Comment Response

Not too long ago, I received a comment on a post called “Porn Proves Deadly” about a driver of a big rig who, while driving was streaming porn on his laptop, hit and killed a woman whose vehicle was disabled in the median.  The comment was poorly written, unsubstantiated and downright unnecessary.  I receive occasional comments like this and respond as I can.  Typically, when I respond, I don’t hear back.  Such was the case of this comment and its author.  Here is his comment in red italics:

“While I’m not saying I’m pro-porn, I have to say that logically, you’re using a false correlation here.  Some of the things you post I agree with, some I don’t, but saying that the reason he crashed was because of porn is just misleading.  The reason he crashed is because he was being stupid and not paying attention to the road.  It could have been porn, or a regular movie, or he could have been playing solitaire.  It wasn’t the porn, it was his actions and negligence while he was driving.

Frankly, I don’t appreciate your attempts to whip up a fervor.  Countless accidents happen because people text while driving, but I don’t see you talking about that here.  As far as I can tell, you’re just trying to get people on your side with stories that have an untrue “if-then” correlation.  That’s lying, and that, sir, is just plain unmanly.”

I then responded with the following, below in gray:

Thank you for your comment and continued visits to my site.  I’m glad that you agree with me most of the time.  For those times when you don’t agree with me, as in this case, that is certainly your choice.

I have read over your comment, and after review of my post, I believe you are incorrect in your critique of my writing.  Therefore, I am not approving your comment, which is my prerogative, here’s why:

I am not lying, pornography kills.  I even wrote in there “sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally”.  You are correct; it could have been any number of other distractions.  It wasn’t.  It was porn.  This man was looking at porn and killed a woman.  Besides, texting, or watching another movie, does not involve the chemicals in the brain the way that pornography (or any sexual activity or stimulus) does.  The brain emits oxytocin during orgasm and oxytocin is a bonding agent.  It is the same bonding agent between a mother and child at birth and during breastfeeding.  This was not the man’s first time viewing porn, so the bonds that were created in his mind from previous exposure were firing at incredible speeds and it most likely caused such a stir that he lost all recollection that he was driving.

You are correct in saying that you don’t see me posting about the dangers of texting and driving.  You simply didn’t see it.  I posted on August 27, 2009 about it.  The post came over from my old site, so the majority of the post is missing.  Here’s the link… https://www.truemanhood.com/the-dangers-of-texting-and-driving.  I suggest taking the link from the post and watching it on YouTube.

When you send a critique like this, do you homework first.  Don’t call me a liar.  Don’t criticize me when you don’t know what you’re talking about.  My site is not intended to make everyone agree with me, it is intended to do 3 things.  1. Fight pornography and the dangers of pornography addiction.  2. Fight cultural manliness, the idea that the world tells a male.  3. Teach men about virtue and how to live virtue.

Why am I sharing all of this with you?  For a few reasons:

1. Because I believe that those of us that understand the Truth, must share the Truth!  So often the world asks us to sugarcoat everything and water it down.  I refuse.  People are longing for the truth and desire badly to grasp it.  (You simply can’t grasp a watered-down, sugarcoated false-truth… it’s all wet and slippery.)
2. To remind the TrueManhood.com Blog readership of the 3 intentions of this site.
3. To remind the men who read this site that we are striving for virtue.
4. To ward off the nay-sayers.
5. To challenge the “status quo” out there that is indifferent to pornography and the dangers associated with it.  Apathy doesn’t change problems, it makes them worse.
6. To show that being charitable doesn’t mean being an old, soggy dishrag that someone can wipe the ground with.  Being charitable may offend or upset someone.  Jesus offended many in His day.

I really do appreciate comments.  And when someone has a legitimate question, concern or suggestion, I typically heed them.  So, if you’ve got a comment, please pass it along.  If it’s negative, poorly written, distasteful or something similar, I won’t be posting it.

TrueMan up!

“Womanpriests”, “Pope Joan”… and a side of PC

Lately, I’ve come across several stories, websites, conversations, etc. about ‘womanpriests’.  [Some of the websites claim to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.  They aren’t.  No matter their claims, they aren’t.]  One story is about a movie that’s out, exclusively in Europe right now, about the legend of a female Pope that lived during the 9th century.  This claim is unsubstantiated and completely fabricated.  One story, which I saw posted on Facebook, spoke of a ‘womanpriest’ from the St. Louis area who is pregnant.  “The first female Roman Catholic priest to be pregnant in history.”  What is the obsession with women being priests?!?!

I think the obsession is the false understanding of freedom in our culture, mixed with a heavy dose of moral relativism, topped with a false sense of equality… served with a side of PC.  In our culture, fairness has been turned into a “if they get one, I deserve one too” system.  Society completely distorts the understanding of gender, gender roles, equality, fairness and the intention of God in regards to gender and sexuality.  The world has turned everything into a competition and some people believe that in order to be considered ‘equal’, they must have the same opportunities as everyone else.  Think about that – it doesn’t make sense.

Why is it, that as soon as a man is allowed (created) to do something, some women automatically insist that they should be allowed to do the same?  The insistance includes many such things that are outside the scope of a woman’s role.  See, when a man is ordained a priest in the Catholic Church, he becomes the spouse of Mother Church.  Plain and simple.  No apologies here… politically correct or not.

Being politically correct is not Catholic.  It’s not charitable, it’s not what Jesus did, it’s not what we should do.  Being politically correct asks us to waterdown our faith, to become “tolerant” of everything that’s going on around us – whether morally acceptable or not.  No thanks.

As always, I’m not diggin’ on women.  I’m not trying to deify men.  What I’m saying is that we were each created for something great, as a man or as a woman.  Those things can be (and most likely are) different.

Stand up for the dignity of each person.  Respect life.  Respect what God created you for.  Stand up for Truth.  Stand up against the notion of tolerance.  Ruffle feathers, if that’s what it takes.  Christ wasn’t a fairweather prophet… He didn’t take the position of “acceptance”… See, what Christ did (which is what we are supposed to model our lives after) is that He loved sinners too much to allow them to stay where they were.

TrueMan up!