Did Perez Hilton Post Child Porn?

You've probably already heard but apparently people are accusing Perez Hilton of posting pictures of Miley Cyrus on his website wearing a see through dress without any underwear and apparently all can be seen. The problem for Perez is that Miley is seventeen years old, a minor, so if the pictures were real then legally it was child porn and Perez is in deep trouble. No one knows for sure because Perez had them scrubbed from his server the same day after being accused of child pornography and immediately claimed that she did have underwear. Nice to know there are still some laws on the book that have teeth.

I'm not here to rehash whether Perez committed a felony nor here to discuss his character. It is interesting to note that this is the same Perez who verbally assaulted runner up Miss California in the Miss USA pageant after she gave an answer not to his liking about homosexual marriage.  I'm also not here to discuss my disappointment in Miley Cyrus and her all too revealing outfits.

What I want to discuss is our societies perversity of turning young girls into sex objects.

Before we begin this discussion there is one very important fact that we (particularly women) must understand about men. Once you understand this undeniable fact (because you can poll one thousand men about this and nine hundred and ninety five will agree with me and the other five are lying to impress you) then you will fully understand the dangerous waters that we are wading, nay, plunging into as a society.

The simple fact about men is when it comes to sex is that we are visual. Period, end of story and debate. If you are a married women you may have noticed that when you walk around the house naked you husband will attack you. If not he either has health issues or your marriage has serious problems. God made men so that it is the eye that attracts and trust me, don't think you have to have the curves of a supermodel to get his engine running.

Now I know women everywhere went, "I knew it! Men are all dogs!!"  I want to take a moment here to defend the good men in society. Men are not dogs. Men who sleep with everyone they can are dogs and give the good men out there a bad name. That's like saying because there are women who like to sleep around then all women are sluts. Just because a man sees something visually that he likes doesn't mean he has the right hit on it. In civilized society men are expected to show restraint, married men are allowed to go to only one well. Not all women are sluts and not all men are dogs.

But all men are visual. This is why the pornography business, even if exaggerated, is at minimum a billion dollar a year industry in the US. This is why ninety eight percent of the men in the US have used or use porn and the other two percent have trouble with lying. Porn appeals to the very core of a man's sexuality; his eyes. Women accuse men of thinking with the member between his legs but trust me on this one its the member between his eyeballs. If women really knew what went on in a man's head you would be more sicken than you are now.

Men do have the ability to admire the beauty of a women without lusting after her. When a man looks at a women and says to himself, 'Wow, she's beautiful', at this point he has not sinned. He is simply admiring her beauty, say the way I look after a 2010 Dodge Challenger (Wait, that might not be a good example). However, if a man looks a women and then begins to imagine her in a sexual way he is lusting and according to Jesus, has committed adultery in his heart (Matthew 5:28). I know you women out there want us to be attracted to your bubbly personality and winning heart but I am here to tell you it's what we see that catches our attention. For most men what we see is not enough to enter into a lifetime commitment but it does make us curious enough to find out if there is the other characteristics we are looking for in a mate (as was in my personal case).

Now past (and some present cultures) understood the effect the naked feminine body had on a man. Hence floor length squirts and it was scandalous to show an ankle; a thigh and a women was slut. Both Islamic and Christian extremes have unjustly blamed women for what they possess and have sought to severely restrict any view of the female flesh whatsoever to the point of head coverings. I don't think we should go back to severe restrictions on feminine fashion (we forget, it was just a hundred years ago it was dangerous for a women to show up wearing pants). But the pendulum has swung way, way too far the opposite direction and now we are endangering our children.

There is a fantastic water park within an hour from where we live and every year the family goes out and we have a good time. What I saw this year basically shocked me. If being shocked seeing 13 - 17 year old girls walking around in bikinis so tiny and revealing that they may as well have been naked makes you a prude then for me it's official. Most of these girls were not skinny prepubescent sticks either, they easily could have passed for older women if not for the baby fat and childish behavior. I was constantly looking at my feet the entire day but many men were openly lusting.

The question I have for the parents of these children, at least I think so, is fair: "Who the hell let these kids out dressed like this?" I mean really, get a clue. You think your daughter showing that much flesh is not going to be attracting unwarranted attention? Pedophiles and child molesters are looking for young women to exploit and you are apparently willing to provide the bait. Children in that age group have absolutely no business dressing that skimpy in public (much less mature women).

Disregarding the sickos in our society looking to hurt your young daughters what about men such as myself, faithful to our wives and respectful to women (open the doors for them, let them ahead in the line, etc) who train our minds not to go where its not suppose to go and your allowing your daughter to basically stand naked in front of us. We are honorable men and we won't do anything but don't expect us not to be disgusted.

What is frightening is that dressing girls in tight shirts showing cleavage with shorts that ride inches from the pubic area is becoming the norm. I have a twelve year old daughter and we are disgusted with the current offerings for girls from the ages of 10 - young adult. We have to shop and shop and shop just to find clothes that we are somewhat satisfied with. There is an apparent attempt by clothes designers to cloth young women with as little as possible.

When a women dresses in such a fashion that she is showing cleavage, belly, shapely legs and tight clothes that leave no imagination to the shape of her body whether she knows it or not she is advertising that she is sexually available. When women wear makeup they use blush which simulates flushing of the cheeks and lipstick which simulates the way their lips flush during sex. If I walk into my bedroom and my wife is dressed in lingerie with high heels and stockings and wearing makeup I don't look at her and say, "What a wonderful outfit. That really goes with your skin tone and hair color." I pounce. My wife is advertising her desire for sex and who am I to deny her?

When you send your little girls out in the world dressed in such a way that previous generations would have labeled them sluts their little bodies are sending signals to men that they are sexually active and when you let them wear heavy makeup it doubles the effect. Many men walk by and say, "Who am I to deny her?". You are allowing your daughters to dress inappropriately and provocatively.

Now I want a disclaimer here; no woman, regardless of how she dresses deserves to be sexually abused, manhandled or raped. I don't care if she is standing out in the street naked; if I see a man treat a woman that way my wife will probably be bailing me out of jail. No woman deserves to be hurt in such a fashion, period. But men deserve the courteousness of women dressing modestly. Women can wear pants or skirts and tops and come off pretty and not as a sexual billboard. Any men who protest this of course have one thing on their mind. I mean, come on women out there, who do you think invented the bikini? It was two Frenchmen of course!

But what is really disheartening is how nobody speaks against this discerning trend. If you are a full grown women and you want to display your flesh in all its glory then so be it but don't wonder why you are always attracting the wrong type of men. Allowing your children to dress this way is unconscionable. Do not let your daughters out the door without a clothes inspection and do not negotiate. Set boundaries for your child and stick to them and it helps if you model the rules yourself. I think a lot of this has to do also with too many fathers not in the house. If you are a father and you wife is allowing your young girls to dress this way she may not be doing it on purpose. Many women just don't get the visual aspect of a man's sexuality (I guarantee you I will get many women posting on this blog complaining that it shouldn't be this way. Sigh.) Please set your daughter and wife down and explain how men look at women. Be brutally honest. Set standards and enforce them.

Now I know some of you think that I am being as shrilly as Perez Hilton about turning our children into sex objects. So I want to show you some pictures I took at the mall the other day.

The above picture is right in the front of the store as you walk in next to this one:

Now your probably thinking this is the area for young women. Nope. Your wrong:

It's the Juniors section. THE JUNIORS. Notice how the younger girl (picture one) is in the more sexually suggestive position and is showing more leg than the older girl (picture 2). This is a major department store who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty.

We have to stop buying these terrible clothes for our daughters (vote by wallet) and we need to start complaining to the stores. I walked into this same store about a year ago and they had pictures of women in lingerie in poses that could only possibly be called 'soft porn'. I sent the children out into the mall and called a floor manager down to complain that I did not want my kids seeing those pictures. She quickly agreed and an hour later we walked by and they were gone.

Perez Hilton may be a menace to society and if Miley Cyrus was indeed flying free that day he had no right to publish those photos. But he is dead on when he shrills about young underage women dressing inappropriately. We as fathers and mothers need to protect our children and stop our society from turning them into sex objects. They deserve their childhood and we need to fight for it.

Response To Comments on Homosexuality Part II

First of all I want to thank all of you who have responded and have respected the boundaries of healthy debate. Living in the greatest country in the history of civilization (in my humble opinion) we sometimes forget that one of the things that astonishes our admirers and enemies alike is our ability to live peacefully among those we, sometimes vehemently, disagree with.

Having said this I want to say, particularly to the homosexuals who have responded to my blog, that I in no way condone violence towards those who choose that lifestyle and your welcome at my Church (not just my words, our Pastor's words). As a born again Christian I am called by Jesus to love the sinner (and that can't be just lip service, in needs to be action) and rightfully so; I am a sinner and I have no trouble loving myself.

The debate here is whether the act of homosexuality is a morally acceptable one. What is not in question here is whether Jesus or myself love homosexuals. He does and as he is my master so shall I. It is interesting that many of the commentators responded to my philosophical arguments with spiritual ones which is what I was trying to avoid in Part II; Part I explains where the Bible stands on homosexuality. Part II was from the view point of secular moral view point and not the Biblical truth.

There were some very, very good arguments presented that we could go around and around on till the second coming and not convince or change each others view points. (My best friend and I have argued consistently for the last ten years if 'Time' actually exists.) There were some arguments I could systematically dismantle but do not have the time or inclination. However, there is one that needs to be addressed.

It was articulated extremely well and I will quote the part I want to address verbatim:

I love my boyfriend. My lesbian friend loves her girlfriend.
I look at us both, and I think "What is different? We both kiss our partner, we both hold hands with our partner, we both talk to our partner, we both take pictures with our partner, and we both look at our partner's in the eye. What is society's problem?"

This is an excellent question and deserves an answer. I may have the left the impression that homosexuals are incapable of any resemblance of a healthy relationship and I want you to understand that is not what I believe. I've seen, unfortunately, many marriages dysfunctional to their very core. Marriage does not guarantee a healthy relationship and being homosexual does not guarantee (although I believe it does lend itself) to promiscuity. Then why should it matter?

Because marriage is not based on relationships. Now I know this is very contrary to what many of you have been taught. Many of you have been indoctrinated that someday when you are young and beautiful you will be walking along minding your own business when you will look up and see the most beautiful person in the entire world and your eyes will lock simultaneously with your hearts and you will instantly understand each other and hang on every word of your beloved and they will understand you in such a complete way they will meet your every need and you will have healthy beautiful well behaved children and grow old and happy with each other.

And it is utter hogwash. The reason that the divorce rate in the United States is approaching 50% is because people (especially young people) really believe the aforementioned love scenario and after about six months of marriage they figure out that the reality falls far, far, far, short of expectations.

Marriage to society is a contractual agreement that guarantees the survival of the society and its culture and it the raising of children who will further that society. There is really no other point of marriage. The concept that it should be based on love or relationship is a very recent idea. Now I know this sounds foreign to many of you but what may shock you even further is that modern studies indicate that arranged marriages are happier overall than Western marriages and India has the lowest divorce rate of any democracy, hands down. There are many misconceptions about arranged marriages (that they are forced for instance) but I have always thought that cultures that participate in these types of relationships always have a healthier attitude towards marriage than than Western culture. (Yes, I am sure there are abuses of arranged marriages just as there are abuses of dating in Western culture. Also, I am not advocating the approach in the USA but it would probably be healthier if young adults allowed their parents more input in the selection of their spouse). Whether there is a true correlation or not it is interesting to note that cultures that have the lowest divorce rates have the lowest toleration for adultery, sex outside of marriage and homosexuality.

I heard Ellen DeGeneres (I personally think her show is hilarious) once say how people on the far right always say that if you allow homosexuals to marry then you would have people marrying cats and dogs. Why do they always say that, she quipped, its always straight to bestiality. With this very funny statement though Ellen actually makes the argument I am presenting.

What she is saying is that homosexuality should be accepted but of course bestiality should not be. What she is saying is that just because people are homosexuals doesn't mean they are not moral and doesn't meant they don't have standards. That allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't meant that you should allow people to sleep with animals as there are still things that people should not be allowed to do.

But that is exactly the problem. The moment we say that marriage is no longer a contractual agreement between a man and a woman and society but based upon relationships and feelings we have now opened Pandora's box. If a man has feelings for two women why should he not marry both? If a man has feelings for a man and a woman why not all three of them marry? If a man has feelings for his daughter, why can they not legitimately marry. If a woman has feelings for her son why can she not legitimately marry him? If men have feelings for boys why should they not be able to have sex with them?

What your saying is that sex should no longer be allowed exclusively between a man and a woman in a marriage contract only but with whomever and whatever one has feelings for. Many are confused in western culture because we have already destroyed the first line of resistance which is sex outside of marriage which was not tolerated in Western culture as recently as 150 years ago. Marriage has become an option if one is having sex, not the only option for having sex. In Western culture sex is now based on feelings and emotions, not on marriage so of course it now makes perfect sense for people to sleep with the same sex.

The issue here is not really whether homosexuality is moral but whether sex outside of marriage is moral. Either it is not and we in the West have been very bad (and I think the destroyed marriages and children show the fruit of our behavior) or anything goes and we need to drop all the pretenses. Now some of you homosexuals are going to tell me that we cannot allow incest or sex with children but my question is where does your moral standard come from? Yourself? What tells you that you have the right to sleep with the same sex but a man does not have that right with his daughter?

If the moral decadence in our society continues and I was a dog or cat I would start looking for places to hide.