Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Reacting to A Sexualized Culture

December 17th, 2006 Visited 1802 times, 2 so far today

Two stories, two places, two entirely different outcomes.

First, a group of nurses are upset because a chain of restaurants in Arizona called “Heart Attack Grill” dress their waitresses as naughty nurses in an attempt to appeal to men on a physical level.

And second, a Playboy editor in Indonesia is standing trial on charges of publishing indecent material. The penalty if convicted can be more than two and a half years in jail.

In the case of the editor,

A prosecutor told the South Jakarta District Court that Erwin Arnada oversaw photo shoots and published revealing pictures of female models in underwear, some showing partially exposed breasts.

“The models also had inviting expressions on their faces,” said Resni Muchtar, adding that the magazine included lascivious and lustful comments.

— snip —

Unlike its American version and editions in dozens of other countries, Indonesian Playboy contains no nudity.

Why doesn’t it have nudity?  Because the conservatives (Muslim) people of that country demanded the magazine be taken off the streets and Playboy complied.  You see, in that country, having naked women in print is wrong– they have it in their faith, they have it in their practice.

Over here in America, we use the sexualization of the culture and prey on a woman’s body for financial gain:

The waitresses wear skimpy, cleavage-baring outfits, high heels and thigh-high stockings.

— snip —

“They definitely look at us, but they’re guys,” she said. “If our butts are coming out the bottom of our skirts, and our boobs are coming out the top of our shirts, we’re kind of asking for it.”

You see the problem?  We’ve even convinced the women that it’s fine and good for guys to look at them in a sexual way.  Playboy (the first “men’s magazine”) has succeeded in leading the way to desensitizing us to sexual images– and it’s trying to do it in Indonesia only they put their foot down.

The problem here is that we have more men like the one that said this on Rush Limbaugh’s talk show today:

“Just because I’m on a diet doesn’t mean that I can’t look at the menu!”

Rush had said something about the fact that you don’t need to look at that if you are married and have children– and the caller said that his wife understood.  I highly doubt she did, but remember what Christ said: He who looks on a woman to lust after her is already committed adultery in his heart.

You can’t expect to be unaffected by what you see– you can’t expect to control it.  You must avoid it.



  • ann_in_grace says on: December 20, 2006 at 4:34 pm


    This way of publically trumpeting sex has become so common everywhere that we sometimes do not notice it. People become numb to a stimulus that is oveused – and lulled into indifference, which is exactly what is planned and executed by the inventors of the trend.
    IMO it is not even humanistic – it is antihumanistic in the metastructure of things, because it reduces a person into an instinct-driven creature.
    So even humanists should start protesting against it.

  • MInTheGap says on: December 20, 2006 at 4:48 pm


    I totally agree. I think that sex has been used to shock just like foul language. As people use it more and more they have to get more shocking in order to accomplish the shock, but then it goes back into common practice. Little do we notice the fact that a couple generations ago people would have considered what we now take as normal as indecent.

    I mean, just look at the early 1900’s swimwear for women! No knees or shoulders shown! Now, we find it normal to have women parade around in their underwear and that’s considered normal.


Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: