1
   

Fashion Testament"

 
 
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2003 09:53 pm
This is just too wierd..even for the Christians!
Jesus hates thongs
Quote:



Jesus Doesn't Wear Prada
The New Testament gets a "sassy" teen fashion-mag makeover. And you thought Britney was scary

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Friday, September 19, 2003

These are the things to imperil young girls.

These are the things to corrupt young gullible minds and short-circuit self-expression and demean the desperately needed impulse toward spontaneous self-awareness and individuality and happy guiltless vaginal investigations.

These are the things to make Mary-Kate and Ashley's alarming and utterly demonic stranglehold on the world of vacuous saccharine multimillion-dollar teendom seem like a boring day at the mall, with lots of makeup and tube tops and Hot Dog on a Stick.

Here's the gimmick: Take a weird, modern conservative revisionist New Testament and wrap it in faux-hip fashion-mag duds and hawk it to unsuspecting young maidens who otherwise wouldn't get within ten low-rise jean lengths of the gray-bearded dust-choked finger-wagging dogma of King James and all his hoary misogynistic machismo. Clever indeed.

It's called "Revolve: The Complete New Testament" and it's apparently racing up the Amazon.com sales charts -- whatever that means -- as it sucks up all the accoutrements of a teen fashion rag and rams them through the cute Christian grinder of humorlessness and sexual rigidity and homophobia, and regurgitates them as kicky dumbed-down slightly numb virginal tidbits of advice and admonition and, yes, Biblical storytelling.

Because apparently girls don't already have enough hollow dogma out there telling them what to do. Apparently they don't already face a large enough mountain of misinfo and scorn and sexual mixed messages, and not a single one of them telling them how to really tune into themselves, listen to their own unique voices, find their own sex and their own power and their own divine potency.

Nope. Instead they get this, a sweetly uptight, revisionist Bible cross-bred with a bad fashion magazine, full of Top-10 lists and quizzes and Q&As, telling them to "pray for a person of influence" every day and check the "godly" quotient of the boys they date, and that Jesus doesn't really like it when they wear, you know, thongs and sexy bras and low-slung jeans. Yep, that should clear things right up.

"A 'Revolve' girl makes a point of dressing modestly. She might wonder to herself, Would God find this too revealing or too suggestive?" That's a direct quote from the ultra-prim Laurie Whaley, one of "Revolve's" editors over at Thomas "Bibles 'R Us" Nelson publishing house, whose picture graces a recent interview in the Mew York Times.

Wonder not, my children, at the status of Laurie's chastity. Wonder not at what kind of pristine white underwear she might be wearing. Wonder not at her desperate need for a Hitachi Magic Wand and a bottle of Anejo Silver and a long, hot summer night, all alone. Oh, Laurie. Come back to us.

What, not scary enough? Fine. How about this: "Revolve" takes a decidedly conservative view of the Bible, condemns homosexuality, encourages virginity until marriage, and informs girls that excessive makeup and jewelry and revealing clothes are to be avoided and chastity is to be rewarded because, well, Jesus really loves baggy sweaters and granny underwear.

More? You got it. It also tells them to quietly shut up and always listen to your parents and don't take the initiative by actually calling a boy on the phone, ever. Did Mary Magdalene ever call Jesus? Of course she didn't. And "Revolve" tells these befuddled girls, in all seriousness, that it's best to let the males lead the relationship.

There now. All better. Screw the female cause. Screw individuality and divine feminine power. Sure Jesus loves you, Jenny, but he loves you more if you wear long shapeless wool skirts and minimal mascara and not think too darn much, K?

And yet, weird little makeup tips abound in the book, outright groaners for all but the most painfully gullible Bible-belted girls. "You need a good, balanced foundation for the rest of your makeup," says one "tip." "Kinda like how Jesus is the strong foundation in our lives."

Yes that's right. Jesus is the Chapstick for the dry lips of your sinning self. Jesus is the holy Clearasil for your Satanic shin zits. Jesus is that amazing clenched feeling you get when you lie back and aim the shower massager just right and... oh, never mind.

"Make sure that Jesus would be pleased with what you wear. You don't have to look frumpy, just make sure you look like a child of God." This is the advice. This is what passes for serious religious assistance. Has it really come to this? Are girls supposed to believe God really cares what they wear, and is watching their every purchase at the Esprit outlet like some supreme pervert stalker? "Revolve" says, hell yes!

"The fire of God's love burns out the sin the same way the hot steam routs the dirt out of your pores. This kind of relationship with God will do more to improve your looks than any amount of facials," reads the part on "Spiritual Facials." Isn't that clever? Doesn't it just make your colon clench right up in divine bliss? Sure it does.

Maybe you'd be tempted to think this is progress. Maybe you'd like to think it's somehow a good thing that Christianity and certain publishers of mutant bibles are trying to reach new audiences, to break down barriers and make themselves "hip" while striving to hook a new generation into Christianity's lair or gentle oppressive patriarchal fun.

Or maybe you think "Revolve" is really chock full of nice, safe, wholesome messages teen girls can really use in a world of teeming, roiling sexual anxiety and confusion and way, way too much Britney and MTV and premarital sex and poor condom awareness.

You would be wrong. "Revolve" is actually very much like a mind-control experiment, very much like some sort of sinister trick wherein they, like Christian rock bands, surreptitiously infiltrate a world the girls actually care about and use the teen's own anxieties and angst against them to instill a certain, narrow Christian agenda, induce a fluffy sense of guilt and shame, all while imparting a bleached, sanitized morality that includes not a whit of funk or style or messy icky sex or intuition or sly winking cosmic knowledge. Almost makes "Glamour" look like "The Celestine Prophecy," no?

"Revolve" is basically a sheep in wolf's clothing, a prim training manual for future well-Valiumed housewives who let their husbands rule the roost and don't strive too hard for anything and don't think overly much or who have long given up notions of exploring the diversity of the world, or divinity, or sexuality, or much of anything, really. And yes, it's a bestseller.

"Revolve" devolves the teen cause. Not a word about how individuality is cool and self-exploration is way bitchin' and that they themselves are divine, are all-powerful, and that sex is a gorgeous powerful wondrous sticky joy to be respected and enjoyed and explored and consented upon and well learned. Heaven forefend. That way debauchery and hellfire lies.

Are these really the only choices? Is it really either vapid anorexic fashion mags or an uptight prudish revisionist New Testament designed to reduce the female teen spirit to shrill hollow pious guilt-addled automaton Formica?

Where, pray where, can a young teen turn for true unadulterated perspective and inspiration? For insight and anxiety relief and a big heaping dose of the gloriously convoluted, slithery, well-accessoried mess that is modern life? Hmm. Maybe that's why God invented books.

Betty Ann Bowers has come to life!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,005 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 04:33 am
Good grief, hobit. Shocked Wonder if Jesus would approve of heavy black robes with concealing veils? (designer, of course).

I had to laugh at myself, cause when I read the word "thongs", I thought it was referring to sandals. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 06:59 pm
Actually, there is no biblical evidence that Magdalene was the same woman as the prostitute. But that's the way popular culture consistently portrays it. According to the bible, Jesus liked getting his feet washed... Don't know what kind of panties that alludes to.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 07:07 pm
You, know, Portal Star. I watched a movie the other night called "The Body". It held me spellbound because it encompassed so much in the visual of how religion is only politics and how the "good" guy loses..but wins. Life is a paradox, no?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 07:19 pm
let's see - no synthetic fabrics, minimal make-up, prolly no deodorant.

Jesus liked earthy girls. If he liked girls at all.

I mean, liking to get his feet washed indicates a whole different kind of interest.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2003 08:35 pm
Portal Star wrote:
Actually, there is no biblical evidence that Magdalene was the same woman as the prostitute. But that's the way popular culture consistently portrays it. According to the bible, Jesus liked getting his feet washed... Don't know what kind of panties that alludes to.

Touche. Smile the "prostitute" label is likely an invention of the Pauline church to discredit a member of the Jamesian group. Good Catch! However, the fundys probably still think she was standing on the corner in a short skirt and fishnets with a camel dangling form her lip, saying "hey Sailor!"
0 Replies
 
Ophelias Ponderings
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 02:19 pm
Is it possible that some people want to be brainwashed? While I would personally much rather lounge in a low cut shirt and black silky underwear, reading the Gitagovinda, some people don't. I wonder, sometimes, if people would be better off if they weren't brainwashed.

I question whether it is society that is maliciously controlling individuals, or individuals who don't care enough to stop themselves from being controlled?

Who is benefiting from this type of puritanical preaching?
0 Replies
 
tagged lyricist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 02:38 pm
I don't wher to begin this is really scary welcome to the Stepford Wives or something and under the guise of christianity ti's amazing what people will do under that one
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 04:58 pm
tagged_lyricist wrote:
I don't wher to begin this is really scary welcome to the Stepford Wives or something and under the guise of christianity ti's amazing what people will do under that one

Can you say "Tipper Gore?"
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 05:23 pm
Hobit and all. Let's not forget that radicals or the lunatic fringe have been perhaps the biggest influence in changing the course of history. To bash Christianity because of these incidents, is not the star that one should steer by. It behooves us all not to condemn the entire religion because of a wild-eyed bunch (perhaps they aren't so wild-eyed, but calm and coldly sensible) and what they espouse. In a staring match, I suspect that the innocent would win. Why? Simply because they ARE innocent...Thus spaketh Letty. Welcome, newbies, to the world of cyberspace and "cogito ergo sum."
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 05:38 pm
I think the best examples of the horrors people will do to each other in the name of Christianity are folks like Claire of Assissi, Francis of Assissi, Bridget of Sweden, Mother Theresa, etc. Wink
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 05:42 pm
and, of course, the mother who will throw her body between her child and a bullet. Wink back atcha.

Goodnight--off to watch Kevin Spacey and eat stuffed crabs...... Very Happy
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 05:51 pm
Letty wrote:
and, of course, the mother who will throw her body between her child and a bullet. Wink back atcha.

Goodnight--off to watch Kevin Spacey and eat stuffed crabs...... Very Happy

Which film?
0 Replies
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 07:45 pm
Letty wrote:
You, know, Portal Star. I watched a movie the other night called "The Body". It held me spellbound because it encompassed so much in the visual of how religion is only politics and how the "good" guy loses..but wins. Life is a paradox, no?


Human social history and politics, yes a paradox. Maybe not life, unless you consider it centered around birth and death a paradox. Life, as in living aspects of nature, is all about competition and survival - which seems pretty straightforward to me.

Lunatics do have a suprising ability to amass power... Or maybe no one realizes they're lunatics until they do.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 08:35 pm
Hobit, This movie was called "A Day in the Life of David Gale."

Fantastic!


and Portal Star..the paradox was the Good Guy loses, but wins..same in the movie The Life of David Gale. I ain't never seen Kevin Spacey in a bad un, yet. Razz
0 Replies
 
tagged lyricist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:09 pm
I think that is very twitsted to say let us condone radical fanticism which disguises it 's biggotry fears under the theme of religous beliefs. In that case we should condone Hitler, Stalin, Attila the Hun and other such ruthless fantics because apprentley they revolutionised history. This i find a disturbing exuse we could use to defend such people as the Taliban.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:25 pm
Excuse me, tagged. Perhaps you would kindly point out where I used the word "condoned" in my post. It could be that you misinterpreted or misread what I said. Should you need further clarification, I will be happy to rephrase my observation.
0 Replies
 
tagged lyricist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:35 pm
Letty wrote:
Hobit and all. Let's not forget that radicals or the lunatic fringe have been perhaps the biggest influence in changing the course of history. To bash Christianity because of these incidents, is not the star that one should steer by. It behooves us all not to condemn the entire religion because of a wild-eyed bunch (perhaps they aren't so wild-eyed, but calm and coldly sensible) and what they espouse. In a staring match, I suspect that the innocent would win. Why? Simply because they ARE innocent...Thus spaketh Letty. Welcome, newbies, to the world of cyberspace and "cogito ergo sum."


Perhpas you never said condone but you did say perhaps the bigges influence in saying that we shoulcd perhaps be grateful for their influence?

And the innocent dont always win.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:46 pm
Sorry that you inferred that, tagged. I feel that it's best to simply ask what one means by a statement before assuming the worst. The expression "lunatic fringe" has been applied to many dissonants, and that was the point that I obviously didn't make quite clear.
0 Replies
 
tagged lyricist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:48 pm
no probs letty miscommunication Razz
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fashion Testament"
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 07:16:08