Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Topless Bikinis for Battered Women
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Is Hollywood's idea of how to help battered women meant to actually degrade them? Is the liberal mindset so entrenched in the worldview of those who run in such circles so utterly depraved that they can no longer distinguish the difference between respect and abuse? Are the pied pipers actually leading today's woman into the abyss of moral anarchy - thus subjecting her to even worse degradation than what they profess to protest?

You will have to ask the Denises.

Denise Brown is the sister of Nicole Brown Simpson who was murdered at the hands of an enraged jealous former husband. Denise Brown founded the Nicole Brown Foundation and has committed herself to ending domestic abuse. The website for her organization proudly states that she has taken her message to university campuses, legislative forums, male prisons, and even churches.

No doubt living in the aftermath of seeing your sister's blood spilled and smeared across her bedroom, to know personally the rage of the man who sliced her in such a fashion, and just realizing one's own mortal state would be enough to motivate many people into such a worthy, unending, and lifelong pursuit. Certainly people of every political, ethnic, and spiritual stripe can agree that violent, murderous abuse is an abhorrent evil.

Denise Richards is the former wife of Charlie Sheen. A former model and moderately successful B-list actress, she is as famous for her girl on girl kisses, and exposed flesh as she is for any amount of true acting ability. It is understandable though that she might be sympathetic to the cause of stopping violence against women. Rumors have swirled for years as to the veracity of Sheen's temper. His documented struggles with substances, philandering, and general stability might also have contributed to why Richards herself no longer felt safe living in the same home with him.

Two prominent women teaming up to stop violence is commendable. It is their methodology that merits some questioning.

Next month the two will be hosting the "Luau at the Mansion." For the mere cost of $1000 anyone could sign up and attend the "star studded, red carpet, gourmet" event of the season. For twice that you can access VIP admission. And if you bring four VIP friends you can get your own Cabana.

Sounds pretty enticing doesn't it?

For $10,000 you can receive airfare, custom car service, private massages, not to mention all the gift bags that will contain, DVD's, jewelry, lingerie and special "extras."

The event is being held at the infamous Playboy mansion. And for every person paying for admission the promises of pictures with playmates, bunnies, and guided tours of the mansion are also promised. For the higher paying guests they also promise a "personal attendant" for you and each of your party. And for the VIP's free access to the Grottos. These are essentially underground spas and pools teaming with topless "playmates, bunnies, and personal attendants."

The dress code encouraged is bikinis for girls and board shorts for guys.

So the number one iconic destination linked to the degradation of women, the proliferation of pornography and all that brings with it is the best the Denises could do to set the stage as to how to stop violence against women.

I'm sure it would do no good to explain pornography's links to the systematic abuse against women over the last fifty years. Someone would be there to defend the artistic rights of women to portray themselves publicly au naturel. I'm equally sure it would not convince either of the Denises that the most infamous of all serial killers have admitted not just use of pornography, but addiction to it.

Never mind the fact that the major goal of the Nicole Brown Foundation is to advocate for sincere equality between men and women, they seem totally content to partner themselves with those who view the value of a woman something that can be reduced to the size of her breasts, and her willingness to put them on display.

There was a day in our society when the feminists groups would have fought the very existence of such filth. They now operate it. Christie Hefner, the daughter of the founder of Playboy, sits on the board of several feminist organizations and is recognized for her contribution to feminist causes.

It might do a little bit of good to pull Denise Brown aside and ask her two questions:

1. Is this the type of event Nicole Brown Simpson would've attended of her own accord?

2. Is this the type of event Nicole Brown Simpson would've wanted attached to her memory, particularly in the memories of her children?

Perhaps it would do some good… maybe, possibly...but not likely.

Modern feminists don't really care about the real issues involved.

They refuse to recognize that genuine value comes from the worth that God has stamped upon them. Because He created them - they are of immense worth. Thus violence, rape, and/or murder against an innocent man or woman is genuine moral evil.

But who cares about any of that stupid God stuff when you can get as plastered as you want, have sex with whoever and however you like, and do it all standing topless in the disease ridden grotto of "the mansion."

It's all for the cause of battered women you know...

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

what a dumb article
Rather than rambling on in the inept stlye that the author has chosen to engage, I will be brief and poignant:

#1: The event will raise a ton of money for battered women, enough said.

#2: If you haven't figured it out by now, Charity is business. Leave altruism for the occasions when you drop 41 cents in the homeless guys cup outside of Coffee Bean.

#3: Who gives a crap if this is an event Nicole would've attended?

#4: Try charging a thousand bucks a pop for tickets to a charity event hosted somewhere other than the Playboy Mansion, see how many people show up...

#5: Assume your rant causes a backlash and the event gets cancelled, who's interests have you really served?

Disconnection
It's just a matter of disconnection -- people who say with perfect sincerity "If poor people don't have money, why don't they just charge it?" and who think that buying a t-shirt is doing something concrete to help the Cause.

I don't believe that these are feminists or that that they are acting maliciously. I believe they are simply very wealthy women completely disconnected with the world in which abused women live, just as those idiots who made "Do They Know Its Christmas" about kids who lived in a predomininently Muslim country and probably did not, as a matter of fact, know it was Christmas, in the honest belief that they were saving the world.

And there is the very real truth that if you want men to show up and pay for something, ladling out the chance to gawp at boobies will get them every time.

While I agree this is tasteless and ultimately will do no good for the person who contributes his pittance (and to these people that is exactly like putting 41 cents in a tin cup) save to give him a false idea he has helped the world, it probably won't do any harm. The girls flaunting their boobies at the Playboy Mansion are not slaves who were forced into bimbohood. That is their job.

Pornography not harmless
There needs to be a recognition of the damage pornography causes on the society and on our relationships with each other as human beings. The damage to the young women is beyond tragic.

Pornography is another example of an evil given legal imprimature becoming acceptable by society that has no other guiding moral law.

Women are being crushed under it. From the "Bratzing" of children to the cosmetic plastic surgery of the aging and the devastation of those poor women who for money sell their sexuality through porn, prostitution or more subtle means.

Hold on a moment...
"I'm equally sure it would not convince either of the Denises that the most infamous of all serial killers have admitted not just use of pornography, but addiction to it."

This is probably a reference to Ted Bundy's statement, only a day or two before his date with the executioner, that "porn made me do it." Do please remember that the first impulse of a man facing death is to try to avoid it -- and despite his crimes, there were plenty of sympathetic voices in favor of saving Bundy's life, who were eager to batten on any seemingly mitigating item to advance their arguments.

Bundy's claim to be a porn addict might have been factually true, but can we accept what he said, with or without its causative implications, in complete confidence, knowing that even at that late date he was still hoping to avoid execution?

The Devil can cite Scripture for his purposes.

BHasting and Dave...
You guys have the moral clarity of a mud puddle

Rape
is certainly part of the abusive behavior that some women are subjected to. How does inciting the worst aspects of mens' lust sanctify the money raised in this instance? Those women may not be "slaves" in the technical sense, but exploitation is still exploitation when women consent to cater to a man's worst instincts; nobody is helped. Modern feminism has more than anything only given men permission to give in to the wish and ability to use women rather than respect them.

True charity is never at the expense of others' dignity.


The answer to your first three questions
Yes.

RxLady: RE: BHasting and Dave...

You are spot on! (As usual!)

Having had to obtain a "Protection From Abuse Order" against my (attorney) ex-husband (many years ago) and having been a Certified Domestic Violence & Abuse Counselor (until I finally burned out), and having worked in the DA's office to help set up their Domestic Violence dept., I actually know more than just a little about domestic violence.

Kevin is absolutely right! Using a forum that degrades women to raise money and awareness for abused women is truly a "disconnect" at the very least.

In the end, Brown and Richards will not be advancing the cause, and most certainly will be doing some damage.

BHasting, Dave, Mike, and NM Rep. etc., clearly know NOT of what they speak.









to no more: You did NOT SPECIFY
what type of porn - kiddie? or beastiality? or just anything? and if you 'look at it all the time' - when did you find the time to come here?

Look, I am NOT against a nude body. Went to a nudist camp once - it really was a good experience. And what can be called "soft porn" is nothing more than the naked human body of an adult. Nothing wrong with that.

Hugh Heffner PUSHED the limits of 'soft porn.' And advocated a much more OPEN sexuality than most people felt comfortable with. But then again, I only went to that nudist camp ONCE. I didn't want to live there.

Many of the people who can afford the $1000 a pop ticket EXPECT something they haven't seen. A visit to the playboy mansion is something that doesn't come very often to anyone I'd guess.

Bottom line: It's their money to spend as they wish, I just would wish the event was more in keeping with the charity. But then, who would pay $1000 to see the bruises of a battered woman?

Pornography
To BHasting: So the ends justifies the means?
To no more republicans: Porn is harmful; just look what it has done to your worldview and your attitude towards sex. Porn degrades women to nothing more than sex toys. God designed sexual relations for pleasure between husband and wife, not for general recreation. Women are harmed by unmarried sex, no matter how much they want to claim otherwise - they get emotionally attached to their sexual partner; it's how they're designed. Mr. no more republicans, you are the one with a problem if you need porn to arouse you. As far as "no more republicans," again your worldview from the pollution of porn shows you'd rather have the party that favors every sort of sexual immorality, including homosexuality. And if you think porn reduces rape you are very seriously deluded. Check with your local police departments as to how many rapists - especially pedophiles - are involved with porn. Your ignorance of the subject is astounding! Ah, but you do need to justify your porn bondage, don't you?

Ethiopia mostly Christian
AudiR10 wrote:
< < just as those idiots who made "Do They Know Its Christmas" about kids who lived in a predomininently Muslim country and probably did not, as a matter of fact, know it was Christmas, > >

Um, no.

Ethiopia (the subject of the song "Do They Know It's Christmas?") is about 60% Christian (mostly Orthodox), with Muslims being barely half that, about 32%.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/et.html#People

Eritrea, which was still part of Ethiopia at the time of the song's release, is also largely Christian.

And from my own personal experience, in general these Christians are genuinely so: my ex-girlfriend's family is both Ethiopian and Eritrean and they were very devout.

no more Rep: What you're asking

would take far too long to explain. But, if you're really interested (?) I suggest that you do some research on your own.

But, for starters, "Justa Thought Here" had some excellent points.


Doing Business
1. The business of willingly performing all manner of sexual acts in front of a camera for money, 2. being a broadcaster of those images and receiving money from those willing to pay for viewing, or 3. being a willing client paying your money to view those images for a vicarious thrill, none of those, often legal endeavors, have anything to do with helping battered women. Money offered by any of those engaged is such "business transactions" to "help battered women" is most likely an attempt to expiate personal guilt via monetary offering. Although there is nothing particularly wrong with attempting to purge oneself of personal guilt, the true therapy will occur when the person under conviction of conscience realizes it and turns to the One who actually did make the offering capable of expiating sin and cleansing the conscience. All other arguing sidesteps the real issue at hand, personal culpability for personal sins in word, thought, or deed.

Some posters are getting
way off the mark.

Domestic violence and rape actually have nothing to do with sex.

Both are about CONTROL and subjugation.





Bob
is certainly not understanding his Bible if that is what he truly believes about "whoring" women. First off, Bob, the law about killing the immoral woman was only for Israel - as were all those laws in the Torah (that's the first five books, Bob). Even the 10 Commandments were just for Israel and no other nation. However, in the N.T. all but one of those commandments were given also to the Christian. Do you know which one wasn't, Bob? The Sabbath. That was a sign of a covenant between God and Israel. I just took a look at your blog, Bob, and I can't judge your heart but I certainly can judge your words, and your blog is certainly not Christian nor pleasing to God. So quit quoting a book (the Bible) that you don't understand. And, your ignorance of the fact that porn victimizes women much more than men demonstrates that's another subject you should stay away from. Your site demonstrates you are the mysogynist!

typo
Sorry for the typo "of those engaged 'is' (should be "in"). Bad proof reading.

porn and rape
Anne, I hate to bust your bubble, but contrary to psychobabble, rape has everything to do with sex. Control may be part of it for some rape, but most rape is just plain sex for the rapist.

As for no more republicans, your are obviously very ignorant - God did exactly what I stated and the Bible states as much. People are not animals; they are a much higher form of life. Perhaps you haven't evolved that far yet.

"Topless Bikinis for Battered Women"

Let's stay on topic! Thank you.








Disconnect
There does seem to be a disconnect between Denise Brown and Denise Richard's goal and the place where they are holding the fundraising. I suppose you take help where you can get it these days. While I have no respect for Hugh Hefner, he does once in a while do some good when it comes to philanthropy. I do agree that pornography has done women no good and much harm in our society. Next time the Nicole Brown Foundation should choose its forum more carefully.

Thanks, Kevin McCullough
"How, and be specific, does consensual sex between adults on video demean women?"

If you're an emotionally healthy and decent human being, you can answer this question by asking yourself why you wouldn't want your own 18-year-old daughter in a porn video.

I don't buy the whole "addiction" to pornography thing, but I do thank Kevin McCullough for this column. It's men like him that restore some of my faith in males!

Bluepiper: Not sure where you get

your information, but you're WRONG!




Modern feminists
...don't really care about the real issues involved. Nor are they, like all leftists (especially American ones) not especially noted for their intellectual acumen. Talk about doublethink! They raised it to an art-form, as this column proves.

Poor Denise! As George Orwell might put it, she's a doubleplus good duck speaker!

Recognizing the enemy…

‘They refuse to recognize that genuine value comes from the worth that God has stamped upon them. Because He created them - they are of immense worth. Thus violence, rape, and/or murder against an innocent man or woman is genuine moral evil.’ –Kevin McCullough


Kevin, perhaps there is a correlation with the way men think and how they live and what they do.

Where do men learn that all men have worth and are worthy of respect? It’s not from diversity training given by those who cannot see that what they teach is contrary to the Christian ethic. You cannot give equal weight to everyone’s beliefs when they contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ. His apostles laid the foundation of the church, Christ being the chief corner stone by which everything else is fitted together.

Where do men learn that there is a standard of morality to which they are accountable under the penalty of death; a death where the worm does not die? It’s not from those who blame their wrongdoing on everything else except the truth and deny that we are born into sin and our greatest need is redemption.

The same thinking that gave rise to abortion and the abuse of children has also opened the door to the abuse of women and of the elderly. What teaching in our midst exalts the strong and over the weak? What teaching legitimizes violence and death in what is termed the struggle for life?

Will we recognize the real enemy among us? Will the Christians come out from among them and renounce this teaching that has infected the church? Will we stand up to the whole world full of naturalists and say that they are all dead wrong? Will we agree and hold to the words of Christ, ‘that from the beginning God made them male and female?’

As a man thinks, so is he.


The cultural conflict over beauty
There is a schism from reality over the subject of beautiful women.

One would hardly believe that this would become a political football, but there are some Leftist created cultural delimas that have set up an abnormal relationship to the beauty in women.

There is a great deal of power to be found in beauty, and it can be used well, or used for ill.

A half a century ago, these issues seemed to have been settled, and there was moderation in how women were portrayed in the culture, and discipline in how women used their beauty to get what they wanted.

But when the activist Left destructively and systematically tore down all cultural boundaries, we lost our compass in this arena.

The Left feel it too. There is a movement among the self-esteem movement to eradicate the power of beautiful women, so that not-so-beautiful women will feel good about themselves. This is manifested in TV shows like "Ugly Betty," where the slogan is "ugly is the new beautiful."

Watch Children's TV, and you will see this censorship of pretty girls out of their programming. Instead, we get girls like Dora the Explorer, who are designed deliberately to keep girls from feeling bad that they aren't pretty.

Yet our culture's bizarre facination with beautiful blonde women belies the slogan, "ugly is the new beautiful." The hunger for beauty is leaking out around the edges in spite of the Left's attempts to censor it. The strange fascination with Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith illustrate my point.

In the mid-Twentieth Century, there were certain cultural controls that fed the public desire to see beautiful women, but without the raunchy side that has taken over in our current era.

Women are as fascinated with beautiful blondes as men are, and I suspect it is an instinctive way that we pick our "Alpha People."

Our culture needs to go back to a more moderate approach to this issue, where the excesses at either end of the spectrum are replaced with a centurist approach: where beautiful but MORAL women are celebrated in our culture, and held up as role models, instead of this polarity that has taken hold in recent years.

Robert E Lee: RE Modern feminists

"...don't really care about the real issues involved."

I hate to admit it, but to a degree you're right.

Interesting how Brown and Richards are using women who subjugation and demean THEMSELVES to help women who subjugated and demeaned by OTHERS.





Anne, quit listening to
psychobabblers. I get my information from lots of study in the field. While abuse is indeed about control and subjugation, rape is usually just about sex and the desire to have sex with the one raped. Psychobabblers and feminists have put forward the control and subjugation theory within this past generation, but that is the case for only a small percentage of rapes, and that is when the rape is part of the overall abuse. Sometimes even the abuse is part of the sexual stimulation prior to the rape. Tell the woman who was date-raped that it was about control rather than getting the guy too far along to convince him to stop. That's just a minor example. Porn leads to sexual arousal and then the guy goes looking for someone to get release from and that leads to rape. That is a very real result of porn. If the porn is the sort that teaches abuse as part of the sex - i.e., that the woman wants to be abused for arousal - then abuse may be included. Do some more studies in the area rather than reading psychobabble and feminist propaganda. The idea is to make men appear to be always wanting to control women, which is not true. Abusive men, yes; some rapists, yes; but most rapist it's just evil sexual desire with any available person the target.

Dear Anne
RE: Domestic violence and rape actually have nothing to do with sex. Both are about CONTROL and subjugation."

I want to ask you a question: stop and think about the next step in this sequence, namely, why does the perpetrator want to control and subjugate? Answer: because he cannot obtain sexual satisfaction via the normal or non-violent ways. Your statements are complete myths created by man-hating (but sex-loving)feminists with an agenda.

You see, if they told the truth about rape they would be led back to the notion that people must be taught such "old-fashioned" and "repressive" notions like sexual self-control. But since that contradicts the feminist (and leftist) dogma that freedom means being able to do whatever you feel like doing without guilt or responsibility (by which, by the way, the feminist justifies lesbian activity), the need for the myths you stated becomes obvious. And you fell for it!

Annie, Annie, Annie, its time to blow the ideological cobwebs from your brain and start thinking!

Topless women
(Now that I have your attention . . . ) (Yeah, old joke. . .)


I worked as a night bartender in a topless bar in the mid-1970's. The women there were attractive and got paid good tips by the patrons simply by showing their breasts.

As a practical matter, they made more money than I did and got more breaks than I did. Were they demeaned by showing their breasts? Not one of them claimed that they were and they were allowed to quit at any time.

So what is the outrage? Very attractive women can make a lot of money simply by being hot. That's merely a fact of life. Us guys who like women will pay a ton of money simply to LOOK at them. Who's the smart one in that deal?




Bluepiper: When someone uses the term

"psychobabble" it's a big red flag that that person has his/her own agenda.

Be careful, I was, for a number of years, a Certified Domestic Violence & Abuse Counselor and worked in the DA's office to help set up their Domestic Violence dept.

And, during those years, I also lectured and lead symposiums on domestic violence.... including lectures and symposiums for law enforcement.

I know of what I speak! You, Bluepiper, if you have any information, it's obviously just enough to be dangerous.




Playboy isn't hard-core porn
As one who gets annoyed at hard-core porn invading my inbox, it's worth noting that Playboy Magazine is more soft core; and this is the distinction many of the readers -- And author McCullough -- are missing.

There's a big difference between going into a 7-11 to pick up a Playboy picture book of jugs along with a jug of milk; and going to a into a porno shop in a bad area of town, where hookers and drug dealers work their trade right out in the parking lot. This is the distinction that many of you are missing: One is out in the open as a publicly traded company, while the other operates in the shadows.

[As a side note, I moonlight as a professional motorsports photographer; and one thing Playboy is noted for is their world-class photography techniques, using large format 4x5 -- and even 8x10 inch -- film for their shoots, as well as perfect studio lighting for their indoor shots.]

Dan Schwartz
Expresso@Snip.Net

Robert E Lee: No. That's not it!

"...because he cannot obtain sexual satisfaction via the normal or non-violent ways."

Wrong again!

And the notion that it's a complete myth created by man-hating (but sex-loving)feminists with an agenda just speaks to blaming the victim and making excuses for the rapist and/or abuser.

Of course, I'm not at all surprised by these mis-conceptions. It just goes to show how ill informed and uninformed the public really is on the subject.





DavidMac- who's the smart one?
If it is smart to give up your dignity and your self respect for making big tips, I guess those girls are smart.

But humans were meant for a higher purpose than prostituting their souls.

How is it different than a corporate wonk who is willing to give up his values in order to "cook the books" and make big "tips" in the stock market?

Is the bottom line all that matters?

Or is our eternal soul more important?

Hollywood's Idea?
Hollywood is a district of the city of Los Angeles, similar to the Bronx being a district of New York City. It can't have ideas, plans, dreams, hopes or goals other than fixing sewer pipes along Sunset Blvd or other such civic projects. Using Hollywood as a generic term for the entertainment industry is a ridiculous attempt to pander to knee-jerk emotionalism that the right continually insists is the bastion only of the left.

The thought that Playboy is pornographic material that leads to serial killings holds as much water as saying Guns and Ammo magazine promotes mass murders at malls.

The article's premise is flawed from the beginning.


Porn
Its Unequivocal, its settled science, its moral stare decisis that anyone who watches porn for more than a few minutes is likely to be intellectually and chemically damaged for life.

Tell me of a person who continually watches porn and I give you a person I would not trust around my family or any other place for that matter.


allen- I suspect that Kevin McCullough
is happily married and gets "laid" more often than you!

Mountain Rose: "...who's the smart one?"

Self respect for making big tips! How right you are!

When all is said and done, whether or not one believes in heaven or an afterlife, etc., the ONLY thing we leave behind is our Name and Reputation!






Because porn hurts everyone
Someone here talked about pornography, suggesting that "no one" was hurt when he was viewing it.

I beg to differ..

Surely pornography-taken from the root word pornea, which means fornication, is extremely detrimental to both the person posing in it and the party taking that in.

This is because, as the old saying goes, the Eyes Are The Windows of the Soul..

More than anything in culture which has contributed to hardheartedness in men, destitution, adulteries, divorces and family fracturing and dissolution, it is pornography.

And right now, and increasingly for the last 15 years, we have descended into a somewhat porn culture.

Just look at tv shows which are said to spot topless actresses, like The Sopranos. As Christians we would never watch this trash, because that, and other tawdry fare, were, supposedly, the bulk of it..

The eyes are the windows of the soul to large degree. I say to large degree, because one can be physically blind and still not escape the imaginations of his heart, or mind.

Regardless, what we see and hear surely has an effect of our hearts, and exposing our person and spirit to defiling influences, like pornography does, indeed harden our hearts and place one in an addictive sort of bind. The dangerous effects of such evil are profound, to say the least..

I have posted two authors here. One, is the maker of the board game "Scruples". While I don't agree
with his conspiracy theories, I *do* agree with his analysis which talks of the harm of Feminism, and the problems with the sexes, and the severing, and harmful changes society has placed on the family. I wish his articles could be read while excerpting the allusions to big brother and things of this nature, because I think his insights on the family and the sex, and the damages of porn are that good.

Here is one which applies to this column and made me pause.

Here is a link Why All Porn is Gay

http://www.savethemales.ca/001421.html

The other author is a long time friend of such news sources as World Net Daily, amongst others.
Her name is Dr. Judith Reisman, and she has had a lot to say on the very real damages of pornography.


http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/814236/posts

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=43

http://www.rsvpamerica.org/crafting%20august%202001.htm

Bobbie, Bobbie, Bobbie...

It's clear that you have your own ideas and agenda (wife beater/rapist, maybe???) and have no interest in learning anything about this epidemic.

Sayonara



Porn
Paul may be at least partially correct as to the effects of porn, at least for some percentage of the population. The real issue from this article is,

"Is Playboy pornographic?"

The answer to that question is not unequivocable.
Sidenote - I haven't opened a Playboy for over 25 years, so my opinion is likely dqated.

Pancho: No, actually the real issue

from this article is:

"Is Hollywood's idea of how to help battered women meant to actually degrade them?"

Unfortunately, there are too many low-life posters who can't or won't deal with the real issue....



I'm away for a while...
just in case some of you think I'm avoiding your questions and ill advised statements.


I reiterate
"Is Hollywood's idea of how to help battered women meant to actually degrade them?"

Hollywood is a district in Los Angeles incapable of ideas. The article specifically singles out Playboy(and the mansion and the bikinis) as the object of disdain.

Playboy is a minute portion of the entertainment industry, only representative of its own agenda. Using Hollywood as a generic is disingenuous and emotionally bankrupt.


this topic is depressing
"about my nonexistant (sic) kid."

I don't have kids either. Fortunately, I'm not so limited in my emotional and intellectual capacity that I couldn't imagine how heartbreaking it would be to see my own child doing something so dysfunctional. Have fun with your porn.

"allen- I suspect that Kevin McCullough
is happily married and gets "laid" more often than you!"

I was thinking this too. ;)

etc. On porn's damages
Senate Subcommittee Hears Experts on Pornography Toxicity
December 22, 2005

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/12/senate_subcommi.html

The sex-industrial complex: Sexologists, Pornographers & Big Pharma

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/12/the_sex-industr.html

Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution

http://www.savethemales.ca/000165.html

You'd be surprised at how much of this wickedness connects TV to the Internet and back again..

Or how much has happened as a result of families unknowingly plopping their kids down in front of so much of
hijacked and now tampered with Disney fare, and cable tv..

Men
of my Fathers generation (he was born in 1909) would be turned on by a glimsp of an ankle. Porn has jaded much of todays young people so it takes more and more strange and unusual acts to reach satisfaction. That is the real damage done by Playboy mag. It started us down that slippery slope and Hustler applied the grease.

Get the point..
I think the point that is being made here is , "make love not war", Kevin. There's nothing wrong with a little tasteful philandering, so long as the right vibes are there.


the martyrdom of Nicole ...
At the risk of blaming the victim; you can't help but wonder what all the fuss is about here. Nicole ran with a fast crowd ... as a pretty girl who chased after her jock dream guy and caught him only to find out what it's like with an emperor who really had no clothes; you can't help but wonder why anyone would be surprised that her pretty sister also ran with and still runs with a fast crowd and has a different moral compass than her would-be protectors in the moral majority.

Ron and Nicole may be tragic victims but they also may have been not all that different than the misguided beauty pageant contestant who thought an evening out in Mike Tyson's limousine meant a free trip to Disneyland with a true gentleman with no consequences for her own decision making.

You look at what happened between Jennifer Levin and Robert Chambers and you have to wonder: those two demonstrated the downside of what happens when the alpha males get together with the alpha females in the meat markets of the world. Look at it as the revenge of all those tortured souls; thoe plain Janes and Joes of the Carolyn Hax set; the poor Joes who write that their would be other only sees them as a friend ... or the poor Jane who's not pretty enough to get the same attention from the not-Joes of the world.

We're victims yet again of our own star-obsessed culture; ignoring the plain Janes and Joes while obsessing over the beautiful people who we should just ignore ... ask yourself why Vanity Fair has a better circulation with "the beautiful people than the "Ladie's Home Journal" or why I as an alpha male went to an article on "Topless Bikini's" only to be treated to yet another non-libertarian, scold of an article about a "set of people" who should best be ignored if you don't like their actions.

Why don't these TH religious conservatives just get a life and keep their eye on the ball for the rest of us and follow Bush's misguided positions on spending and immigration instead! What they're doing with their tart references to topless bikinis is having the unfortunate side effect of helping to make the libertarians and intellectual conservatives who tune into TH for the articles instead of the visuals take THEIR eyes off of those balls.

Feminist Charity at the Playboy Mansion
In fact Nicole Brown Simpson probably would have approved and attended this event. She of the enormous plastic breasts generated fatal attraction in a man who has shown himself attracted to exactly this kind of pornographic image of women.
That's why she's dead. When a woman throws off the pornographic image and attempts to be something other than the obedient masturbatory fantasy of this kind of man he fells entitled to harm and even kill her.
Yeah they probably will make a fair amount of money and the Brown family profited off OJ's largesse for a long time.They still aren't making the connection that they are fostering the very thing they are suppposedly trying to fight.

Psychobabble
is just that. I don't have an agenda, it's just that the whole psych industry is a fraud and at complete odds with the Christian faith especially. It was founded by athiests and those who were looking to replace sin with "sickness" and gives no responsibility to the perpetrator. I have studied the psych fields for at least 10 years for all sides of the fence. My favorite "babbler" is one who tells it like it is, E. Fuller Torrey. Even he says the field is nothing more than witch-doctoring. You may have worked in those fields as you say, yet you take that particular bias and worldview with you. If you start realizing that it is sex that drives rape you would have to approach the issue much differently. I have done much counseling myself in these situations and am quite familiar with the errant worldview that says rape is just about control and subjugation. It needs revamped but the intelligensia can never admit to error in the psych field. Stating that it is a sex crime does not take away the fact that the woman is the victim and the rapist should be severly punished. It just admits what the true cause of the crime is.

Someone mentioned Dr. Judith Reisman - she has some excellent books exposing Freud and the origin of the psych industry, which is rooted is sexual immorality, atheism, secularism and self-ism.

For the bartender and the defender of any kind of porn - soft or otherwise - it all demeans women. Any woman who bares her breasts for anyone other than a husband is allowing herself to be used and seen as nothing more than a man's plaything.

As for mister "Guns and Ammo", a magazine about a tool doesn't tell you to misuse the tool. Porn is always about misuse of sex and encourages the same.

It appears that Bluepiper & Rbt E Lee

DOETH PROTEST TOO MUCH! :-)

And, it's obvious that they are quite ignorant of what they PROTEST!

They are fools, who are a waste of time!








Kevin McCoullough: Excellent column

Good points and well written!!!

Too bad such ignoramuses crashed the thread.










The Facts
Red states order twice as much cable porn as blue states. Got to love the blatant continued hypocrisy of the right wingers.

Thanks, bluepiper
"Any woman who bares her breasts for anyone other than a husband is allowing herself to be used and seen as nothing more than a man's plaything."

Right, and a person's complicity in his/her degradation still doesn't justify others participating in it. Thank you for posting this!

Good remarks by Elle, too.

I have learned a great deal about the sex industry over the past few years, and with very, very few exceptions, the women who are in porn/stripping/prostitution have a history of sexual violence done to them, either molestation as a child and/or rape as an adolescent. The good news is that many women who have been in the industry are coming forward and making this truth known. Many are also going back into clubs, porn conventions, etc to assist other women to get out.

If you think that
If you think that "Porn degrades women to nothing more than sex toys" then could you please explain Gay porn?



hypocrisy
"blatant continued hypocrisy of the right wingers."

How do you know that the people who criticize it are the ones consuming it? And, again, unless you would want your own daughter in porn, you are the hypocrite if you defend it or consume it.

This thread has gone right into
the gutter!

I'm out of here!



Porn Empoiwers Women
Women who pose nude, baring their breasts and vaginas, are simply using their sexuality for their own advantage.

question
How did this thread morph from describing a bunch of wealthy women giving a fundraiser to an entrenched, serious but shallow discussion of pornography? What does one have to do with the other?


Today's creep factor award goes to McCullough.

At a Loss for a Subject Line
Deep, deep, deep in his heart of hearts, I suspect Hugh Heffner is a terribly lonesome and unhappy man.

All of us, and I am certainly including myself, are unhappy when we sin.

Only when we turn away from sin and ask God's forgiveness can we be truly happy. And again, I include myself in that "we."

going to the playboy mansion
to help battered women is the same as going to your local Women's Center who refer women for abortion. In our convoluted world, sex is the golden calf (no pun intended). Women's worst enemies are often other women....

America's Moral Decline
American society is closer to anarchy than most people realize.

The process of family and social disintegration is spurred by the Violence Against Women Act - VAWA for short -- the $1 billion-dollar-a-year law that was passed five years ago at the behest of the radical feminists.
VAWA comes up for renewal later this year in Congress.

When you look closely, it becomes clear that VAWA has an agenda that reaches far beyond the protection of women.

VAWA-funded educational programs push the time-worn storyline of the violent man and a brutalized woman. But that stereotype is false. The truth is, members of the fairer sex are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men. [www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm]

But once society comes to believe that members of the male sex are a menace to women, it becomes easy to enact laws that strip men of their Constitutional rights of due process and equal treatment under the law.

Again, that's where VAWA steps in.

One of the tools promoted by VAWA is the use of restraining orders. At first blush, the idea sounds common-sensical: a woman who is being abused should be able to get her husband removed from the house.

But in many states, judges crank out restraining orders like Confederate one-dollar bills, not pausing to verify the woman's claims or even to hear the man's side of the story.

A 1995 Massachusetts study found that 60,000 restraining orders were issued each year. In fewer than half of those cases was there even an
allegation of physical violence. In the other cases, the woman simply claimed she felt afraid, or maybe there had been a marital spat.
[www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/]

Recently the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court became concerned that this epidemic of restraining orders was fraying the fabric of judicial impartiality. The Court opined that judges must "resist a culture of summarily issuing and extending these orders."

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, was
even more candid: "Restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply…In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage."

Tactical advantage? Ms. Epstein was referring to the fact that while hubby is barred from the house, the wife quickly files for a divorce, and
cleverly requests temporary custody of the kids. That paves the way for near-automatic award of sole custody once the divorce is finalized. And, since the states recieve federa incentives for every non-custodial parent created, they very seldon award 50/50 joint physiscal custody. That would cost the state easy free money! The children lose their father for good and most kids end up pregnant, on drugs or in jail!

So careful about raising your voice, Pop, or you might be thrown out on your ear -- and end up losing your kids for good measure.

Is this beginning to sound like Carl Wilson's Stage Five of societal dissolution? In fact, has anyone noticed that Constitutional protections
of due process are being shredded by this near-hysteria over domestic violence?


"The Cause" is ManBashing!
> Anne writes: I was, for a number of years,
> a Certified Domestic Violence & Abuse
> Counselor and worked in the DA's office
> to help set up their Domestic Violence dept.

QED, you are part of the problem.

Cathy Young's _Ceasefire_ has some really interesting primary information about this in it. She cites a police officer who believes that a woman physically assaulting a man isn't domestic violence because he saw his mother do it to his father all the time.

Anyone remember the comedian who was on SNL who died in a domestic violence incident, kilt by his girlfriend? Locally we recently had an incident where a woman ran over her husband with the SUV - ran over him three or four times imtil he stopped moving.

Women are not inherently nicer than men. The domestic violence is about equal in which sex is the batterer and which the victim, women tend to have smaller bones/bodies and simple physics means that they are less likely to injure. Except when weapons are used, which they are quite likely to use.

Then there are those women who MURDER their husbands and then claim abuse. And get away with murder, abuse not proven.

OJ Simpson is a black male. Nicole Simson was a white female. We would have lots of people (myself included) screaming if we painted her murder as a black person killing a white person, and how, exactly, is it different to paint it as a man killing a woman.

We would have LOTS of people screaming if we were to say that the evil blacks are a threat to all white folk, how is it different to say that the evil men are a threat to all womenkind?

And how are the manbashing croud any different from the klan?

You Go..Bluepiper!
Bluepiper, that was me..the person alluding to Dr. Judith Reisman..

Love your posts..

They are interesting..

As are KMC's Always honest, and Always accurate articles..

You go Bluepiper! :-)

On Bluepiper, and Ann, isn't code for..
Anne wrote:

"Bluepiper: When someone uses the term psychobabble" it's a big red flag that that person has his/her own agenda. Be careful, I was, for a number of years, a Certified Domestic Violence & Abuse Counselor and worked in the DA's office to help set up their Domestic Violence dept."

I don't understand the logic behind that broad based quote Ann. Do you honestly think the use of such a term immediately wipes out all legitimacy in what a person has to say? I find that very odd..

There are numerous legitimate sources, both online and not, which use the word "psychobabble", and have a real reason for using it. Are you saying these parties are not legitimate or sincere? (Apparently you are, as that's, basically, what you said..)

And, not to be disparaging to the few sincerely abused women, as opposed to women abusing and abused *by* the Feminist system-
but isn't "Certified Domestic Abuse Counselor" kind of code for:

"An intake worker-who is more than willing to work with the state to-Control and legally bind and disinherit a man, as much as is possible, while leaving the Wife-mostly scot free-and the Husband a kind of powerless nonentity sortakinda, regardless of her Husband's innocence,
within the laws"?

Or maybe that's a different domestic violence branch I am thinking of..

Or sumpthin..




rock on nanarae..lol
baudrunner wrote:

"Get the point..I think the point that is being made here is , "make love not war", Kevin. There's nothing wrong with a little tasteful philandering, so long as the right vibes are there."

Oh all right..And do we now print this comment above and smoke it like a doobie in the morning
(No thank you..:-( )

Good grief, baudrunner..with all due respect..
throttle back..breathe in the Holy Spirit, and be part of the solution man..Not-the problem..

The world needs more men who SEE the distinction and have a CLUE..

(Thank God *I* have one, but, honestly, just God's good grace..But, still..)

As for my views, we also stand in agreement with the witty and succinct nanarae..

Yes, my friends, I am with the 100 year olds on this one..
They rarely, if ever, are wrong..

Comparatively, me, just a wee, nimble youth..

lol

Let's hear it for the SANE Grandparents people..

They escaped the 60's with charity, clarity and brain cells intact..

Rock on, baby..

rich as fresh mildew..on a sunny day..
The more I think of this quote-
the more ironic it becomes to me..

Is it ironic?

Sardonic?

Perhaps, just moronic?

It ain't bucolic..but then, you know-maybe..

It's too late, and there aren't enough words,
or bad rhymes..for what baudrunner said above..

" There's nothing wrong with a little tasteful philandering, so long as the right vibes are there."

So said the perpetual crime perpetrator to himself on his next personal mission..

OR

just the man with no feelings, soul, or conscience..

In other words, the dead, or Satan..

That's like-

Hey there's nothing wrong with a bit of vigorous adultery..

Or how about casual death?

I mean, you know..if the 'vibes' are there..

Yeesh..

Too much time spent at Satanic Majesties circa '69..

We're way past that era sir..

Come up for redemption..

Rinse twice.

Thank you..

a goil I know...
went to a surgeon to get a boob job.

She is an exotic dancer. She dances nude in front of, and upon, men or women who pay her $25.00 for 4 minutes of her attention.

That's $375.00 per hour potential. She usually walks out at 4:00am paying the house $500.00 and herself $750.00. PER NIGHT.

She wanted bigger boobs because partons wanted bigger boobs, and would pay more to see and experience them up close.

She usually made $250.00 a night. After the surgery, her pay went to the figures stated above.

Does she feel objectified? Of course. But, as she'll tell you, her price for self-objectification is $150.00 an hour.

This is America. For whatever reason you assign, it does not trump the almighty pursuit of the buck, and no matter how much you proselytize, you (I mean extortive Christians) will not change the mind of a stripper. Only age will do that... :)

I guess I could be wrong, seeing how my experience is as narrow as Annes is... mine being with a girl who is fortunate in the sex biz and hers with women who are victims of crime.

Can you REALLY realate the two?

purplestater writes:
Ethiopia mostly Christian
AudiR10 wrote:
< < just as those idiots who made "Do They Know Its Christmas" about kids who lived in a predomininently Muslim country and probably did not, as a matter of fact, know it was Christmas, > >

"Um, no.

Ethiopia (the subject of the song "Do They Know It's Christmas?") is about 60% Christian (mostly Orthodox), with Muslims being barely half that, about 32%."


This may be true, but the people who created and released "Do They Know It's Christmas" are still idiots!

FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!!!!
IT'S A LUAU!!!!!

For BHasting
Why do you make such a long issue about McCullogh's one instance of non-news when USA-Today has been doing this just about since inception?

I'll agree the article's question was one already answered; I've only seen a total of ONE liberal (David Kilgour***, a Canadian MP for an Edmonton constituency) with any shame/conscience since 1982 (the year that Pierre Trudeau showed "bird" to Canada, the nation of which he was INCUMBENT Prime Minister at the time).


***Until 1990, Kilgour was in the Conservative Party--until forced out by Mulroney due to his voting (with conscience--at least he came out doing right) against Mulroney's Gouge-and-Shaft-Tax (GST).

Maintenence Guy
"She wanted bigger boobs because partons wanted bigger boobs, and would pay more to see and experience them up close."

Forgive me, but Parton's had bigger boobs for donkey's years. And Dolly's are real.

Really...
why is it that people who campaign against Playboy know nothing about it? Why don't you ever READ what the "exploited" women say? They love it! Playboy teaches RESPECT of women, it glorifies them. The playmates tend to be successful in life, are often educated or in the process of getting an education, and are happy people. Playboy tells the world that women are to be taken care of, never hurt. It's not like Penthouse that has a shady record of trying to force women to be models; Playboy is voluntary and polite. I honestly can't think of a BETTER forum to hold a fundraiser for the well-being of women than an organization that so supports them, in ALL ways (not like feminists who support women and then tell them sex is bad).

Even pornography in general is not that bad. People volunteer to do that stuff. It's called "free market", and no conservative can really oppose it without using liberal rhetoric of "exploitation" and "unfair conditions". Really, the abuse of women itself is an issue far more worthy of bandwidth than a rant against Playboy.

BWM.Or Hugh Hefner? Only His hairdresser
BWM wrote:

"why is it that people who campaign against Playboy know nothing about it? Why don't you ever READ what the "exploited" women say? They love it! Playboy teaches RESPECT of women, it glorifies them"


Well, thank you for your taking the time to contribute, Mr. Hefner..

I am sure your fellow pervs in crime, looming around here, will be quite proud of you..


Hey...
I happen to have had only one, long relationship in my life and I treated her like a queen. The difference, then, between us is that you are narrow-minded and judgemental, even though we ultimately ACT similar in day-to-day life. Maybe, since you like long rants against people and so obviously have time to spare, you can look up the definition of the word "crime". Playboy never forces anyone to pose, no matter how much you hate them. It's all voluntary.

BTW, I enjoyed your LONG diatribe against black dog for his unfair debating methods, when it was followed by you just calling me a pervert and a criminal. Great way to be a hypocrite, I'm sure people will totally back your point of view if you call your opponents such nasty names enough times.

Evidence
There is conflicting information and a lack of conclusive evidence on the porn-violence link.

Until that is settled, the basis of the entire article is flawed.

And I'm not sure "Playboy" qualifies as porn.

BWM..sorry..
BWM wrote:

"Hey...
I happen to have had only one, long relationship in my life and I treated her like a queen. The difference, then, between us is that you are narrow-minded and judgemental, even though we ultimately ACT similar in day-to-day life. Maybe, since you like long rants against people and so obviously have time to spare, you can look up the definition of the word "crime". Playboy never forces anyone to pose, no matter how much you hate them. It's all voluntary."

No. I honestly felt, and feel, that your reply begged mine, because you could have easily been speaking as Hugh Hefner, for all of your advocacy..

I would even reply to the 'narrow minded and judgmental' at any length, because people saying that end up with three fingers pointing back at themselves-i.e Some of the most truly judgmental comments come from those who accuse others of being such. The very act has a boomerang effect.

As far as the word "crime" is concerned, well I'm sorry for that. I was not suggesting you were actually a criminal, but was alluding to partners in "crime", as in a mindset..In a sense though, a crime and a shame does occur every time a man or woman participates in these things, and it is a crime and shame that anyone would speak positively about that, or want it to occur..

And the fact remains, as an aside on crime-that porn is a HUGE factor in violent crimes and how they happen! Any less of this fact being expressed could be seen as a nod, or a blind eye to the criminal-though maybe not intentionally. It simply is true!

To my understanding, suicide-bombing is voluntary too..Not all things that are volitional are neither healthy, or good..Mainly because, sometimes, people just don't know what they're doing-Or don't care..

"BTW, I enjoyed your LONG diatribe against black dog for his unfair debating methods, when it was followed by you just calling me a pervert and a criminal. Great way to be a hypocrite, I'm sure people will totally back your point of view if you call your opponents such nasty names enough times."

Well I am sorry to have called you a pervert and a criminal, BWM, I suppose I was still coming off the heels from some annoyance at the previous commenter addressing me here..

As for nasty, that is not my style. It has never been..I know I run long-Don't want to-Sometimes, for some reason, it takes the long way around to what I wish to say..In any case..

You were, clearly, in the line of fire, right after I replied to the other post-er.

But, I cannot say I am the same as you. I won't call you a pervert, or say you are one involved in
true formal crimes..But a lot of what you've advocated *is* perversion to the Christian, and many Conservatives..And the crime lies therein..

Anyone who shares that playboy is not porn is not seeing things clearly-when it comes to this-OR has an extremely limited purview of decency limits, when it comes to right and wrong..

You are free to call me schoolmarm librarian on this, or other dumb stuff-"judgmental" or worse..
But it's not like anyone here really knows my heart..

Essentially, all we see here are people's passions, occasionally, their frustrations, and points if view..And that is all..

I won't pretend I can draw any conclusions about anyone with just words on a screen..not truly..
For anyone here to do that would be to
a s s u m e they are God, or have His knowledge..

I CAN judge right or wrong words, behaviors and mindsets-and this is what I had been doing..

I see no way, whatsoever, that that
defines you, or me..

Point taken..

But Playboy is still perversion..

I don't care how "uncool", for five minutes in this day and age anyway, that is to some of you..

Christian woman aim for a life of purity and holiness on to God. I am not saying we are perfect..

There is a big difference, actually, between that and the priggish "analysis" of *me* here, as if..

That is because people are three dimensional, I'm sure you know..

As opposed to tv characters, or images in a glossy magazine, or book..

I am glad you agreed with me on Black Dog..
I regret calling him an "a s s", and my apology for that, but his talk was tomfool..

Some things I can't control..It was what it was, is what it is..

On that we are agreed..


Dear Anne
Good and riddance. But before you go, just remember that you post like a typical lefty: when they lose an argument they name-call. Lame, Anne, lame, but not surprising from someone who is a Certified Domestic Violence & Abuse Counselor, that is, someone who was schooled in a "scientific" discipline notorious for its anti-male bias.



..didn't I just say .
Robert E Lee wrote:

"..Lame, Anne, lame, but not surprising from someone who is a Certified Domestic Violence & Abuse Counselor, that is, someone who was schooled in a "scientific" discipline notorious for its anti-male bias."

Uhmm.. didn't I just say the same thing-with different words-a few days ago-
above?..

True point though-If reiterated..

WOW
Just a thought here but PORN is not new and HUGH did not invent it.. When camers and film were invented they were put to work taking nude and sexual activety of women/men, women/women, men/men, etc,etc.... Search the net for vintage porn. Prior to that canvas and piant were doing the samething. We all know what has happened with the NET and TV's and in home DVD/VHS so no need to spend time on that either. And further more all the hub-bub about the "wired sex act's and fetishes" being new to this generation is also b/s.... Read about the ROMANS and Egyptians and the Pruivunes and, and, and... You have to ask the BIBLE thumpers why in the world would GOD be telling man not to have sex with an a**, or man on man or women on women if someone way back when wasnt doing it. So give me a dam* break.

As far as the Hugh and his place being the location for this event I have to say it seams ODD. But saying this is not right is the same as saying if you have FUND with a publisher who prints this stuff, or a transportation company who moves this stuff you are gulity by association and a part of the system of PORN is also b/s. If you want to take this view then we are all guilty of being PRO-PORN. So let them make the money and try and do some good with it. 80% or more will never make it to the people in real need anyway. Just like most events like this someone will find a way to skim from the top and bottom lines.

Now Who Is Going To Believe the Word of
How who is going to believe the word of Lucifer?
Or any so called stats which say sick and silly lies about Christians?

Not anyone who has spent any time with genuine Christians, or has a shred of sense..

Are we supposed to believe a thing just because someone rigged up some poll and plopped it online?

And, besides, why are we supposed to believe a post by someone named "Lucifer"?

(Though Satan can work under any name and still do what he does best..)

Don't you know the Bible says that Satan is the Father of lies? And was a liar from the beginning?

Go elsewhere with your slanders and deceit pal..

You fool no one here..



Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.