The Problem With Sinning And Arguments That End With "Because God"

If there is one thing religious lunatics (and that does not include all religious people) love to go on about it's the concept of sin. Everywhere they look people are committing sins and it's their god given right duty to inform everyone and anyone who will listen, that what they're doing is wrong while molesting children living righteous lives themselves.

Basically.

Now, I don't mind people being like this - OK who am I kidding, people like this awaken feelings of violence I didn't know I had - but what I mean is if people want to live their lives out of a book that's not Harry Potter, that's their business. When they start calling basic and quite frankly very simple concepts "madness" and "lunacy" because GOD, I get anxious. I was watching a documentary about LGBT children and the parents that love them, and some of the comments it got really irritated me. Sure, they were rude, disgusting, revolting remarks, made by really, really stupid people, but that's not what irritated me. What was it then? The use of "God" as a mental health diagnostic tool. Before I move on, let me make one thing very clear:

*Disclaimer* Out of respect for my religious friends and family, who are amazing, loving, understanding, and caring individuals, I shall try to be nice about it. While I maintain absolutely no respect for religion, religious practices, religious ideas, or just about anything that has anything to do with religion, as I find the practice of religion outdated, harmful, and very dangerous, I do respect religious people who maintain a love for their fellow man. OK, now the message.

In my humble opinion, religion is as made up as the Harry Potter books, only far less entertaining, and with much worse story lines than what good old Rowling came up with. If she'd written a religion, I'd probably find it worth belonging to, to be honest. HAIL ROWLING. OK, back to the point. Religion is complete and utter nonsense. The belief in invisible deities, magic (oh no, I'm sorry it's not "magic" it's "miracles"), and let's not forget the teaching of being ashamed of and hating just about everything that makes us human, is absolutely incomprehensible to me, but then again I'm very comfortable with being a human being and the bodily desires that comes with it.

We're all just human beans, elderpeoplechildren.

However, as with everything else, if that's what you want to do in your private life, I'm fine with it. Do I wish religion was eradicated? Yes. Do I think it should be banned? Yes No! OK, I do, I do! I fucking hate religion! But would I ever support any initiative that wanted to ban religion? NO! Because I think people should be free to live their lives exactly how they want! If that includes vengeful invisible sky wizards and magic tricks, that's fine! *Oprah voice* HOWEVEEEEEEEER! When these people start passing laws, limiting rights, and even quoting their holy books in what is supposed to be intellectual debates, shit has gone far enough. How did we end up in a world, where in 2014 religion is still taken so seriously that politicians get to use it as their election strategy? I can't make sense of it! I imagine it's because of this apparent acceptance of religion as something perfectly reasonable that they feel it's OK to label something as "madness because God", having spent no time at all even bothering to understand the by now pretty well understood mechanics of these things. The distinction between these people, and other religious people who "disagree" with the "lifestyle choices" made by some is that if you simply say "I disagree because God", you're only expressing your own opinion, and freely admitting to how uneducated that opinion is. I prefer this to adopting scientific terminology, hiding behind titles of Dr Something, and then saying something like "Homosexuality is not biological. The evidence for it is futile at best. Besides, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. It's a sin." See the difference?

Are we really going to listen to these people? Their attempts at reasoning seldom produce anything solid.

This brings us to the concept of "sin". I can tell you right now that I have done and still do a lot of things considered to be very sinful. Does that mean I'm doing anything harmful or wrong? No. I'm not religious, therefore these things don't apply to me (whether you'd like them to or not). I have many gay friends. They are ALL sinners before GOD. Does that mean that what and who they are is wrong in any way, shape or form? No! From, say a Christian point of view, they are all sinners etc., but from a scientific point of view (from which I look at the world) there is nothing wrong with being gay. In fact, science doesn't even bother to consider this. What we are looking for is what causes some people to be heterosexual and others to be homosexual because it's interesting and is another mystery to solve. From this point of view, there is nothing wrong with having multiple sexual partners either. In fact, I encourage you to explore your sexuality if you so desire. If not, then don't. That's the beauty of being free - you get to choose your own life and you get to decide what is right for you, yourself!

If Dobby can do it, so can you!

"At the end of the day" (that saying is so annoying) it wouldn't even matter if being gay or transgender was a lifestyle choice in the same way that choosing the amount of sexual partners you have is. Why should it bother the rest of us? Why do people care? I suggest you fill up your existence with enriching activities and stop worrying so much about other people (this coming from a girl with a blog - the irony is not lost on me!).

If you enjoyed this post, like and share it, tweet it, do whatever you do on bloglovin', +1 it on google+, all those sinful activities that will get you smitten.

Yours,

Why Being A "Slut" Is OK & Why I Hate Proverbs

"He who never sleeps, is always awake." - Chinese proverb. OK, so it's actually from a Toyota commercial, but most proverbs are at best that stupid, and at worst used to promote bigoted behaviour like homophobia and "slut shaming".

We all have those friends on Facebook that love posting (what they consider to be) positive, inspirational, life affirming quotes on their timeline. While not a personal preference (I just really am not a fan of most quotes), this is harmless (unless you post an "inspirational" quote next to your profile picture. Your face and/or body doesn't inspire me or anyone else. I can't even..). Some people, however, like to use proverbs and sayings to prove a point. Before I move on, let me make one this very clear: this is not an acceptable way of debating, "proving" a point, or expressing an opinion to a critical audience. Now, I can understand the need for them, because defending bigotry with logical arguments is impossible very challenging, and most bigoted people are already limited (I don't care that your homophobic cousin studies law at Yale - he's still a limited idiot). I'm not saying being a bigot makes you stupid - I'm saying you're a bigot because you're stupid. That doesn't mean you can't do well in school. Anyway, back on point!

  Let's take homophobia as an example. I don't know many homophobic people, because I'm luckily from a family of very loving people who don't judge others based on silly things like what gender they prefer, and I don't surround myself with people like that, so my friend circle doesn't include any bigots either. However, I have heard plenty of homophobic people speak, and it is a frightening, yet also comical experience. Their reasoning is absolutely crazy. There is the obvious perpetrator, the widest used excuse in the Western world: The Bible. This "holy" book is what one of my absolute favourite sayings is based on. In the "battle against homosexuality", the phrase that so many people arm themselves with (and which basically sums up all of their religiously based arguments in one) is this gem: "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

If this is how you are arguing your case right now, dear reader, I have one request: reevaluate your life. In a world where science is (thankfully) becoming ever more dominant, in a place where knowledge is not only respected, but before being deemed worthy knowledge it has to undergo scrutiny from multiple areas, in a time where we know so much and have explanations for complex phenomena, the "Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve" non-argument is worth absolutely fuck all. You cannot argue with people who use science, peer reviewed research, and infallible logic like "Well, even if it is a choice, it's not hurting anybody, so why shouldn't consenting adults be free to live how they want?" and say "NOT ADAM AND STEEEEVE!"

By the way, I thought you said God created everyone? Why didn't God create Adam and Steve? What's wrong with them? Sorry Adams and Steves - God didn't create you. On a different note, Adam and Steve look much more attracted to each other than Adam and Eve.

Another saying that really gets to me, is one that I see used (especially by males) all over the internet and that I hear guys say in real life all the time, not to about me personally, but do they say it behind my back? I don't know, and quite frankly I don't care. "What saying is this?", you might be wondering, or you might have already figured it out. Before I move on to it, I'd like to introduce you to my new favourite YouTuber: Laci Green. Laci has this awesome YouTube show called Sex+ which is all about sex positivity for both males and females (if any male is reading this and wants to learn a technique to enable you to have multiple orgasms - just like us females - click here) and in one of her videos that I just came across she addresses slut shaming.

Her video is wonderful, and she makes great points about how self respect doesn't mean a woman can't enjoy multiple partners, and how respecting women means respect based on accomplishments, not amount of sex partners. "Because of her [what society considers] 'bad behaviour' we reduce her status from human being to giant fucking whore". What genius response do I find in the comments?

Yes, this is a perfectly good analogy for human beings.

That saying is as used, abused, and irrelevant as the "not Adam and Steve" one. This is not just a harmless joke; it's a reflection of the lack of understanding society has about female sexuality, that at best is used to bully, shame, and negatively affect a woman's social life, and at worst directly leads to victim blaming. There is nothing wrong with being a sexually active woman who has as many different partners as you want! Just because someone else has a much higher need for sex than you and they're not afraid to act on it, doesn't mean you have to feel so threatened that you have to value them any less as human beings, nor does it mean they are "freaks" or "sex addicts" - they simply operate on a different level, sexually. If you want to have sex with someone new every weekend (or even every day of the week), that is your prerogative, and it's nobody's business. Contrary to popular belief, all women's sex drive isn't on "low and love". Our libido is as varying as men's, and - believe it or not - not all men are hypersexual fuck ogres. I know tons of women who have had issues in their relationships because their boyfriends have been unable to keep up with them sexually, and I know some guys with the same problem. I also know many single women who are scared to act on their urges because of what people might think about them, and it's easy to see why. The women that I do know who aren't afraid of claiming their sexuality are dehumanized, and  the way jealous women and spiteful men talk about them is appalling. When questioned about why it is so horrible and what makes it so wrong, never have I ever been giving a satisfactory answer. Even when I turn it around on the guys I know who are complete manwhores (nothing wrong with that, but since we're using these terms), they genuinely believe that it's OK for them to fuck however many women they please, but that the opposite is dead wrong and the women who do are nasty sluts. This is where we hit that place again - the one where our sexuality as women doesn't exist to serve us, but should exist only for the benefit others. I covered this a bit before in this post but I didn't address the other side of it - victim blaming. When a woman is sexually liberated, the respect that people have for her reduces to the point that if she's raped, her hair, behaviour, make up, sexual history, clothing and level of intoxication all get taken into consideration. This is wrong. Even if a woman is walking down the street drunk, naked and flirting with everyone NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORCIBLY HAVE SEX WITH HER AND IF SOMEONE DID SHE IS NOT TO BLAME. I cannot stress how imperative it is that people understand this! It doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, how she is behaving, or how drunk she is: rape is ALWAYS wrong, and  the idea that anyone thinks differently is frightening. It results in cases like this, where an 11 year old girl is gang raped by 18 guys, and the people in the community say things like "These boys have to live with this for the rest of their lives", and "They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said". The boys have to live with it for the rest of their lives? What about the ELEVEN year old girl who was raped by EIGHTEEN guys? And what is up with the focus on how she dressed and acted? She was ELEVEN! GANG RAPED BY EIGHTEEN GUYS! THIS is what happens! Slut shaming leads to victim blaming. No one is immune; not even children.


OK. This blog post turned out a bit more intense than I expected. Originally, this was only supposed to be a rant about how I can't stand it when people use proverbs in an intellectual debate. Oh well. If you enjoyed this post, please like it, share it, tweet it, all that good stuff, just don't do it naked or you're a slutwhore.

Yours,

Bill Nye The Science Guy vs Ken Ham

For reasons unknown to me, Bill Nye - Emmy Award winning educator and CEO of The Planetary Society - decided to humor everyone and attend a debate (which can be seen here) with Christian author Ken Ham at the Creation Museum. I don't really know what to say about it. The debate was inevitably filled with "Hamisms", illogical deductions, and embarrassing "points" made by Ham. Nye, bubbly and likable as ever, certainly held his own, and remained so extraordinarily respectful, you would almost believe he took Ham seriously. - an incredible feat considering the, uh, case he presented. Here are just a some points I'd like to make (the debate is long, so I've just picked a few random things).

"Hamisms"

These are things that Ham has become quite known for. For example the quote "Were you there?". Ham tries to provide solid arguments and rebuttals, but whenever he feels cornered i.e. he can't make an effective counter argument (which is a lot of the time) he asks "Were you there?" in the smuggest voice, as if to suggest that he just pulled the rug from under you. Listen up, Hammy: you cannot have a scientific debate about what happened in the past and then exclaim "Aha! But were you there?", or when Nye presented the story of what happened to the largest wooden ship built by the foremost experts of the time (long story short - it sank) and based on that questioned whether a man and a few other presumably much less skilled (obviously based on the science available at the time, education, resources etc.) individuals could actually have pulled off building the ark, Ham's counter argument was "But did you meet Noah? No. Neither did I. None of us have. So what do you really know about his skills?". Nye, why did you even bother?

Unsurprisingly, only one of them even mentioned dinosaurs in their presentation. Hint: it wasn't the one who would have difficulties explaining them.

Illogical deductions

Ham does seem to be a master at these. The question was asked "what was before the big bang?". Nye excitedly exclaims "we don't know!" with a big smile on his face, and starts talking about how wonderful and mysterious it is and how scientists are trying to figure it out (and a whole lot of other things - watch the debate). Anyway, in comes Ken Ham with his rebuttal "Actually there's a book out there that tells us where matter came from, "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth" and really it's the only thing that makes sense." OK, let me get this straight: because we don't know something (yet), the only thing that makes sense is god? This sounds like caveman logic, Ham! Caveman logic (fire equals magic, sun equals god etc.) when applied to greater things (like how "everything" began) is still caveman logic!

Screen capture of Bill as Ham is making the aforementioned deduction. He is visibly impressed by Ham's logic and obviously agrees that it makes perfect sense.

Embarrassing points (listed in no particular order)

1. One point Ham made, was that there certainly were Christian scientists who agreed with the billions of years old model "model" of the earth, but many who didn't. Contrary to what many religious people think, being an atheist isn't about disproving religion, and if the evidence for a 6500 year old earth (which is what Ham believes) was overwhelming, we would accept that as the probable truth. This left me wondering: while there are Christians who agree with "our" view, do you think there is any atheist scientist who, based purely on "evidence", believes the earth is only 6500 years old, or am I rightfully assuming that the only, ahem, scientists who believe this based on whatever "evidence" they claim to have are in fact Christian scientists? If you know of any atheist scientists who believe the earth is 6500 years, please let me know. I would find that very interesting!

2. "You believe that when you die, it's over. So what's the point of discovery anyway? You'll never know you were here, and no one you knew will know they were ever here, so what's the point anyway. I love discovery, because this is God's creation, and I am finding out more about that" And this is why I feel so bad for many religious people. Because this - this is where we differ so greatly. To only value experience, knowledge, wisdom, discovery - life! - because you believe in an afterlife? It makes no sense! If anything, knowing that we only have this life and that it is so limited makes me appreciate it all so much more!

3. Ham made a very cringy statement about how amazing God is for creating the stars to show us how powerful he is. Christians may find that awe inspiring - I find it creepy, narcissistic, quite frankly it sounds like he's trying to cope with feelings of inadequacy. He also went on the usual rant about how amazing it is that God created faulty human beings and then sent his own son to die for sins he knew we'd commit. It's hard to fathom that he doesn't grasp how absolutely tragic that sounds.

4. He used the phrase: "The fact of Noah's flood". It's not a fact, Ken. It doesn't matter how convinced you are or how hard you believe it! Not. A. Fact. Use the correct terminology, please.

5. Ham was asked "what, if anything, would change your mind?". He couldn't answer this question. He went on a rant about a whole host of things that were completely unrelated, because ultimately the answer to this question is "nothing", and that's what poses the ultimate problem: as scientists we want challenges, we encourage change, we strive for discovery, and anything that can shake our world and completely throw us off our feet we embrace and rejoice in. We want our minds changed. This is why scientific debates can be so fulfilling! Many religious people (Ken Ham included), however, already know what they need to know, and any debate with them is certainly not so they can be enlightened.  They will only accept evidence that support what they already know, whereas a scientist will relish in that which challenges what is already established - it's what keeps things interesting! Of course there are scientists who drown in their own ego and would rather die than see their research refuted, but it's not the norm (just like gay bashing, funeral crashing people with signs saying "god hates fags" aren't the Christian norm). It should be mentioned that Nye offered up a whole host of things that would change him in an instant - trouble is it was all solid evidence, and we all know that is apparently very difficult for Creationists to produce (for good reasons).

6. But the absolute most embarrassing point was not one that was stated nor was it a new revelation to anyone who's ever watched or read anything by Ken Ham - he doesn't have the most basic grasp on what science is all about. He uses big words and likes to pretend, but essentially what he does is so far removed from actual science that it's embarrassing that he's even trying to market this as anything even remotely similar. One issue with Ham's version of "science" is that it deals only with the past. What is one of the most basic signs of good science? That we can accurately predict future outcomes based on what we know! What did Ham say about this when Nye addressed the issue? Nothing of course! Never responded to it. Another thing is that if you're going to make extraordinary claims and market them as science, you need to have very solid evidence backing up what you're saying (In fact in science, for any claim to be accepted, you always need very solid evidence). If Ken Ham had that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Jesus showing of his amazing powers.

These were only some of the things that were discussed and stood out to me. I really recommend you watch the debate (here)! If you enjoyed this post, please tweet it, like it and share it with your friends!
Yours,

Being Rich, Famous and.. Religious?

I have always been amused by the notion of highly religious people, who simultaneously are very rich and/or very famous. We read about celebrities and how they follow a certain religion, and a lot of the time I'm surprised (and then amused) by the very notion of it. Why? Because of how they live their lives! The rich and famous live and breathe in a world of money, plastic surgery, and image control moreso than anyone else, and the idea that the faked boobed, lip injected, botox-smooth skinned, singer/actress who lives in a 17 bedroom mansion in Malibu is in fact ALSO a Buddhist leaves me feeling.. bemused. Am I saying that because you subscribe to Buddhism, you should give away everything you have at once? No. But what do you really need 17.5 million dollars for, Jennifer Lopez? That's what she got for returning to American Idol. I understand - as a celebrity you really do need to spend more in order to just be safe; there are some sick people in the world just gagging for a sniff into your underwear drawer. I am not familiar with the exact costs of this, but she has so much else going on besides American Idol (her fragrance line that sells more than any other celebrity fragrance, for example), I'm pretty sure she doesn't need one cent of that salary. Therefore, Jennifer, I propose, in the name of Buddhism and not feeling attachment to material things (money is neutral, but demanding so much of it shows attachment which is exactly what you want to get rid of) that you donate your entire American Idol salary to various charities and funding for research into serious illnesses.

"Hi, my name is Jennifer. I'm a Buddhist."

Even more funny that the wealthy Buddhists are the wealthy Christians. First of all because there are so many of them which really opens up the door for ridicule - lots more to choose from! Second of all because many of them are politicians and who doesn't love hating on those? I'm sure there are Buddhist politicians in the West as well, but they don't usually feel the need to talk about it as much as the Christian politicians do (shut up about it, please!). Anyway, instead of me rambling, here's a little of what the Bible says about wealth:

Matthew 6:19 - 21
19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. 


Luke 12:15
And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

Luke 12:32 - 34 

32 “Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.” (I know this is a repeat of the first one, but I really like the message.)

*BONUS SCRIPTURE SPECIFICALLY FOR POLITICIANS*:

Philippians 2:3 - 4
3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others.


I could write all sorts of comments (and usually I would), but the Bible has spoken for me.

If you enjoyed this post, please like it and share it with your friends! If you want to receive updates about when I post new blog posts right away, like my blog's Facebook page.
Yours,

"The Gaping Holes of Modern Science"

When you talk to, ahem, "spiritual people" they often defend their spirituality by mentioning the "gaping holes of modern science" and saying that there's just "so much we don't know". While not completely false (there are things we don't know), here's why I'm not impressed by these statements:

1. They're vague.

2. They suggest that since we don't know everything, it's perfectly acceptable to believe in sky wizards and magic.

3. They are typically used about the wrong things.

If you're a person living in a tribe and have no concept of science, I can understand believing in magic and demons. If you're an educated person, or someone with access to the Internet, there is no excuse. No, we do not know everything, but how "I don't know the answer to this" naturally progresses to "Hm, must have been an invisible sky wizard" to some people, is something I will never be able to understand. Every day we have the potential to be smarter! Never has knowledge been so readily available as it is now. The Internet has opened whole new doors, but for some reason the door of stupidity and ignorance remains open. Tribal people with no concept of science, no books, no Internet access etc. are not by any means "stupid". They just lack knowledge. Stupidity is not the same as the lack of knowledge; stupidity is what happens when you have the knowledge but refuse to utilize it. When you are informed but choose to ignore. When you decide you want to remain plugged in to the Matrix because to you the illusion is more comfortable than reality.

Pssssst. Hint: take the red pill!

Never is this more apparent than when you talk to people about evolution. Many people like to talk about all of the "holes" in the theory of evolution, and love to point out that "it's just a theory". Let me start out by saying that if you're one of the people that does that: stop. It's really embarrassing to listen to, and you're only making a fool of yourself. Also, allow me to point out something: evolution is real. It's happening all around us, all the time. How do you think bacteria get resistant to antibiotics? They change and adapt - they evolve. Now, on to evolution as a theory. (Note: I am not an expert by any means. My knowledge of the subject is very limited. When I think of it, that's actually the scary part! I feel like I am so limited in my knowledge, but apparently even that is much more than the average Joe or Jane. Also, there is a big difference between scientific theories and your every day theories. Google it!) The theory of evolution is not some lackluster, easily debunked piece of child's play: it is one of the most solid theories of modern science, and it's supported by a wealth of evidence. If you bothered to read just a single journal article on the subject, you would know this! 

This picture made me laugh.

On the subject of "gaping holes" (I know you get pornographic images in your mind every time your read that): exactly what "gaping holes" of modern science are we talking about? I'm sure there are some, but if you're going to use this as an excuse for believing in fairies and unicorns (or gods), I would like to know exactly what they are. I'm curious as to what lack of knowledge could possibly excuse adults having imaginary friends.

What the kid said!

On Facebook, I saw someone use this in a discussion about how faulty science is: "They used to think the world was flat". This is a terrible argument! People have hypothesized that the world is round since at least the 3rd of 4th century BC. The person then went on to talk about "inner truth" or your "personal truth" or something. Let me tell you one thing: there is no "your truth". There is only truth, and then lies you tell yourself. Let's all make an effort to live in the real world, shall we?

If you enjoyed this blog post like it and share it with your friends! If you want to receive updates about when I post new blog posts right away, like my blog's Facebook page.

Yours,

Genetic Gayness

When discussing homosexuality, so many people get hung up on one thing: is it biological or isn't it? While I understand the scientific interest in human sexuality, development of sexual orientation etc., in a social context I must ask this one question: why does it even matter? What does it matter if a person happens to be romantically and/or sexually attracted to the oppsite, same, or both sexes? A sexually mature person should be free to engage in consensual sex with whoever they please, regardless of gender. Even if it became evident that there were no biological indicators of homosexuality: what relevance would it have? People would still be gay, and that's fine! Actually, it's beyond fine: it's boring, and we shouldn't care. What gender people are attracted to is BORING. I find it intriguing when homophobic, anti-gay rights people use lack of evidence of biological factors as an excuse for their hate. "There is little to no evidence to support that homosexuality is biological. Therefore we should try to cure these people with conversion therapy [anyone that has done basic psychology courses would know that it has been proven to be completely ineffective, short of "testimonials"], refuse them basic human rights, and preferably expose them to ridicule, social stigma, and blame them for HIV". That is literally the argument. The most ironic thing is how homosexuality gets labeled as immoral by ministers who molest children, and conservative US senators that get caught with underaged prostitutes. For a fun insight into how that works, check out this link.

Messy Messages from Maceman

I just read a very disturbing article here, that introduced me to this Christian speaker, who does everything from making excuses for rape..:

 In his book, Dateable, which he describes as a “#1 bestseller” and directs at teenage girls, Lookadoo writes, "Please, please don't tease us. To show us your hot little body … and then tell us we can't touch it is being a tease. You can't look that sexy and then tell us to be on our best behavior.”

..to telling girls to "get out of abusive relationships", rather than tell guys not to be abusive. I'm not saying girls shouldn't get out of abusive relationships, however, I fail to understand why there is so much focus on teaching girls not to become a victim (don't walk alone late, don't wear this, don't act like that etc) rather than teaching men not to be disgusting.
     "You can't look that sexy and then tell us to be on our best behavior.” Really? Is this the message you want to send? Contrary to popular belief, many girls dress however they want, even what is considered "provocatively", because that's how they feel comfortable. Not everyone enjoys knee long skirts, knee high boots, a turtleneck sweater, and a cardigan (AKA the Christian mommy look), so if we choose to wear short shorts and a bustier, it might just be because we feel we look good like that, without any regard for what "men" will think of us, and even less regard for what dressing "sexy" does to any of them. A lot of people might think "oh, but you are doing it for men, whether you are aware of it or not." Please. Don't underestimate the narcissism level of the average person. We are perfectly capable of dressing in the most body enhancing ways simply to marvel at our own bodies. However, if a woman dresses provocatively because she wants male attention: so what? "Male attention" and having a penis forced inside you while you're crying and screaming, trying to fight your attacker off whilst having to listen to him say things like "Come on, you know you want it", are two different things. Even if a woman were to walk down the street completely naked, there is no invitation for rape. How does what a woman wears logically have anything to do with what it allows men to do? If you're a guy reading this: if you saw an attractive, naked (or basically naked) woman walk down the street would your reaction seriously be "Hm, she's naked. Better give her what she wants. If she tries to fight it, it's just roleplay - SHE WANTS IT! Why else would she be walking naked down the street? She obviously wants to get raped."? If your answer to this is yes, I suggest you seek professional help - you're probably suffering from violent tendencies, which paired with a lack of impulse control could get really ugly.
     On the issue of telling girls to get out of abusive relationships, I'm not going to say that I don't agree. If  your man is abusing you physically, emotionally, financially, or in any other way: run! He's not going to change, and it's not your job to save him. That being said, if we focused our efforts on teaching males to respect females, rather than teaching females to avoid bad males, we might have spent our energy more efficiently. Isn't it better to prevent a problem rather than to avoid it?
     One thing that seems to be recurring as well, is that men need to be "Men" (whatever that means), and they need to be assertive (when found in women it's relabeled as "being a bitch"). While I do feel that assertiveness can be a great quality, and certainly one that can help you in your potential career, teaching assertiveness in a dating context can be considered problematic. How would that work, exactly? After a few dates, does "Can I come in?" turn into "Listen, it's been 3 dates. I'm coming in, and I'm also coming in."? Normally I wouldn't have thought of it like that, but if you pair his assertiveness with the sexy dress you're probably wearing, you really should expect to be raped, only it's not rape because you want it. Also, it's your own fault. He's just a man. You can't really expect him to be on his best behaviour, remember?
     On a last note:

Taking advice from.. that. Enough said. If he starts giving out hair styling tips, I'm done with life. Not only does is head look like a mace, he speaks as if he's been hit in the head with one.

*BONUS PICTURE*

Maceman never truly got over the Aqua days.

Terrorvangelists

My friend Davey just sent me this hilarious video of televangelists performing their mass hypnosis techniques, only it was set up like Street Fighter. While that video did make me laugh a lot, I couldn't help but be disturbed by the events taking place: huge masses of people all fainting simultaneously at the word "fire", individuals thinking they've been "healed" from all sorts of illnesses, and, worst of all, people being asked to donate ridiculous amounts of money as an "investment in God" and that whatever they donate will return to them "with interest". Basically, if you have a loan, mortgage, general bills to pay, or are lacking money for food, donate everything to, say,  Benny Hinn, and you will experience what is called Divine Debt Cancellation, where God comes in cancels all of your debt. I don't have to point out to any of you that it doesn't work, but I will (just in case I have a few thick heads reading this): IT DOES *NOT* WORK!

Now, for anyone wondering, I am an atheist. I don't understand how anyone in 2013 can fool themselves into believing in deities, but if you can go there, I'm sure donating money for divine favors also makes sense. Let me tell you one thing about televangelists and other religious "leaders" trying to get your money: these people are sociopaths. They have no interest in your well being, they give no regards to the destruction they bring, they don't care that you donate money you can't afford to give away, on the contrary, they expect you to be one of the people who can't afford it, because it's the poor and ill that *need* divine intervention. They are the ones who require a miracle, and are therefore naive enough to donate, not because they are stupid, but because they are desperate. Men like Benny Hinn know this, and exploit it in order to gain money, fame, power, and adoration, all of which they, as sociopaths, feel they deserve.


Here's just one story of a life affected by the greed of these men:

Satanic Superstars

What would I do without YouTube? It has exposed Beyoncé as the Illuminati devil worshipping witch queen she is!!!!! ... People are fucking retarded. I'm so hands up with this.

What am I talking about? Well, your friendly neighborhood spiderman will show you:

Now, I'm not saying this isn't true; I can't prove that Beyoncé isn't a satanic witch queen that transforms into a lizard, and that Sascha Fierce isn't in fact a demon that possesses Beyoncé, enabling her to be all cray-cray on stage. I believe I've seen evidence that she rides a black, flying horse. The scary part about what I just wrote, is that only the last sentence is something I made up. Everything else are things some people *actually* believe to be true. At first it's kinda funny (though very tragic and sad), but after the initial laughs, it becomes.. worrisome for one reason in particular: children. Both Beyoncé and Jay's Blue Ivy, but also the children of the people who believe this. The paranoid, conspiracy theorists parents, who fill their kids with tales of the evil Beyoncé who sacrifices children, and even more disturbingly, of Blue Ivy who is the Illuminati-doll-princess-spawn-of-Satan (when they're not busy claiming that she's just an *actual* doll). I would be insanely worried about the safety of my daughter if I knew there were crazy people out there, who thought that she was the carrier seed of evil. AND THEY WONDER WHY BEYONCÉ COVERS HER UP!

  Also, can we just address the issue of "subliminal messages"? If you have to rewind a song to hear the "subliminal message" it's not a subliminal message! HOW OFTEN DO YOU LISTEN TO MUSIC IN REVERSE? When they rewind the songs, you hear the "message" loud and clear (well, as loud and clear as a reversed song can sound), which also kills the point of subliminal messaging. Hearing the words "Kill your parents and rape a virgin" or whatever you might hear in real time kills the point of it being subliminal; it's just a message.. and it's not really a message.

There are so many videos and, ahem, "articles" about this, a simple google search will provide you with an endless amount of links, if you feel like reading more about this. (DISCLAIMER: reading too much about the supposed "Illuminatiness" of the music industry and THE NEW WORLD ORDER might make you feel dizzy, nauseous, incredulous and/or leave you in despair about the state of human intelligence.)