Andy's Blog

One of the key sponsors of the conference Allen and I just left was The Kim Komando Show. If you don't know who that is, she does a "technology" talk radio show. It's mildly informative. But her appeal is that she is sexy (sort of...ok not really, but you can tell she thinks she is).

Anyways...so she's hosting this luncheon and sure enough, it is like the sorority house at Arizona State University let out and the babes are just everywhere. It went from a conference of balding, fat, old men in their 50s to American Pie Beta House. She even went as far as putting one girl with very nice breasts (yeah I noticed, leave me alone) in a very nice, but provocative formal dress that had a slit up to the middle of her thigh with her boobs hanging out. As you can imagine, with a conference full of men, it was a huge success (even though her talk was mediocre).

Right as Kim's talk was about to start, Allen mentions to Phil about how there are all these young girls around and maybe Andy will find a date. I, hardly amused, say, "that would never work out", and get back to what I was doing. Allen then says, "I think Andy's gay." So why are you wrapping up your series on Lori Gottlieb's article Marry Him! with this. Simple...

My conclusion after spending nearly two weeks thinking about this is that I think Gottlieb is right and wrong. She is right for woman. You should probably settle. But she is wrong for men. I know. Super sexist huh? But it is true.

I say this for two reasons. It is unfair, but true, that women have more of a deadline facing them in the event that they are looking to have a family. Gottlieb goes into great detail on why this is true.

But my reasoning is not simply biological. It is sociological as well. Woman have an uncanny ability in dealing with disappointment. If marriage isn't what they thought it was, or their husband doesn't turn into John Cusack, they deal with it. I sincerely envy women because of this.

Men on the other hand don't. I am not saying this is good. I am not saying they shouldn't work on it. But the fact is, men are awful at dealing with disappointment in relationships. Hence the reason a majority of divorces are due to men looking for what they feel they missed in getting married. Therefore men should pay particular attention to what they are looking for in a marriage when they are dating and stick to it.

So what does this have to do with ASU sorority girls above? Simple. I am not gay. I am persistent. I am not settling for anything that won't realistically work out in the long run. And while I can never be John Cusack in Say Anything, and the sex probably won't be like Aaron Eckhart and Katie Holmes in Thank You For Smoking, I still have what I am looking for, and not settling for anything less.

So if there are any fun, cute girls, who are cool being in ministry, look forward to having an adventurous sex life, love Jesus, love to travel, and are pretty independent looking to settle, feel free to shoot me an e-mail (extra bonus points if you have blond hair ;) ).

I hate the grocery store. I usually go once a month. The longest time inbetween grocery store trips on record since moving to Georgia is three months. I have to say, and as sexists as this sounds, I look forward to getting married in hopes that I never have to go to the grocery store again. But the grocery store has one positive, and no it isn't the lonely, single girls who think the grocery store is a great place to pick up guys (it isn't). The #1 best thing about the grocery store: I can still push the cart through the store and ride on it like superman. Immature? Absolutely. But this brings me to a profound thought: I am glad I don't have ovaries...

Welcome to part 4 of my series on Marry Him! an article written by Lori Gottlieb in the magazine The Atlantic.

By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do!

This is the universally unfair deal breaker that truly proves it is harder to be a woman than a man. Like the picture above, a single man in his 30s has relatively little worry about his singleness. He still has plenty of time to start his family Better yet, not only can he start a family, men seem to get more attractive to woman as they age, so he will be able to find a woman to start a family with. Thus, the man is free to go strolling through the grocery store like superman.

But it isn't quite true for his potential equal half. In contrast, a single woman in her 30s knows full well that her time to create the family she always dreamed of is coming to a quicker end than she would like. In addition to that, the older she gets, the less attractive and interesting she is to members of the opposite sex. It's a lose, lose. She isn't free to approach her 30s as an free wheeling time to go romping through grocery stores. She has a clock and a calendar to worry about.

I am not saying it is fair. In fact, I wish it weren't the case. I truly mean that. If I had any say, there would be some equalizing factor that would allow a woman to act like superwoman, or at least bring men down a peg. But the truth is the truth, and that is what we deal with here. No matter how hard it is to accept.

So where does this leave us. Well, in an unprecedented move, I am splitting Lori Gottlieb's score. She gets a point for the "woman" side, but does not get a point for the male side. This leaves her score 2-2 for woman, and 1-3 for men.

Which brings me back to the question at hand: is Lori Gottlieb right? Should we be much more willing to settle for love? You'll have to tune in tomorrow for my conclusion, but I'll give you a hint: the aforementioned score tally should indicate where I am landing and I may never get a date after this.

I once got into a heated argument in a restaurant in Elat, Israel on whether or not chick flicks were as damaging to relationships as porn. My position: yes! In fact, it is worse because chick flicks are more subtle...

Welcome to part 3 of my series on Marry Him! an article written by Lori Gottlieb in the magazine The Atlantic.

In my formative years, romance was John Cusack and Ione Skye in Say Anything.

What fascinates me is she uses the same person as my favorite writer Chuck Klosterman in Sex, Drugs & Cocoa Puffs

If Cusack and I were competing for the same woman, I could easily accept losing. However, I don't really feel like John and I were "competing" for the girl I'm referring to, inasmuch as her relationship to Cusack was confined to watching him as a two-dimensional projection pretending to be characters who don't actually exist.
Page 2, Sex, Drugs & Cocoa Puffs

As a single, 20-something man who has a bit of an ego and no problem asking women out, I completely understand what he is saying. In the marketplace of "dating," I can't compete with Say Anything. I don't compare with Matthew McConaughey in How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days. And if they were real people, really "competing" for the same woman, like Chuck, I wouldn't mind losing to them. But they aren't real! And you know full well the real John and Matt would make awful boyfriends and worse husbands.

And before you respond, "ohh I like those movies, but I don't expect that in real life," all I have to say is bull crap! Chuck is correct again when he writes:

[men and women] will both measure our relationship against the prospect of fake love...The main problem with mass media is that it makes it impossible to fall in love with any acumen of normalcy.
Page 3-4, Sex, Drugs, & Cocoa Puffs

A couple of months ago or so I had a conversation at Starbucks with one of my "Stolen" girls. She is smart, funny, attractive, successful, ambitious; simply put: she is amazing. But she said something that floored me. She signed up for internet dating. What!? She even made the statement that, modesty aside, she thought her and [a couple of her friends] were real "catches" but they never get pursued. They don't get asked out.

And while, yes, I will beat up on men for becoming wusses (especially within the church), I have to say they have some justification in being wusses given that the perceived expectation is so high. Which brings me back to Gottlieb's comment on settling...

Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year.

I have to give her the point for today (if you are keeping track, settling is up on not-settling 2 to 1). I sometimes think I would be happier abandoning my expectations because I have come to realize these expectations are built on fictionist fantasies. It isn't that I don't want to find true love, it just seems that true love is fundamentally different than what we have seen. And just as I don't expect my wife to be Pamela Anderson, I shouldn't have to be John Cusack.

You are given two options:

Option #1: You get married. Have a great family. Love your kids. Love your wife. For the most part, your life is full and complete. You are content. But here is the catch: there is little or no passion in your life. It's boring.

Option #2: You have an incredibly passionate life. You are successful with your work, you pursue your interests, and you have wonderful friends. Life is rarely dull, but you never get married.

Which do you choose...

Welcome to part 2 of my series on Marry Him! an article written by Lori Gottlieb in the magazine The Atlantic.

Here's the unfortunate thing about the above scenario. Most of us don't get to pick, it just sort of happens. But if you could pick, which would you? I think Gottlieb would pick option #1 and here's why...

Once you’re married, it’s not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it’s about whom you want to run a household with. Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business. And I mean this in a good way.

This is about the most disappointing thing I think I read in the article. As Allen said to me, "you're never going to get married now are you?"

But I want my cake and eat it to. I want option #1 and #2. And (for now) I won't settle for less. So I continue to search. But will anybody I find out there be any better than anybody else I have previously dated?

...while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together (for the umpteenth time) in the finale of Friends, do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the [boring] orthodontist, 10 years earlier?

Here's the catch. I think we do think she will be happier with Ross because we project our own theoretical happiness on their relationship. But in reality, if this were the real world, she wouldn't be.

So what is the point to dating and searching for "the one?" I find that all of my past relationships have failed because of one of four reasons (which I will explain more later this week). Is there a point in looking for someone who meets all four? Will it make me any happier than someone with three?

I don't know the answer to it. And even though she probably deserves it, I won't give Gottlieb the point on this one. I just can't. I am 25 and I am going to hold onto the idea that marriage is more than a boring nonprofit. I at least hold onto hope that it is a sexy, exciting nonprofit, and I am going to keep looking for someone to give my tax deductible "donations" to.

On our way to Phoenix, Allen threw an issue of The Atlantic at me and told me to read an article titled Marry Him! by Lori Gottlieb. It's long, but it's well worth the read.

Here's the brief synopsis of the "feminist" writer (picture Carrie Bradshaw): she decide she was getting too old to have a baby the "traditional way" because she couldn't settle on a husband, so she was artificially inseminated. The realization that followed was that she wishes she just would have settled and got married to one of the men she dated in her 30s. That's hardly a romantic position. That's hardly a feminist position. And it is a position I am not sure if I am comfortable with. But I do think the article is profound in many ways...

Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring 40-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child).

I am not 40. I know, brilliant. I am not a woman. Even more brilliant. I have no clue if this is true or not. But I believe her. It's kind of like that old adage you never see a tombstone with, "I wish I spent more time at the office" written on it. Humans desire the companionship of marriage (and by extension, a family) more than anything else.

It's like in the Bible where Paul talks about staying single unless you can't control the "passion" inside. Most pastor's will teach the passion is in reference to sexual desire. I think those pastor's fundamentally miss what Paul is talking about. It seems more likely he's talking about companionship. He's talking about knowing someone so intimately that the relationship transcends all other relationships. And when you think about it, that's harder to abstain from than sexual pleasure.

So she continues...

Is it better to be alone, or to settle?

[married woman], like me, would rather feel alone in a marriage than actually be alone, because they, like me, realize that marriage ultimately isn’t about cosmic connection...

I found this interesting because of an all female chapel I sat through at APU in 2003. I was the only man in the room of some 1,200 college females (and I still couldn't get a date, but to my credit, I was in an invisible room directing the event). But one of the speakers was doing a Q&A about being single in her 40s and someone asked simply, "aren't you ever lonely?"

Her response was simple and it stuck with me. "Sure I get lonely, but so do my married friends."

I have often reflected on that statement over the years and found solace in the idea that the loneliness that comes with singleness doesn't go away in marriage, it just mutates. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that being single and lonely isn't any different than being married and lonely. At least being single I can travel the world, right?

But Lori's article got me rethinking this whole position. Because 4.5 years later I think she is right. Every single person I know past the age of 23 (except one) would probably admit they desire a full marriage relationship, even when they acknowledge that marriage is hard.

But there are no married people I know who want to leave a marriage because it is lonely (they may want to leave for other reasons, but loneliness is not it). Therefore, there must be something fundamentally different, and secondary, to the loneliness found in marriage when compared to the loneliness found in singleness.

So far, Lori wins 1 point on should I settle or should I not. Lets see what the rest of the week brings, but I promise she won't win them all...

I checked the mail today and got a save the date from Kim in Minneapolis. Kim always draws my mind towards two things: 1.) the fact I wanted to date her my first two years of college, and 2.) the song Champagne High by Sister Hazel - which incidentally is about a guy at a wedding who realized how he missed his chance. So you think you know why this song reminds me of her don't you? You'd be wrong...

You think the song reminds me of her because I somehow think I missed my chance with her? Sorry. Nope. I never asked her on a date because she was in a relationship when I knew her and then she moved. That was pretty much the end of it and I don't feel like I missed anything.

Ok if that isn't it, you think she introduced me to the song? Wrong again. That would be Sara.

But the song does draw my mind to two girls I do feel like I missed my opportunity. I know when I get the save the dates to their weddings I will feel like I am on a "Champagne High."

But the day's irony doesn't end there. I have recently been trying to digitize all the Scrubs episodes for my iPod. Sure enough, the next episode after visiting the mailbox was "My Cold Shower." This is one of my top 5 favorite Scrubs episodes. But it is particularly fitting for the Champagne High moment. Scrubs decided to use Stolen instead of Champagne High in the last scene - probably my favorite scene in all of Scrubs - but I don't blame them, it fits.

That scene is so powerful. That feeling is so raw. Maybe I am the only one. But I understand the emotion in this scene. It's like in Top Gun when Meg Ryan tells Kelly McGillis that there are "hearts broken all over he world tonight...because unless you are a fool that boy is off the market."

Most of you know how devoted I am to work and what I do is pretty much my life. So this next statement should not be taken lightly. If you could tell me, 100% for sure either one of the relationships would work out, I would drop what I do and move there in a second - even if it meant working at McDonald's.

But I have no guarantee either would work out, so I don't do it. Maybe it is because I am not a romantic, and am a realist (*read* cynic). Maybe it's because I am a wuss. Maybe it's because I believe in fate. Maybe it is because I think as soon as I get what I want, I no longer want it. Whatever it is, I stay here in Alpharetta.

But this post isn't about them. It is about singleness. It's about missed opportunity. The realist in me moves on. The realist in me looks for "their qualities" in others. The realist in me knows there will be others, and there will be one that is even better. But then again...here's hoping to Atlanta's job growth and maybe some job will "steal" one of them to Atlanta. Here's hoping. I'll keep a bottle of champagne ready...

I recently added the song I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That) by Meatloaf to my iPod. I know it is a bit of a classic, and it takes me back to Middle School, but in a more recent context it got me thinking about sex. Welcome to part two of my blog's discussion on Good Sex

"Will you engage in oral sex once you are married?" This is a question I have posed to countless single, 20-something, Christians and Non-Christians that I have a trusted relationship with from Indiana to Los Angeles to Jerusalem to Atlanta. The responses have been quite surprising. Heard everything from "absolutely not," to "yeah, who wouldn't," and everything in between. But I think it gets to the heart of the real question, which is: what is sexually appropriate within a marriage?

Now for this discussion I am not talking about pre-marital activity (we can debate that some other time) nor am I talking about homosexual behavior. This is about what is appropriate within a heterosexual marriage.

For example, I had a professor in college that said his fiancée came to him before they were getting married and wanted him to list all of his sexual fantasies. After getting married, she did all these fantasies, because she wanted him to think of her when he thought of these fantasies and nobody else. I had another couple I know well that is dating come to an agreement that when they get married, one of the first things they will do is go to the local sex store and each pick "something" out. I know another married couple who isn't using birth control, and on days of the month where she is most likely ovulating, they do, as he put it, "other stuff."

On the other hand, I know of marriages that have fallen apart because one partner was uncomfortable with what was asked sexually (which for privacy I won't get into those details).

The church does an awful job of talking about this topic. It makes comments like "sex is good," but the term is so ambiguous that it still leaves so much confusion for the married and single alike. Even on our show, we have had people call in with questions about oral sex and anal sex during open mic, and even though we don't mind talking about swinging or pornography, etc...we don't ever seem to take those calls.

Well that all ends here. We are going to do something interesting on the blog that I have never done before. I am not going to give you what I think until I hear from everyone else out there. I usually get about 200-300 visitors, yet never get that many responses. So I know you are out there. I want to hear from everybody. Feel free to lie about your name and e-mail address. "Who" you are is not important. But what you have to say about this topic is. And be honest! Married, single, engaged. Christian, Non-Christian, Atheist. It doesn't matter. Pass this along to your friends. I want to hear from anybody and everybody. What is your perception of a healthy sexual relationship and how do you draw the line on what you feel comfortable with and what you don't?

To get you thinking, consider the following items (but I want you to be more philosophical in response then just responding to a laundry list)

• Oral sex
• Anal sex
• Sexual fantasy or role playing
• Using pornography
• Swinging or "Threesomes"
• Using sex toys
• Adventurous and/or Sex in Public Settings

Seriously. How do you establish what is and is not ok within the boundaries of a healthy sexual marriage? I will explain what I think in a comment later on this week but for those of you who want a really boring, long read, you are welcome to check out my senior thesis on the topic.

Please note this article was originally written for my Newsvine Column so verbiage is slightly different.

We interviewed David Levy, the author of Love and Sex with Robots yesterday in London in preparation for a show we are doing this weekend roughly titled "Why We Get Married?" His prediction is that by 2050, Massachusetts will be the first state to legalize human-robot marriages.

This got me thinking about evolution (which I am sure has got Mykola floored). Now, I am not a total believer in evolution. This is not to say I don't think it could be true - I have no quarrels with the theory. I just don't think scientifically there is the evidence for Macro-evolution. But that is not really my point. My point is that if evolution is true, I think robots are going to be the end of human existence.

We usually think of the end of human existence with robots something a-la-Terminator or Matrix. There is a giant war between the robots and their creator, yet inferior humans. But robots are far too smart for that. They are going to take over the world more subtly.

In the interview, we started to talk about if a human-robot marriage will be able to have kids. Sure enough, David responded by saying that the robot will be designed to produce genetically similar mini-robots that will combine traits from the "natural human" and the robot. Thus making kids.

So here goes. In theory, all things being equal and morality set aside, I think humans will naturally want to have relationships with robots more than humans assuming you can't tell the difference between the way a robot looks/acts/talks/etc...when compared to a human. Why? Because life could be all about the human. Everybody could marry a supermodel or "Dr. McDreamy." The robot could cook and clean, etc...sex would be what you want, when you want, how you want, etc...You could have the number of kids you want, not what your spouse wants. You would have no in-laws. It is essentially one less person to "feed / house / pay for." Conversation would always be about what you want to talk about, and it can be as deep, intimate, or shallow as you would want. You could essentially create a life that is all about you.

Now, throw in that the robot can manufacture robot kids and then you have the start of an evolutionary process that essentially wipes out the human race. Sure there will be some that will hold on (I'd like to think I would be one of them), but sooner or later the robots will become the far superior race and with survival of the fittest kicking in, they will easily be the next step in the evolutionary chain.

Side notes:

1. I should state for the record that a.) I don't think human-robot relationships are a morally acceptable and valid form of intimate relationship, and b.) I don't believe that robots really will be the end of human existence. But it is interesting nevertheless.
2. P.S. You should really listen to the interview if you have 6 minutes. I think it is really interesting and, yes, I am the "Andy" they make fun of in the middle of the segment for not being able to find a girl.
   http://www.allenhuntshow.com/Home/play.php?FileURL=...

This past month I turned 25. I decided to spend it like I did most of my weekends this summer: down at the beach on Hilton Head Island. It was real low key - and if you know anything about me - that's the way I like my birthdays (isn't that right Patrick ;) ).

I originally sat down to write this while at the condo in Hilton Head, but I got distracted by a beautiful woman who still has 3 years to turn 25, hit save, and haven't touched it since. But I am glad I didn't because it wasn't until this past weekend that I knew what my point was with it, and here it is: I was never suppose to get this old.

This past weekend, Molly's parents and I dropped Molly off at Samford University for her to start her 4th and final year of college (I'll blog about that experience later). The ride home was really quite enjoyable as Molly's parents and I had some great conversation. As we were entering the greater Atlanta area, Molly's mom started talking about how weird it was to drop Molly off this weekend, and her younger sister a couple weekends earlier (actually the weekend I turned 25), and next year they are going to be dropping off their youngest. As we passed over 285 she made the comment, "I was never suppose to get this old." And after reflecting on this further this past week, I have to say that I think she is right.

I am not going to bore you with another discussion on why time proves there is a heaven. If you missed that, you can check it out here. But what I do think after putting some thought into this is how often life tells us exactly what we need to know, yet we ignore it. It is moments like these that God uses to remind us that something is seriously wrong with what we call life. Yet do we notice?

What happened to high school? Remember longing to get your driver's license? Or showing up for the football game to meet friends? Or getting ready for Prom? And then we moved on to college and how many of us woke up the day after graduation, looked in the mirror and just said in that subdued, quasi-depressed tone, "wow, it's over." And if you are reading this and are older than say 25, I am sure you are thinking, this kid doesn't even know the half of it; and you'd be right. I can't even imagine what it is like watching my kid grow up and go to college and start a life on their own and have their own kids just to start the process all over again.

Whether turning 25 or dropping your youngest kid off at college, it is only natural to feel as if something isn't right with the equation. We were suppose to live for eternity. We were created to live outside the bounds of time. But what do we do with that feeling? Do we just get depressed and long to have the moments back? Do we take the opposite approach and start freaking out and attempt to grab every single moment we can while driving everyone else around us nuts? Or do we simply cherish the moments we are currently having because we know they too will be short, but take solace in the idea that one day it will all be corrected? I am not sure how I am going to react, but I do hope these moments always draw me closer to - not further from - my God and my loved ones.

Most of you know I am out in Los Angeles, and on Saturday I was in a good friend of mine's wedding. The wedding was one of the most beautiful I have ever seen and I will try to post photos later. But this trip seems to tell me one thing (besides that being around multiple newly wed couples makes me as horny as all-get out, but that is another post for another day ;) ): I am quite successful for being 24 years old, but I am lonely.

It was really weird at first. I ran into people I hadn't seen in two years, who I barely even knew in college, and before I could even get done saying, "hey it is great to see you," they would chime in with something along the lines of: "man I have heard you are doing some amazing stuff in Atlanta." The first couple of times this happened, it caught me really off guard (*thinking* I barely remember your name, how the heck do you know the details of my life). After about five or six times of this happening, I got used to it and accepted the fact that somebody out here seems to be talking about what I am doing.

But, just like Newton's third law, the joy I find in being successful at what I do, has the equal and opposite reaction of realizing that I feel alone. Now this isn't a smack in the face by any means. Heck, I admitted this when I was profiled in a magazine article for Azusa Pacific University (see the final question. Side note though, that article misquotes me multiple times). But it still created quite the dichotomy of emotion that I find myself wrestling with a lot on this trip and in life.

I find most of my 20-something friends fit (what I am now calling) Newton's Third Law of Life. Most of the ones who are successful beyond the average (to the point of borderline envy), struggle with their success because their drive to be successful is exactly what keeps them from happy relationships. And those that are in extremely happy and fulfilling relationships (again to the point of borderline envy), struggle with questions related to careers and purpose (this isn't to say they don't like their job per se, or they are not good at what they do, but it just means they fit more in the "average" job category at best, and at worst: really struggle with the issue of purpose/direction/drive/etc in their life).

The only 20-something I know that breaks this modified version of Newton's Third Law is my best friend in the world CJ. CJ is probably the only 20-something that I will admit is more successful than I am (notice I said "admit," that doesn't mean that there aren't others, it just means I am a conceited ;) ), but he also has an amazing marriage, with the most amazing woman I know for (*I think*) 5 years now, and they have a beautiful 21-month old daughter that is the light of my life (so I can't even imagine how much love and joy CJ gets from her).

But CJ is an anomaly and I think shows why the 30s are easier than the 20s. I know many more people that break Newton's Third Law of Life in their 30s. The happily married couple in their 20s, find their purpose and career and balance their life. Most that are in great jobs and positions in their 20s, find that special someone, and by their 30s "settle down" a bit. But this realization still doesn't make going through your 20s any easier.

As I have gotten older, I think more than the white house and the picket fence, this is what I believe the American Dream to be. It is getting to a place that says I am so well balanced in work and in love that I feel secure, purpose-filled, cherished, desired, taken care of, responsible for others and complete that there can't be an equal and opposite reaction because my place is just perfectly balanced in the middle. That, my friends, is what I am longing and praying for.

I am three hours into a fourteen hour flight from Chicago to Tokyo. According to the personal TV screen I have in front of me, I am currently at 34,000 feet near Fort McMurray, Canada. Three minutes ago, on that same screen, I just got done watching the movie Blood Diamonds, and I think I have found yet another reason why I won’t be getting married.

Unlike other posts, this reason isn’t because of my observations of the opposite sex. No, I think this new reason, is because I am adding another trait to Andy Borgmann that I believe most women are going to decide is not very appealing. I don’t think I can ever buy a diamond.

If you haven’t seen the movie, you need to. The basic summary is it is about how the insatiable Western demand for diamonds (and capitalistic greed) is leading to civil war in many Middle-African countries. The best line in the movie (which I might be botching up) is when in response to being accused as part of the problem because she too probably dreams of a fairy tale wedding, a female reporter says, "Most girls wouldn’t want a diamond if they knew it cost someone else’s hand." I think that is an appropriate statement.

There was another great line in the movie. An African tribal man said, "Let’s hope they don’t find oil here, because then we will be in real trouble." Bam, another slap in my Western, Capitalistic face; especially since I know how much fuel this flight I am on is consuming. But what I think separates oil from diamonds is this: oil’s conflict is based on the fact oil is a commodity (heck it’s cheaper than bottled water). Diamonds conflict are based on the fact they are a luxury. Eventually, I think oil will bring stability to the region of the Middle East (I know, ya’ll think I am crazy). Diamonds will never do this. Diamonds are a luxury item, and the demand will always be priced that way, which means it will always be highly lucrative, and therefore, conflict stricken.

At the end of the movie it challenges everyone to buy "conflict-free" diamonds. But even conflict free diamonds benefit from the insatiable materialism that is associated with "conflict-ridden" diamonds. In the end, at Tiffany’s or Zales, they are all the same.

So as I sit in my premium economy seat aboard United #881, I am fighting back tears (after all, I don’t want the attractive girl next to me to think I am a Nancy boy). But then again, I guess it doesn’t matter because she would never be attracted to a guy who probably won’t buy her a diamond.

Also, If you haven't read all the posts on pornography, you need to start at the beginning or else you won't get the full understanding of where I am coming from with this post. Click here

If you ask a pastor to tell you what is wrong with pornography but on the condition that he cannot refer to scripture, 99.9% of the time this is what comes out next: “Pornography is wrong because it destroys relationships.” I usually follow up with this question: “yeah, but what if it doesn’t. What if someone’s partner is cool with it.” The pastor responds, “I wouldn’t believe her.” Here’s my problem: I have had this conversations with people and when they tell me this, I do believe them. But I am still not ready to concede that porn is ok, even for these people, so I am compelled to dive further to find the real reason porn is wrong in all situations.

Before I go any further I should say this. There are people out there (mostly women) with certain insecurity issues that would say they are “cool with it,” but deep inside not be. One might even be able to say the majority of the people who do say they don’t mind their partner looking at porn qualify for this group. But that still does not negate the potential scenario, nor answer the question why porn is wrong. But I digress.

The other week, the Atlanta-based porn producer Mike South contacted the show. In dialogue with him, he revealed the fact he has had many relationships with people “not in the industry” and they have been cool with his profession and his personal use of pornography. In addition to that, I have a friend, lets call her Linda (no its not my mom), who knows her boyfriend looks at porn, and she too is cool with that. She isn’t insecure about it. She knows she can still please her man, and that her man is very pleased with her (I am not condoning their extra-marital relationship, but it is what it is).

Here’s my problem. Take for example this scenario. I go on a date with my (*cough* non-existent) girlfriend. We go to a movie with Jennifer Anniston in it. We walk out the movie and somehow Jennifer’s attractiveness gets brought up. I then proceed to make the comment, “yeah, Jennifer is hot.” Now about 20% of my past girlfriends would probably have a problem with this statement. But 80% would not. They aren’t threatened by my observations towards Jen. They don’t associate my observations about Jen to mean that I don’t think they are hot. It just is what it is. This is the reason that I actually do believe some when they tell me that it isn’t a big deal if their partner participates with pornography. We all have an ability to internally decide what we are or are not threatened by.

But I still will not say it is right, and here is why. I am not someone who says sex has to 100% of the time be selfless, even though I know there are those out there that think that is the definition of healthy sexuality. I just don’t see how that works. But, sex, like all things in a relationship are about give and take. Sometimes you give more than you take, and other times you take more than you give. The heart of pornography is using it to achieve sexual satisfaction where you are always the one taking. This sets a pattern in one’s life that establishes subconsciously that sex is all about them. Now, this may or may not have consequences in the bedroom. But lets for example say it doesn’t. Lets say for example it actually heightens the bedroom experience (as some claim). The problem I see is that it still robs a relationship of a true partnership in the bedroom. It robs it of its eroticism. It robs it of its fun. It robs it of its struggle. It robs the full experience.

In the end, I don’t think porn is wrong because it destroys relationships, but rather I think porn is wrong because it prevents relationships to be lived to the fullest. This is subtle, but important. Jesus said, “life is to be lived to the fullest,” and Steve Gerali says, “since the brain is the primary sex organ, sex must be learned.” Take celebrities for a second. Better yet, take crazy rich kids who are heirs to huge amounts of money. Better yet, take Paris Hilton. She lives a life in a constant state of highness (both with or with out drugs). Her whole life is centered around attaining the most popularity, the most prestige, the most influence and constantly experiencing the most pleasure. The sad truth of the matter is that her attempts to attain only the positive enable her to miss huge amounts of life that are truly valuable: the low points.

None of us like these points. And many of us would think that our lives would not be destroyed if we never had them again (just as I don’t think porn by default destroys relationships). But I guarantee Paris is missing out on parts of life that are truly valuable, and those engaged with pornography are also missing out on parts of sexuality that are truly valuable. Why? Because they are cheating the communal, learning experience sex should be with one’s partner. Even those that use “porn together” to learn stuff are still cheating the experience. It is like cheating on a test in class. If you copy someone’s answers, sure you might get the grade you want, you may even be able to commit that information into long term memory, but the journey, the thrill of learning is bypassed and cheated.

For me, I want my sexual relationship (whenever that comes) to be full, and not tainted. I want the highs, I want the lows, and I want the in-between, and nothing should get in the way of that.

Fri: What God Has To Say
Sat: Methods That Help

Also, If you haven't read all the posts on pornography, you need to start at the beginning or else you won't get the full understanding of where I am coming from with this post. Click here

The rise in pornography use over the past 15 years is attributed to one thing: the internet. But to blame the internet for this rise is really quite ridiculous. Why? Because the internet doesn't force anyone to do anything. First the blame should first reside with those of us who "demand it." But to just leave it there doesn't make much sense either because people haven't really changed, so why has the demand increased? Because of what the internet allows for us to do, and what the internet allows for porn producers to provide.

Before I continue I should say that what I am about to type are not justifications for using pornography. They are reasons internet porn has increased the usage by everyday Americans...Americans that 30 years ago would not have thought of buying a Playboy. The reasons are very male centered. I wish I would write from a female perspective (especially with the stats that show massive increase in female usage), but I can't. So alas, I am just going to write about what I know - maybe for the first time. But I digress.

The way I see it there are four reasons porn is better than sex.

1.) It requires no commitment whatsoever, and on the surface appears to have no baggage. You can access it when you want. If you are too tired, that's cool, you don't have to do it. Your "partner" in this excursion is never "too" tired. She is always ready and available. When your done: she doesn't want to talk, she doesn't want to snuggle, she doesn't want anything. You just turn her off and go about doing (usually sleep) whatever it is that you want to do. There are no phone calls in the morning. There is no expectation of life change. It is all about attaining pleasure and moving on - there's nothing to commit to.

2.) It's super easy to find, which means it takes no effort to attain. There are no awkward pick-up lines. There are no "am I looking" outside my league type of feelings. For those that believe in sexual purity before marriage, there is no long (did I say long...) wait until pleasure can be attained. (Usually) No one even knows you are doing it, so it is private! In a matter of seconds I can have any girl, scenario, act, etc...it's super easy.

3.) It's anything and everything you could ever want, how you want it, when you want it, and often with illogical ability to have "different stuff" at different times. This is where it gets crazy. Internet porn allows for any of your wildest fantasies to come true...and beyond that, often times more than one of your fantasies to come true at the same time (which is totally illogical). If I want to be sleeping with a cheerleader, while receiving a blow-job from some sorority girl, while eating-out some girl you have seen at work, while having pool sex, that is all logically possible inside the brilliant imagination of the human mind - while just logistically impossible in reality. Porn images heighten this experience.

4.) Internet porn is typically average looking woman. I think this is the most profound point and I stole this from Chuck Klosterman and I left my book at home so I can't quote him. BUT...Playboy were always these GORGEOUS women (ones most of us would never come in contact with on a daily basis) in strange, exotic situations (which we wouldn't visit). Internet porn changed all this. It took (usually) attractive, but not gorgeous women (ones we see everyday) and put them in situations that we are in everyday. If you have a girl at the office you fantasize about, you can probably find something similar to her on the web. If there is a girl in a class you like, there is something on the web you can find that looks like her and puts her in a situation you would find her in. I think ultimately this leads to the subconscious reason porn is wrong (which we'll get to on Friday), but for now we should recognize that because of its normalcy, porn attracts normal people.

None of these reasons justify the usage of pornography. All of them are built under the false pretense that sex should be about me attaining maximum pleasure at any cost, and with no regard to my partner. There is nothing wrong with sex being pleasurable. But just like eating (remember the cheeseburger) cannot solely be understood as attaining pleasure at all costs, so too, healthy sexuality must recognize that there are limits (and consequences) when looking outside the boundaries of sex's design to attain pleasure. We'll get more into why this is later, but first we need to understand that porn's growth is due to its overall normalcy.

Upcoming:
Thus: What If My Partner Doesn't Care
Fri: What God Has To Say
Sat: Methods That Help

This past weekend I had to work a wedding because one of our volunteers (who is a God-send) had to go back into the hospital to treat his cancer. I of course didn't mind doing the event, and my associate, Mickey, did a great job of prepping the sanctuary for it. I don't get invited to very many weddings, and of the ones I get invited to, I go to even less of them. This is for no particular reason. Usually scheduling conflicts because most people wed on Saturday night, making it hard for me to get back to my job on Sunday morning. But I do have to say, weddings give me the creeps.

On a side note, I found out this past week that the first of my ex-girlfriends is getting married in two weeks. I have always wondered who out of all the people I have dated would be the first, and sure enough it was Teresa! Congrats Teresa, and know that the reason I can't attend has nothing to do with weddings giving me the creeps. But I digress.

I know, I know. Why in the world would they give you the creeps? They are about the joyous unification of two souls eternally in the sight of God through the bond of commitment and love (and sex!). Their should be nothing creepy about that, and you're right their shouldn't be.

But I can't help to think, at least at some point in every wedding, that this is the event that starts a news story 15 years down the line about a deranged wife killing her husband and taking the kids across state lines. Or the common story about how a man reaches his mid-life crisis, freaks out, looks for something younger to make him happy and leaves the same person who is being given to him up on stage right now in misery.

Consider it the by product of living in the "divorced generation." Maybe just consider it my cynicism towards life (I don't usually consider myself a cynic, more a realist, but I guess that is what a cynic would say). This is not to say I have given up on love or marriage. I am not Charlize Theron who watched her father kill her mother and has vowed never to "ruin a good thing" by getting married. I still ultimately believe that marriage is a divinely instituted relationship that far exceeds any other relationship and quite possibly gives us the best picture of God's relationship with us. So it should be clearly stated that marriage does not give me the creeps, just the weddings!

Well it is in the news again, so I figured I better comment on it. Like the image to the left of this, Jesus said marriage is between one man and one woman. And I agree with this wholeheartedly. I do believe, the God-honoring, morally acceptable relationships is between a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female that have been bonded in the holy act of matrimony. So thus far, I have all the right-wing conservatives on my side, right?

Well here's where it gets interesting. I support same-sex civil union (whether we call it marriage or not, is just a matter of semantics). Why? Do I think it is right? No. Do I think it is necessarily good for our culture? Probably not. So why do you support this? Because Jesus said...

We recently had Shirley Phelps Roper from the wickedly world famous godhatesfags.com and for organizing the picketing of soldier's funerals on the radio show I produce. I was proud of Allen for sticking up, on theological grounds (which no one else in the Media can do), and saying with a loud voice, you don't speak for us. His point, and I agree with him, is that if you are going to have godhatesfags.com, you need to have godhatesdivorce.com and godhatespornography.com and godhatesstealing.com and godhates-dare I say-gossip.com.

And this is my point with Christians today. We scream, at the top of our lungs that we do not want homosexual marriage on moral grounds, this of course effects 2% of the population. Yet we do nothing to make divorce illegal, which effects 50% of the population. We need to be a consistent "political group" if we are going to be a political group - or else the world will continue laughing at us like they already do. We either need to take the perspective that we are going to be a "God-honoring" government in all aspects of law (including divorce), or concede to the fact that we are not a Christian nation. We will never be a Christian nation. And ultimately God does not call us to enforce a Christian nation, but rather seek change in people's hearts on a one-on-one basis, not through sweeping laws that will force God's law on those who don't want to follow it.

When I was doing my senior thesis on Globalization's effects on the Middle East/West Relationships, I came across an interesting quote that speaks to the dilemma of today's current political environment. This was said by a Muslim friend of Phillip Yancey. "In the Qur'an, I can find nothing to teach us how to be a minority religion, while in the New Testament I can find nothing to teach Christians how to be a majority religion." And that is why I think we are struggling as a political group. The past elections showed that Christianity has a lot of power in this democracy - maybe more than any other single force in this country. Yet Christianity was not founded on these grounds. We were small. We were persecuted. But yet we thrived. If Christianity can thrive in a culture as oppressive to their mission as Rome was before Constantine, I don't think Gay Civil Unions are going to truly be the downfall of Christianity in America.

Jesus said to live righteous and holy lives. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your enemies. Jesus said to love our neighbors as ourselves. But ultimately, Jesus said, I give you the choice to do otherwise.