They're All Dead Dave

Outrage is a commodity served best while on fire and the media loves the flames. Cecil’s tragic death was no exception to this rule. For readers who don’t know, Cecil—a thirteen year old west African Lion—was a major attraction at Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe and part of an Oxford University study. On July 1, 2015, a dentist from Minnesota (Walter Palmer) and his hunting guide (Theo Bronkhorst) killed Cecil. With the exception of people who actually live in Zimbabwe, everyone got on the moral outrage train. Apparently Cecil, with his wily and charming personality, acquired a sizable fandom.

Before we dive any deeper, a few statements about hunting. There is nothing wrong with hunting, assuming the parties involved use the entire body. Most hunters are not monsters who take inordinate amounts of joy from killing wildlife. However, hunting big game (lions, elephants, leopards, white rhinoceros, etc) isn’t impressive considering most people can fire a gun. Killing an animal with a firearm doesn’t take a herculean feat of strength or willpower. A dead deer is better than a dead African predator. I don’t have any sympathy when big game hunters are criticized. However, here are some sobering reminders to consider while we build Cecil a funeral pyre fueled by hurt feelings.


1. Hunting lions is not Illegal in Zimbabwe
2. African Lions are not on the endangered species list.
3. Oxford University’s study didn’t give Cecil special protection.
4. Palmer acted under Bronkhorst’ guidance and has publicly apologized for killing Cecil.
5. Zimbabwe is ruled by one of Africa’s crueler dictators. Mugabe has participated in the ethnic cleansing of opposing tribes, is an adamant racist and ruled his country with an iron first.
6. Cecil lived better than a majority of Zimbabweans.
7. The hunting ban around Hwange National Park was lifted nine days after Cecil’s death.
8. If evidence shows that Theo and Walter intentionally lured Cecil out of Hwange Park, then appropriate legal actions will be taken.

Social Media has resurrected the unfortunate art of public shaming. Confused? Take a gander through River Bluff Dental’s Yelp page. PETA claimed Palmer should be hanged for his “crimes,” which is ironic since they euthanize thousands of animals every year. Visceral, hateful hounding of these men illustrates an inversion of priorities. We shrug our shoulders at the misfortune of our fellow humans, but weep and lament over the death of one lion. That is pathetic, only first world people could be this separated from reality.

My words are unnecessarily harsh, but I won’t apologize for them. Palmer’s vindictive harassers are not motivated by justice or morality. Their outrage and subsequent actions are irrational. I understand if the people near Cecil—park staff, researchers or others who spent time with the lion—were angered by his killing. Despite Cecil’s international popularity, I wager most people in the States weren’t aware of his existence until after his death. This faux awareness which suddenly “enlightened” everyone is paper-thin and disgraceful. The Zimbabwean people take a proper stance on this issue: ambivalence. Lions are a menace to villages all over their county. Either villagers die to lion attacks or their cattle get eaten. Imagine fighting a lion with just a spear or a bow. Labeling lions as “majestic” depends entirely on perspective and geographic proximity. Instead of getting fired up over a celebrity lion, let’s consider the more sobering reality of African struggles and methods by which the west could ease their suffering.

Folks have a right to be angry in an abstract sense, but this hunting foul has been blown out of proportion. Thankfully the media circus has died down. Harassers please stop hounding Palmer and let the man live with his guilt. His suffering won’t bring Cecil back to life. The beast is dead; lets collectively get over it and carry on with our lives.  

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

When He Becomes She

Caitlyn “formally known as Bruce” Jenner has stirred the hearts of millions by appearing on the cover Vanity Fair after a successful gender transition surgery. According to International Business Times, her penis isn’t on the chopping block yet, but I imagine her little guy’s end is faster approaching. I’ve written about this issue before and progressives—specifically trans friendly feminists—would consider my opinions to be transphobic. These words are not written to heap hate on Caitlyn for her choices. Individual freedom should be cherished and gender dysphoria is a complex mental affliction. While gender transition seems like a poor choice of “medical” treatment to me, If her dysphoria is alleviated, then who am I to stop her? However, the knee jerk reactions to Caitlyn’s surgery illuminates deeper fissures of intolerance which plague our culture.

Vanity Fair Cover

There seem to be three types of responses: 1) complete support and excessive rejoicing (starry eyes included). 2) Disgust and sneering mockery. 3) A sigh and shrugs from folks who either don’t care or ponder under foggy ambivalence. Jenner wasn’t a big name on my radar, but her Olympic accomplishments have created a loyal following among athletes. Now Caitlyn is known by everyone—famous or otherwise. Gender fluidity advocates are hailing this event as a big increase in awareness for trans people and their struggles.

I have been referring to Bruce by his chosen name and preferred pronoun. One might assume that I disagree, yet still endorse her choices. My word choice is a polite gesture and nothing more. Normally this charade isn’t a topic worth writing about until Caitlyn won the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. Let me slay some falsehoods: there is nothing intrinsically brave or courageous about getting gender reassignment surgery. The ESPY awarded Caitlyn specifically because she is a trans person. That decision stinks of social ass-kissing. Nathan Galloway, who is a double amputee and Iraq War veteran, has many sports related accomplishments which I think eclipse Jenner’s gold medals. Certainly this man has overcome greater adversity than Caitlyn. His status as a “runner-up” for the award is false, but the disgrace of choosing Jenner over Nathan and other qualifying candidates remains.

Being critical of individuals who fundamentally alter their natural form doesn’t represent any kind of phobia. Intolerant attitudes will label such criticism as hate-speech. When did absurdity become normal? I read an article talking about a professor from Quebec who proposes the idea of “trans-ability.” This refers people suffering from Body Identity Integrity Disorder and how society should encourage these people to cripple themselves. Presumably doctors would be forced under the law to perform procedures demanded by mentally ill patients because that’s how the medical field has always worked right? Only academics would promote ideas that are completely divorced from reality. Perception doesn’t trump the real world. Someone questioning bodily integrity doesn’t make that person’s notion correct. Caitlyn may look like a woman—props to her plastic surgeons—but she, in all technicality, is still a man. Phrasing, ideological redefinitions and academic theory won’t change the truth. Mentally stable people do not alter their bodies—changing sex or removing limbs—for any reason other than medical necessity. Our culture must stop encouraging this behavior or the people we want to help will be irrevocably damaged. Understand, I’m not advocating that we shame trans people for their struggles; we should be looking for alternative treatments, not spewing gender identity rhetoric.


Edit 6/82015: A couple readers brought some concerns and questions about this post, therefore, I’ll provide further clarification about my stance on this issue. First off, technicially transsexual is a gender identity deriving from one's gender dysphoria (classified as a gender identity disorder). I’m not saying that some criticism of trans people doesn’t come from a phobia, that’s definitely a possibility. But right now cultural rhetoric will classify any criticism as transphobic speech. My criticism stems from a concern that people with transsexualism are being convinced that gender transition surgery is “cure-all” solution for the common depression and suicidal tendencies which afflict these individuals. Statistics on the success rate of gender reassignment surgery tells a different tale. Trans people is a problematic term because there are many variations and specific circumstances through which one might label themselves a “trans person.”


My statements and criticism do not extend towards intersex people. These are folks who have androgynous genitalia and/or other physical abnormalities usually caused by chromosomes and hormones not developing properly. In these cases, they have very good reasons to question their gender and sexual orientation. I still believe therapy is a good place to start, but other treatments may be necessary. Now to Jenner. While I disagree with gender transition surgery on principle, I don’t have a problem with Caitlyn for that reason. It seems like she made an educated decision after years of therapy and struggling with dysphoria, she didn’t make a rash decision and hopefully her gender dysphoria will be eliminated. My complaint lies with the ESPY and their reason for nominating Jenner. The last paragraph deals more with my frustration about how crazy academia have become regard these issues and the worldview assumptions they make about gender and sexuality. I hope this edit better illustrates my position. Thanks for reading. 

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Updates and the Future

Before I begin, a huge thanks my readers for their continued support. It brings me great joy to know that at least some people want hear/see my thoughts and opinions. This blog originated as a rushed project for a writing class at college back in 2013. Slowly I started writing movie reviews because I enjoy criticizing fiction, but my content shifted away from fiction and rapidly changed to politics/social issues. Being a critic (self-proclaimed lol) applies to all facets of life whether real or fictional. That’s why my movie and anime reviews will move over to my youtube channel. I’m a fairly animated person when talking about movies—lots of hand waving and yelling—then combine that with my incredibly high voice and hilarity will probably ensue. The channel will be my unadulterated ramblings with some humor injected at various points.

Job hunting and other circumstances have kept me from getting content on this blog or youtube. Hopefully I can get a video up before the weekend ends. I’ll create a page that further explains my intentions with my reviews in a new medium. Please subscribe if anyone is interested once some content actually exists. My goal is one day make a career writing and youtubing. Again thanks for reading, until next time

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

The Duggar Family Deserves Criticism Not Empathy

Most people outside of conservative Christian communities didn’t know who the Duggar Family was, but now their names are plastered all news websites. For readers who still don’t know, this family are the subjects of TLC’s reality television program 19 Children and Counting. Similar to the Robertson family of Duck Dynasty, the Duggars have become celebrities in social conservative circles. Jim Bob and Michelle raised their children under traditional family and Christian values. They belong to the Independent Baptist denomination which has fundamentalist leanings. It’s no surprise their family has gained popularity among religious people who seek alternative role models to those in the secular entertainment industry, at least until controversy arises.

Please No White Knights

A police report from 2006 was leaked to the public about Josh Duggar (eldest son) sexually molesting five young girls between 2002-2003. On May 21st 2015, Josh admitted that to these acts, but his family asserts that he has moved beyond his problem. There will be an interview with Megyn Kelly on Wednesday (June 3, 2015) to shed more light on these events. Of course this news had a devastating effect on the Duggar’s future. Executives at TLC are weighing their options: whether to continue the show or cancel it. Either way, the Duggar’s television future is uncertain.

Hypocrisy follows the famous like buzzards follow the dying. Not one day goes by without a famous person not walking their talk and not surprisingly the Duggars have fallen into this trap. Along with the 2006 report, additional information emerged stating Jim Bob and Michelle waited more than a year before reporting Josh’s action to the police. They waited long enough that statue of limitation kept Josh free from any legal consequences.

We have come to crux my issue with this situation. Prominent social conservative figures, like Mike Huckabee, have come forward to defend this family; yet, they haven’t done anything worth defending in regards to this specific circumstance. Josh’s father-in-law wrote a rather nice blog post about why we all should dismiss this news, but it’s not that simple. The Duggar family has built their fame and fortune on promoting Christian values. Part of walking one’s talk is transparency and honesty. Scripture prioritizes public confession of sin (1 John 1:9, James 5:16, Proverbs 28:13) and receiving consequences for one’s actions. Josh did not openly confess this sin before taking his position at the Family Research Council. Jim Bob and Michelle did not handle that situation properly.

Authorities should have been contacted in close proximity to Josh’s repeat offense. If he only did it once, then their actions would be understandable, but he molested girls on five separate occasions. They hid this information away, probably trying to avoid legal consequences (my own opinion). They should be rebuked for this, not defended. A fourteen year old boy has enough understanding to know that touching young girls is wrong. Humans are sinful and Christians should readily forgive, however, avoiding consequences is another matter entirely.

I can’t help but think the emergence of support for the Duggars and Fox New’s silence on this scandal stem from the family’s connections. Their wealth and finical endorsement of many Conservative organizations and candidates give them a special status. Christians and other conservative folk, stop trying to downplay this incident. People were hurt and a molester escaped punishment. Josh’s past and his family’s involvement should not be blithely dismissed. To his credit, he has stepped down from his position. The Duggars hid a skeleton in their closest and someone found it. Whatever happens to them now, then brought it upon themselves. This what hypocrisy looks like.

On a final note, this post is harsh. Non-Christians look at scandals like this and think, “This proves that Christians don’t really follow their teachings.” That’s problematic to our witness. If the Duggars were honest about this incident before they were famous, then I wouldn’t be critical of them. For extra clarification: I would be content with how they handled the situation regarding Josh. Under no circumstances do I or any rational person endorse child molestation. This information was reluctantly forced from their hands. Instead of blindly defending their actions, let’s learn a lesson from this scandal. We should walk our talk (God’s commandments) and when we don’t: let’s honest and upfront about our sins.

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Culture War Chronicles

Gay marriage should be legal in all fifty states, yet I believe homosexuality is a sin. To some Christians, this statement is an oxymoron. If God views it as a sin, then surely Christians have a responsibility to keep our world from becoming more sinful. After all, allowing gay people to marry each other destroys the institution of marriage and perpetuates corrupt morals. Think of the children! The modern Christian must protect the moral fabric this great country was built on. Arguments opposing gay marriage are generally more rational, but this caricature illustrates my frustration with the “religious right” or fundamentalist Christianity.

This particular social issue, like abortion, has two heavily entrenched sides that both believe they have moral superiority over each other. One side claims “progress”, the other “defends” traditional values; however, the fundamentalists are losing ground fast. On April 28th Supreme Court Justices debated whether gay marriage should be considered a civil right. Their assessment was based on existing historical instances of other civilizations institutionalizing same-sex marriage. While most ancient civilizations endorsed homosexual relations in many forms, institutional marriage wasn’t one of them. Despite this historical observation, gay marriage will be legalized. The past can provide guidance, never should it dictate our future.

In my experience, arguments against gay marriage fall into three categories: traditional, religious or a combination of both. Traditional marriage, as we envision it today, is an extremely recent concept. Depending on the period and geographical location, institutionalized marriage had a plethora of different meanings. Too often we project our values onto older civilizations without any context or evidence. Secondly, defending “tradition” implies that humanity was more noble or pious in the past. That’s bull-hockey. Our nature hasn’t changed significantly since our conception as a species. Just because a practice or ceremony is old, shouldn’t warrant its an immediate defense.

As a Biblical Christian, one would expect my opposition to gay marriage. Exegesis: there are theological and hermeneutic based arguments that suggest the Bible either doesn’t address homosexuality or actively endorses it. All of these notions reside on thin ice, but I’ll address this topic later in another post. I believe homosexuality and the lifestyle choices that ensue are wrong in God’s eyes. However, that has no bearing on the legality of gay marriage. Religious freedom and separation of church and state are foundational ideas that governed this country’s conception. American culture has been heavily influenced by Christan morals, but never has our society been genuinely Christian. Enforcing traditional marriage based on Biblical texts goes against religious freedom and has no legal relevance. Past precedence for using the Bible in court doesn’t justify this practice. Furthermore Scripture establishes a clear divide between Kingdom work and secular politics.

Both Paul (Romans 13:1-7) and Peter (1st Peter 2:13-15) write about submitting to governing bodies on earth. Jesus made a similar statement regarding taxes (Mathew 22:15-22). These texts were probably speaking to believers who wanted to entice rebellion against Rome, but these words are still applicable today. God called us out darkness into marvelous light to be humble servants, not arrogant authoritarians (Titus 3:1-6). Does this mean Christians should always obey earthly governments? No. God’s will for us still supersedes the laws of men (Act 5: 29-32). Paul addresses this topic as well (Romans 14: 7-9, 2nd Corinthians 5: 14-15). Therefore, we can peacefully resist our governments, but only when they demand that we break God’s commandments. Let us look no further than the lives of the disciples and early Christians. Despite severe persecution and brutal executions, they didn’t rebel or try to create a physical “Christian” nation.

To me these passages and most of the New Testament provide deeper insight into how Christians should act towards each other and the world. We are citizens of God’s Heavenly Kingdom; therefore, our focus should be Gospel-centric. Making disciples and spreading the good news should be priority number one (Mathew 28:16-20), yet fighting with the lost appears to be our actual focus. This culture war is damaging our witness. It’s one of many factors that drive homosexual people away from our churches or towards churches that are “open and affirming” where heretical Christians sell people half-truths. Non-believers look at American Christianity and they don’t see Christ’s light.

I’ve heard convincing arguments to oppose changing marriage’s legal definition. An elder in my community believes the push for legalization is a spiritual attack from dark forces on God’s intended image of marriage. I reject this notion. The legal institution of marriage hasn’t reflected biblical marriage in centuries. Divorce, adultery and other factors separate marriage from our creator’s ideal. The Father of Lies doesn’t need to “corrupt” marriage because Christians and non-Christians alike have already done it. However, I see legitimate concerns.

Portions of Christan people fear that once gay marriage is legalized, LBGT activists will directly attack the rights of religious institutions. Given the current political climate in the United States, that is a possibility. These two hypothetical situations are similar, but not the same. Allowing homosexual people to marry legally doesn’t infringe on anyone’s ability to practice their religion. Certainly it would make some people semantically uncomfortable, but is our comfort worth more than other people’s rights? No. Understand that I laugh when people make claims like, “Barring people from Gay marriage makes them second class citizens” or people who conflate the LBGT movement to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. The first is idiotic and the second is straight-up offensive. Regardless, legally refusing to marry two people of the same sex is discriminatory and that practice should end. Let’s not dig our heels in on an issue that doesn’t directly affect us.

If LBGT activists and other “progressives” petitioned for legislation demanding that all religious institutions must marry same-sex couples despite their convictions, that is a problem worth fighting against. This is the circumstance that most of our brothers and sisters through out the world live in every day. Not being able to practice my faith as God commands is scary, but let’s trust in Him and oppose such legislation with grace and kindness.

My friends, I know older Christians—maybe some young ones as well— will be hostile to my words. We should not be concerned about how our government defines marriage. There’s no tacit endorsement of sin. God doesn’t punish the United States for “allowing” gay marriage. Telling people the truth and encouraging them to accept God’s free gift of salvation should be our primary goals. Some people will hate us by virtue of being Christian, but many people aren’t that narrow minded. They see our actions and turn away because we can’t be bothered to show love to people who need it the most. If they see us letting go of this pointless social battle, then homosexual people might view us differently. If we invite them into churches and lives, not to judge them, but to show Christ’s love; think of how many lost souls will be saved. Trust in the convicting power of the Holy Spirit to heal us of our sins. Let homosexuals legally marry and God may give us more opportunities to love on these folks. Pray on it and thanks for reading. 

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Philosophical Lessons from Twitter

Disagreement necessitates humanity to change. The new status quo will not always be desirable, but the mechanism is the same regardless of particular circumstances. The Magna Carta, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, most scientific discoveries, technological innovation and so much more all fundamentally started with someone dissenting from commonly held beliefs about the world. Yet, a majority human civilizations enforced extreme conformity. Dialogue was limited to certain subjects and punishments for questioning cultural or intellectual taboos were severe. This is why we—folks in the west—are blessed to be intellectual descendants of Enlightenment Era thinking.

Focus on individual freedoms, institution protections for citizens and intellectual exploration broke the shackles of the past. I genuinely believe the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were a pivotal period for human progression. People conceptualized a future where rationality, education, understanding, tolerance and freedom could flourish. Ideologies may have stood in opposition to one another, but they were allowed to co-exist. Complete conformity should have become a relic of the past; yet, barely three hundred years later and we’re already starting to regress back.

In the last century, western culture has made amazing leaps in social equality. At least on paper, people are treated the same regardless of race, sex, politics and intellectual leanings. Unfortunately, words are easier than actions. I suppose this why social justice advocates still exist because they feel the “good fight” isn’t over. Historically, these groups were the impetus behind social change. People of this inclination must view themselves as political/social descendants of famous radicals from the past. After all, people like Galileo, Lincoln, and Sojourner Truth fought to make the world a better place. One might call historical dissenters—with good intentions—progressives or liberals of their respective eras. A projection modern society likes to place on the past. But, justice was always determined by the winners and social advocacy has changed drastically from its origins.

The cloud of ideas and tolerance for disagreement must be protected in order for a genuinely free society to exist. People should be encouraged to question everything in their lives. My Christian faith and political views developed by processing opposing beliefs. Friends and strangers challenged me to defend my worldview. In the process of building that defense, I gained a deeper understanding of those beliefs and opinions. I have reconsidered opinions through this methodology as well. Discourse happens when all sides of an issue meet one another as equals. Elements within western culture no longer seems concerned about preserving these proud traditions.

Tolerance has been replaced with conformity. Most “progressive” groups now function within varying levels of authoritarian parameters. Two unfortunate consequences of my brief exposure to #GamerGate was becoming aware of Social Justice Warriors and then being placed on the ggautoblocker list. Granted this is on twitter so easily dismissed right? Maybe not. Social media indirectly reflects our culture and has become the medium where culture wars occur. Autoblockers are an effective way to end harassment over social media, but unintended consequences manifest. Users of the ggautoblocker will cite avoiding harassment, but cynicism got the better of me. This particular autoblocker doesn’t asses individual accounts. Instead association with certain groups—GamerGate being the most obvious—or stating opinions opposing “progressive” ideas determine whether one should be blocked. Anyone else see a problem there?

I was placed on this list for using #GamerGate less than ten times, #areyoublocked once and (probably not famous enough for this one) opposing Internet feminism. My account is devoid of harassment and no, snarky comments don’t count. Pope Francis was on the list (really?), but he has been removed. KFC is on the blocklist which is absurd. Game developers and journalists can be blocked if they say something “offensive.” Anyone following Mark Kern is blocked. I’ll give Randi and her team credit where it’s due: a white-list appeal system has been created for people who were blocked unnecessarily. My appeal was placed early yesterday, we’ll see if it’s approved.

Even if Randi made this blocker with a genuine intention to keep harassment away, I can’t endorse it. Autoblockers fail on a conceptual level. They create echo chambers and potentially silence legitimate criticism. Famous Internet personalities deal with shitty youtube comments all the time and they don’t shut people down. Constructive dialogue about journalism and potential sexism in gaming has ceased and this autoblocker contributes to that stalemate. A puny ideological fight on twitter is surprisingly analogous to the political polarization occurring in West Culture. In the United Sates most liberals only watch and read news that lean towards their bias. Conservatives create their own political spaces and do the same. Actual progress demands the coexistence of differing worldviews while acknowledging the importance of common ground. That process begins by actually speaking to one another. If you’re a social justice warrior or a progressive, please step out of your “safe spaces” and engage the rest of us. Everyone else, please respond to radicalism with kindness and compassion. I know it’s hard with some of these folks, but hateful ideologies with clever disguises will always show their true natures. Let us fight to move forward, not backwards. 

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Poisonous Abundance

I’m comfortable writing about almost anything, unless it involves shameful activities in my life. Suddenly, reluctance turns my fingers to stone and strangles my cognitive process. A majority of my readers are people I know since Lady Luck hasn’t bestowed me with the fedora of fame. Anonymity can no longer shield me unless I disregard personal details; however, that would be disingenuous. My advice to young writers: avoid confessional pieces, they’re a pain in the ass.

Pornographic addiction has afflicted me for over a decade (not always consistent in frequency) and is one my greatest failures as a person. Today, I’ll share my experience with this increasingly present commodity in our society. No moral statements will be made in this post. One is not a “terrible human being” for looking at porn—unless it’s child porn—or being a porn star. Framing this issue in such a manner is counter-productive and encourages judgment on the people who are involved. Many claim that in moderation pornography is harmless or potentially beneficial, but both are misleading conclusions.

Like other forms of fiction, watching porn will not turn a reasonable person into a rapist, sexist, sexual deviant or anything similar. Fiction, even in massive quantity, can’t rewrite peoples’ personalities. Virtually no studies have found a substantial connection between pornography use and sex-related crimes. Some researchers postulate the 85% decrease of rapes in United States since 1990 is inversely proportional to availability of pornography. However, I reject this notion since other factors might not be considered and violent crimes have similarly declined.

Freudian thinking presents porn as a conduit for a person’s repressed sexual desires. An example: Bob discovers he has a propensity towards rough or even violent sex. Instead of repressing these desires which could cause him to commit these actions in reality, certain fetish porn provides him with a safe and fictional outlet. He might even find a community of people with similar tendencies, allowing Bob to better qualify/control his urges. I find this logic faulty due to the nature of porn. Everyone handles it differently, but I never knew anyone who used ir “moderately” and that wasn’t the case for me. Bob doesn’t need porn, he needs a therapist.

Understand that an addiction to porn differs greatly from drug addition so the two should never be equated with each other. Yet, people shouldn’t dismiss the negative influence porn can have on a person. My first glance into this dark, erotic world occurred during my freshman year in high school. An innocent curiosity turned into a monster I can’t seem to slay, mostly due to self-sabotage. The toll this “beneficial” or “harmless” activity has taken on my life is hard to qualify. Before my own experience is discussed, I don’t claim my life as definitive proof. There are always exceptions.


1. Young people shouldn’t be exposed to porn, but the Internet has made exposure an inevitability. Porn creates unrealistic expectations for sex, perpetuates outrageous standards of female beauty and offers a corrupted vision of real intimacy. Adults generally understand this is fiction, but young boys don’t have the same clarity. My intellectual grasp of intimacy is fine, but years of addiction have crippled my ability to be intimate with anyone. Let’s slay another myth: pornography isn’t education in any way. Want to spice up your sex life or performance in bed? There’s a myriad of sites about sex toys and positions, go there.


2. Often Porn is used as a surrogate for real women. I’ve fallen into this trap in the past. In this regard, most experts agree that pornography is harmful. The rate of rape and murders is extremely low in Japan and porn advocates use this country as an example of pornography’s “positive” aspects. The Japanese are very open about sexuality, but not gender roles. They have similar rating systems for porn, but it’s probably less of a taboo for teens to read it. A strong endorsement right? Well, not necessary. Anime and Hentai (pornographic anime/manga) share the same cultural space. An Otaku (a derogatory term for someone who is obsessed with anime culture) will watch and read both kinds of media. Certain men and boys are contributing a shrinking population because they don’t interact with women at all. They literally prefer “2D girls” over real ones. Porn isn’t the sole cause of this phenomenon, but I think it’s a factor. We’re starting to see a similar culture, revolving around porn stars, emerging in the States.


3. Porn wastes massive amounts of time. In the past, half my day would be wasted looking at porn. I could have been bettering my life by doing any number of alternative activities. Granted, a similar amount of my days has been devoted to video games or reading, but those times were spent increasing my knowledge or socializing with friends who I don’t see often.

4. While there are healthy ways to masturbate, pornography doesn’t encourage that behavior. Chronic over-masturbation has some nasty side effects which can lead to Erectile Dysfunction, premature ejaculation and other unpleasant conditions.


5. Relationships will suffer because of porn. Referencing back to point three, binging on porn definitely discourages one from leaving the house. I’ve lied to friends, claiming to be doing another activity when really I was jerking off. That’s shameful. Marriages suffer as well. Turning to porn when you have a wife will alienate her. People often wonder why the divorce rate has increased, care to guess? What if both spouses watch porn together? Same problem still exists. My addiction blinded me when I needed clarity which resulted in me initiating the destruction of a close friendship. Another regret I get to nail on my mental wall.


6. I don’t want to sound like a feminist, but porn objectifies the people in it. There’s nothing empowering about having fake sex for money. We should value our bodies more than that. Otherwise, it’s just depressing because our cultural beliefs are reflected in this attitude.

Pornography has altered my life forever. It makes me a hypocrite and separates me from my God. Where is my credibility on this subject when I am no where close to conquering my problem? If I could go back in time to that day twelve years ago, drastic measures would be taken to ensure my younger self never clicked that first link, brutal and devastating measures. Young boys and girls don’t be deceived. Pornography offers nothing but temporary pleasure, emptiness and regret. I’m not advocating for puritanical authoritarianism. Nudity and sexuality has a place in fiction, just not in a media that serves only to titillate its audience.

Side note: My prayers go out to porn star “Cytherea” and her family. Their house was broken into last month and she was raped. Thankfully, the culprits were caught and have been sentenced.

Find me on Facebook or Twitter

Without A Proper Top Gear

Sad news for Top Gear fans, Jeremy Clarkson is considering leaving the BBC behind. Some sources claim his Sun Times column confirms this. Either way, this isn’t good for those who love watching Top Gear. I became a fan roughly five years ago and interesting cars wasn’t the reason. Clarkson, May and Hammond transformed Top Gear from a small motoring show to a media giant. Two hundred and fifty million to three hundred million people worldwide watch this program every week. It’s BBC2’s most popular show which has spawned at least half a dozen spin-off in other countries. Thus, the current Clarkson scandal carries weight.

Jeremy is no stranger to controversy and probably is a literal headache for some BBC executives. While I admire Jeremy’s dismissal of political correctness and the absurd culture it creates, some statements should remain unspoken. Racial slurs are almost always offensive regardless of context. Even harmless racial jokes border on inappropriate. Side note: any kind of speech only has as much power as the recipient(s) gives it. Part of Clarkson’s charm and charisma stem from his blunt personality. His willingness to satirize anything or anyone make him entertaining, regardless of his actual belief on an issue. Unfortunately, his political incorrectness has incurred criticism and wrath from BBC management in the past. It seems this particular incident rallied Clarkson haters, demanding his sacking from Top Gear. At the other end, a petition with 870,000 signatures calls for Jeremy’s reinstatement. A complex decision must loom over BBC leadership.

Shows have survived major cast changes, but I don’t see a future for Top Gear without its current presenters. People, myself included, watch for their crazy antics, ludicrous challenges and hilarious reactions. We want to be entertained while occasionally hearing factual information about cars. I can’t imagine another trio who could fill the hole left by even one current presenter leaving. Jeremy is funny, but Hammond and May complete the formula. The three together offer a unique experience that hasn’t been replicated by another television show or other Top Gears. BBC executives can puff their chests out about firing Jeremy and potentially rebranding the show, but easier said than done. May’s and Hammond’s contracts are up for renegotiation next month. I imagine they are good enough friends with Jeremy to possibly not present without him. Even if they did, ratings would drop like a two hundred ton bowling ball thrown off the Empire State building. Suddenly watching British Top Gear becomes almost as boring as American Top Gear. The BBC is strangling their golden goose, which they will regret. My advice to them: shallow a bitter pill, bring Clarkson back on, renew all three contracts and end after a few years.

Understand that I’m not defending Jeremy as a person. From the literature I’ve read, he sounds like a jerk who can’t keep penis out of women who aren’t married to him. Consequently, it’s not surprising all his marriages have failed. He’s probably a fun friend to have and mostly a decent person, but I can’t endorse some of his life decisions. However, that is unrelated to being entertaining. His job is making people laugh, drive cars and giving good talk show interviews, nothing more. Oisin Tymon (the Irish producer) has received online abuse from fans for “ruining” Top Gear. They should stop harassing Oisin. Don’t pour hate on a man who probably doesn’t deserve it. Top Gear ending or changing presenters will be sad; yet, we have twenty one seasons of glorious hilarity already. Therefore, I’m not worried. Despite Jeremy’s personal flaws, I hope he’s allowed to return.  

Find me on Facebook or Twitter