People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has unveiled its ad campaign: Vegetarians make better lovers. Part of this ad campaign features a live demonstration of a blow-up bed with two scantily-clad, attractive women embracing in a passionate kiss. Earlier this year NBC refused to show PETA’s Super Bowl commercial where women rubbed themselves with vegetables in a sexually provocative way. That PETA’s science about a link between vegetarianism and better love making is junk science is really not the issue. The real issue is this ad campaign has nothing to do with the treatment of animals. It has everything to do with slowly mainstreaming sexual perversion.
Katy Perry’s song “I Kissed a Girl” was nominated for a Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance in 2008. In her song she insists
Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain’t no big deal, it’s innocent
I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight
I kissed a girl and I liked it
This number one Billboard hit preaches that sexual experimentation is natural and innocent. “It felt so wrong. It felt so right. Don’t mean I’m in love tonight.” Our conscience is telling us it is wrong, but our passions tell us it feels right. Pop culture advises we ignore our conscience because it “ain’t no big deal. It’s innocent.” This sexual experiment isn’t even about love because kissing a girl “don’t mean she’s in love tonight.”
The more nefarious component of this song is that it deliberately attempts to normalize the sexuality of our youth. Through this song Katy Perry is inviting young, cherry chap stick-wearing girls to experiment with their sexuality. Follow her example; it wasn’t so bad. She kind of liked it, and after all, it didn’t really mean anything anyway. Maybe her boyfriend won’t mind it. In fact her boyfriend would probably encourage it.
In the 90s’ hit sitcom Mad About You, Paul Reiser’s character answers a question from his wife played by Helen Hunt. She asked him why men are so interested in lesbian scenes. He answered “Because it’s naked, it’s fun, and I agree with both of them.” Men are attracted to such scenes when both women look like the “girlfriend” in the relationship. Interest in such scenes wanes when both women look like the “boyfriend.”
Slowly these images of attractive women engaging in homosexual conduct have softened the natural repulsion to homosexuality. This inveiglement is by design, paving the broad way towards downtown Sodom. Though we are not inclined to engage in homosexual conduct ourselves, our pop culture demands we accept it as an equally valuable lifestyle. Labels of “homophobic” from homosexual rights activists pressure us to live quietly in the suburbs of Sodom and Gomorrah.
FoxNews.com resident “Sexpert” Dr. Yvonne Fulbright states “If you’re going to explore everything your sexuality has to offer, you can’t get hung up on the labels and categories society has constructed around sexual orientation. Seeing your sexuality as fluid can open you up to a whole other world of erotic intimacy and connection.” I wonder if she would allow those with a Judeo-Christian ethic to ignore the socially constructed “homophobe” label.
She continues: “Whether bi-curious or able to embrace their sexual fluidity, they know more pleasures and electrifying experiences than the rest of us will ever fathom. They have opened themselves up to a whole other playground, which can fuel their libido and capacity for arousal.” Where are these “whole other playgrounds?” Does “sexual fluidity” have to be limited to the same species? Her philosophy assumes no rules in a search for sexual gratification. We are not allowed to make value judgments on where someone fuels his capacity for arousal, whether it is with the opposite sex, same sex, plants, animals or elsewhere.
Dr. Fulbright states “Yet sexual behaviors don’t always reflect your sexual orientation. And your sexual orientation doesn’t necessarily determine your sexual behaviors.” She makes her point by anecdotally pointing to all-male prisons, same-sex schools and “an elderly facility with slim male pickings,” whatever that means.
“In seeking sexual gratification, people have learned to work with what they’ve got.” I guess she would tell the sheep of lonely farmers that if it’s inevitable, like the weather, they might as well lie back and enjoy it. Someone ought to get PETA involved in protecting these sheep.
We are constantly told that “homosexuals” are born that way. They can’t help their sexual feelings for people of their own sex. They are identified by this sexual orientation. The point of Dr. Fulbright’s article is that it doesn’t matter where you get your sexual gratification. Sexual orientation doesn’t determine your sexual behavior.
If one can visit other sexual playgrounds, then sexual orientation has no significance unless it means “where someone initially looks for sexual gratification.” Sexual orientation then does not have anything to do with people’s identity, but with people’s behavior. If sexual orientation doesn’t naturally shackle one to a specific sexual playground, then providing special protections based on orientation is merely about affirming certain behaviors. The fact that there are no “homosexuals” but people acting homosexually should clearly change the policy debate.
Philosophies have consequences. The logical extension of Dr. Fulbright’s, PETA’s, and the rest of pop culture’s sexual philosophy would lead beyond seeking arousal from the adults of the human species to sexual gratification found from contact with animals, dead bodies, vegetables and children. That philosophy believes prohibitions are harmful to one’s sexual fulfillment. Prohibitions define people and restrict them from reaching their sexual fluidity. This descent into sexual depravity will wage war on all laws restricting the access to any sexual playground.
PETA’s ad campaign and pop culture use their seductive, soft-core images to titillate the lustful passions of men and, more recently, women. This philosophy encourages a mad dash to your preferred sexual playground without fear of labels or consequences. Meanwhile, using labels to derail value judgments, pop culture has tried to silence opposition. Pop culture’s lascivious, licentious march to perversion has left many living silently in the suburbs of Sodom and Gomorrah.