We did a show the other night on the 7 lessons of the Tiger Woods affair. But Allen missed one important one: IF you are going to cheat, use a call girl instead of a mistress.

How's that for controversial?

It should be stated for the record that I vehemently appose cheating - both personally and in principle. Some have questioned me on this from time to time because I seem liberal on some of my theology pertaining to sexuality. Despite this assumption being irritating to no end, it isn't the focus of the post. However, let's make something clear: Tiger was wrong.

But this post isn't about cheating. It is about confidants. While reading an article in the New York Post, I came across Ashley Dupree (remember: Elliot Spitzer's call girl) lashing out at the 6 7 mistresses of Tiger. Saying that:

"Here you have all these girls accepting gifts, money, trips from Tiger in exchange for sex -- all the while knowing he is married. And now they all can't wait to tell their stories in exchange for even more money from the tabloids? And I was the hooker? At least I kept my mouth shut."

There you go folks: hookers jumped past grocery baggers for the number 4 spot of people I trust.

1. Attorneys (attorney-client privilege)
2. Doctors (doctor-patient confidentiality)
3. Priests (notice I didn't say Pastors)
4. Hookers
5. Grocery Baggers (bagger-shopper confidentiality)

In college I got into an argument in one of my Pastoral Leadership classes on what to do when someone confesses that they had abused a child. California law requires that you turn them in. I took the unpopular (and right) view that I would not turn them in, and suffer the consequences, because I viewed a pastor-parishioner confidentiality trust to be sacred and necessary for the betterment of the individual and culture as a whole. Why?

Living in a culture where attorneys are the only people we trust with our secrets does not produce healthy people that are empowered to change and better themselves. Many of the problems we face in relationships, marriages, and the like are due to the secrets we carry around.

The purpose behind the sacred trust of attorney-client privilege is that no one would tell their attorney anything if it weren't there. And just as this is necessary for a good defense, having a trusted confidant is necessary for personal and spiritual growth.

It probably seems a bit odd - given that I live so publically - but I take privacy and secrecy very important. People in my life have confessed to a myriad of past inequities - including cheating, abortions, serious drug use, and the like. Stories and circumstances that I will take to my grave. The relief you see in someone's face from the cathartic release of a burden being lifted by openly discussing past transgressions in an open, honest, and non-judgmental environment only speaks to the importance of such exchanges.

So in an odd turn of events, society could take a lesson from Ashley Dupree. When entrusted with private information, keep your mouth shut.

If there are two things I like in this world, it is 1.) skinny, blonds with no boobs, and 2.) being right. Rarely do these two collide in one glorious moment for me. But God Bless Carrie Prejean they did.

If you don't know by now, Carrie Prejean dropped her liable and slander case against the Miss USA Pageant because allegedly she was shown a tape of her that was acquired by TMZ performing "a graphic sex act by herself" that was "so graphic, even TMZ wouldn't post it."

Details have since surfaced that the solo act was recorded by her then boyfriend when she was a teenager. How TMZ got it, nobody seems to know.

As you may recall, I wrote about Carrie back in May saying that her situation illustrates why no one takes the "Pro-Family" movement seriously.

She makes one blanket statement about being against gay marriage in a beauty pageant, and all the sudden she is a champion for family values. But after the release of information about her boob-job, then underage sexy lingerie photos, then topless photos, and now a sex tape, many in the pro-family camp are now questioning their pick for <sarcasm>2009 Family-Values Champion of the Year Award</sarcasm>

But as pro-family organizations drop her faster than they can count their gay friends, my opinion of her hasn't changed. I was not in the camp that condemned her from the get go (even though I support gay marriage). Nor was I in the camp that lifted her up as a bastion of family values.

She was (and is) an attractive young woman, who got put on the spot with an unfair and divisive question, and she did the best she could to be honest with where she stood. What proceeded was not fair on many levels. She got judged harshly by the pro-gay lobby. She got elevated to a level of leadership she was not equipped for on the pro-family lobby. And all of her past transgressions were now viewed through her statement which is not only unfair, but also, not really relevant.

Now there are no sex tapes of me out there (so you can stop looking as I know you all are). But that makes me no worse or better than Carrie. And frankly, none of us are worse or better than Carrie. We all do stupid things we regret. We all make mistakes. Does that mean we should all be in leadership positions in lobbying groups? Absolutely not. But that does mean she should be treated with the same grace you would want to be treated with.

Will I read her book? Probably not. Would I put her on a board of directors? Probably not. Would I take her on a date? Probably. But none of these answers have anything to do with anything that has happened since the pageant.

This should serve as one more example of where we all can take a lesson in not being so quick to judge or elevate.

What I am about to write should be viewed through the lens that I am a.) pro-life, and b.) support full equality for homosexuals and their relationships. I know most will find this an odd juxtaposition given the modern dialogue in politics, but you can read other posts as to why I feel this is right.

With that said, I think I found the the one thing that both of these often divisive groups can agree on: politicians really don't give a damn about either issue and are only feeding the division to get/stay elected.

Last week I was watching Barack Obama's Human Rights Campaign speech where he made the comment:

Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it's important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community.

He continues on, admitting he hasn't done much to help gay equality, and throws the gay community a bone about ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which should be ended), and promises to move the ball forward and for them not to lose heart. They've got a friend in Barack Obama.

How similar this is to George W. Bush (or Bush Sr, or Reagan) who promised to be a friend to the "pro-life" community, but what real work did they do for it? Enacted Mexico City? Appointed a pro-life Supreme Court Justice? Please! Just small bones that makes it look like action is taking place, but not really doing anything about it.

Well here's the dirty little secret that nobody in Washington or the media or the average American public want to admit: as a whole, neither political party cares about either one of these issues.

Sure Barney Frank cares as an individual politician cares about gay equality. And sure, Randy Forbes individually cares about protecting the unborn. But individuals don't change anything in Washington.

I said it back in October of last year that I didn't mind voting for Barack Obama despite him being extremely pro-choice because I was sick of abortion being a "wedge" issue / single-issue vote the Republicans knew they could motivate their base around. An October later I am saying the same thing about the gay equality issue, and wondering how long it will take those to realize the Democrats are doing the same thing.

The Democrats are no more a friend to the gay equality issue than the Republicans are to the abortion issue. It is all about getting and maintaining power. That's it. And until we put term limits on Congress and/or vote Congress out as easily as we vote them in, nothing is going to change.

So here's the question I pose to both: when are we going to stop being single issue voters that vote the party line when the party line isn't doing jack squat about what they claim to believe in so boldly.

By now I am pretty sure everyone has heard of Carrie Prejean - aka "Miss California" - aka "The Girl Who Got Figuratively Bitch Slapped by Perez Hilton Regarding Gay Marriage."

We did a show on it. CNN has covered it. MSNBC ridiculed it. FoxNews has offered her a job. And I hear her and James Dobson are dating. Ok, those last two might be made up (or ARE they?)

Yet nobody made the statement that I have been from the very beginning: Carrie Prejean is the reason nobody takes the anti-Gay Marriage movement seriously.

Before - did I mention before - TheDirty.com released this photo of a 17 18-year old Prejean modeling for some awesome panties, I had a conversation with my brother about how this Miss USA situation is a joke and perfectly illustrates the irrelevancy of the anti-Gay marriage movement.

Then when TheDirty.com released the photo to the right all I could think of was: YES!

Now I don't take any issue with the photo. Future wife: please use Carrie as "clothing" inspiration. But then again, I freely admit I am liberal when it comes to "modesty." I also know I am liberal when it comes to Gay Marriage (reference: this post).

But two questions come to the surface:

1.) Am I the only one who thinks her boobs were better before the implants?

2.) Why are the religious right "excited" to have her as a spokeswoman?

As stated before, I think gay marriage should be legal because we don't illegalize divorce and pornography. Two things that are equally as "Biblically morally wrong" as homosexuality. And the fact that we scream at the top of our lungs about one, and not the others, makes us worse than hypocrites, it makes us irrelevant. And not irrelevant in the trendy way hipster Churches talk about being relevant. I mean irrelevant in that nobody gives a damn what we have to say not just about homosexuality - but about anything.

But I tell you the real tragedy in this whole situation is that The Associated Baptist Press - yes The Associated Baptist Press - had the best article I have read on this issue. Not per se because I agree with the conclusion, but for at least questioning the absurdity of the situation.

And even after Prejean has come out and apologized for the shoot, saying she regrets doing it and won't do it again, I have to think: who cares? Why? Because this isn't about her. It is about us!

The Church's mission will not return to it's key mission of creating disciples of Jesus Christ until our interaction with the world we live in is a consistent one.

I have been wanting to use this first clip in a blog for almost a year. But it wasn't until this past new episode of Scrubs that I finally found my muse for writing.




Ladies, here's the deal: whether you like it or not, most men do equate sex with love. And you can sarcastically demean that feeling away, but just as we don't like it that most of you cry sometimes for no reason, or that all you need sometimes is for us to affirm that you are beautiful in order to provide security that the relationship is alright, equating sex with love is ingrained in who we are.

Shaunti Feldhan wrote a fantastic chapter in her book For Women Only detailing this. And since I probably am not writing this with enough sensitivity, I would highly advise all married women - or planning on getting married someday - to read it. But I am going to try, so here goes...

I find two things interesting about the clips above.

First is the expectation that after the husband has been "bagged" in marriage, sex then becomes a tool at the woman's control. What if communication were used like that? What if Scrubs cut over to Turk and JD and JD said, "you know what is great dude, you only have to talk about her day when you actually want to?" (Cue: big hearty laugh)

How positively does that portray marriage?

Second: listen to some of the verbiage Carla uses in the second clip. Notice how she says "I still make sure you get sex at least once a week."

Feldhan makes a comment in her book about how men would rather not have sex, than have sex with someone they feel is doing so out of obligation. And I have to agree with her.

It isn't about "making sure he gets sex." It is that she wants to have sex with him. That is what is equated to love in our DNA. That is what when a "mommy" forgets she is also a "wife" is painful.

Now I am not saying this gives men the right to expect sex "every night" - like Carla exaggerated in her lament. Every relationship is different and that is fine. From most of the conversation I have with married men, it isn't even the lack of quantity of sex - although they wouldn't mind having it more often - but rather the fact it doesn't feel desired.

Trust me. I know more than a single guy should how hard it is to be a mom. It is literally a 24/7 job. There is no time off. There are no vacations. I have the utmost respect for moms. And I am certainly not advocating that post-children sex life needs to look like the newlywed sex life.

What I am saying is that it is going to be a tough marriage if sexual needs aren't being honestly discussed and attempted at being met. Because for men, sex does in fact equal love.

It was six years ago I came to the same conclusion Douglas W. Kmiec and Shelley Ross Saxer - two law school professors at Pepperdine Law School - recently came to in a San Francisco Chronicle article that was picked up by Time. Conclusion: the government needs to get the hell out of the marriage business.

The truth of the matter is that marriage licenses weren't required until the early 1900s in (successful?) attempts to keep black people from marrying white people. It wasn't until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 where the Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional - but unfortunately the government's authority of marriages stuck around.

I have said it before but the government should only have two roles: 1.) protect us from others - including things like physical harm (murder, rape, etc...) and all other forms of harm (financial laws, contract disputes, etc...) - 2.) do that only which the government can do (build highways, defend the country, etc...).

Sanctioning marriage does not fall into either of those categories.

I am sure someone right now is saying, "ohh but won't someone PLEASE think of the children." And while I would like to say no, frankly, I am sick of thinking about the children, I also realize that isn't going to convince anyone who does "think of the children" of anything. So here's another approach.

I don't think growing up with a mom as a stripper is particularly healthy. I am sure there are some great stripper moms out there, but on the whole, I am going to say that strippers usually do not make good mothers. However, there is nothing illegal about stripping - despite it's questionable morality - thus there is no reason for the government to intervene.

If we take the "think of the children" philosophy of governance, why not make it illegal for strippers to have kids? Or pornographers? Or casino owners? Or politicians? Or anyone else with "questionable" morality.

Likewise, it makes absolutely no moral, legal or logical sense to continue the racist-roots of the Government being involved in the marriage business.

If the government wants to make it easier on families for tax purposes or if they want a method of finding census data, fine, have civil unions for all. All the same benefits - regardless if it is heterosexual or homosexual relationships. There is no second class tier system where the government gives heterosexuals "marriages" and homosexuals "civil unions." In the governments eyes, we are the same.

Let religious organizations hold on to their traditions and vernacular like they have had for thousands of years. Nobody needs to redefine any terms. Marriage becomes a religious ceremony like baptism.

Think how much less contentious this society would be if we could come to that agreement. Conservatives/Religious folks compromising on detheocritizing an already detheocritized government, and Liberals/Gays compromising and letting religions keep their tradition.

No more fighting. No more constant hatred by both parties. We become like most other groups in society where everyone's rights are protected, and we agree to disagree.

Then all we would have to dispute is abortion.

Andy is looking for both of these in his future wife. However, Andy is willing to compromise on #2 if #1 is true.

Also, I have a surprise third post-secret for this post but it is in response to a comment that I feel is looming by Sarah (probably) or Erik (maybe) or Allen (long shot). But don't leave it up to them - as all three might fail. It will only come when expected comment is said.

Be sure to visit Post Secret for more interesting looks into the human condition.

Did you see the most recent attempt of James Dobson trying to prove his political prowess? In a 27 minute segment, Dobson accused Obama of "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology." Jon Stewart put it a bit more comedically.



Now I am not a blind follower of Jon Stewart theology. The truth is, the Old Testament and New Testament talk about homosexuality, so the issue can't simply be written off as if Leviticus is the only place this is discussed. And I did listen to Barack's whole speech back in January and it was brilliant.

But I am not here to discuss political speeches or debate Jewish comedian exegesis. What I think needs to be addressed is what I think Dobson's legacy will be: dividing our culture to the point where sincere and loving relationships are impossible except in cases where you agree with every opinion.

This past week I met someone who I thought might be a new friend here in Atlanta. We both shared a huge interest in aviation. So I was excited since most of my friends make fun of my aviation curiosity. I could tell from his Facebook page that he was gay. But didn't think anything of it.

So we started talking online and he instantly wants to know about the radio show I produce. He asks are we right wing. I say nope. We are moderate. Next question, "so do you think all homosexuals are going to hell?" Thank you James Dobson.

I, of course, try and explain my thoughts on the issue; probably not very eloquently. But I could tell, it was a loss cause.

Nevermind that last weekend I said on the air one of the three celebrities I'd like to have coffee with is Ellen DeGeneres.

Nevermind that I have defended gay marriage from a legal perspective in other blogs.

Nevermind that I have had lunch with a porn producer.

Nevermind that I sincerely consider Erik of AllenHuntShowSucks.com a friend and genuinely care for the dude.

Thanks to the Dobsonion worldview, a Bible-believing Christian and a homosexual just can't be friends.

It brings me back a little to high school. There was a gay boy at my high school named Jason (not real name). Jason was a year younger than me, and while I am sure there were other gay individuals at Homestead, he was the only one who was "out." I primarily met Jason because he was good friends with my girlfriend Theresa.

I liked Jason. He was a good guy. I can remember one specific night when I was at the school after 10pm working on the yearbook by myself in the pub room. Jason was there for something related to show choir. I don't know what brought him to the pub room that night, but we had a great conversation. Towards the end, I remember saying, "you know Jason, we aren't very different." To which he replied, "No Andy, I don't think that is the case."

The truth is, most of us aren't very different from one another. We just choose to allow the few differences to get in the way. Thanks James.

In the middle of our weekly planning video teleconference, Phil sent me an article from FoxNews about MyFreeImplants.com (warning: I didn't see any nudity "per se" - but it is definitely racey).

Here's the scenario. Women, you sign up to a MySpace-like social networking site, with pictures of yourself and descriptions highlighting your "situation." Situation here meaning that you have small/ugly/disfigured/orange boobs. Men, or "benefactors," you also sign up for the site, but you have to buy credit to do so. Once you enter the site, you then "donate" your credits to these women until they reach the amount needed to get a boob job (which appears to be $6500.00).

Now, before I proceed, I should state that I am really not a boob guy. I will go as far as saying that smaller chested woman are more attractive to me. And I don't mean that in the altruistic, good Christian boy sense (there are plenty of "other" things I am into). But to me, the law of nature comes in too much with large boobs and time + gravity ≠ good situation down the road. So, believe me, I truly don't think this world would be a better place if women were walking around with larger boobs.

As we proceeded in this planning meeting I started to think about all the reasons I am against plastic surgery. My two biggest reasons. #1 It is a huge waste of money (especially in light of all the suffering in the world). #2 It is superficial. But then I got to thinking about it. How are boob jobs any different than braces?

Ok, now I have done it haven't I? But seriously, think about it. Braces cost on average $5000. Boob jobs seem to cost $6000. And I don't care what you say, while I am sure there are a handful of cases where braces are necessary for proper function of the mouth and health, most of us had braces for aesthetic reasons. We didn't (or better yet our parents didn't) want us to be the freaky kid with ugly teeth. So if it is just as much money, and it is just as superficial, why are boob jobs (or any plastic surgery) any less morally or socially acceptable than braces?

I have to admit, I don't have an answer. There is something inside of me that thinks there should be a separation of aesthetic altering procedures, but on a philosophical ground, I can't seem to find the logic in separating the two. I guess I won't get my kids braces...or maybe I'll just get them boob jobs as well.

When I was a junior in high school, the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" came out and was all the rage. I read it, objectively, and grabbed some good principals, but overall "rejected" the basic premise. Sometime later that year, a rebuttal, but less popular book came out called "I Gave Dating a Chance." I liked it better, but still rejected most of the premise, because frankly it was mostly the same as "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." One called dating courtship, and the other called it, well, dating. I'll get back to this later.

If you have read this blog for more than 10 minutes you know I am usually not satisfied with Christian music or books. Why? Because they aren't about life. They aren't real. They give the same cheesy, bullet pointed responses which don't communicate effectively. When done, I always feel like I just drove a Porsche but kept it in 1st gear.

From what I heard from others, Rob Bell's writing promised to be different. So needless to say I was excited to read his new book "Sex God," because we all know the official topic of this blog is sex¹. We also know that my favorite writer is Chuck Klosterman - sure I might not agree with some of his lifestyle choices, but he is brilliant when it comes to culture. I was expecting Rob Bell to be the "Christian" version of Chuck Klosterman. He's not. If Chuck Klosterman is a Porsche reaching 4th gear², Rob Bell is a Porsche in 2nd gear³

I could probably write a 5,000 word blog on this book. I am going to try not to. Here are my three main issues with the book.

One, he quotes from Song of Solomon (which is good) but fails to acknowledge that a.) Solomon had hundreds of sexual partners, and b.) the Song of Solomon text implies that the "beloved and lover" were not married yet.

Now, I am not looking for a book to justify pre-marital / extra-marital sexual activity. Why? Because I still think a case can be made for sexual "purity". But Bell fails to communicate his point because he refuses to acknowledge, in full disclosure, the entire sexual narrative of the Bible.

Two, he continues the Christian myth that women aren't interested in sex as a pleasurable act, but only use it to attain other relational perks (i.e. feeling love, feeling beautiful, etc...)

I can't speak for generations past, but from my extensive conversation on the topic and cultural insight, I just don't believe that to be true (anymore?). Women are (almost?) just as interested in a sexual relationship as men.

Three, Bell fails to recognize that God is the Creator of sex as something creative and fun.

"Sex God" continues to portray marital sexuality as boring and vanilla. It still makes the ambiguous statement that "sex is good" and leaves it at that. I have written about this before, so I am not going into detail (one | two).

I know this is a shock, but according to research (I can't believe it took research to know this) the #1 reason people have sex is because it feels good. While there are 237 other reasons, because it feels good is the number one reason we enjoy and/or tempted to have sex. Sex God fails to acknowledge this with any sort of depth or genuineness.

Here is at least what I liked about the book. On page 105 Bell states:

If you have ever given yourself to someone and had your heart broken, you know how God feels.

Bell acknowledges that God never intends for life to be easy. He never intended for life to be pain-free. Which brings me back to I Kissed Dating Goodbye.

My ultimate problem with "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is that it was a lesson in "avoidance theology." God can't possibly want us to have pain, therefore, we should avoid that which potentially causes pain (in this case: dating). That is a crappy way to live life and I at least respect Bell for standing up against that.

Their is one other reason this brings me back to "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" and "I Gave Dating a Chance". I was hoping when I read this book, it was going to be so good, that I could take writing a sex book off the list of books I am going to write.⁴ That turned out to be false. Now I still feel the Christian arsenal is missing a good book on sexual practical theology, so it looks like I should start working on a rebuttal⁵.