.
Gossip Girl boo …
meant to be ??? – as in “meant to be transcendent intimacy between a husband and wife”?
When was sex EVER “transcendent intimacy between a husband and wife”??? And when was it EVER “meant to be” anything at all – except whatever it meant to the specfic parties involved at that moment?
When? 1487? 803? 1129? 923 B.C.? In some suburban “shotgun marriage” in 1953? In some crass petty vicious extortionate housewife in upper-class or lower-class anywhere at any time? Or only in your own imagination in 2008? Do your personal fictions in 2008 create meaning for all people at all times in all contexts?
Maybe YOU should write a new gospel telling everybody what is true everywhere at all times?
I don't see any mention of “meant to be transcendent intimacy between a husband and wife” in the current collection of frauds and forgeries and fables – maybe you should add all of your own, since you seem to know what is true for all people in all contexts everywhere………..
That would be so awesome. I really would love it if God commissioned me to write a Gospel. Maybe I could finally get on Oprah …
BUT, it would seem that cosmic project is complete.
And, He probably didn't commission me to do that because He knew that I would try to turn it into some nano-technology that would force people to keep their pants on … and would lead me to be on Oprah.
Dude, chill. Not thinking that your rhetorical questions really want answers I will simply say that God Created both male and female. When those two come together as one, in the bonds of holy matrimony, it is an amazing reflection of God's love as expressed uniquely and together between a husband and wife.
Sex was not intended to be a cheap thrill (no strip clubs or go-go dancers in the garden of Eden). It was not meant to be a imposed forced cultural expectation (usually presented as bad examples in the scriptures), false masculinity (King David *really* took liberties with his “leadership” at one point) or to use your description “crass” femininity (Delilah … Jezebel.)
Scripture is full of examples of relational beauty (the symbolic nature of Christ The Bridegroom with His Bride The Church … Song of Solomon) and brokenness (soooOOOOoooo very many examples of that in the Bible.) That is where I derive my assertions from.
I don't know everything but I do know that God never changes. His ways are not our ways and in my own very merely mortal way … am cool with it. Plus, I am not the one who says that … He did.
meant to be ??? – as in “meant to be transcendent intimacy between a husband and wife”?
When was sex EVER “transcendent intimacy between a husband and wife”??? And when was it EVER “meant to be” anything at all – except whatever it meant to the specfic parties involved at that moment?
When? 1487? 803? 1129? 923 B.C.? In some suburban “shotgun marriage” in 1953? In some crass petty vicious extortionate housewife in upper-class or lower-class anywhere at any time? Or only in your own imagination in 2008? Do your personal fictions in 2008 create meaning for all people at all times in all contexts?
Maybe YOU should write a new gospel telling everybody what is true everywhere at all times?
I don't see any mention of “meant to be transcendent intimacy between a husband and wife” in the current collection of frauds and forgeries and fables – maybe you should add all of your own, since you seem to know what is true for all people in all contexts everywhere………..
That would be so awesome. I really would love it if God commissioned me to write a Gospel. Maybe I could finally get on Oprah …
BUT, it would seem that cosmic project is complete.
And, He probably didn't commission me to do that because He knew that I would try to turn it into some nano-technology that would force people to keep their pants on … and would lead me to be on Oprah.
Dude, chill. Not thinking that your rhetorical questions really want answers I will simply say that God Created both male and female. When those two come together as one, in the bonds of holy matrimony, it is an amazing reflection of God's love as expressed uniquely and together between a husband and wife.
Sex was not intended to be a cheap thrill (no strip clubs or go-go dancers in the garden of Eden). It was not meant to be a imposed forced cultural expectation (usually presented as bad examples in the scriptures), false masculinity (King David *really* took liberties with his “leadership” at one point) or to use your description “crass” femininity (Delilah … Jezebel.)
Scripture is full of examples of relational beauty (the symbolic nature of Christ The Bridegroom with His Bride The Church … Song of Solomon) and brokenness (soooOOOOoooo very many examples of that in the Bible.) That is where I derive my assertions from.
I don't know everything but I do know that God never changes. His ways are not our ways and in my own very merely mortal way … am cool with it. Plus, I am not the one who says that … He did.
You're nuts to think you have a right to tell others what sex “should” be.
Well… I do have a right to freedom of speech … and others ask for my opinion or come to my blog on their own accord.
You know … like you did.
People can do whatever they want but as long as it is an issue of public discussion I do have a “right” just like they have a “right” to express what we think sex “should” be. That's not nutty, it's called living in a democratic society that believes freedom includes and survives because of free speech.
Thanks for coming by and commenting.
You're nuts to think you have a right to tell others what sex “should” be.
Well… I do have a right to freedom of speech … and others ask for my opinion or come to my blog on their own accord.
You know … like you did.
People can do whatever they want but as long as it is an issue of public discussion I do have a “right” just like they have a “right” to express what we think sex “should” be. That's not nutty, it's called living in a democratic society that believes freedom includes and survives because of free speech.
Thanks for coming by and commenting.
good outlook