Hey everyone! I can’t tell you how much I’ve wanted to write this review for y’all. Do you know why? Because teenage sex! And homosexual sex! And does it get any more controversial than teenage homosexual sex?

If it does, then I don’t want to know about it.

Anyway, this week’s episode of “Glee” was set to the music of “West Side Story,” which emulates perfectly the forbidden love of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” Seriously, who doesn’t love a good Pyramus and Thisbe story?

As was dramatized in previews and therefore on the Internet… this week was a week of firsts. First time to shock us? No. First time to push the barriers? No.

But it was the first time that two of the couples on the show had sex.

Cutie pie Blaine has been dating Kurt for a while, pushing the bounds of appropriateness on network television for a season or more. At the same time, Rachel and Finn have had an on-again-off-again relationship that has weathered the storms of teenage pregnancy (Finn’s girlfriend was pregnant with his best friend’s baby), identity issues (Rachel’s biological mother Shelby has been in and out… oh, and, by the way, is the adoptive mama of Quinn’s baby), and general teenaged messiness.

There are probably eight thousand things I could grab onto in this episode, but personally, there’s only one hook for me.  No, it’s not the gay thing… I’m sure much has already been said about that.

For this prude chica, it’s all about the teen sex.

Gay, straight, lesbian, or bi, when did it become appropriate for teens to have sex with each other on prime time TV? Is this really the message that we want to send to our kids? That teenage relationships are as mysterious and wonderful as Shakespeare made them out to be?

No!

Teenage sex leads to depression and other crappy stuff. Why is Hollywood trying to romanticize teenage relationships? Yeah, two couples (one gay, one straight) on the show gave themselves to one another, but will they be together in ten years?

Probably not.

Gay or straight, Hollywood should not be romanticizing sex amongst teenagers.

Erin R. Brown at NewsBusters:

Fall means back to school, end of summer vacations, and exciting new television for those bored with “The Bachelor” and “Survivor.”

But among this year’s crop of brand new television series, a rather “sex”y pattern has emerged. Shows about horny high school geeks, the 1960s’ playboy bunnies, and navigating the pitfalls of a one-night-stand with your coworker, are themes slated to appear on screens across America in a matter of days.

One of the adult themed shows to air this fall is “Free Agents,” a sitcom set to debut on September 14, on NBC that follows the lives of two PR professionals, after they have a drunken one-night stand. The coworkers (played by Hank Azaria and Kathryn Hahn) attempt to steer through the messy complications of a professional relationship in the aftermath. While this could make for some funny awkward moments, an alcohol-fueled evening full of regret is just a sad premise for a series.

NBC’s “The Playboy Club” is a little more obvious from the title about the show’s content. Set to air on September 19, 2011, “The Playboy Club” “centers on the Bunnies and patrons of the original Playboy Club in 1960’s Chicago,” according to the Internet Movie Database page for the show.

But the show has already stirred up controversy as critics like the Parents Television Council called it a “blatant attempt to obliterate any remaining standards of broadcast decency.” Morality in Media created an online petition to discourage viewers to from watching the show. Even famous liberal feminist Gloria Steinem has echoed the calls for a boycott. The real Playboy Club, she said, was “the tackiest place on earth.”

Read full story here.

Someone from my home state of Illinois (and I am NOT shocked this originated in Illinois) decided to start a petition to have Bert and Ernie get married on “Sesame Street.” Lair Scott said, “We are not asking that ‘Sesame Street’ do anything crude or disrespectful by allowing Bert and Ernie to marry. It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different. Let ‘Sesame Street’ and PBS Kids be a big part in saving many worthy lives.” Seriously? Bert and Ernie getting married is going to help kids not bully others and LGBT kids stop committing suicide? Because preschoolers are the ones doing this? Ah, yes! The #1 way for a statist to promote an agenda is to somehow fit it in with SAVE THE CHILDREN! Mr. Scott is using their tragedy and a child’s program as a means to an end.

Who decided Bert and Ernie are gay? How can a puppet be sexual? Don’t answer that! It’s a rhetorical question. I remember it took me a long time to even realize they live together. It never clicked in my mind as a toddler and young kid that they live in the same house. They’re best friends, the puppet version of Felix and Oscar.

This morning I conducted an experiment with my toddler. Remember she is 2.5 years old. I asked her questions about Bert and Ernie. My first was, “What do you think is the relationship between Bert and Ernie?” She gave me a puzzled look. I asked her, “Do you think they have a relationship like Mommy and Daddy?” She gave me the same look, looked at the garage door, and asked, “Daddy?” I had to convince her that Daddy wasn’t coming home from work yet. I finally just asked, “Is Ernie orange?” Her face lit up and said enthusiastically, “Yeah!!!”

I asked my friends on Twitter how they viewed Bert and Ernie when they were growing up. The majority said they thought they were best friends. One thought they were father and son. A few thought brothers. Some said they didn’t care and still don’t care.

Fact is, children do not understand relationships of any kind at this age. I don’t even think my toddler understands the relationship between Mommy and Daddy.

Thank you to the “Sesame Street” producers who put out this statement:

Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most “Sesame Street” Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation.

And yes, Mr. Scott, you are being disrespectful by asking “Sesame Street” to educate our children on this subject.  “Sesame Street” is mainly for entertainment with educational bits splashed in. It’s a good starting point for a teaching lesson for the day.

This has to stop. I don’t care all that much about them targeting adults or even teenagers, but when it comes to extremely young children, it’s gone too far. Why is it so hard for them to allow children to remain innocent? Why do they want children to grow up so fast?

We will stop watching if Bert and Ernie get married. I’m 100% for gay marriage, but COME ON!! “Sesame Street” is supposed to be about numbers, counting, letters, colors, animals, and just having fun! I don’t want my young children sitting down for an hour of Elmo, Zoe, Abby, and Big Bird and coming to me later asking questions about marriage, relationships, or sex. I want my girls to ask me what words start with the letter K or what number comes after 5.

Of course, it was probably never really that simple. And man, how times have changed, with women calling the shots just as often as guys and one-night stands and cohabitation enabling more and more people to delay settling down until later and later in their lives.

—–

But the new romantic comedy “No Strings Attached” takes a look at one other phenomenon of our sex-saturated society: the concept of friends with benefits, in which a man and woman try to eschew all romantic connections and obligations and instead try to just be friends who happen to hook up together. And because it’s a romantic comedy, it tries to ask if it’s really possible to have that arrangement without falling in love.

Following the friendship of Adam (Ashton Kutcher) and Emma (Natalie Portman)from their first awkward meeting as young teens at summer camp through their late 20s, “Strings” starts off with a fun and energetic zip and tangy dialogue before devolving into a pat and predictable second half. Adam works as a writers’ assistant on a “Glee”-style TV show, while Emma is a doctor who lives with a couple of other doctor friends.

When Adam awakens naked and groggy on the womens’ couch after meeting Emma for a night of too much drinking, he can’t figure out who he might have slept with. But just when he figures out that nothing happened with anyone, his private conversation with Emma in her room winds up crossing exactly that line – and she wants to keep the relationship of fun sex with no emotional attachments.
This might seem like a dream situation for a horny guy like Adam, but he’s grown up as the son of a playboy TV sitcom star (Kevin Kline) and knows that he doesn’t want to follow in his dad’s pathetically shallow footsteps. As he starts to fall for Emma, he and the audience have to come to terms with a sad secret from her past.

“Strings” has a lot of sexual humor and numerous energetic hookups in the early part of the film, although they are mostly shown quickly in montage and with no nudity from Portman and with Kutcher’s naked derriere only on display in the aforementioned hangover scene.

(MILD SPOILER ALERT)

Buried under the predictable tedium of its second half, it ultimately has a fairly traditional message about it all, which is something it oddly shares with its obvious forebear “Sex and the City,” which asked some of the same questions: can a woman act like a stereotypical, emotionally unattached guy – and can they manage to have good sex without falling in love? In both cases, the characters realize that you can’t, which is something people with traditional values know already.

Kutcher and Portman are perfectly cast in their roles, as he continues his string of goofily appealing guy roles and she displays a fun sexiness that has been thus far lacking in her screen persona. First-time screenwriter Elizabeth Meriwether also creates an assortment of fun supporting roles that are well-played, particularly by Lake Bell as a fellow writers’ assistant on Adam’s sitcom.

Director Ivan Reitman (“Ghostbusters,” “Stripes,” “Twins”) does his best work since the mid-‘90s, tackling a romantic comedy for the first time in his career and breaking a distressing string of failed sci-fi comedies like “Evolution” and “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” that relied more on special effects than solid writing. But as Adam and Emma’s relationship gets more complicated, he and Meriwether fall off the rails as the film just can’t sustain its raunchy charms.

There’s simply not enough at stake here to keep audiences invested in their relationship with these characters. Ultimately, “No Strings Attached” falls victim to a problem that probably besets too many friends with benefits: if you can’t care about where things go, you have to ask yourself why bother at all?

In a truly hateful Newsweek interview, “Glee” star Jane Lynch and sex columnist Dan Savage, both a couple of real class acts, lash out at anything within reach different from them:

And here you have the reason why Assange is a dirtbag – and also the real motivation behind this socalled “transparency” philosophy.

He doesn`t want any information to be secret, because then he can`t get laid.

See, a transparent culture is perfect for a social failure, who is always looking for ways to access your secret info – the stuff that might help a clumsy creep get into your pants.

If you don`t give him your number, don`t worry he`ll find it. The car you drive? He`ll get the license, and ultimately find out where you park it. To him, it`s perfectly normal. Even if he doesn`t assault you, he`ll do his best to invade your private space.

So, in the end, there is nothing romantic, majestic, or journalistic about Assange`s quest for transparency.

It`s all about getting into your emails, and then ultimately your bed.

And if you disagree with me, you probably hate babies and puppies too.

TONIGHT:

Matt McCall

Imogen Lloyd Webber

Congressman McCotter

Which is sordid.

Bishop Eddie Long, the well known mega-church pastor, has been accused by two young men from his church of forcing them into private “covenants” involving gay sex. The pastor, of course, claims he’s innocent.

But for the sake of this Gregalogue, what if he isn’t?

That makes him a creepy creep from Creepeville. Population: creep.

Now people in the media love these stories because it allows you to point out the hypocrisy found in religion. This is a pastor who is against gay marriage, but allegedly likes the gay sex. But this is so predictable, boring and easy.

Me, I’d rather argue that it’s okay to hate something, while still engaging in it.

Most people call that “life.”

Examples abound. I hate porn. It’s vile. I often write about it being vile. But when I travel I dabble. Don’t get me wrong – I despise it. But for 3 to 7 minutes a month, I really love it.

Same with drugs. I find addicts to be pathetic burdens on their families and society as a whole. But catch me at a bar at three a.m., and there’s a chance that it’s not the wine causing me to massage the shoulders of a troubled garbageman.

(hey Phil)

So that’s why a man who condemns homosexuality while being gay makes sense to me.

That’s not to say, I agree with his beliefs. The way I look at it, if there is no God then gayness is just an expressed pattern like everything else. And if there is a God, he must love gays because he made so many of them.

And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobic cyclophobe.

Tonight:

MIke Baker!

Lauren Sivan!

John Phillips!

Note the progressive buzzwords:  “reverse racism,” which I never mentioned and is a silly concept (racism is racism, no matter from whom), and “scary Black people,” which I never mentioned either, yet seems to be the default spin thrown at Andrew Breitbart for pointing out racism in the NAACP.  The point of the article was that comments and actions which would have drawn the ire of the NAACP if made by white entertainers (can you imagine the response if Lady Gaga made a video where she wore a pointed hood and rallied a mob with torches and lead pipes?) were ignored when they were made by black entertainers—entertainers lauded at the Image awards. 

As some in the comments suggested, however, these entertainers cannot be racist, because racism is not about race but about power; only whites can be racist because only whites have the power to oppress.  Ridiculous as that is, let’s just assume that it’s correct for the sake of argument.  So if it’s not wrong for Ice Cube to refer to white people as his “enemy” and to rap about shooting white people– since as a black man, he cannot oppress a white man—is it wrong for Ice Cube (an Image award recipient) to rap, “Fuck and get up is how I do them stank hoes”?  Regardless of race, the Left cannot deny that men are still in a position to oppress women (just ask about Clarence Thomas), and the NAACP has been woefully silent on the open advocacy of misogyny and sexual violence amongst its Image award nominees and winners.

Discussing sexism in rap is nothing new; I won’t linger.  But do check out this analysis by Edward G. Armstrong.  It’s old, but it’s thorough.  And there are a few egregious examples to focus on:  if you can stomach it, read the lyrics to “Giving up the Nappy Dugout” by Ice Cube, and keep in mind that all of this Polanski-esque perversion is a fantasy involving a 17-year old (he states, “I know she’s a minor and it is illegal, but the bitch is worse than Vanessa del Rio”).  Also note that, with many of the examples I gave of Image awards being given to entertainers with racist lyrics, their nominations were for other works of art.  However, in 2002, Ja Rule won an Image award for his song “Living It Up,” which states, “Half the hoes hate them, half of them love me / The ones that hate me only hate me ‘cause they ain’t fucked me.”  And finally, consider the case of Nelly’s 2008 song “Tip Drill,” whose music video features the artist sliding a credit card through a woman’s buttocks.

The NAACP has said nothing to criticize the debasement of women in these songs.  However, have no fear.  They really hit it out of the park with that Hallmark card that warns black holes that a recent graduate is going to be successful in life.  They’ve got this violence against women thing down pat.

But criticizing rap is old hat, you may say.  That’s just part and parcel of a subculture that has nothing to do with the NAACP (despite their Image awards given to woman-objectifying rappers).  Touche, progressives.  I submit to your superior logic.  But what about Image award recipients and hosts whose sexism has been ignored by the NAACP?

D.L. Hughley, the 2008 host of the Image Awards, said to Maryline Blackburn, who beat out Sarah Palin for Miss Alaska, discussed Palin’s performance in the 2008 Vice Presidential debate on his CNN show.  When Blackburn said Palin became a good public speaker through beauty pageants, Hughley suggested, “If you had a thong and couldn’t talk, you would still get my vote.”  Black commentator tells a black woman her underwear is more important than her thoughts:  no comment from the NAACP.

Spike Lee was honored with the Hall of Fame award at the 2003 Images.  Lee’s depiction of women has long been considered misogynistic, from his exploitative nude scene with Rosie Perez in Do the Right Thing (her words, not mine) and his 2004 film She Hate Me which depicted a throng of lesbian couples paying the film’s protagonist 10 grand to impregnate them (and not through clinical sperm donation).

And, you’ll love this:  in 2001, Bill Clinton– the textbook case of a politician using sexual harassment to control women—was given the President’s Award.

Silence on racism, awards given to racists.  Silence on sexism, awards given to sexists.  Accusing non-racists and non-sexists of racism and sexism with no evidence whatsoever.  This is the modern NAACP.  How does this fulfill their titular goal of advancing people of color?

If you frequent the BigHollywood often, you’ve no doubt read about Glee’s recent jabs aimed toward Conservatives (more specifically, last week with Sarah Palin). Despite Sarah Palin having a legion of supporters (many of whom watch “Glee”), the people at Fox thought that it was a safe bet. After all, none of their Hollywood buddies would criticize them for it. That would require, shall we say… testicles? No, when it comes to speaking up against the popular opinion among their elitist peers, Tinseltown decided to lie themselves on the neutering bench a long time ago. It’s because of this that they travel in packs, making drive-bys and are more akin to acting like Cobra-Kais’ cronies than fighting the establishment a la Daniel Larusso. When “Glee” took a swipe at Ann Coulter this week, one could faintly hear the cries of their Hollywood lackeys screeching “Get’him a bodybag!” in the studio back lots and writers’ boardrooms.

In the most recent episode, when Emma Pillsburys’ character was listing the negative role models influencing young women in America today, she felt the need to name Ann Coulter. For the record, Ann Coulter was included after Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan. The show then went on to normalize promiscuous teenage sex between young harlots and cads. If Ann wants to be a more positive role model for young women, clearly she should be taking notes.

It seems that the creators of “Glee” don’t just hate Conservatives in general, but reserve an even stronger rancor for particularly strong Conservative women. Their disdain for Palin and Coulter is deeply rooted in their love for subjective morality. Whereas “Glee” tells young women that the entire sexual landscape is nothing more than a gray area determined only by what “feels” right to them, Coulter and Palin draw a clear line in the sand and dare to tell women that sex is a big deal. Remember that to a liberal, telling young women that sex should be reserved for their husband is cruel, archaic, and ultimately a manifestation of hatred for women as a whole, as well as their menstrual cycles.

An even bigger problem for Hollywood is that both of these women sell books. I mean, they sell a LOT of books. The folks in Tinseltown can’t get their heads around that. They surround themselves with so many yes-men and patsies for the higher-ups that they can’t fathom such a huge portion of the American public being in diametric opposition to their worldview. So what do they do? They attack… In packs.

Even worse, if they feel that their backs are against the wall, they’ll call up Sean Penn to curse you with rectal cancer.

That’s right. Watch “Glee”… Or you’ll die screaming of rectal cancer.

Of course the first thought that anyone has of pop singer Madonna is sex, sex, sex. She has made her entire career on selling her sexuality. From the days of 1983’s hit “Holiday,” to photo spreads in Playboy and Penthouse, to crawling on stage like a cat in heat, to girl-on-girl kisses, and raunchy videos throughout, Madonna has made her bucks with her body with as much skin showing as possible at all times even today in her 50s.

But, suddenly mother Madonna is hopeful that her own 13-year-old daughter, Lourdes, will “dress more conservatively.” Sex is bad all of a sudden when Madonna is talking about her own child.

Madonna told the magazine Us Weekly that she wished her child would not emulate the sexually exploitive style she herself made her career on.

Madonna may be a style icon, but that doesn’t mean daughter Lourdes Leon, 13, takes her advice. “If anything, I wish she’d dress more conservatively,” says the pop star, 51. “How’s that for irony?”

No, Mz Madonna. How’s that for hypocrisy, not “irony.”

Like a true lefty, Madonna sees nothing wrong with exploiting her own sexuality and creating an empire that invites millions of pre-teen girls the world over to emulate her, yet when it is her daughter that wants to sex herself up, suddenly it’s “conservative” time for Mz Madonna!

This is a direct admission that she knows that what she has spent the last 40 years doing was illicit, wrong, and bad for kids. But, you see, when it’s her fans and her fans parents that are being harmed, Madonna doesn’t care. But should her own child start down that path it’s Katie bar the door and time to enroll the girl in a Nunnery. Suddenly Mz Madonna becomes all prudish and wants to prevent the sexual exploitation of her own daughter.

It isn’t “irony,” Mz Madonna. It’s hypocrisy that you wallow in.