Pleasant times these are in the blogosphere. Before a Traditional Catholic and a friend of mine showed up to man the ramparts and stave off my critics, I was, like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Duncan Hunter, considering the nuclear option. For my blog, that would be banning anonymous comments, and removing controversial or offensive remarks. However, having myself been annoyed by such policies in the past, I decided against it. Nonetheless, it gets more tiring than one might realize to receive several critical comments for each post. Blogging's not as fun as it once was. Since this didn't happen in high school, I'm supposing it's because people have not gotten to know me that well. Here's a helpful summary:Just like Ann Coulter ["I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it"], I operate with a hierarchy of values. The three things I love most are, in order
I. God
II. The Fair Sex
III. Coca-Cola
Everything else follows after those three. Because Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (John 14:6), I include principle and personal values as the lower half of I.
Now, as I have said before, I am a contrarian, and see no need to try to fit in. In 4th grade, I was told that my goal "is to be just like everybody else" by an annoying woman on the faculty. I have made my living since then by doing the opposite of what that advice would suggest whenever possible. Why, you may ask, do I wear a tie? Back in sophomore year of high school, I saw a very nice performance of West Side Story, and everyone on stage was wearing a tie. They all looked so nice, and I figured, 'It may be unpopular and out of style, but it's not illegal to dress well, so I'll do it anyway'.
Maybe I could have a girlfriend if I dressed in a manner everyone else accepts and I have. So what! Should I really be looking for a woman who is so influenced by the society around her that she is scared off by a style of dress that was perfectly acceptable for our age group before the late 1960s? Or by a my cleanly parted, relatively long hair? Or by my obsessions with Catholicism and politics? Or which my poetry which, despite criticism from the tails of the bell curve, the actual recipients have always appreciated? Or from any of that sort of jazz? No. If a damsel doesn't want to go out with me because of my crooked smile, or another facet of my physical appearance, more power to them. I'm just looking for a lady that is
wise and independent enough to look past the standards and expectations or society, and who will judge a person by something more than how they match up to the media-made templete of attractiveness. Contrary to what some have gotten from their first impression of me,
the intellectual, makeup-hating damsel in cultural distress has no greater friend than me, crusader88. Anyhow, this has been irrelevent thusfar in college. Of the three ladies I either planned to ask out or actually did, two already had boyfriends and one was still sad because of a painful breakup, God help her soul. Besides, don't James Bond and Justin Timberlake also wear ties and sportcoats? I see no deficit of women for either of them.
If I don't find my true love at Assumption, I can always go after a Traditional Catholic hottie. Where they come from (St. Mary's, KS, and other rural communities), ties are all the rage. So remember: the next person who feels like saying "Lose the tie", don't~ if you really want to annoy me about it, please put at least a first name (or a consistent pseudonym) down, or just talk to me face to face.
Your blogger in the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
~
Also: Happy All Soul's Day.
posted by crusader @ 10:56 AM
23 Comments:
I find it a little offensive that people frequently refer to girls as 'hotties' or being 'hot.' It seems to imply that you are only interested in them for their sexual appeal (that is where the term is derived; they are attractive enough to get your hormones going, making you 'hot.')
Suggestion: Recognize a depth behind a girl, and see her as a person, not just a manifestation of beauty. An overemphasis on 'hotness' can be degrading towards a girl.
I love my wife very much, I find her to be very beautiful, and I make sure to let her know that. However, I have never referred to her as 'hot' to others because it implies that I am merely infatuated with the sexual aspect of her nature. Her femininity is sacred, and as her husband, it is my duty to see that it remains as such.
Words like 'hot,' 'smoking,' and 'banging' are all terms that seem to exploit that nature because of their sexual connotation, and I have always suggested that people refrain from using such terminology in describing women.
-one was still sad because of a painful breakup-
Actually, this is just the time to make your move! Do not delay!
Leslie Higgins, you KEEP THAT TIE ON and be who God made you to be, quirkiness and all!
Leslie,
Your identity is much more than your sharp dress, but boy do I support it! You are absolutely right, the tie is a classy statement and your consistent devotion to proper dress is something everyone should strive for. I’m sure your real catholic Madonna will see this.
Hope you are well,
Bryan
@ barry wade,
I'm just looking for a lady that is wise and independent enough to look past the standards and expectations or society, and who will judge a person by something more than how they match up to the media-made templete of attractiveness.
If I only cared about how women looked, I would not have said that. I just think its important they know how nice they look in the most accurate terms possible.
i'm a little contrary myself!
I'm so happy to see a guy (you) who is well-groomed and wears a tie (and suit) well!
Will you consider some advice from an older (30ish) woman? Stay clean and neat; dress in classic menswear that fits well; but beyond that, don't obsess about your appearance or creating a "style" or "look"! I know that it's really tough not to be overly self-conscious (and to some degree I think that it's something that happens as one acquires extra confidence).... But keep concentrating on what's inside of you! Substance is what counts, in dating and marriage as everywhere else. You're a man, not a clotheshorse.
Read, pray, study, and maintain your interest in people and ideas! A kind, considerate, well-informed gentleman who focuses on getting to know a woman (rather than on himself!) is truly attractive.
(Sorry for the lecture.) :)
I do not want to start an unnecessary argument here but in all honesty, you have completely changed your argument. Originally, and up until now, you have posted and told me and other people around me that you were only interested in girls' appearances. You proceeded to talk about how anyone that looked like Mary (the mother of Jesus) was the ideal. Now you have changed your arguement to prove yourself to "barry wade." Anyone that does not believe me should just refer to his past postings or even simpler, the "About Me" section. And I quote, "...my #1 goal is to be married, and convince my future wife to beget a big Catholic family [six or more children would be nice]!" How is that allowing for her to be independent? As a friend of mine mentioned, are you possibly referring to her "loss of power" once you marry her and her inability to make any future decisions without you? Also, you continuously use the word "damsels". It implies their helplessness and dependence on you. Again, how is that independent? You'll have to look at your arguments for consistency, because I assume your blogs are a real representation of your views, and not just there for argument's sake (you have admitted that you will argue for fun, regardless of whether you agree with the person or not).
I never meant that I thought that you felt that way about girls and only cared about looks; all I wanted to say was that I think that you should be careful about the terminology you use and the implications behind them.
Anonymous, I must provide an unnecessary answer: you have fully misunderstood me, because you appear to be reading my words through a feminist bias.
By "independent", I was referring to the ability to think without undue influence from the culture. By "damsel in cultural distress", etc. I meant someone who does not buy into the feminist mythology which the media presses on today's female, i.e. that being a stay at home mom and fitting the traditional role of the woman in society is not fulfilling, and is imposed on them by the patriarchy. Most women (and men) hold the ideas of feminism as unquestionable, either because they have been truly brainwashed, or because they do not want to seem sexist. Several intelligent women I have been acquainted with, some on my blogroll, others who are nuns who attend a Traditional Mass I've sometimes attended, and even such authors as Colleen Hammond have realized that feminism is an un-Christian sham, and have rejected it without becoming "powerless".
And yes, I really have emphasized the prettiness of women in my blog, and I see no reason that this should cause offense. You seem to have not realized that women can be both cute and smart at once (what a novel idea for the feminists), and that I have never denied that. Rest assured, my future wife will not only be the subject of poems, but will additionally be my first colleague in political and theological discussion.
Also, I enjoy debating, and even though I will emphasize differences in opinion, I will not argue over something of which there is full agreement. Another misunderstanding.
To define somebody as a "feminist" is tremendously vague. I don't consider myself a "feminist" because of the implication of "manhating," which is terrible and hypocritical of the whole movement in itself. I see myself as equal to men, nothing less, nothing more. I will have a career, so will my husband. I don't believe in daycare, so when I have children, my husband and I will have to come to some agreement. I will not submit to the 1950's cookie cutter societal roles, therefore my husband and I will equally divide raising our children in the home.
I must disagree with you, being a stay at home wife/mother severely limits the life of a woman, and depending on the extreme of the situation, can even somewhat shelter her from society as a whole. Granted children are a joy, and quite fulfilling emotionally, any person (woman or man) must explore life further, if they are to say they truly lived. To have life planned out for you is exactly what this country is .not. about. We all have life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it is up to us, not tradition, to decide what constitutes happiness for each individual.
hello ,
i just wanted to say that i am extremely offended by the way you talk about college girls my age. there is more to girls than just their physical appearance and beauty. we have brains and thats why some colleges have more women than men for a ratio. also, the term damsel is extremely old fashioned and quite lame to be bold. damsels used to be known as weak individuals....i would prefer you lose that term out of your vocabulary because women are not weak...we are actually fighting in the military alongside men now ..so if that doesnt prove women are just as strong as men then i dont know what will.
omen having careers is NOT cultural distress!
My wife, Diana, is a nurse. We do not have any children of our own yet (we have only recently been married), though when we do, Diana intends to be a stay at home mother until our children are in school. However, because of the way her scheduling works, she will be able to continue to work part-time as a nurse, and we won't have any need to put our children in daycare.
Diana's role as a nurse helps to supplement our income so that we will be able to better afford our children. It also allows for her to interact with other members of the community, and to keep herself occupied. It allows for her to better see what is going on in the world, and is therefore better experienced, and will be able to better raise our children and prepare them to live in the real world.
When our children are in school, she will return to working full-time. I see no reason why she should be kept at home. It is financially advantageous, it allows for her to do something that she enjoys, it allows for her to gain more experience, and, most importantly, it is a good way for us to safeguard ourselves. Suppose I were very seriously injured and could not work? Our family would be in financial jeopardy if Diana did not have her nursing degree.
There is NOTHING against stay-at-home mothers. My mother was one. She was a math teacher. She tutored part time when we were young, which was quite lucrative, and returned to teaching once we were in school. My wife Diana, as I said before, intends to take time off to be a stay-at-home mother. But there is also nothing wrong with a girl getting an education and a career for herself. She can do both without a problem. My mother and mother-in-law did it wonderfully, both of my grandmothers did it wonderfully, and my wife intends to replicate that.
-i would prefer you lose that term out of your vocabulary-
The Thought Police have arrived!
I can't win! I explain my position, and you all either ignore me and say I still offend you when I'm trying to be respectful, or you accuse me of being in the wrong for supporting "cookie cutter" rules by wanting men to have the career and women to be stay at home moms unless there is economic necessity: if they all did this, then there would be better less competition in job markets, and jobs would be higher paying, and many more children could be homeschooled and taken out of government-run secular schools.
Either you are all atheists, or you missed everything that has been said of the sexes in the Bible, from their distinct roles in Genesis 3, to the verses on their role in church in I Corinithians 14:33-36. This (@ Marie) is where my argument has stemmed from, not from any supposed physical deficiency. The reason women should not serve in the military, and that married women should only go to college for purely educational purposes or economic necessity, as you said, does not stem from a physical reality, but from Christian morality (see the Catechism of the Council of Trent). The roles of man and woman are helpful definitions which made our society stronger when they were still followed by mainstream society.
Also, when I say "feminist", I do not only mean the media stereotype; I refer to anyone who rejects the traditional roles of male and female in society as a feminist. Likewise, while the sexes are fundamentally equal, the belief that that equality in dignity must be lived out by giving the sexes androgynous roles is a feminist. Sadly, this accurate and sober definition leaves all but a few Traditional Catholics and evangelical fundamentalists on the side of error.
Finally, I can barely remember what my critics were even so offended by in my original post. Compared with what has been construed from it, it is totally innocuous; I even mentioned the anti-feminist yet undoubtably "independent", "wise", strong, etc. woman Ann Coulter as a personal role model. Perhaps I will throw all the feminists in the blogosphere a bone by conveniently ignoring the fact that women do indeed look, in general, attractive to me and other men for a few posts. Any person who insists on ranting against me in comment after comment for the high crime of calling a woman "h*t" or a "d*msel"should just go away. As Rob said (thanks again), the Thought Police [I usually prefer PCP for Politically Correct Police] have arrived, and you are them. This is not the last time those terms will be used on The Young and Once Good Pundit!
Okay, I think that I understand where you're coming from, but I really think that it might be time for you to open up your Bible again.
Look at Romans 16:1: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant [Or deaconess] of the church in Cenchrea."
Now check out Acts 18:1-22, and you'll get an account of Aquila and Priscilla, a husband and wife team who worked alongside Paul. Priscilla was a tentmaker, just like her husband Aquila. They were business partners. In Romans 16:3, St. Paul greets Priscilla and Aquila as fellow WORKERS in Christ.
Phoebe and Priscilla were both working women, and St. Paul praises them both for being women of the Lord. Phoebe is presumably single, and Priscilla is obviously a married woman. If God had not intended for women to work, then why would He have allowed for two working women to be included in His inspired Word? We know that the Bible was inspired by God, and in this, He makes it known that working women, both married and single, are apart of His plan.
Now, let's go back to Genesis where you get your logic from. Yes, in Genesis 3:16, God does say to Eve 'Your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.' However, this is not the way that the Lord intended for it to be, it is this way as a consequence of original sin. In other words, this is not the way that God had wanted for it to be, it is how we humans CHOSE for it to be.
Now, let's take a look back before the Fall, when all was perfect as God HAD intended. In creating Eve, God notices that the man is alone, and He says in Genesis 2:18: 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.' He proceeds to make many different animals, though none are suitable helpers, and then He makes woman for the man.
Let us re-examine that verse- 'I will make a suitable HELPER for him.' This will vary from translation to translation, some say helper, some say partner, but they all basically mean the same thing: Adam needs someone who will be able to work alongside him in the Garden and tend to it with him. This is when the roles of the sexes has reached perfection; though they are not identical, they are equal in all things, and share equally in all things.
Why did God say later on that the man shall rule over his wife? As I stated earlier, it is because we were bound to original sin at that point; Christ had not yet come and freed us from the repercussions of sin. When Christ took on flesh, was killed for our sake and then rose from the dead, it overturned that way of life, and people were once more freed from the bondage of sin, and were no longer confined to the roles that sin had bound them to. There are still very distinct roles (as I said, men and women are not identical, and therefore do have different roles to play in a relationship) but they are not the so called 'traditional roles' that you are advocating.
Lastly, in regards to how people are reacting to your terminology. Yes, I will agree with you, many people these days are far too easily offended. But check out the first book of Peter in Chapter 10 verse 16: 'Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech.'
As I said earlier, be careful of the thoughts and words you use. 'Hot' implies a preoccupation with the sexual nature of a woman, and because of it's implications (whether it was said innocently or not) it definitely falls within the confines of this verse.
God Bless!
Yo whats up? Yeah I have a comment for the Crusader guy. I think it is horrible to judge women on their appearences and I really dont like your ideas about the roles of women. Women are people, men are also people. Just because we look different and have different attributes does not define who we are going to be in life. Women deserve every right to education, a career, and every single thing that is offered to a man. The fact that you think you are some how superior to someone just because you have a penis is laughable. How would you like it if some ignorant ass woman told you to know your place and go back to the kitchen where a good man belongs. Then they start quoting the bible like they are some divine messenger from God or should I say a Crusader. Wouldn't that just piss you off? You seriously need to change your ideas about women if you ever plan on having a wife. No woman will want to be treated so poorly so forget about those 8 kids that you want. Whatever voice that is in your head that is telling you that you are right is wrong. Don't listen to it. In fact, do the opposite and you may even kiss a girl for the first time in your life. No offense but everyone on campus considers you a nuisance and your ideas offend people even outside of Assumption (myself included). The Bible may have said two things about women staying at home but it said alot of things otherwise. Either way, we live in the present. Thoughts from 2000 years ago aren't always the right ones. God wants us to accept people and not throw them down. Try loving thy neighbor, and respecting the women in the world around you. We learn over time what the right path is and that is why women have gained so much progress over the years. Go ahead, quote the Bible like you wrote it. In the mean time I'll be doing what I know is holy and what the world says is right.
Oh and a side thought. It is extremely offensive that you call anyone who disagrees with you an Aetheist. You know nothing of what real religion is. You think that just becasue you went to Sunday school as a kid that you know everything. You are so incredibly wrong. You havent seen the world and seen what religion means to people. Trust me, I have been to 3rd world countries as a missionary. Try going to a place where there is no electricity and no cars and see how happy the people are because they have the lord. Its easy for you to claim that you knwo God and his work wehn you go home to your heated house, turn on the tv, grab a soda from the fridge and sit on your couch. Try cutting your own firewood to heat your home, giving up your kids to orphanges because you cant afford them, and eating the same thing every day because it is all that your tiny salary can buy. Once you live like that and still find so much hapiness through God you can call yourself truly religious. Yeah you have a read a long book that wasnt even written by Jesus but so has everyone else in the world. You may think God sent you and that you are some divine messenger but trust me, youre not. Go out and experience the Lord through service, devotion, and charity and then come call me an atheist.
i would elect joe kickass for president
-God wants us to accept people and not throw them down.-
How do you know this? I am neither denying nor affirming your statement. I just wonder what you source of spiritual wisdom is. Where is this said?
-You may think God sent you and that you are some divine messenger but trust me, youre not.-
Yes, trust joe kick ass.
OK, I find some of the opinons in the blog questionable, too, but there's no reason to be brutal or insulting. Cohesive arguments are great, but better yet, if you know him, actually TALK about it! What a concept! Taking responsibility for your opinions! I think everyone here has gone too far in your criticisms. These posts are just fueling other peoples passions, and it's getting out of hand.
Leslie, here's the thing.
I know that getting advice from older people is a good idea, but not when it comes to dating in a generation that is disimilar from their own. I agree with the guy who said that you shouldn't use "hot" as a term to describe a girl, but the woman who said to keep rocking the tie, I don't know. I think you should do what you want and wear what you want and make all the statements you want, but people before the late 1960's wore t-shirts and jeans, too. It's okay to have a down day every once in a while. the whole dress and demeanor makes you a little scary and unapproachable in my opinion. I don't get it, but it doesn't intruigue me, so I'm not drawn to ask you questions about it.
The other thing is that you don't really wear suits. You wear a dress shirt and pants and a tie with chuck taylors. Not a suit by any stretch of the imagination. Shoes and the man make the suit.
Plus, you are neither James Bond, nor are you Justin Timberlake, nor do you daily attend events that Bond and JT would. I'm anxious to see which stops you pull out when you have to get dressed up legitimately. Do you have a tux lurking in your closet?
Finally, Ann Coulter is out of her mind. She says stuff that I just cannot believe, like the stuff about the 9/11 wives and pretty much anything else she says (P.S. I mostly feel like it's for shock value). In any case, I wouldn't be attracted to anyone who is as radical as she is, and the fact that you identify with her as a "mean-spirited, bigoted conservative" is off putting on more than one level. Just from a romantic point of view. It's hard to find people who are that gung-ho about stuff like that today, especially at Assumption College.
That's all.
i want you leslie
i want to have your babies
i think ur ties are hottt
ive watched you from afar
i want ur penis in my mouth
:o<-----
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home