Pole Dancing for Jesus: MyFoxHOUSTON.com
Christian pole dancing classes: where students learn to strip and grow closer to God.
Move over Praise Dancers, there is new entertainment in the praise and worship section of the church program (just add a pole). A former exotic pole dancer from Houston has started a new exercise program for evangelicals everywhere.
For some reason, I am willing to bet the producers at FoxNews.com weren’t expecting to get such an articulate African American Muslim man. Check about Ib’s book Green Deen.
Today the feminist blog Jezebel posted the results of an online survey that asked 1600 Christian guys what a good Christian woman needs to do to be appropriately modest, thus securing a good Christian husband. I thought it’d be helpful for all you lovely female 99problems readers if I boiled the results down into three rules of thumb:
1. If a man isn’t treating you like an amputee, you’re doing something wrong. Any clothing that “draws too much attention to the chest”, legs or rear is taboo; men need to be under the impression we possess none of those physical attributes. I guess this explains the whole fixation on opening doors for us, although at that level of disability they should really just carry us everywhere.
2. If you must insist on having breasts, at least try not to walk around too much, or stretch. “Seeing a girl stretching” and “seeing a girl’s chest bounce when she is walking or running” is considered a “stumbling block” by many of these young men.
By now we’re all standing stock-still in full body jumpsuits. At least we’ve still got our personalities! Oh, wait, “An immodest lady is loud, proud, and dresses in a way that communicates such an attitude”. So. . .
3. Keep quiet, and don’t forget to hate yourself!
I know some of you must be thinking, “Great suggestions, Rachel, but what if I have goals in life other than securing a good Christian husband, and some of them might require me to walk around?” Have fun in hell.
For some more in depth, slightly less sarcastic analysis, check out the Jezebel post.
According to social scientists and political practitioners, people are less loyal to products and political parties than they were in the past…a trend that is likely to affect the next election.
Think about it…Everyone knows people who have abandoned their religion, been divorced, or changed their political affiliation. Americans today are more likely to make such important changes than ever before.
So how does this affect elections? When running Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004, Joe Trippi witnessed the fickleness of Americans. After coming in third place in the Iowa caucuses, Dean lost his supporters as quickly as he gained them. According to Morris Fiorina, political science professor at Stanford University, “Obama benefited from the looser ties people have today…” (Not a surprise considering the distrust of the Bush administration.) However, “…the flip side is that he cannot count on the depth of support that a winning candidate might have had a generation ago…And, of course, if ties are looser, then change can occur faster than if the ties bind more tightly.”
After all, didn’t we learn not to trust politicians? It may not be fair to say that it’s bad to be fickle and good to be loyal. Of course, fickle isn’t exactly a positive adjective but blind allegiance isn’t something we want either. What do you think? Is it good that Americans aren’t bound to a specific politician or should we be more loyal?
![#NewMusic: Phil Ade “PhilAdeFriday2″ [MIXTAPE]](http://99problems.org/wp-content/plugins/simple-post-thumbnails/timthumb.php?src=/wp-content/thumbnails/20645.png&w=300&h=100&zc=1&ft=jpg)