I have a solution to the Summer Olympic and Summer Paralympic games

Don’t get me wrong, this ain’t no anti-Olympic games post. I love it to little bits. I stay up every night watching it and hope it will never die. 

But we cannot keep destroying property every four years and driving people out of homes.

Solution: The games are in Athens every year at the already existent Olympic stadium and sites. Instead, a country is put in charge every year (like a theme with a host country) to do the opening ceremonies, closing ceremonies, decoration, medals etc. 

Reasons why it’s rad:

• Athens of course has a lot of history to it. So perf city for a permanent location.
• People are not driven out of homes
• Money is saved (The Olympics really should’ve been started by Asians who could budget for it) because facilities are already available. Money is just spent on maintenance in this case.
• Global culture will still be seen as the focus is mainly on the Olympic opening and closing ceremonies. 
• The host countries will save money. Money will still be spent on things such as Opening and Closing ceremonies but not having to build stadiums and sites and villages will save moolah.
• Countries that would never ever be able to host an Olympics may finally be given an opportunity i.e .countries that are too small or just do not have the resources to go the full 100%
• It may get Greece out of their financial crisis (it can be turned into a tourist spot when the olympics ain’t on i.e. the village can be a hotel)
• Probs saves the environment too due to less waste and no stadiums left abandoned (it’s a thing. look it up)
• Every medallist gets thee cool laurel wreath too! (As well as whatever the host nations give)

It may not be as magical as what it is now due to this idea we have created around the Olympics. But it would result in only positives (as far as I can think of) for the IOC. Once we get over the stigma of the Olympics needing to be in different countries every year, we’ll appreciate this and forget that we’re in Athens every year (because the host countries will hopefully do such a great job of transporting us through the exhibition of their culture). 

And yes it may not be as magical for the athletes, and that will probably be a challenge to overcome. But at least there will be consistency right? They know what environment they will be competing in….kinda

P.S any arguments around home country athletes are redundant. GB did better in this Olympics than the London ones and good athletes seem to be smashing it anywhere really. 

Solution? No?

This was just ridiculous

Buzzfeed posted an article on Snapchat with an image I found was highly inappropriate.

So I posted on their wall.

Here's the writing in case you can't see it.

'Oh buzzfeed. I am so so disappointed in your choice of image for this snapchat article! Here's two ideas of what could've made for a better choice: (you know, anything else that would've more closely related to the article)
1. A girl actually playing sport
2. A girl who looks like she is of high school age or in a high school sports uniform.
(Yes, no high school girl looks like this while playing sport. Let's be honest, the girl would've pinned up her bangs or something because it would've gotten in the way of her sight while running)

I will honestly volunteer my profile picture (with the permission of the others in it) of me playing netball circa early high school years because that is what it was actually 'like playing sports in high school as a girl.' (also it's a crack up pic that is still living on 6 years after it was taken).'
Yes, the woman is being sexualised, so I took a more 'helpful' approach but giving them advice instead of condemning them aggressively because I felt that this was obvious and they should know better. But I guess not. So my lovely friends have commented perfectly on this. Give it a like if you support because that photo needs no explanation as to why it is so stupid.

So Many Elephants.

My sister would like to call this 'Alcohol: The Elephant'-but there are plenty more Elephants to discuss and they all combine into this disaster of a parade (That's a herd of elephants. I did my research).

Ok so we've all heard the Brock Turner (No photo necessary) case and we've all found it necessary to pass rightful judgement, spit (our words) in his face and cry for a greater sentence.

Even though we don't know the guy, or the victim, or anyone else in this situation, we've felt the need to comment as if we knew this kid right from the start of his swimming career.

And I may be doing exactly that.

Now before I start I want to clarify a few things

1. I'm going to try and not take sides
I mean, there's obviously a 'right' side but that's not the point

2. I think I've done my research
So I've read the multiple blogs, the victim statement, the perpetrator statement, the dad, the 'apologist' (all of her statements), and the comments etc. Let me know if you've read other things/if I'm wrong.

3. I sure hope no one thinks I'm a rape apologist
Literally my fear while writing this. But yes, I hope people don't get the wrong idea since I will be elaborating on something Brock said. I'm not using it to justify his actions, I'm using it to raise awareness of what appears to be a serious issue that is relevant to this case.
Let me clarify, he's definitely in the wrong and needs to own up-which he does if you read his statement closely and he does sort of apologise- but owning up also means taking the consequences that comes with it, which he obviously isn't. I don't believe in jail (long story short: I'm a hippie) but if I did, then yes, a longer sentence is necessary and he should deal with it just like his victim is forced to have to deal with her situation and this aftermath for the rest of her life.

In saying this, I'm not American
I have no idea what the actual culture is there. I've never lived there and I've never gone to school there. Hopefully what I say will be relevant and relevant to those outside of America too. If not, let me know.

So here's the issue:
Brock Turner suggests: The current college/university lifestyle/youth lifestyle is depicted as indulgent and without consequences.
'I’ve been shattered by the party culture and risk taking behavior that I briefly experienced in my four months at school.'
''I will never put myself through an event where it will give someone the ability to question whether I really can be a betterment to society.'
'I know I can show people who were like me the dangers of assuming what college life can be like without thinking about the consequences one would potentially have to make if one were to make the same decisions that I made.'

The truth is that what he said above is right. That's why he's off the hook. And that's why things need to change.
'We're young' is not an excuse because you're not. You're an idiot.

Though he uses this to excuse his behaviour, I'm saying that this is an issue and it shouldn't excuse his behaviour.
It should be discouraged from the root so the victim would never be in this position.

What I'm saying is that this should've never been a thing so that the victim would be safe or Brock would have nothing to defend himself with.

Here's a few examples of how Brock is right:

Exhibit A: Appropriation of drunkenness
Drunkenness has become a norm. If you haven't overindulged in alcohol to a point where you gag, you're perceived as weird, weak ('lightweight') and often juvenile.
Prestige is attached to how much you can drink and how capable you are to continue daily activities such as going to work or sitting an exam (or dare I say it, drive) while intoxicated/hungover.
Alcohol then becomes an excuse when it never should have been/be one.
Actions while intoxicated are inexcusable. If you push something too far while inebriated, that's your fault. There is no such thing as blaming it on the alcohol. You had one drink to many? I mean it's literally a drink??
And I see this rightly being commented on in the rape case- just because he was drunk doesn't mean what he did was ok. It doesn't justify his actions.
Then why do we share posts like the example below on Facebook that support this: (Warning: offensive language)

Edited: One more image doing the rounds recently

Yes people that liked anti Brock Turner statements liked this. You're literally saying the same thing he is. You're perpetuating this idea. You're letting him justify his actions.

P.S. Imagine this ideal situation where Brock Turner knew rape was wrong, and he knew intoxication made him commit idiotic and damaging actions. Where he instead spent that night chilling with some mates and never even thought about what he did.
I know it's just a party, but you don't know what the intent of someone's heart is. You don't know what will happen if they go too far. A lot of people don't rape, especially when intoxicated, but it's hard to decipher who those people aren't. He is an outlier and he went too far. And yeah, he's ruined someone's life because of it.
In the end, Brock is responsible for his own actions. What he did was wrong. But again, allowing this meme to circulate is giving Brock an excuse.

Exhibit B: This vomit worthy list.
TOP 10 MOST SEXUALLY ACTIVE COLLEGES OF 2015
YES THIS IS A REAL LIST-DON'T EVEN READ IT. It's just here to prove me right.

Additionally, the writer tells you to not be offended if your school doesn't make the list.
WHAAAAA???
You should be offended if your school DOES make the list. It's literally the most rapey attribute your school can have and you should leave right now if your school on that list.

Now before we claim it's just a list we have to wonder why it is a list. Why did the person who wrote it, write it? Who is their target audience? Who are they encouraging? What behaviour will their target audience invoke with information like this.?
Hint in case you're not getting it: All images are of girls, mostly in minimal clothing, and the information given is-well you get it. (Though the writer does mention rape and assault once, it's taken lightly and as if there is no correlation.)
'Florida State and the University of Florida get every single hot girl from the state of Florida, but Florida State seems to get slightly hotter girls and parties harder. When the temperature is 90 degrees year-round, the girls wear very provocative clothing. On the downside for the women, you have to look out for FSU’s football players who think they can get away with sexual assault and battery.'
Like hello, that's a big problem. It's like yoooo there's so many girls to sleep with boys but hey girls watch out because boys may coercively want to sleep with you because I told them there was like so many of you to freely sleep with since you're all 'slightly' hotter.
I'll give you another quote from the link:
'You probably won’t even remember your four years at the University of Texas since you’ll be black out drunk and having sex 98% of the time. '
And I'm sure that's what Turner was hoping for. This is what he uses to justify his actions.
DON'T LET HIM USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE.
We perpetuate the idea that this is all university is about. We need to let Brock Turner know that it isn't and that he's wrong- but right now, we can't.
We can't advertise uni as a safe place while we crack jokes like this or endorse ideas like this.

In saying this, I'm an outsider who's not from America. Maybe this isn't the norm?? But this seems to be highly visible. If this wasn't the norm, then why is it being projected onto those that aren't Americans that it is. Wouldn't you want something else projected like 'our alumni have high stray animal adoption rates when they leave school' or 'we have a great reputation for academia because we are a university.'

Exhibit C: The Stats and Facts
OK, yes we all know the one in five stat is misleading and inaccurate
But there are stats that prove that this is an issue. Just a simple google search will do the trick. But even if the stats proved that only one in a million girls (or guys) are raped every 20 years-that is already one too many.
Plus it doesn't have to be explicitly rape to be assault/a vile thing to do. Brock Turner's actions actually weren't classified as rape. Yes that's true people, he wouldn't have even made the rape stats. You do the math. Now look at the bigger picture. Yup that's right, we have a way larger issue at hand if we already have high rape stats without the inclusion of assaulters like Turner.
And then there are all the other cases that are not reported.

Additionally, rape is still being perceived as a myth or being perpetuated.
I haven't read this whole article yet, but it indicates that there is a problem. That is that some male athletes have some serious comprehension issues with what assault is.

And yes, the juice is used as an excuse:
These NZ stats show that indulgence is used as an excuse and has proven to get us in dangerous situations.

'For students, alcohol is not just a social lubricant.

Victoria University students spoken to by The Dominion Post said many of their peers relied on dutch courage to initiate sexual encounters.

The binge-drinking common in the 17-to-24 age bracket affected their decision-making.

"The university can ply them with as many brochures about sexual health as they want - drinking the way that young people do, a lot of your common sense just goes out the window," Ms Blake-Kelly said.

Harry Evans, 20, agreed. "I know very few people who haven't had a dumb, alcohol-fuelled sexual experience."

Molly McCarthy, 21, said students were more likely to have unprotected sex when they were "wasted".

"When else do you think it's appropriate to go home with someone you've just met?"

First-year students living in halls of residence were particularly likely to take risks, she said.

"You're in such close confines. You've gone out drinking together, you come home together - all the ingredients are there."

Mr Evans agreed that first-year students' new freedom facilitated risky behaviour.'

Bigger issue. Solve it people.

So. 

We are focusing on Turner and his sentencing and rightly so, but we need to focus on a bigger picture. How many Brock Turners are out there? How many are encouraged to do things or aren't discouraged to do things?
Prior to this, he needed someone to steer him in the right direction. The problem is he obviously didn't. His friends (who are excusing his behaviour), and even his family (who again are excusing his behaviour) didn't.
Why?
Because there is a generalisation that this is a norm.
And when you put the pieces together, though these examples given are indirect to rape, you can't help but see how Turner can use them as an excuse for his actions.

DON'T GIVE HIM AN EXCUSE.

I've like put that in bold and italics and underlined and put it in capitals so I obvs think this is important and hope you do too!

Unfortunately, the only way we've found to stop rape in the future is for Turner's sentence to be prolonged. 

I want to offer a new solution.
Let's discourage rape from it's very root. Rapists are obviously not thinking about the consequences. If they did, then we wouldn't have rape. And when consequences are put in place, they'll rebut it because they obviously did not think about it when committing their crime.-LIKE BROCK IS
Here is my solution, there will be no pathetic excuse for rape such as 'being drunk' because there is no such thing as excusing drunk actions, misogynistic articles and turning away from the facts.

And I know many of you know that.

But again, unfortunately I've had the same people that liked articles in support of Turner's victim, like images and articles like this probably not putting the two and two together. 

So then, how can Turner then be proven wrong if we promote excusing his actions?

Nothing we do is opposing rape at it's root. Think about it. Accept the facts. Now think about the right solution. Because telling boys and girls not to rape when heavily intoxicated in a university just isn't working in situations like Brocks.
And he's right, he definitely was not a betterment to society with his actions. So make it stop.

To conclude, I want to turn your attention to my favourite art piece of all time just to think about.
Marina Abramovic's Rhythm 0
I never saw it, but by golly I wish did.
Here's what it's about (thanks to Wiki)
To test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her. Abramović placed on a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, olive oil, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions. This tested how vulnerable and aggressive the human subject could be when hidden from social consequences.^[2] By the end of the performance, her body was stripped, attacked, and devalued into an image that Abramović described as the "Madonna, mother, and whore".^[2] Additionally, markings of aggression were apparent on the artist's body; there were cuts on her neck made by audience members, and her clothes were cut off of her body.
Absolutely tragic.
Here's a quote from Abramovic:
 "What I learned was that ... if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you. ... I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation."
Just think, if our actions had no consequences, would we continue to do what we do? How far would we go?

Its a stretch but I do see a similarity between her show and this rape case. Both women did not react, Abramovic as part of her art and the victim as she was unconscious- and both were taken advantage of.
Are you real society?
Are you conscious?
Are you considerate?
Are you real?

Can you not be sober in spirit and prevent rape from crossing your mind without having to think about the consequences?

Maybe something for future discussion.

Why Shows Like Bethenny Have Got To Die

(This was meant to be posted while the show was still on, but I forgot. Needless to say, still important. imma keep talking).

It all started while I was watching one of the kings of late night TV-Jimmy Fallon-spit out comedy gold throughout his brilliant show.

I came to a realisation- why are there no shows hosted by women like this?

Well there is one! Special shout out to Ellen DeGeneres for being the only one (I have discovered so far) to be killing it as a female light entertainment host.

Unfortunately, there's not enough of her. WHYYY????

Instead we are showered with the most pathetic daytime shows in the world (except for you Rachy Ray. You go girl. Protect yourself from the Beyhive).

Here's what I can not stand about the daytime talkshows (otherwise known as the crappiest and most sexist advice shows to exist) being circulated:

For the purpose of this discussion, I have used one show only (I'm not sitting through another one).
This show was called Bethenny or something

This is Bethenny and her brightly coloured studio

1. They have advice panel things and the guys on these panels are the biggest douches in the world. I mean it's simple. They don't want a girlfriend. They want a side effect of tanning lotion in human form. It's pathetic. These shows glorify women who pluck and prune every inch of their body for the sake of a male's attention. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with trying to impress a guy or vice versa, but we shouldn't be creating an stigmatic ideology that this is all that matters in life.
   Plus: none of the douches they may bring on have degrees or are trained in any way to give out such ridiculous advice. Do not trust anything they say!! 
2. The topics are so shallow. 'Should I shave or wax down there?' Is this really the discussion topic for the rest of this show's hour? Why is this a big deal?-I'll explain it in me next point.
3. A women can do whatever she wants with her body-no judgement deserved. 
   Lets look at the shave or wax segment of the show in which Bethenny can not believe a woman in the audience has never waxed down there before. I get her reaction is meant to be comedic but WHO CARES! A women can do whatever she wants to her body-she's not harming anyone or herself by not waxing down there, so why should you care?
4. And I'm sure there's more but I ain't sitting through another one of those stupid segments/shows
   Bek signing out. No more. Please. No more. 

If you want to sit through the video- don't Here it is:
I felt so uncomfortable-through the whole thing

And I didn't even watch the one below because no.

Like before you start going: Oh its great to discuss these things-yeah sure. Maybe it's alright. But men don't have this stuff. How many daytime shows do you see hosted by Anderson Cooper or James Corden discuss crap like this? None. Because there's more important things to care about/funnier things in the world. 

So this is what I love about Jimmy Fallon and Ellen DeGeneres: 
They're not going to bring out a line of guys or girls to critique everything they like and don't like in the opposite gender in order to improve them. It's so superficial. No these guys are just going to have fun and run around dancing with the audience. They don't care about stereotypes or so called 'self help' (unless they are mocking these segments)

I conclude with this: Thank goodness that show is not on TV anymore. 

Can I be a Christian feminist?

Well if we're looking at it from a secular perspective then yes.  We should be feminists with biblical agendas.

The obvious example being the absolutely ridiculous abortion arguments that strips women of their superpower (I can give life! That is literally the best superpower ever!), moral conscience and strength.

I can't believe we have to repeat ourselves with disgusting topics like this. That it is called 'Feminism' to argue that women should be able to terminate (often female) fetuses in a mass infant genocide? I know the bible doesn't say abortion but it does say thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Now tell me, do you wish to be aborted? If not, then why is it ok? Why should I support it. I love people. I'm pro people and I really think you should be too.

Sorry I sidetracked. I do that a lot.

But I think its obvious. When Christian morals are included, we must definitely be feminist. We can not assume that all of femisn is about the basic patriarchal society and overthrowing it. Its about more than that. Its about the sexual harassment, the female genocide all over the world, the sexual slavery of young girls and so forth. And yes this is seen in both genders and we are to tackle the issue of both cases. But not supporting the modern secular patriarchal ideology of a pornographic culture is a big step forward. And if my opposition to this culture makes me a feminist then get me a badge, I want to wear this title proudly. And if you dont think this double standard exists, you really need to see American Apparel. I will continue this a bit further down.

Can we be feminists in Christianity?
Well no.

Why?

Because we dont need to.

Women are not oppressed in the church. Men do not own us even in marriage (its mutual- 1 Corinthians 7:3-4). We do not have to do what a man tells us. Men are not to lust after us, abuse us or force us to commit acts against our will and vice versa. Women can vote in elections or even run for leadership. Women can work and gain a living.
We can be leaders (Judges 4) and choose to remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:8).

Only one person has authority over us. And thats that awesome dude up in heaven.
He tells us how to be great Christian women. None of that includes being a oppressed by men.

Thus we are equal. There is no need for feminism in a truth-seeking church.

But isn't there a double standard in the church
I see what you're thinking about so: Why yes. Yes there is. There's one for both men and women. And that makes it equal. Men (if they chose) serve as leaders in the church (married men as elders etc); women (if they choose)  lead the children and have children (which as we know, men can not physically do).

And that's as far as that double standard goes. Both can work (Proverbs 31, Genesis 2), both can study the bible to ones own desire (Joshua 1:8) and both can correct those who misunderstand the gospel (Acts 18:26).

And they don't have to marry! You don't have to be a child bearing marathoner to be right it God's eyes-just look at Mary Magdelene. Or you don't have to be an elder preaching marital wisdom if you're a man because remember: we have different gifts!

Let's not forget that we genders need each other in our most natural, undisturbed God-given forms. What God gives, let no man take away. I know I totally took this verse out of context, but I guess I don't need a verse to back this statement up. We have no right to play God and change what God has given and made us.

But the secular, perverted Christian denominations, world religions and non-religions have created serious inequalities that contradict our doctrine, morality, beliefs and our God. As mentioned before, they subject, objectify and leave women (and men) discriminated all because they were born with the sex and gender God personally chose for them.

And there's only one way to fight it. Christians must be 'feminist' of some sort. We can not let our daughters, sisters  and mothers be objectified, treated as unintelligent, be prevented from achieving greatness and given worse treatment for the same situations men occur.

So please. Galatians 3:28

Oh yeah, please remember I'm a hypocritical non-feminist

P.s:
Amy Buckleys notes on this are a great read-specifically on first wave feminism.
This is quite blunt but it also illustrates what gender equality is in the Bible

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

It's seems like the biggest issue in this buzzfeed post from evolutionists is the grammar of these creationists i.e no. 5 who has used the wrong 'there' in her question.

a) simple mistake. Thank you to the one person who commented with a bit of compassion and understands people make typos whether creationist or not. Maybe she was in a hurry and had to quickly write her thoughts down for the photographer without proof reading.

and b) maybe English isn't her first language. Not everyone in the world speaks English including a vast majority of Christians. There are Christians in Asia and Africa and Europe and South/North America and Australasia....and these countries don't all speak English and yeah. (I know she's white but that doesn't mean English has to be her first language. Thinking that way is not very progressive and a lil' bit racist)

But instead of commenting: (Sorry, censored language ahead)

'ARE YOU F***ING SERIOUS. YES. YES WE CAN IN FACT EXPLAIN A SUNSET.

Maybe actually explain the sunset so she can understand (which does not happen after this comment).

Though someone did mention that all the creationists in this post were white. I don't know if that was meant to be an insult (I'm joking, it obviously was)

'Has everyone noticed - they’re all white. I mean, so what, but each of these people appears to be from a similar socioeconomic and racial background. In other words, a very narrow [perhaps inbred] segment of society.'

Funny that when I googled famous evolutionists, they happened to meet the description of the above comment.

(I tried googling famous creationists but it just showed up with memes made by evolutionists like this one below)

And all the evolutionists that did the message thing too were all white also.

And their questions can just as easily be rebutted without use of abuse.

For example: (Sorry, I can't help being sarcastic!)

• God didn't rape anyone? Humans did. They still do today. Even if evolution was correct, there still is rape. (Had to double check I spelt that 'there' right) (no. 25)
• I loved the Noah's ark one though. Those 2 termites sure had a good time. (no. 36)
• The bible as a whole is less than 4000 years old (only the old testament is older). When did Jesus die again? Apparently it's actually the year 4000AD not 2015AD. (no. 32)
• There are entire disciplines dedicated to religious thinking and proof. So does that not make it logical for you to believe in? (no. 28)
• Science rules? Keep religion out of my science class? Woah dude. I'm out. You've won. That was all I needed to hear. You've convinced me and made me question everything I believe in. Congrats. (no. 33 and 41)
• We do support your right to have your religion preached at school! Against our will we support your religion. That's why evolution is preached in every school pretty much! (no. 42) It was shoved down my throat at school! You can't pass Bio without learning it even though I didn't understand anything and the questions I had were never answered!

So after being called idiots multiple times (and other names) and criticised for believing in a book that has been written in 'dead languages' (I apologise on behalf of this guy to the Greeks and Jewish for the calling of your language 'dead'. Again, English will reign forever!) and for believing in a holy trinity (because a God in 3 states can not be one God, it must be 3 different Gods. Thus in that logic, steam, ice and water can not all be the same substance?), I hope you guys are doing ok.

In conclusion: Online abuse is never ok, No matter what the topic. A 'progressive' society should be compassionate and open to people having the freedom to believe what they believe in and contest opinions without receiving hurtful comments from those who object. I'm not saying the creationists are perfect, but this is online bullying just because some people don't believe in evolution.

Peace.

(and love and compassion and understanding)

Take Me To Church

Well hello Hozier

I say this out of love. As you know, I am a fellow church goer just like you oh wait no that's not what this song is about.

Ok first of all, I'd just like to say I love the Amen bit. Like top notch dude.

And I am peeing myself with laughter as everytime I google this song, it gives me names of churches nearby so I can literally take myself to church.

And I do like the song as a whole, it tells a very emotional story about lust (I wouldn't say love because lover seems like 'no strings attached' these days rather than 'wife' but how am I to know what kind of woman you are talking about)

And it's catchy. I've heard it heaps of times.
But would I buy it? Well not anymore.

At first I respected the song. Yeah it seemed anti-religious but so is my music teacher making us sing Hallelujah for the school's Easter Assembly (what?) while whispering how much he hates religious assemblies under his breath as he plays accompaniment on piano

Wait I haven't proved anything.

Well the honest truth is that I didn't find it anti-religious at first.
He's singing about how he's left church to worship a woman. It's a story, not a worship song and as many stories are, it's not in line with worshipping God and not every song has to be a worship song. No crime done.
It's a story just like any story I'd pick up off the shelf. And no one has ever had a problem with novels similar to this story a.k.a romance novels. That's what a story is. Man's struggle, man's temptation and what not. Just a tale. A lyrically beautiful one.

And there's nothing wrong with 'paying respect' to a women's body. Sex is all good in the hood with the church. The bible proclaims it repeatedly and how else would you have a child. Would every child be a product of sin? Then God should've never told us to 'be fruitful and multiply.'

So initially, I never opposed Hozier's song.

But then I wiki'd it like 'yo, I wonder what his intentions are because I feel something just don't feel right about dis song.' Why is blogger not underlining 'dis' with the red squiggly line? This is not a real word. You know that right blogger?....blogger stop underlining the word blogger, it's the name of your own site.

And unfortunately I got the answer I wanted.

 "Sexuality, and sexual orientation - regardless of orientation - is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things. But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation - that it is sinful, or that it offends God. The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love." -Hozier

So let's clear up a few things.

 "Sexuality, and sexual orientation - regardless of orientation - is just natural. An act of sex is one of the most human things."
I wouldn't disagree with that. I don't think there is anything in the Bible that says it's not natural...

"But an organization like the church, say, through its doctrine, would undermine humanity by successfully teaching shame about sexual orientation - that it is sinful, or that it offends God."
Your song has no mention of homosexuality at all, which I assume is the sexual orientation you are talking about. What's this got to do with anything? You are a man singing about a woman. That's heterosexual. If it wasn't for the music video, there'd be no homosexuality. This isn't a gay anthem at all. 

"The song is about asserting yourself and reclaiming your humanity through an act of love."
Yeah, it's natural yo. Not opposing this.

But then this song worships sex. It places wayyy too much importance on a culture that is not as accepting as you think. The idea that you're not mature or human til you indulge in sex is ridiculous. Sex is seen as one of the biggest goals in life. So if a person doesn't sleep with someone, there is a stigma that they are immature, unattractive and it's something they should be ashamed of (don't tell me you've never heard ''really? you're still a virgin'' or ''really? You guys didn't sleep together?''). 
How is that a good thing to be emphasising in song?
Seriously Hozier. Do you want to be shoved into a category with people like this?

Why is this even a question? Don't tell them? 

Is this real life? How superficial. 

Lolo Jones, you are queen bee my love. 

Ignore the shallow haters.

So I know this was meant to be a really protest-y song but to be honest, I find no offense and I actually like the tune. 
But because it seems you want to create an argument and offense to religion specifically Christianity (because we'd be talking about Saturday not Sunday if it was for the Jews and so forth) I will not purchase your song or support it. 

I feel this is the reaction you want. Well all reactions would be beneficial to you. 

C'mon Hozier. Why it gotta be like this?