I prefer my supermodels airbrushed

Maybe you've heard a statement like this recently:

"Women should stop photoshopping pictures of themselves. Girls, you're perfect the way you are!"

Statements like this one are everywhere. In line with this trend, Aerie Lingerie has decided to run a new line of ads without photoshopping its models. The campaign's slogan: "The real you is sexy."

Call me crazy, but I think statements like the above are completely counterproductive. Not to mention...really dumb. I mean really, really DUMB.

Here are two reasons.

First, the argument behind the statement above is fundamentally flawed. It ASSUMES that a woman's value is based on her physical beauty.

It could be rewritten: "Women should stop trying to add to their value by photoshopping themselves. Because they are already naturally beautiful, they are already valuable."

That last sentence is the core of the problem: "BECAUSE a woman is naturally beautiful, she is already valuable."

See what I mean?

Put another way: if you assume that a woman's value has NOTHING to do with her physical appearance, then how is it affirming of her value to say she's naturally beautiful?

Second, photoshopping is just one way women try to make themselves appear more beautiful. Should we outlaw makeup? Hair dye? Cute clothes? Push-up bras?

For some reason our cultural has put photoshopping in a category of its own, separate and distinct from the myriad ways women alter their physical appearance. Why?

Real sucky logic. What do they teach in schools these days?

And that is all.

Dove's "Real Beauty" Baloney

I'm sure you've seen Dove's recent series of commercials, in which a forensic artist produces two sketches of a woman: one based on her own description of herself, and another based on the description of a near-stranger.

The idea, of course, is that the stranger-described portrait turns out to be a much more flattering depiction than the self-described one.

This is supposed to reveal something about the way women view themselves. All set to soft chords, played to tug at the heartstrings...hold on while I dab my eyes...there. Sniff. Better.

But there's a massive, glaring logical problem. It's right in your face, screaming at you.

Let me illustrate.

Say you're a drop dead gorgeous woman and you know it. You have no body-image issues. And you're asked to participate in the game.

Are you going to sit down with the artist and say, "Frankly, I'm drop-dead gorgeous"?

Of course not! You're going to be hard on yourself so you don't sound arrogant. You're gonna mention the wrinkles, the blemishes, the protruding jaw, the droopy eyebrows-- whether you believe you have them or not.

It's human nature.

After all, the only sin a woman can commit greater than ugliness, is arrogance. As we've all heard so often: "You don't know you're beautiful / And that's what makes you beautiful."

It goes the other way, too. Say you're the stranger, and you're asked to describe the woman you just met.

Are you going to mention ANY of her blemishes? And sound like the biggest jerk on planet earth? Of course not!

This little social experiment proves nothing, and Dove knows it. At the end of the day, they just want to make you cry. And then buy soap.

So if you've bought into the piano chords and soft lighting....You been played by a playa.

That is all.

Love the sinner; hate the sin?

Micah J. Murray's Huff Post blog, "Why I Can't Say 'Love the Sinner/Hate the Sin' Anymore" has been splashed all over social media in the last week. I've seen it twice just today.

Here's a link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/micah-j-murray/why-i-cant-say-love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin-anymore_b_4521519.html

While social media has always been a cesspool of terrible logic and I've learned to overlook most of it, the religious controversy surrounding homosexuality seems to bring out the worst. And then someone shovels a gleaming manure pile like this blog onto my news feed.

Micah Murray really hates the accusing nature of the word "sinner," especially when directed at homosexuals. He's also got a lot of screwy ideas about Christ's ministry which some theologian needs to pile-drive into the ground.

But I'm not that guy. If you want to say Jesus never claimed to be God, if you want to say He never accused anyone of being a sinner, if you want to say he was born in Africa as a woman--I won't argue with you. Not because you'd be right, but because I'm no theologian.

But if you're going to make a statement like:

"We embrace [homosexuals] with arms full of disclaimers about how all the sinners are welcome here. And yet, they're the only ones we constantly remind of their status as sinners, welcome sinners"

--then, as a thinking human, I've got a bone to pick with you.

The first thing you need to understand, Micah, is that a homosexual who doesn't have gay sex isn't sinning. There's no sin to "hate."

We've all got evil desires. We heterosexuals (since I happen to be heterosexual and I assume, from your wording, you are too) have to ward off ALL sexual desire from puberty 'til marriage, assuming we do marry. Even then, extramarital sex is off limits forever.

I'm sure you've heard all this before, Micah. It's nothing new.

When Christians say "love the sin; hate the sinner," they're usually talking about someone with homosexual desires who DOES have gay sex--someone who considers gay sex to be part of his identity and lifestyle, and who doesn't care what the Bible has to say on the matter.

In that sense, the saying "love the sinner; hate the sin" doesn't even refer just to homosexuals. It refers to ANYONE engaged in an unrepentant, habitual lifestyle of sin. Keyword: unrepentant.

Maybe you still take offense at the word "sinner"'s being used to describe anyone. After all, the word is strongly negative--

--but also, highly descriptive. "Sinner" is, after all, just a word. It means "someone who sins," which describes our unrepentant, habitual offender perfectly. Just like "murderer" describes someone who's committed murder, or "singer" describes someone who can make music vocally, or "human" describes a member of the species called man.

Maybe it's just negative adjectives you object to, when used to describe people.

Should we stop using them altogether? Maybe we should find a Sharpie and a Webster's and mark them all out.

Or maybe we should just let people keep loving sinners, but hating sins. Would that really be such a stretch?