Culture That Uses Sex To Promote Everything Will Objectify Women

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – But this is what I tell my daughters all the time: Be careful, careful, careful what you post.  If you take any photographs at all and put them anywhere on the internet, Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, doesn’t matter.  If you post them anywhere, they’re there forever.  You’re never going to get them back.  If any of them are stupid, they’ll come back to haunt you.  If any of them are illicit, they’re really going to come back to haunt you.  Just don’t do it.  A picture of you and your friends smiling together, fine.  Anything beyond that, unless it’s the picture of a dog or cat or golf course or something, just don’t do it.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Just browsing around the question and the topic here: Hasn’t the pinup girl, scantily clad become a current fixture of all that is good about being female in the United States?  I was watching yesterday as I watched the Clinton News Network and CSPAN, I was watching an advertisement for one of the weight loss companies that shall remain nameless.  I was noticing that all the girls that I assume used to be a bit more, shall we say, buxom than they currently are thanks to the miracles of this weight loss system or program or food or whatever it is, can now cavort about in what makes a real woman really attractive, and that is a two-piece bathing suit.  If you can’t squeeze yourself in a two-piece bathing suit with all the parts removed in between, then you have not achieved or reached the beau ideal of the American femme fatale.  Then when I go to the next headline, “In a final videotaped message, a sad reflection of the sexist stories we see so often on screen.”  I don’t know that this woman is that far off.  As a matter of fact, just looking at the New York Post story here — we’ll go back to where we started:

[reading]

Elliot Rodger blamed women quite explicitly for the killing spree that he went on over the weekend . . . Today, the New York Post does the same with “Killer Crush” blaring across its front page.

[end reading]

Mike:  There’s a picture of, I guess this is the young girl that survived who allegedly jilted young Elliot Rodger when he was but a lad of ten years old.  She is being blamed, or at least the New York Post is intimating that it’s her fault.  Of course, her father, being the chivalrous guy that she is, comes to the rescue and says: Dude, she was ten!  How can you blame her?  What is wrong with you people?  But there’s more.

[reading]

“Childhood snub set me off, madman seethed,” the sub-headline helpfully adds. The story inside has more pictures of the young woman . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  They’re exploiting this girl, this UCSB coed, who had nothing to do with any of this.  Regardless of the cesspool of the culture we live in, she didn’t ask for this.  But this is what I tell my daughters all the time: Be careful, careful, careful what you post.  If you take any photographs at all and put them anywhere on the internet, Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, doesn’t matter.  If you post them anywhere, they’re there forever.  You’re never going to get them back.  If any of them are stupid, they’ll come back to haunt you.  If any of them are illicit, they’re really going to come back to haunt you.  Just don’t do it.  A picture of you and your friends smiling together, fine.  Anything beyond that, unless it’s the picture of a dog or cat or golf course or something, just don’t do it.  You can’t take it back.  You can’t reel it back in.  Unlike any other epoch in history, once it’s out there, even if you realize you’ve made a mistake, too bad.  You’re not getting it back.  Apparently this girl here had posted some photos of herself on her Facebook page and the New York Post went out there and grabbed the photos off the Facebook page before she could take it down, realizing that nutbag Elliot Rodger, demonic, possessed Elliot Rodger, the killer at UCSB, had identified her by name.  There were 140 pages in the manifesto.  Is she the only one he mentioned by name?

Eric:  I believe so, yes.

Mike:  Poor girl.  This is just horrible.

Eric:  I didn’t read the whole manifesto.  I just listened to his seven-minute video.  I don’t know.  He could have mentioned other ones.  In her defense, she was attempting to pursue a modeling career.

Mike:  Well, that’s over.

Eric:  Yeah, but even if those pictures are more scandalous than normal, yes, because she was trying to use it as a vehicle to jumpstart her modeling career.

Mike:  This ought to help then, especially if she wants to start a modeling career with half her clothes off, hell, with all her clothes off.

Eric:  A hell of a segue here, she has been thrown into this without her knowledge of it, just like Mr. Joe the plumber was.

Mike:  What do you mean like Joe the plumber?

Eric:  He didn’t know he was going to be famous from talking to Obama for five seconds.

Mike:  You mean Obama comes barging into his neighborhood back in 2008 —

Eric:  And he’s brought up in that debate several times and the media just swarmed all over him.

Mike:  He just happens to be in the front yard and says: What is this business about taxing the little guys, about taking from some so that others can have something?  That sounds like socialism to me, or he said something to that effect.  Obama, [mocking] “I am my brother’s keeper.  It’s not socialism.  It’s Obamaism, Saul Alinskyism, to make everybody happy.”

Eric:  You disappoint me.  You don’t remember his famous words that McCain went around, “spread the wealth around”?

Mike:  Obama said that.  Obama’s the one that said: I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for people.  Back to the story here.

[reading]

The story inside has more pictures of the young woman, who had the misfortune of being named directly in Rodger’s self-pitying manifesto about the lack of hot young naked females appearing in his bedroom.

[end reading]

Mike:  Of course, the desire to have hot, young, naked females appear in your bedroom, that doesn’t have anything to do with any of this.  That’s perfectly natural, wholesome, mom, apple pie and American, baby, right?  Right.

[reading]

While the woman’s father is given plenty of space to speak common sense about how stupid it is to blame his daughter, saying, “He had a secret crush on her, but she was completely unaware of him,” the story and its imagery, including a picture of the young woman in a bikini, are drenched in the ugly insinuation that by being sexy and unavailable, she somehow impelled Rodger’s violence. Lines like, “The aspiring model whose childhood rejection of Elliot Rodger lit the fuse that turned him into a murderous madman barely remembers him,” her dad told The Post on Monday, “are a disgrace.”

[end reading]

Mike:  It is disgraceful, but it’s perfectly, I think, well within the — it’s certainly to be expected.  I’m not reading anything here that I did not expect to read, America.  What I’m reading right now is from The XX Factor from Slate Magazine.

[reading]

How, exactly, does not paying attention to someone light “a fuse”? Are women obliged to flatter, cajole, or even have sex with men they find repulsive in order to prevent lighting this fuse?

Rodger’s problem (or one of them) was that he believed he was entitled to women simply because he wanted them. The Post cover and accusatory language reinforce this kind of entitlement, suggesting that women are somehow responsible for men’s actions if they don’t give them what they want. Refocusing this horrible story on an attractive young blonde may move newspapers, but it certainly doesn’t get us any closer to understanding the crime.

[end reading]

Mike:  Sure it does.  I’m closer to understanding the crime as a result of this, aren’t you?  I’m closer to understanding that the sexually-charged environment that we have so joyously and ceremoniously created and revel in as it envelops us in what ought to be a cesspool-like smell is at least partially to blame.  Of course, if you say that, then you’re questioning the modus operandi of the entertainment industry.  The entertainment industry, I believe, today is indistinguishable from the media industry.  They’re both the same.  For the most part, they both deliver the same product, and they deliver it with the same amount of disregard for modesty and humility — there’s no modesty or humility in delivering the news.  There’s less modesty and humility in delivering entertainment.

Just as I said, look at the advertisements for weight loss commercials.  I’m going to go over this again because apparently it doesn’t touch enough nerves.  Maybe the fact that you people and other people aren’t shocked by all this is what is shocking, and that is that our mothers, wives, girlfriends and sisters are cavorting about the media broadcast televised countryside bearing almost all that the Lord blessed them with at birth, almost all of it.  Those bikinis don’t cover up much.  They’re bearing it to show, [mocking] “Look, I’m not fat anymore.  Love me.  I’m not fat anymore.  Love me.  And you get me almost naked.  I’m three-quarters of the way there, boys.  Come and get it!”  What else is the message there?  [mocking] “Mike, they’re just happy about their body.”  Oh, so it’s vanity?  Hmm, didn’t a guy write a book about some — hold on, let me see if I can recall this.  Rubbing the old chin here.  Seven deadly sins.  I know, some cat named Dante.  He wrote the book about seven deadly sins.

End Mike Church Show Transcript