Skip to main content

I Love-Hate Taylor Swift

I've been a legitimate fan since 2006. She really does write great songs. I have no idea really what makes a good pop singer, but suffice to say, she sings well enough to be very successful. She's one of those weird people whose biggest fans and biggest detractors are both right.

You may have noticed (even if you want to vomit at the thought) that she's really attractive. She's got that classic red lipstick look that we like, to paraphrase one of her songs. I'm still young enough to notice, and old/pious enough to know that it makes me a little uncomfortable.

She's always used the word "classy" in reference to herself as a goal in presentation, or in reference to how she wants young girls to perceive her (and themselves). We're reaching the point culturally where, if this is the modern culture's attempt at modesty, we are doomed. This is Taylor Swift; this is not supposed to be a person known for trying to shock us. She's not Madonna, or even Mariah Carey, sad to say.

If you've ever seen Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, (she played a prostitute) Taylor Swift walked on stage wearing those leg-suspender deals that are--at least in movies and TV--the sign of such things. I wasn't there; I saw a small clip. Why does anyone think that you can say "classy" and "prostitute" at the same time?

Pretty Woman won't be confused for a family film; not then, and not now. But the reasons it kind of works as a movie are: 1. it communicates that prostitution is bad; and 2. but prostitutes are people, too; and 3. wouldn't it be nice if a sweet girl in a bad way like that could "fall in love" and leave that all behind? I saw it again a couple of years back; it still works. Did you know it's still the most commercially successful "romantic comedy" of all time? It created the genre. I digress. Here's my question: Do you want to live in a culture that is so degraded that Pretty Woman doesn't make sense?

Man, I love Taylor Swift. I'm a huge fan. But I wouldn't go near that concert, unless I hated her, and myself. Those were the thoughts I had. Unchastity is a kind of self-hatred, and a kind of hatred for whoever aids you in it. So great is our dignity. This is why it offends God, who made us as the apple of His eye. Think and pray on that one. And maybe drop some Rosary bombs on Taylor Swift.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un