For example, for nearly 30 years, when Hollywood was run according to the Motion Picture Code of Decency, enforced by the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Film Office, the movie industry saw an unprecedented economic boom. That fiscal prosperity only began to wane when Christian churches pulled away from Hollywood in the 1960s and movies reached increasingly new levels of immorality featuring more and more graphic sex, violence, and obscene language.

Toward the end of this Golden Age of Hollywood, the movie industry was selling 9.43 tickets per person in the United States and Canada, but now sells only about 4.1 tickets per person.

Also, nearly two decades of research by Movieguide, a non-profit family guide to movies and entertainment supported by Christian donors and general subscriptions, shows that family friendly movies with no graphic sex, violence, and obscene language earn more than two to six times as much money at the box office, on average, as movies with such graphic content.

That’s exactly what Movieguide tells Hollywood’s top executives each year in Movieguide’s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry (which is also highlighted at the Annual Movieguide Faith & Values Awards Gala held each February and attended by many of those executives).

Ironically, a study released by the Parents Television Council in 2008 revealed that the amount of foul language on primetime network TV has skyrocketed since 1998. Meanwhile, a study of foul language in G, PG, and PG-13 movies revolving around teenagers by three Brigham Young University professors shows that the 1980s movies they studied averaged 35 obscenities or profanities per movie, but decreased to 25 per movie in the 1990s and 16 per movie in the current decade, in the wake of Movieguide®’s annual study, which began in 1991.

This is no surprise to Movieguide®, which reported a 2006 poll by The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg that most teenagers are offended by depictions of foul language and sex in movies and television.

Teenagers are the most frequent moviegoers, according to annual statistics from the Motion Picture Association of America.

Their preference for movies with little or no foul language is reflected in annual statistics from Movieguide’s Annual Report to the Entertainment Industry.

According to those statistics, in the last five years, movies with no foul language averaged nearly $51.48 million at the box office, but movies with 26 or more obscenities or profanities averaged less than $24.20 million.

That’s more than twice as much money!

Is it any wonder, then, that the movie industry, despite the decline in movie attendance in the past 40 years since the end of the movie production code of decency, still seems to be economically sound, while the major television networks have noticed a significant decrease in viewers in the last 10 to 15 years?

Clearly, the depiction of foul language and obscenity in movies and television does not usually sell. Neither do graphic depictions of sex, nudity, and extreme violence.

In fact, clean family movies and clean action thrillers remain the most financially successful types of movies, not only at the North American box office, but also internationally and on DVD and Blu-Ray.

The movie studios and their stockholders seem to be listening to this well-established fact. When will the major television networks in the United States?

It’s no secret that Hollywood considers themselves to be much more “open-minded” about sex than the average bear. I’m sure they’d have no problem with the GLSEN endorsing the act of inserting one’s fist into a partners orifice to a group of 14-year-olds. Afterall, everybody does it… Right?

As a matter of fact, Hollywood rarely ever gives the evil eye to any sexual practice, no matter how freaky it may be. It seems that to the Sean Penns of the world, the more perverse the sex, the better. They’ve sauntered so far down the “freaky sex dungeon” trail that “fisting” has literally been left in the rearview mirror as mere child’s play.

When I really think about it, it seems as though the only kind of sex at which Hollywood will ever choose to poke fun… is the kind that occurs within marriage.

Don’t you watch the movies? Haven’t you listened to the stand-up comedians?  The day you tie the knot is “the day your sex life ends.” According to sitcoms and romantic comedies, it’s a scientific impossibility for married couples to enjoy playful romps in the bedroom.

Correct me for being naïve, but isn’t married sex supposed to be the best sex of your life? Shouldn’t your life-partner provide you with the most sexually gratifying experiences you’ll ever have the pleasure of knowing? Afterall, your wife or husband is supposed to be the person you love more than anyone on the planet. Given that mutual appreciation and (hopefully) an unparalleled level of communication, how could the sex NOT be amazing? What is marriage, if not an institution designed to cultivate bonding/closeness on every level, including physically?

Considering that Hollywood lampoons the institution so much, what does that say about their views on sex? It would almost make it seem as though their practice of it is animalistic and void of… dare I say it… love. Surprising, isn’t it? The industry that prides themselves on being at the cusp of all things “true love” has no real comprehension of it for themselves.

Sliding down the slippery slope of perversion seems only natural for leftists. Many of them have a moral void in their souls, so they try to fill it with anything else they can. Not only that, but they try and appoint/surround us with people that will cause us to do the same. Rather than reach to anything greater than themselves, folks like Sean Penn clasp at more fame, excess and beautiful women. Or in some cases… It’s just a fist.

Now doesn’t that sound fun?

In the program, Cox’s character Jules Cobb is a real estate agent who has recently started dating men in their twenties who are only a few years older than her son. Her dalliances with these men and her coming to grips with her age compose the overall plot of the program. In her daily life, Cobb is surrounded by an offbeat set of characters including her neighbor across the street, her young assistant at work and her ex-husband.

Grayson Ellis, Cobb’s neighbor across the street, is a male cougar, who courts women half his age (and presumably younger). In the second episode, he states matter-of-factly that “When women get older, it’s icky. When men get older, it’s adorable. It’s actually my favorite double standard.” The show seems to be exploring that double standard in presenting this male neighbor who is open about his relationships with younger women and Cobb, who is self-conscious about her behavior and who unsuccessfully tries to shield her son, who is more mature than both of his parents, from knowing about her new dating habits.

Although I like Courteney Cox in the lead, her dating adventures and boyfriends are not as amusing or as interesting as the friends and family members she finds herself surrounded with. For example, her recent boyfriend Josh was not developed as well as some of the other characters on the program and seemed to exist only as an accessory to the program’s lead. You could argue that the character was written that way for a reason but compared to the other characters and their eccentricities, he seemed rather boring.

Also, another major weakness of the show is its focus on crassness and vulgarity. While some critics may like that aspect of the program, the coarse jokes are often unfunny and unnecessary. From the overuse of swear words to the jokes about the process that Jules needs to go through in getting ready for her first night sleeping with Josh, the show pushes the boundaries of taste when it doesn’t need to. The show could be much better as an ensemble comedy about an older woman trying to bring fun back into her life without deviating into tasteless jokes.

As I noted earlier, some of the secondary characters on the program are strong and very funny. Cobb’s ex-husband, for instance, plays a goofy golf instructor who lives in a boat in a parking lot and who often drives around in a golf cart, much to the embarrassment of his son. Additionally, Cobb’s “male cougar” neighbor is an interesting side character. He generally dislikes people, even though he works at a bar, and he likes to torment Cobb about everything from the weight of her purse to the fact that she finds him attractive. On the other hand, Cobb zealously considers him her paper buddy (she likes to talk to him when they are both getting their morning newspapers) even though he often tries to avoid her. In the future, the show would be better if it focused more on the side characters in the program and Cobb’s quirky personality traits and it focused less on the crude aspects of her sex life.

Overall, the weak main storyline and the vulgarity hurt the program. Although some characters on the show have potential, the show has not found its solid footing yet. One day, “Cougar Town” may be a nice place for viewers to check out but for now, “Cougar Town” is not yet a place worth visiting.

Some of Polanski’s early apologists and defenders are likely now entertaining discomforting second-thoughts about their hasty signing of the petition demanding his immediate release from captivity, as indeed some are also now furiously backpedaling in regret over their indiscretion of speaking out publicly on his behalf. 

It seems an appropriate time to review some origins and history underlying the modern psychological rationales currently attempting to dilute and evade Polanski’s morally deviant nihilism, and the cognitive dissonance (i.e., “it wasn’t ‘rape’ rape”) introjected by countercultural pseudo-intellectual sycophants. 

Its members’ values inculcation was, with purposeful destructiveness, initiated early last century by an all-too-often overlooked intellectual vanguard. So, in deconstructing the value of his sexual crimes, Polanski’s sophistic defenders were/are perhaps unwittingly acting out a reflexive cultural pre-conditioning, rather than logic and reason. This is hardly surprising, considering the players, yet the whys and wherefores are important, if only for historical perspective. 

Consider last century’s counter-revolutionary works by postmodern cultural Marxism’s Intellectual Moron gurus: 

Such as Alfred C. Kinsey, whose “‘pansexual worldview’ says that all forms of sexual expression are equal and acceptable.” 

Or, Herbert Marcuse’s Eros & Civilization that, pace William Lind, ‘condemned all restrictions on sexual behavior. Calling instead for “polymorphous perversity” that, by the way, helped open the door for aspects of the political correctness movement. Its self-congratulatory, narcissistic foundation for Marcuse’s good human society whose liberating tolerance for “non-procreative Eros” was intended, per Roger Kimball, to help society ‘find great enlightenment and great happiness which was supposed to be the key to utopia’. 

UC Berkeley professor Martin Jay (2:20 mark…) summarizes that polymorphous perversity “argues that at certain early developmental levels of the human psyche, there was a potential for sexual expression/sexual pleasure which had not yet been organized into the restricted notions of heterosexual sexuality. And that these had some sort of capacity to be reinvigorated.” 

Correlation: Leading Polanski petitioner Woody Allen has produced intimate knowledge of this Freudian psychoanalytic term (promoted by Marcuse):  In his Oscar® winning “Annie Hall,” Allen’s character tells his girlfriend he loves her because she is “polymorphic perverse.”  Likewise, in Allen’s “Celebrity” a nubile female model claims to be a “polymorphic perverse,” whom the protagonist finds invigorating. In another of Allen’s films, “Manhattan,” he portrays a divorced man dating a high-schooler (Mariel Hemingway). 

Elsewhere more recently, in American Splendor, Joyce Brabner informs Harvey Pekar that his friend Robert Crumb is “polymorphously perverse.” 

Coincidence? Not a chance… 

–

PJTV’s Bill Whittle  neatly condenses this history in “The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness.” 

Polanski’s current intolerant defenders’ politically correct instincts to apply empathy and/or glorify the iconic-old-fugitive-child-rapist might afford some comfort while insulated within the closed-circles of elite and fashionable salons and retreats. 

However, the practical consequences of such a rash decision — and any subsequent indignant retreats in faux-‘victimhood’ or mountings to self-anointed moral ‘high ground’ should, for those with any common sense of decency remaining, become imminently difficult, if not impossible to ignore from colleagues, audiences and customers whom reside in the real world down here on Olympus’ lower slopes. 

The temptation of mercy and patient edification for the clueless (a.k.a., ‘useful idiots’) is strong and perhaps even good. After all, it’s really little more than their ignorant do-gooder idealism that causes them to swoon for perverted totalitarian ideologies. 

Intolerant, stubbornly divisive, self-satisfied Polanski-apologist glitterati, continue to receive well-earned rejection and scorn from regular Americans. 

As for child-rapist Polanski: it is long past time for the Crimes & Consequences of this perverted ‘progressive’ icon to be administered once and for all… Guilty as charged.

Now to me, this whole cougar thing is a fabricated farce. My guess: it began as a media trend invented by female reporters as a way to comp their drinks. They could go out to bars, get picked up by dudes, and then write it all off as a business expense. And so it became a phony trend, just like “push presents” for pregnant women, key parties for swingers, bird flu for alarmists, and global warming for jackasses.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with older ladies having sex with young dudes–but don’t for a minute mistake it for “empowerment.” The title “cougar” insinuates that these older ladies are predators hunting for young men–when in fact–there is no hunting at all. Men are easy–and they’ll gladly pretend it was your idea if it means they get to see you naked. That’s the basic crux behind feminism, after all.

But the bottom line is, once “cougarism” or any lifestyle behavior requires its own convention—you’re pretty damn sure it’s a sad way to think of yourself.

Which is why I’m no longer a trekkie.

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.

Tonight we’ve got two Andrews:

Andrew W.K.

Andrew Breitbart

plus:

Congressman McCotter!

and the delightful Remi Spencer!

Plus: if my mom’s awake….my mom!

Now the research was immediately condemned by sex educators, who believe this finding can only lead to unprotected sex, pregnancy, STD’s and tedious play dates at McDonalds. The professor, however, stood strong and said: “Evolution is not politically correct… there is actually only one [sexual behavior] that is consistently associated with better physical and mental health and that is the one… favoured by evolution.”

Of course he said this all with a delightful Scottish accent, which made it more endearing. But I get it: because unprotected sex boosts your chance of reproduction, and reproduction is the name of the evolutionary game – then you, biologically, feel better about it. Which makes sense, I guess. But there’s more to it than that, I’d say.

For one: perhaps you feel better not using the condom, because it feels better not using the condom! Of course that feeling of well-being dissipates shortly after you realize you didn’t wear a condom. Then that well-being is replaced by the three stages of fear: which is fear, more fear, and still more fear.

But more importantly, the use of condoms might say more about your choice of partner – who influences your happiness more than the sex you’re having. The fact is, if you’re not using a condom, there’s a higher chance the person you’re having sex with is someone you trust – like your wife. Although the researcher disagrees with that point – my feeling is if you’re using condoms, chances are you’re more likely to be sleeping with some random chick at the office, an unstable drifter named Roy that you met at Port Authority, or in my case – a lemur. That can’t be good for evolution, either.

So in conclusion: say no to condoms, and yes to Scotland.

Welcome back everyone (welcome back Greg!)

Tonight: Eric Bolling, Shannon Bream, Tamara Holder….and….(drum roll)…

Ian McCulloch from Echo and the Bunnymen!!!!!

In the same breath, ladies; You simply haven’t been empowering yourselves as young women unless you’ve been riding the old bone rollercoaster. Purity is for losers, don’t you know…

From TV shows aimed squarely at young dames such as “Gossip Girl” or “90210,” to hit teen films like “American Pie” or the recent “Adventureland,” the message in regards to sexuality is quite clear; If you’re still a virgin at 16, there must be something wrong with you. Sure, it would be bad enough that all of these programs are laden with super-model-turned actors having sex like banshees (the parents are never around, mind you), but Hollywood doesn’t stop there.  No, the good old folks in Tinseltown feel the need to twist the knife and go out of its way to point out the abnormality of abstinence.

The truth is that even in the most liberal of statistics, over 40% of kids remain virgins through their teen years. Keep in mind that a good percentage of those poll’d in these “blind studies” are men and let’s be honest… A good 30% of them are probably lying, so you can bet that the real statistics would favor the lonely little virgins even more.

If you were an alien dropped on to planet Earth however, forced to deduce the sexuality of the human species solely from what Hollywood pumps out, you’d probably think that nobody made it past 16 without having schtupped a myriad of partners.

One would have to wonder how much different that statistic would be if Hollywood WEREN’T pressuring teenagers to engage in the horizontal mambo. If Hollywood put all of its “virginity is for suckers” energy into promoting “saving sex till marriage,” I bet we’d see a very different, much more lopsided statistic. Of course Hollywood could never do that, as they don’t believe in “forcing ones beliefs on others”… Unless of course said beliefs include situational ethics, then it’s time to preach it father, preach it!

Women, correct me if I’m wrong, but there doesn’t even seem to be that “dime store floozy” stigma attached to being the “town pump” anymore.  Girls who choose to save themselves are often portrayed as the “ugly-pretty shy girl” who only comes into womanhood once she gives it away.  Do you feel more femininely empowered now that sex is expected of you at an early age?

So just to get things straight…  Upholding traditional values when it comes to sex and marriage = judgemental and unrealistic.  Making fun of the quirky abnormality that is a young-teen virgin = that’s just good TV.

With the soaring STD/STI rates, one would have to wonder if going back to the “unrealistic views of teenage sex” might not be so bad after all. The painful truth is that in its attempt to remain “morally neutral,” Hollywood is causing us to raise a nation of cads and harlots… Thanks again Sean Penn!

The book grew out of a “40 Nights of Great Sex” bible study program begun by Spencer, Senior Pastor of the New Direction Christian Church in Memphis Tennessee, and his wife of 16 years, Rhonda. The couple looked into the Christian community and saw marriage – God’s first church – in trouble. The high divorce rate in our country is a well publicized statistic. What is less well known is that, depending on the poll, the divorce rate among practicing Christians is as high as that of non Christians. Christians are also seeing rising rates of adultery and indulgences in pornography. Spencer felt a calling to restore the sheen to Christian marriage and started the workshop as a way to begin healing relationships by providing couples a safe place to talk honestly about intimacy within the covenant of marriage.

I imagine I am not the only Christian that is not used to hearing pastors preach about sex from the pulpit, at least not in the candid way Spencer does. I am far more familiar with the sin and hellfire preaching. You know: “good girls don’t and they certainly don’t enjoy it when they do.” Or “Good men don’t have thoughts like that and they certainly don’t act on them, least ways not without some self flagellation afterward.” There are surveys revealing that in 76 percent of Christian homes sex is never even discussed. Is it any wonder that when men and women of faith come together and attempt to live the partnership God has set aside for us we are thwarted at every turn by insecurities, shame and guilt?

Not all marriages that fail are sabotaged by sexual dysfunction. But certainly for married couples in trouble (and even those that are not) breaking down the barriers to true intimacy, shedding the sense of being nasty or dirty and opening the channels to honest and open communication with our partner can be the road to a healthy relationship inside and outside of the bedroom. And if Christians are going to be successful in marriage we had better begin to have some real talk about sex and the role it plays in Gods plan for marriage.

You will not find the traditional religious sterility on the pages of this book. Spencer uses scriptural references to lay a theological foundation for the expert advice that follows. He spends time exploring the difference between intimacy and sex, the purpose of marriage and the natural tensions that arise between genders. There is also plenty of frank and often quite explicit discussion of sex and sexual relations.

Hebrews 13:4 speaks of the marriage bed as being undefiled. Scripture is also very specific on what God considers to be sexually perverse. So as long as it’s not illegal, immoral or prone to put one or both participants in traction as they say in the vernacular, “it’s on!” Oral sex? You bet. Anal penetration? If everyone is willing. Toys? If that’s what makes your ears wiggle. The marriage bedroom is a place for healthy, loving exploration, communication and most of all fun.

It is this quest for wholeness in marriage that is at the heart of Spencer’s book; a desire for couples to begin to say no to the twin demons of shame and facade and instead say yes to God, yes to each other, yes to openness and true intimacy. Most of all Spencer writes to remind us that sex is a natural and enjoyable part of human life and an essential element in building a solid marriage.

Spencer ends the book with the promise of “40 nights of great sex” — a tall order to fill. However, even if the book only delivers on half the promise, that’s three weeks of great sex. Nice work if you can get it. I suspect however, that whether newly married or rediscovering the passion that brought you together so many years ago “Naked and Unashamed” will be a terrific guide in unwrapping Gods gift of sexual and emotional intimacy in Christian marriage.