Gaga Makes Me Gaga

When Lady Gaga first emerged onto the national music scene, it was difficult to get a glimpse of her. In all of her performances, she wore costumes that hid her actual face from view. The outfits were part of the act, and she did it well. After a number of years, she began to emerge from behind the masks. Today, she appears before the public and her fans in full view. However, in some ways, she is still hiding behind a mask.

SAG-AFTRA honors Lady Gaga and Harrison Ford, Inside, Los Angeles, USA - 08 Nov 2018

What is she hiding behind? Her drug use, I believe.

In a recent 25-minute speech before the Screen Actor’s Guild, she said Hollywood needed to provide better mental health care for entertainers. And then, she went on to describe her own battle with mental health.

Excuse me, Ms. Gaga, but there are a lot of things wrong with what you just said. I say that, even though I know her many fans were listening to her and saying how wise she really is.

Here’s a business that makes a tremendous amount of money. Hollywood is filled with 1 percenters. I think they could probably fund their own mental health care. If Gaga succeeds and gets Hollywood to fund mental health care for actors, it will only drive the cost of movies and television up even more. It is reported that her own net worth is around $300 million.

LG went on:

“I began to notice that I would stare off into space and black four seconds or minutes.” Gaga recalled. “I would see flashes of things I was tormented by, experiences that were filed away in my brain with ‘I’ll deal with you later’ for many years because my brain was protecting me, as science teaches us. These were also symptoms of disassociation and PTSD…”

I’m sorry for her. It’s sad that she is going through this, but I wonder if there could be other reasons for this. Maybe drugs? . In previous years, when she was looking for that cutting edge in her music, she often turned to cocaine, LSD, and other drugs for creativity. No one pushed her into it. She did this freely. On her own. She admits to using bags of cocaine at a time.

Hmmm. Is it just possible taking bags of cocaine at a time could have had a negative effect on her brain, causing flashes and blank stares?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t know that Gaga is any worse or any better than anyone else. I’m sure she has good and bad aspects to her like all of us. But celebrities are easy to discuss, easy to identify their bad traits, because so much of their lives spill out into the open.

Like many of us, Gaga is a bit hypocritical about her drug use. She admits it, but she feels justified in what she did:

It was about being an artist. I wasn’t a lazy addict.

Ah! Excessive drug use is okay if you’re trying to be an artist. And if you’re not lazy. Lazy addicts are the worst. Not like those noble ones who are active while taking drugs.

Lady Gaga, in her speech, went on about the physical problems she experienced as well, which included

“physical chronic pain, fibromyalgia, panic attacks, acute trauma responses, and debilitating mental spirals…”

Again, I’m sorry that she experiences that, and it’s possible that much of that is due to her drug use. She doesn’t seem to indicate any possible connection between the two.

At one point in the speech, she almost owned up to it:

“I wish there had been a system in place to protect and guide me, a system in place to empower me to say no to things I felt I had to do, a system in place to empower me to stay away from toxic work environments or working with people who were of seriously questionable character.”

You know, many pop culture celebrities spend much of their career celebrating personal freedom, exploring any and every aspect of hedonism simply because it’s there. Gaga is no exception. Yet she is saying she wishes there had been something in place to stop her from doing those things that put her in those places.

Hah! Right! If anyone tried to do that in Hollywood today, they would be branded as Puritans and kicked out of town. There is very little stomach for trying to challenge entertainers to live chaste and morally exemplary lives. Yet that is what she is asking for.

But there was always something in place to stop her from harming herself. It’s been there since we began on this planet.

It’s called a conscience. It’s something we all are born with (except perhaps psychopaths). It generally tells us what we should or shouldn’t do. The problem is that many, if not most, of us learn to ignore our conscience. We hear it screaming at us not to do something, yet we go ahead and do it anyway. It’s the human condition. Those who are wise learn to heed that conscience. Those who are not end up denying their own predicaments in front of the Screen Actors’ Guild.

On the bright side, it seems like it’s a good thing that Gaga regrets her bad personal decisions that have contributed to her dark place. Many times, we have to experience things ourselves so we will truly know how bad they really were. If only we could get the entire entertainment industry to reflect on their own personal behavior.


Save Money On Your Next Global Disaster Prediction!

It’s difficult being a Climate Change Advocate these days. You’ve spent a lot of time and money putting together a new prediction of global doom and gloom by a future date, and you’ve seen the deadline come and go. You’ve issued your 12-year predictions in 1990, 2000, and 2008. The world has not yet been sufficiently panicked into hysteria, so you go back to the drawing board. It will take a lot of time and effort to erase your old computer model results and come up with new ones.

What’s a climate scientist to do?

That’s where we come in. We’re Computer Model Elite and Discreet. And we’ve got the solution for you.

Our Climate Change Computer Models are unlike any you have encountered before. They are uniquely built and can handle all of the data you throw at them.

Meet our Computer Models: Asheena, Rebecca, and Tiffany.

3 Women

No more spending months and months pouring over computer code. These models already have their own built-in logic to process your data. It’s a simple process:

  1. Collect all of your meterological and climate data.
  2. Carefully organize the data into a comprehensive worksheet, sorted by date and location.
  3. Call us up and arrange to have lunch with one of our models.
  4. On the date of your scheduled lunch, bring your data, along with a check for 10% of your grant money.
  5. Take your model to lunch and discuss the weather.
  6. Bring her back to our lab.
  7. Receive your fully climate disaster prediction within 10 business days. If we fail to meet the deadline, you get to take the model out to lunch again. Whatever.

Many of you may have questions about our computer models. We answer them below in the familiar Q&A format below. 

Q: How sensitive are your computer models?

A: They are all a bit different, depending on the model you choose:

  • Asheena is sensitive to cold, so don’t put too much ice in her drink, and definitely do not sit under one of those ceiling fans at lunch.
  • Rebecca is sensitive to animals. A kitten or purse dog will go a long way. 
  • And Tiffany is sensitive to jewelry. Bring lots of it.

Q: Is your forecasting approach based on qualitative techniques, time series analysis, or causal models?

After a team of scientists and monkeys studied the issue for the past decade, we have settled on the following time-tested technique for forecasting:


  • The first dart is the forecast variability index.
  • The second dart is the number of years mankind has left.
  • And the third dart is how many times you will have to put in a plug for our company in all of your speeches and news reports.  

Q: Are your models focused on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

A: No. They are focused on how expensive the restaurant is that you take them to lunch, so the atmosphere in the restaurant had better be luxurious. And one of the models is the daughter of the CEO, so keep your hands off.

Q: Do you stand by your models?

A: We stand by them often, but sometimes our feet get tired, so we sit down.

Q: Can our team of top programmers review the model’s code?

A: None of our models currently have codes. However, they do sometimes get the sniffles.

So pick up the phone now and call us. We can be reached at 1-800-ME-NAIVE. Ask for Guido. We will be here to help you save the planet and your career.


Secret Memo to Accuser Of The Month

Recently, I sat down at a diner for lunch and found the following few pages of a secret memo. I didn’t see who had sat there before me, but the memo was a real eye-opener. I thought I would share it with you.


Dear Applicants,

I want to thank you all for your enthusiasm in wanting to be the latest accuser of Supreme Court nominee – and overall scumbag – Brett Kavanaugh. We have had such an overwhelming response to our request for new accusers that I haven’t had the time to spend with each of you individually. For that reason, I thought I would send out a memo to help guide you through the process.

First, make sure you get the latest application form. Many things have changed since the days when we processed Anita Hill. Now, you can accuse a far-right nominee of simply failing to recycle their water bottles and get a lot of air time. The new form takes all of that into account.

Section one is where you give basic information about your name, your address, your phone number, etc. Just remember that all of that is optional. If you do decide to enter that information, we will do everything in our power to keep that private[1]. For those of you who don’t remember any of that information because you are still too inebriated from your high school partying, it’s okay. Just enter “It’s complicated.”

The first section also has a small item that asks “Sex?” For those of you who aren’t acquainted with filling out forms like this, please just enter “Male”, “Female”, or any one of the 50-something identities named by Facebook. Please do not enter “Yes”, or “Whenever you’re ready.” Those are not considered acceptable answers and could get you disqualified.

In section two, you have to identify your political status and the political status of the person you are accusing of heinous acts. It looks like this:

Section 2

2.1 I am a (check one):

___ Democrat accusing a Republican nominee

___ Republican accusing a Republican nominee

___ Democrat accusing a Democrat nominee

___ Republican accusing a Democrat nominee

For the purposes of the Kavanaugh nominee and any other nominees that you wish to accuse in the future, if you checked either of the first two responses, go on to the section 3. If you checked either of the last two responses, please call 1-800-NOTACHANCE[2].

The next section is section “3” for those of you who weren’t fortunate enough to have passed elementary math. In this section, you identify both where and when the evil acts of the nominee occurred. Please don’t let this trigger you into a nervous wreck. The only reason we want this information is because we can locate the people who were present at that time and persuade[3] them to cooperate with us. If you can’t remember anything about the incident other than Kavanaugh’s laughter while he was throwing ice at you, that’s okay. You do not have to enter anything into the application that you don’t want to, such as name, address, and any factual information.

The next section after section 3 (also called “section 4”) is crucial. In this section, you identify all of the unspeakable acts Kavanaugh (or a future nominee) performed against you. If you are unable to remember any of these acts being carried out by Kavanaugh, please see our staff hypnotist. She will help you recover your memories of these things. Believe me, you will recover a lot of memories. Even as I write this, we are identifying more and more memories that each of you will recover.

After your recovered memory session, fill out the section. You only have to check the ones that apply. In fact, you may want to just check all of them to be safe. Here are some tips on the specific items.

  • You can check “Sexually Assaulted Me” if he assaulted you, kind of tried to assault you, thought about assaulting you, or gave you a flirtatious grin. (I’m very sorry to make you try to remember this.)
  • You can check “Tried to Get Me Drunk” if he forced alcohol on you, gave you a beer, stood by a punch bowl that was spiked, drank from a water bottle that was obviously filled with what looked like vodka, or hung around people who were drinking at a party. (Please grab a hanky if you made it to this part. There’s not much more.)
  • You can check “Ran a Gang Rape Mob” if you saw him participate in a gang rape, acted like he wanted to participate in a gang rape, ever mentioned the word “gang”, or stood in a line where he was trying to go to the bathroom.
  • You can check “Was a Violent Serial Killer” if you ever saw him murder someone in cold blood, killed a joke by telling it badly, or threw an ice cube at anyone.

The final section is just additional information that helps us to know special information about you that could make your case more important. Here are some of the questions:

_Y__ I will not fly in an airplane. (Note that this is already marked “Y” to save you time filling out the application.

___ I have studied how to take polygraph tests to get good results.

___ If selected as Accuser Of the Month, I agree to be paid the equivalent of ten thousand Venezuelan dollars or its equivalent in American dollars.

___ Even if not selected to be Accuser Of The Month, I am still willing to harass Senators and their families in the Capitol Building, the airport, restaurants, or the bathroom in order to get them to vote correctly, as long as I am paid $2 for each swear word that I utter.

And remember to initial the disclaimer at the bottom of the form that says

___ By initialing here, I agree that everything in this form is 100% true and accurate, and if anything is determined to be false, I will agree to change my story.

There now! That wasn’t so bad, was it? Of course not.

Please take your time to complete the application before you initial and turn it in. After all, it isn’t every day that we get this opportunity[4]. Don’t call us. We’ll call you.

[1] At least for a few weeks.

[2] And ask for “Guido”.

[3] By “persuade”, we mean “threaten”. Remember Guido?

[4] That is, the opportunity to destroy the life of a committed Conservative and their family.

Re-Upholstered Memories


Recovered memories

There’s a guy I know who fell into an upholstery machine. He’s fully recovered now.

I know, I know. It’s a stupid joke. But I’ll do anything to get a laugh.

The only tie-in with my theme here is that it’s about “recovering”.

It wasn’t until a few days ago that I discovered that Christine Ford’s accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are based on “recovered memories”. Not a lot has been written about this part of the story. Most of us focus on the fact that it happened so long ago, that there isn’t much evidence that it happened, but she seems so sure that it happened.

That’s where the recovered memories come into play. Recovered memories are sometimes a tool used by psychotherapists and other counselors. The idea is that, if you are having a psychological problem, then it may well be your brain’s response to a traumatic memory it is trying to repress. Through interviews, recounting personal history, and possibly hypnosis, the psychotherapist tries to bring those traumatic memories into the light where the patient can discuss them. By successfully dealing with these recovered memories, so the story goes, the patient is eventually freed and healed.

That’s the theory.

I remember being part of a church in the late 80’s and early 90’s where a counsellor held group sessions to heal people with psychological problems. This counsellor focused on recovering memories of practically everyone in the group. Everyone had traumatic childhood sexual abuse. Everyone.

And there was a twist, though. The childhood sexual abuse caused each patient to develop multiple separate personalities. It was basically like the movie Sybil or the Three Faces of Eve, old movies that dealt with the topic of multiple personalities in a person.

Getting back to the experience, I was an elder in the church, and I was concerned about what was going on. I started reading about Multiple Personality Disorder (or MPD), and it seemed like a lot of superstition based on very scant evidence. I began to hear about bizarre therapy sessions going on. The counsellor acted like a hammer in search of a nail. Everyone had the same condition.

In the half dozen years since that period, I read stories about how this was going on in other churches and counseling practices. Patients “recovered” memories of childhood sexual abuse, sometimes at the hands of parents or pastors. The place of abuse was said to have taken place in a church basement, even if the church didn’t have a basement. These patients often confronted their supposed abusers. In almost all instances that I heard about, the abuse never occurred. Tempers flared between the accusers and the accused. Families were torn apart.

According to an article in the Huffington Post, the practice and phenomenon actually in vogue about 130 years ago, then died down. It appeared again after The Three Faces of Eve came out in 1957, then died down. It reappeared after Sybil came out as a TV miniseries in 1976, then died down again. And the latest outbreak was in the late 80’s and early 90’s. It is now in a quiet phase.

Professional psychiatrists looked into the matter and saw a gaping chasm of scientific evidence. In most instances, any instances of multiple personalities were really borne out of “suggestible and gullible therapists” guiding “suggestible and gullible patients” into discovering recovered memories and multiple personalities. The therapists were not so much helping the patients to recover their memories as they were actually training them to come up with memories.

It is still controversial, with some people saying they were helped by the approach. I think it’s bottled snake oil.

Studies have been conducted into how easy it is to implant false memories into a willing subject. The researchers told their subjects that specific things happened when they were younger, such as getting lost at a mall. As the researchers told more details about the false story, the subjects began to envision the story as if it were true. Eventually, the subjects adopted the false stories as true stories.

The therapy of recovering lost memories should have been totally debunked by now. There may be a small number of patients for whom it is true, but it seems to be primarily just a lot of bunkum. Yet, there was at least one therapist who still practices it, and that therapist used it to treat Christine Ford.

And here we are, decades after it was largely discredited in the psychiatry profession, with a woman claiming to have recovered memories of being raped by a man who many years later is a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In my opinion, it may very well be that Christine Ford actually thinks she was assaulted by Kavanaugh many years ago. It is possible that she was coached into searching her mind for some event in her distant past – an event that was somehow assumed to include a sexual assault. I can’t imagine why she picked Kavanaugh, but it may have been that he stuck out in her mind for some reason. Nevertheless, it could be that Ford actually believes it happened, primarily due to the particular brand of psychotherapy she was subjected to.

This is why both Kavanaugh and Ford may be telling the truth. The former actually didn’t do anything, and the latter is recounting something from an implanted false memory. I can’t say the same of Ford’s Democratic handlers. Those handlers just seem to be doing anything they can with Ford for political purposes. And it’s still possible that Ford made all of this up. But there’s also the possibility that she’s just talking about false memories she was guided into.

Regardless of how this turns out in the battle for the Supreme Court, I hope the practice of recovering memories gets pushed way into the back of the therapists tools and only used for rare, extreme cases where it may be needed.

snake oil


Galileo, the Rainbow, and Guido

Researchers at Brown University recently came up with some surprising research results. So, of course, the Ivy League School did what any institution committed to science and free speech would do.

They quashed the results.

That’s because the findings upset the Perpetually Offended in the LGBT community. It didn’t please them, so Brown University knew they had to remove the results from their web site, even though it appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, PLOS One.

We know that’s the right thing to do, because that’s exactly  what happened to Galileo:

“Hi, Gal! What’s up? Anything new on that telescope?”

“Oh, hello Cardinal Snooticus. I just discovered that the sun does not revolve around the earth. It’s the other way around.”

“Oh, that can’t be right, Gal! You need to look again. Maybe you’ve got a smudge on your telescope. Yeah, that’s right. It’s a smudge.”

“Well, I don’t know about that. I can only report what I observe, Cardinal.”

“Gal, or perhaps I should say Mister Galileo. I don’t think you are getting the picture. Your scientific results do not sit well with the Church. “

“But that doesn’t matter to me. It’s science.”

“Maybe you should talk to Bishop Guido here. He’s from the Inquisition.”

“Actually, uh, Cardinal, I do think I may have a smudge after all. Never mind. It never happened.”

Of course, we all know that’s not what happened. Western society for centuries has put science in a high position in our culture. Christians of all stripes have learned to consider science as another important source of truth, but not the most important source. (And my apologies to my Catholic friends. This was just a silly story.)

But for people who have abandoned Christianity, there is nothing else that’s authoritative to turn to other than science. Secularists like to say that they count on science, and science alone, as the source of truth. We are constantly reminded of that by celebrities and luminaries, lecturing Conservatives about how we need to just focus on science, not opinion. One of the most recent examples of this was Harrison Ford, who spoke out against the anti-science leaders who are skeptical of climate change.

This is thrown at us all of the time. The Perpetually Offended accuse us of being anti-science. But, at the same time, those same accusers only accept the science they like.

And that’s where the research at Brown University comes back in. It was entitled “Rapid-onset gender dysphoria in adolescents and young adults: A study of parental reports”.  The study had a number of interesting findings:

  • The parents of many female adolescents reported “outbreaks” of gender dysphoria that were statistically unlikely. These girls never reported any instances of gender confusion until they began to hang out with other girls who engaged in heavy Internet use and binge-watching of videos of transgenders.
  • There is a high probability that the outbreaks of gender dysphoria were due to social and peer influence and pressure
  • Peer influence in adolescent girls is typically linked with depression, eating disorders, and drug use

These findings do not fit the template put forward by the LGBT community. Their story is that transgender people are “born that way”, and that it’s not a trend you can just try out and adopt because your friends are doing it.

So the Perpetually Offended were offended again. Adopting the same bully tactics they use with practically anything else they object to, they raised a ruckus with Brown University and demanded that the paper be deleted. Brown University complied. These days, it doesn’t take actual death threats to bring universities into compliance with the Perpetually Offended. It only requires the possibility of death threats. Or perhaps a visit from Guido.

Past studies have shown that the vast majority of adolescents who identified as homosexual or transgender as a minor no longer do so as an adult. I think it’s fair to say that it probably would happen to the children in the Brown University study as well.

The earliest American attempt to determine the percentage of adults who are homosexual was a 1948 book by 1948 book by Alfred Kinsey called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. That study claimed that 10% of the male population was homosexual, but it was based on a count of incarcerated men. It is well understood how “group pressure” in prison often makes those men homosexual, at least while they are in prison. (It should be noted that the 10% figure has been discredited, although it is still repeated throughout the culture. Subsequent studies have shown homosexuals at somewhere between 1.5% to 2.4%.)

Interestingly, a recent survey of Americans showed that most Americans believe the rate of homosexuals in our population is about 21%, which is much, much higher than the actual population. Much of that is probably attributed to the fact that the lifestyle is pushed and promoted throughout the media. That media gives the general impression that homosexuality is more prevalent than it really is.

In addition, there have been a number of recent studies that focused on “sexual fluidity”, or the concept that at least some people can flow between heterosexual and homosexual behavior easily. There certainly are a number of celebrities who appear to have done so, including Drew Barrymore, Elton John, and Anne Heche. But the other studies cited earlier show that the vast majority of people who have ever engaged in homosexual acts will not continue to do so throughout their life.

We are beginning to get a better picture of how homosexuality has become such a “big thing” in our culture. It is a cultural phenomenon that is primarily spread by group pressure. After that pressure is lifted, there is only a very small fraction that remains attracted to the same sex. The homosexual lifestyle has an influence that reaches far beyond the actual population, primarily due to their allies. However, it appears that the vast majority of those who have tried that lifestyle did so because of pressure. It was tried by them and rejected. Let us help those who want to leave that lifestyle. Let us also continue to allow academic freedom to pursue science wherever it leads us. And let us resist the Guidos of this world that pressure us.

The second of two “oil spill” news about the culture

It took me a little longer than normal to get to this second blog post, primarily because I got so nauseated from the first one. This news has already got me reaching for the Pepto.

Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is in a romantic relationship with Sophia Hutchins, possibly even about to marry him/her. As far as I’m concerned, this is a cultural oil spill, leaving sludge all over the cultural landscape. It may be impossible to clean up the environment. And it will only bring harm to everyone who ignores it.

First, both of them are transwomen. For those of you not keeping up with the lingo, that’s a man pretending to be a woman. Jenner has already undergone the surgery. I’m not sure about Hutchins, but it sure looks like Hutchins is already undergoing chemo treatments. You would think that someone who wanted to be a woman would be interested in attracting men, but that doesn’t seem to be Jenner’s motive. Jenner is a (fake) woman interested in a (fake) woman. 

The more I read about these trans relationships, the more I find that trans only tend to get romantically involved with other trans. I suppose that makes some sense. If you have undergone chemical and/or surgical changes to your appearance, it would not tend to be attractive to most heterosexuals. Perhaps only others who have altered their bodies in the same way would find that attractive.

You would think that both Jenner and Hutchins, who were born male, could have avoided a lot of the pain, cost, and disfigurement of changing into the opposite gender by simply remaining as they were: men. Would they have been attracted to each other as homosexual men? 

Apparently not. A transgender, from my limited understanding, seems to be focused on “possessing” the other gender. They aren’t changing into another gender to attract others but to completely absorb themselves in the opposite gender. 

Jenner certainly seems to be well on the way to complete self-absorption. Jenner is 68 and is romantically involved with 21-year-old Hutchins. Yuck! Even in heterosexual land, a 47-year-old difference is bizarre. In typical relationships like this, it makes you wonder what the 21-year-old is after, or whether Hutchins is somehow being pushed into this relationship by Jenner. In addition, in typical heterosexual relationships of this sort, the 68-year-old is simply trying to rediscover a youthful sexual prowess, yet it can never really be found again. The senior is simply preventing this young adult Hutchins from moving ahead with their life. Jenner’s self-absorption is evident here again. 

And finally, Jenner has already been married to 3 women. This is not seen in the story as what it really is: Jenner’s abandonment of women he entered into a lifelong commitment to. He failed to live up to his vows to 3 other women. What would make anyone think Jenner would live up to the vows of a new marriage?  Jenner’s abandonment of those vows is yet another illustration of self-absorption. Basically, Jenner can simply stroll away from those marriages because he/she is trying to be “fulfilled”. The sad thing is that most transgenders really never feel fulfilled. They get more depressed the more they pursue their transformation. 

And with those women came 6 children. Jenner can no longer be a father figure to any of those now-adult children or the grandchildren who will come after. His children knew him as a father. They now know him as someone who abandoned that role. His grandchildren will have a hard time understanding why grandpa is now grandma. Some family may accept Jenner’s transformation, but others will reject it, causing breaks in family bonds. All because of Jenner’s self-absorption. 

But the most amazing thing about this story is that it isn’t seen as amazing to much of our current culture. Many who accept this non-reality believe it to be good, but it merely provides additional kindling to already-wet firewood, which will burn itself out unless stoked by stories of fantasy, constantly stoked by the Perpetually Offended.

The first of two morally bankrupt stories from our culture

Sometimes, the popular culture serves up a story so morally vacuous that I sometimes wonder if we’ve been invaded by aliens. How can anyone be so narcissistic?

This story is about a stripper named Blac China who rose to fame through her “exotic dancing” and “modeling”. (I wonder if ‘Chyna’ is cultural appropriation? But I digress.)

Chyna is apparently pregnant again. This will be her third pregnancy, and it’s by an 18-year-old boy rapper. Chyna apparently really knows how to pick men. She previously got pregnant from two other boyfriends. The first was boyfriend Tyga (Is that really ‘Tigger’ from Winnie the Pooh? If so, he’s got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.) This happened in 2012. That relationship lasted a few years. 

Chyna was clearly so devoted to her young toddler that she got another boyfriend and had another child in 2016. This relationship also lasted a few years. 

But recently, Chyna decided to be more discriminating, so she looked on a Christian dating site. Is this a thing now, trolling for guys to bed on a Christian dating site? What’s the attraction? That they’re morally straight? That’s a sad reflection on the fact that Chyna went there, and that her new beau was hanging on that site as well. 

We know it must have been a success because she found a new guy named Jay. He’s 18. I’m sure he’s got strong parenting skills, which is obvious in his statement about his relationship with Chyna: 

 “I don’t wear condoms. . . I would not want to f— a b—- I did not want to get pregnant,” he says. “If Chyna got pregnant, I would keep that s— like ‘ohh daddy love you,’ I love that a-“

Hmmm. I think we can all see the admirable qualities of such a man. 

The sad fact of the matter is that Chyna has really no care for those children. To her, they are nothing more than souvenirs of her temporary sexual relationships with the boyfriend-of-the-month. 

Recently, I’ve been reading a book called Primal Loss, in which adults who endured their parents’ divorce as a child get a chance to talk about the pain and suffering they have endured because of that divorce. Children who have parents that come and go suffer for a long, long time. Parents who spend an inordinate amount of their lives focusing on the next relationship inevitably end up neglecting the real needs of their kids. 

Those children deserve to be brought up in a stable home with a father and a mother who are married to each other. Chyna, like many other celebrities, have children as they wish, believing that those kids will be resilient and will never suffer from their mother’s lack of attention and revolving-door relationships. These children suffer real harm because of a self-absorbed mother. 

Those children will never know what it’s like to sit down for a family meal with mom and dad who love each other, help their kids with their homework, and go to their soccer games. Instead, they may get dropped off at some guy’s house for a weekend, while he himself focuses on his next girlfriend. 

Unfortunately, I doubt this will be the end of the story for Chyna. After all, she’s only 29 and there are plenty more teenage guys left on Christian dating sites. 

The worldview of Sexual Autonomy says that the only thing that is important is that one be fulfilled sexually. It doesn’t matter if you have to find a teenager. It doesn’t matter if you get pregnant. It doesn’t matter if this teenager is anything but a good prospect as a father. As long as you can fulfill your wildest sexual dreams, then everything’s okay. Forget about who has to pay for your very limited life goals.