Perhaps, Husker. Perhaps. But I don't provide them a platform. I comment on a portion of the stuff that shows up in this tiny little corner of the internet.
Maybe because to sane people, a man showing his nipple isn't the same as a woman showing hers. Having said that, should men generally wear shirts? Yes. They look stupid when they don't. But is a topless man different from a topless woman? Very much so and on multiple levels.
The main way to express preference to companies is becoming a customer of their competitor. Keep entrance to market as low as possible and bad actor suppliers like Facebook and Youtube go away naturally. Consumers are sovereign in a market system not producers.
Remember when the NFL considered charging musical acts to perform at the Superbowl? That tells you how much value that stage has to the acts. Levine was always some skinny dude with a girls voice. Last night he became a jacked dude with a girls voice.
^^^Very fit for sure, but I am so sick of all the tattoos. I won't let my daughter watch the show he's on. The Voice. Seems harmless on the surface, but this kind of look is not what I want her to be seeing at a young age. What a freak. Flame away.
Honestly I don't care of someone gets tattooed. It's a free country, but I don't understand the point. What message are they trying to communicate to others or themselves? It just doesn't make a lot of sense to be. Ditto for body piercing. I see no point at all. I understand that it's so common that women get their ears pierced as a matter of their normal lives, and I get that other women will judge them if they don't. But beyond the societal expectation of it, I really don't see the point of that either. Personally, I've never given a crap about a woman's earrings. And the less conventional piercings are even more ridiculous (nose, eyebrows, belly buttons, etc). When he was in his crazy, rave phase, my brother considered getting a Prince Albert (Google it if you don't know what that is.). He changed his mind because he couldn't one simple question from me. "What's the point?"
We could fix the problem if everyone just kept their shirt on. I think we're past the point in this country where we pretend that a muscular guy without a shirt on isn't sexualizing the culture. Because a progressive's self worth goes away when they're no longer the most woke person in the room. When everyone's woke, my life has no more meaning. If the Lord keeps me around long enough to watch the next 40 years, it's going to be hard not to take some satisfaction in the absolute chaos our culture is about to dissolve into. Sadly, the effects of it on this country will probably mean that none of us will think it's funny then.
He may or may not be, but as a society, we've deemed a topless guy to be decent if not formal. We've deemed topless women to be indecent. We have a right to make that kind of distinction. If I see a guy out mowing his lawn with his shirt off, I'm not going out of my way to make sure Deez, Jr. doesn't see him. When I saw topless women on the beach in Spain, I didn't freak out and make a scene, but I did make an effort to keep him from seeing them. But yes, I'd rather everyone just kept their damn shirts on.
Come on. This is not complicated. It was about marketing, and selling music, selling an image. He sings in a very high octave, for a male or female vocalist. Which means his main audience is female. So, even though he is married with child, he still has to keep the idea in their heads that, some day, they might get to do the sex thing with him. Which sells his music and keeps them paying high prices for his performances. Some people have suggested he exposed the tats as a hat tip to Kaepernick. Maybe, I guess. But, generally, most all of this stuff is highly controlled by media specialists, "image consultants" and PR folks. Whatever their thought process was, if there is one thing we can all be certain of, it is that every moment of every thing Levine did with his halftime show was aimed at future income. And that is what it is all about.
Adam Levine: How can I convince people I'm not effeminate? Publicity: Do the Super Bowl halftime and take your shirt off. Adam Levine: Cool bra. Publicity: But don't do that thing where you prance around like Mick Jag... Adam Levine: Can't talk!!! Gotta work on my dance moves!! Later!!
I agree that a man's bare chest is categorically different than a woman's bare chest, but I think Prodigal still made a good point below. Now if it was Jack Black taking off his shirt on stage, it is a whole different subject. But Joe Fan is correct, a group of experts instructed Adam Levine to take his shirt off for financial reasons. But also because Mr. Deez is correct, I am not all that bothered by that when compared a case of a woman doing that.
Yeah. It won't end up being funny, but it is an example of innate human nature, legalistic religiosity. True religion has an antidote to this: love and freedom, but from my perspective PC religion doesn't allow for those things. The last sentence of the quote below is what we are seeing with PC now. Galatians 5 "13 For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”15 But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another."
My objections remain, but for different reasons... Actually they're still the same. I know we're kidding about this, but in all seriousness, we have this tendency in our society to say that we'll excuse behavior if we kind of enjoy it. Someone good looking dancing subjectively and inappropriately, we're OK with it - we'll put them on the basketball court during times-out. But not if they're overweight and unattractive.
You are 100% correct. However, persons like David Duke and Ralph Northam do not belong in public office. That has nothing to do with forgiveness. We do not need people of such poor judgement in positions of leadership.
The counter argument is that you don't want to reward the SJW/Twitter mob and give them power over the democratic process. Even more true, if the perceived sins are from 35 years ago. Use democracy don't subvert it, that's what Communists do.
Just to be clear, it doesn't personally bother me to see a woman's breast in public. Here in Europe, I see that at least a few times per year whether its at a beach or at a public park. I don't stare (for obvious reason), but it definitely doesn't bother me. The big thing is that I don't want my kid to see it. Having said that, I saw much worse when I was his age growing up in the SF Bay Area. When I was about 3 years old, I was on a streetcar (a tram, not the cable cars) with my mom in downtown SF. It slowed down to make a stop, and a dude sitting right in front of me stood up to get off, and he was wearing assless chaps. He stood for about ten seconds with his nasty, hairy *** about six inches from my face. I'll never forget that. This was in 1979, so it was at the height of the gay bathhouse days in SF. Looking back, I can only imagine what this dude was up to or where he was heading.
It's not really a counter argument, but I agree you don't want to reward the mob. The problem is that Northam's past sins were covered up by the media and the democrat party. Not only do you have a racist act that happened 35 years ago, but you have a coverup that happened less than a year ago. Doesn't Northam have some responsibility for the coverup too?
Perhaps a better example than David Duke is Roy Moore. During the general election, but not the primary, the media brought out allegations against Moore and clearly influenced the election. Similarly, the media sat on allegations about Northam and his Lt Gov which would have likely influenced the election. So the twitter mob is not getting a win in this case, but the media mob is getting another win.
