Video: Valentine's Day

[bsteadman]

Video: Valentine's Day

http://youtu.be/CFtk4E-2VBk

[bsteadman]

Why Women Ruin Everything For Women

In the America of 2013 so-called feminists describe a kiss as "rapey." Happy Valentine's Day.

PJ Media
Amelia Hamilton
2/14/2013

Excerpt:

It’s Valentine’s Day and romance is in the air. Am I allowed to say that? It would seem that romance is no longer allowed in American society, and I’ve recently figured out why. It’s not because of men, as women like to think. It’s because women ruin everything for women.

I’ve suspected this for some time but, last week, events transpired to confirm my suspicions. It all started with the Audi Super Bowl commercial. For those of you who missed it, a geeky guy is so overcome with confidence at being lent his dad’s Audi that he marches right into the big dance and kisses the prom queen. I loved it and, by the reaction shot, so did she. You know why? Because he was a man. Because it was romantic. No, the political correctness police opined, it was not romantic at all. In fact, it was “rapey.” Rapey.

That was bad enough, but it didn’t end there. The feminist shrews among our population then went after the iconic image of the sailor kissing a nurse in a spontaneous celebration for the allied victory over Japan in World War II. These were, by any measure, extraordinary circumstances. This VJ day kiss, one of the most romantic moments ever committed to film, the image that has made women swoon since 1945? Turns out that’s rapey, too, according to modern-day feminists. Do you know why men think women are crazy? It’s because women act crazy. And that, dear reader, is how women ruin everything for women.
.....................................

View the complete article at:

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/02...ing-for-women/

[bsteadman]

Love is Finally Dead in America, but Does Anyone Care?

Canada Free Press
Kelly O'Connell
2/17/2013

Excerpt:

Is it overly-dramatic to suggest love in America is now DOA—Dead on Arrival? Of course not. In various ways we may measure the death of love in society, from the state of dating, marriage and families; the vitality and content of the education system; the typical interaction between strangers; or the state of orthodoxy preached from American pulpits. While there may be a spirited debate over the exact definition of love—there can be no doubt that the traditional notion is now defunct. Seminal French intellectual Jacques Ellul wrote:

I might adopt once again a formula I have used many times without ever being refuted: “In a society which talks excessively about a human factor, the point is that this factor does not exist. People talk excessively about freedom when it is suppressed.” This formula has always proved to be true. I would thus apply it here as well. So many novels and essays and studies and experiments and propositions are made precisely in order to hide the basic absence of love. Love does not exist in our society. It is no more than a word.

But why make the dramatic claim love is dead? Because great evidence exists that this statement is true. Further, such a fact must mean that our culture is mortally ill and will die unless we reverse course on this essential issue. In a variety of instances we can see how the very notion of love itself has fled from an increasingly materialistic, over-sexualized and spiritually apostate land. For example, traditional concepts of marriage are replaced by cohabitation, hookup dating, pornography, and endless tales of misbegotten trysts—like the army of young and attractive female teachers seducing students, which hits the papers on a weekly basis.

All of this reveals a sad and alarming absence of real love. Again, consider how materialism, technology-mania, and pop-psychology have overwhelmed America’s traditional concern with friends, family and care for strangers. Further, ponder how a lack of understanding of God’s love—whether miss-delivered from the pulpit via various heretical sermons, or in private Christian lives and their pagan practices—has caused a catastrophe for America.

I. What is Love?

Existentialists, cynics, and contrarians might dispute the very existence of love. Yet, most persons will admit that not only does some form of love exist, but that without it, human existence would not be worth living. How love is defined is another matter. For this we must turn to both secular and religious authorities, being Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck and Saint Paul of Tarsus.

A. M Scott Peck—The Road less Traveled

One of the greatest successes in the history of modern publishing, The Road Less Traveled became a best-seller 5 years after its initial release. Much of the book focuses upon Harvard and Case Western Reserve trained psychiatrist Peck’s experience in practice and related ideas about discipline, human growth and love. Here is an excerpt:

I am presuming, however, to give a single definition of love, again with the awareness that it is likely to be in some way or ways inadequate. I define love thus: The will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s own or another’s spiritual growth.

Peck goes on to explain that love is not an emotion, but an act of the will:

Genuine love implies commitment and the exercise of wisdom. When we are concerned for someone’s spiritual growth, we know that a lack of commitment is likely to be harmful and that commitment to that person is probably necessary for us to manifest our concern effectively….I have defined love as the will to extend oneself for the purpose of nurturing one’s own and another’s spiritual growth. Genuine love is volitional rather than emotional. The person who truly loves does so because of a decision to love. This person has made a commitment to be loving whether or not the loving feeling is present. If it is, so much the better; but if it isn’t, the commitment to love, the will to love, still stands and is still exercised.
.................................................. ...

View the complete article at:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/53181