iPopCulture.NET

pla·gia·rism: the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work, as by not crediting the author (from Dictionary.com).

A frustrating thing happened to me not so long ago. I posted an original tweet and Facebook status and within minutes saw it copied by another person. However, there was no “RT” leading the tweet, no “Share” that led to the posting, no quotation marks around the words, nor credit within the post. This person had copied my exact original words and posted them as his/her own. When I asked this person why he/she did so, I received an, “It’s no big deal” type of response void of any apology and void of any effort to give proper credit.

While that incident bothered me, soon I saw it happen again and again and again, not just with me, but with many others as well.

When I think about those incidents, they still bother me because someone was willing to take my original words and claim them as their own.

But should it bother me?

With the advancement of social media, we’ve made it easy to post our thoughts, quotes, and happenings with the click of a mouse and push of a button. This also allows us to take the words of others and do anything with them that we wish.

So is this plagiarism or just social sharing?

According to its definition, it definitely seems like stealing i.e. plagiarism (or “poaching” as Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch would call it). When we take someone’s exact words and thoughts and claim them as our own, we become part of this unethical landslide. It probably won’t land anyone in jail, but the severity of the consequences should never be our motivation for doing what is right.

Twitter provides ways to retweet (RT) someone. Facebook allows you to “Share” things or even tag others. And there’s always the good ‘ole quotation marks as well.

There is no reason to steal (or “borrow” or “copy and paste”) someone’s status/tweet and claim it as your own, no matter if that person is a celebrity with 24 million followers or a friend from high school who has 347 friends. It’s unethical and in very poor taste.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/v38JpC]

Have you ever wished Facebook would add a “Nobody Cares” or “Stop Whining” button for statuses? I think we all have. At least once a day we see one of “those” statuses that just makes us shake our head, roll our eyes, and utter something like “not again.” Although everyone is entitled to their own opinions and freedom of speech, there are 8 Facebook statuses that need to disappear:

1. The Passive-Aggressive Status
This is one of the most popular and most annoying statuses on Facebook, and I’ve seen people from 13 to 50 use this. It’s always directed at a certain unnamed person, and apparently that person knows who he or she is, because the status says so. It usually reads something like this:

So u wanna talk junk about me huh. Well u will get whats comin to you. You think u can hurt me but you’ll never be happy without me. You know who u are!

I apologize if my grammar was too proper.

2. The TMI Status
There are certain things the rest of the world just doesn’t need to know. If you’ve got a nasty infection, don’t tell us about the blood and pus. By no means should you post a picture of it. If you have a prayer request, it’s okay to be vague about disgusting specifics. If you’re about to have a baby or just had a baby and feel like sharing details that many of us are still ignorant about, please don’t. Protect our sanity and our stomachs and keep some things to yourself.

3. The “Are Those Song Lyrics?” Status
There is nothing wrong with someone posting song lyrics as a status. It doesn’t take a lot of creativity, but it’s not too much different from posting a quote. But it seems a lot of people forget 3 important aspects of quotations: 1) Quotation marks; 2) A reference; 3) Proper grammar and spelling. If you want to quote OneRepublic, fine. Go for it. But when you give us a status like…

me and my gang
out ridin on a saturday night
ain’t comin home til the rooster crows

…we’re not sure if you’re (poorly) quoting a Kenny Chesney song or out riding ATVs on in your parents’ backyard. (FYI…for all you Kenny Chesney fans, ATV’s are what you call 4-wheelers.)

4. The “I’m Connected to Twitter but Don’t Know How to Use Twitter” Status
Unless your status is really supposed to say “Haha, I know right? lol” then you’ve probably got a problem you need to fix. Quick tip: don’t multitask with technology if you don’t understand technology.

5. The Constant FourSquare Status
You’re at a hockey game? Cool. You’re seeing a great band in concert? Awesome. You’re sitting on your couch or in the Taco Bell drive-thru? Put the phone away, shut the laptop, and realize…we really don’t care.

6. The “Can’t Sleep” Status
I’ll admit, I’m guilty of this. I’ve infected Twitter and Facebook with 3 AM statements of “Ugh. Can’t sleep.” But have you noticed how the “Can’t sleep” statuses always get the least amount of “likes” or comments? Wanna know why? Because the rest of world is asleep and will never see the status. Here’s a bit of logic I’ve learned over the past few years: If you’re posting on Facebook that you can’t sleep, you probably can’t sleep because you’re on Facebook.

7. The Misspelled Status
We’re all guilty of clicking “Share” before we’ve proofread our statuses. It happens. It’s no big deal, right? That depends. When it happens occasionally, it’s understandable. When it happens every time you post a status, there’s a problem. Sure, you can blame your phone’s Auto Correct feature, but when there’s no mobile icon next to your status, we’ll probably think you’re lying. And by the way, if you have the fortitude to call out foreigners in our country who don’t speak English, you look really foolish when your status shows you don’t know how to speak it or write it either .

8. The Acronym Status
By now, most of the population is familiar with LOL, BRB, TTYL, and CYA. But a status full of acronyms is just plain annoying. It also doesn’t take long to type out the acronym you made up. Sorry if we don’t know that “WIRTTWUWY” actually means “Wow, I’m really tired today. What’s up with you?” Keep it simple…just not that simple.

[Photo source: facebook.com]

Do certain Facebook statuses annoy you? I’m sure I’ve posted my share of statuses that have caused people to “Hide” or “de-friend” me. The statuses that really make me shake my head are the ones that obviously mean something else. Luckily, I think have cracked the code, and here is a Facebook Status Translator:

“These lyrics really speak to me” = That song sounds cool, even if I have no idea what it’s really about

“Go ahead and spread rumors about me! See if I care!” = I do care

[Cuss word cuss word cuss word cuss word] = I have a limited vocabulary

“Some people have no integrity! Yeah, you know who you are.” = I got dumped and I’m bitter

“[Insert name] is at Target” = [Insert name] is probably at Target

“[Insert name] is shopping at Banana Republic” = [Insert name] is shopping at the Banana Republic Outlet

“…is bored” = Will someone please text me, talk to me on Facebook Chat, or call me to hang out? Please!

“I can’t believe what she did in this video” = Whoops! Clicked on a Spam link!

“Some people need to grow up!” = I need to grow up

“I hate [the opposite sex]! = That certain guy/girl I like doesn’t like me back

“I <3 Justin Bieber = Unfriend me

[Bible verse/spiritual statement at 10:47 am on a Sunday morning that has nothing to do with your pastor's sermon] = Slept in and didn’t go to church today

I’m a chronic radio scanner. I hate commercials, static, and bad music. Since so much of the radio has turned to junk anyway, I usually find myself listening to sports talk radio. However, occasionally something I hear will cause me to stop my scanning and listen.

Many times, I don’t even have a clue who I’m listening to, but if I hear a creative melodic line and interesting (or absurd) lyrics, I’ll listen.

What has surprised me is that the music that has caused me to stop and listen recently is from artists like Pink, Katy Perry, and even Usher. My intention wasn’t to listen to their music. (In fact, when I first came across it, I didn’t even know it was their music.) But something about their sound caught my ear and caused me to stop and listen.

This has caused me to wrestle with some different ideas. Artists like Pink, Katy Perry, and Usher live very public lives, and because of that I know there are aspects of their lifestyles with which I wholeheartedly disagree. They stand for things that I’m against. I stand for things that they’re again. There’s a major incompatibility.

In addition, they also have lyrics in some of their music that go against my personal beliefs. While I won’t listen to songs that use profanity and promote sinful lifestyles, many of today’s artists are a mixed bag when it comes to lyrical content. For example, “Firework” by Katy Perry may seem to be a clean, safe song that is great for radio play, but some of her other songs, like “I Kissed a Girl” for example, promote a lifestyle and worldview to which I am opposed.

There are several ways I could go with this. I could argue that if I accept some of the music, then I should accept it all. On the other hand, I could say that if some of it is not fit to listen to, then I should reject it all. Or maybe there’s a middle ground. Maybe I should just listen to the clean music from an artist and disregard his or her explicit music. iTunes and Amazon allow you to download individual tracks, so in some ways that is possible.

I wish I could give a black and white answer on how to deal with this situation. However, this is still something I’m wrestling with.

I would love to get your feedback on how you handle situations like these, or how you think I should handle situations like these. Do you think an artist’s lifestyle should dictate our listening/purchasing habits?

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/mOHoQl]

The Christian music industry has long been known to replicate what is popular in mainstream music. During the age of glam metal, Stryper burst onto the scene with their big hair and spandex pants. When Run-D.M.C. introduced us to a new style of American hip-hop, the Christian music industry gave us DC Talk. When punk made it big, Relient K and MXPX dominated the Christian market, and even the secular market. And when “bubblegum pop” entered the rooms of teenie boppers across the country, the Christian music industry infiltrated Christian radio with Plus One, True Vibe, Rachael Lampa, and Stacie Orrico.

Some of these Christian counterparts made it big because they were creating quality music. They became popular because their style of music became popular with mainstream audiences. However, some of these artists and bands were created to be a carbon copy of mainstream artists. Their aim was to sound, dance, look, and act just like the secular chart toppers, but their music contained “Christian” lyrics and was played on “Christian” radio.

However, something has happened that is changing and will continue changing the Christian music industry. Because of this change, we now have a genre that Christian music can’t copy.

Over the past few years we have seen a genre develop that is led by the reemergence of former pop stars. But no longer does the music carry the “bubblegum” rhetoric of 1997 to 2002. Instead, its lyrical content is edgier and sexier.

Britney Spears is a prime example of what is happening with this movement. Thanks to the power of cable TV and the tabloids, we’ve been able to chronicle Britney’s entire musical career from the “Oops, I Did It Again” phase, to her highly televised broken marriage, to her new release of “Femme Fatale.” And though Britney has never really stepped out of the spotlight, we have seen her music career do a 180 from where it first started. After spending several years away from musical relevance, she has reemerged and has tried to make her image sexier and edgier than ever.

We can see the same thing with Justin Timberlake and his transition from N’SYNC heartthrob to the creator of an album called “FutureSex/LoveSounds. Katy Perry is another prime example. When she first started in the music industry around 2001, she was a “Christian” artist under the name Katy Hudson. After not being heard from for several years, she reemerged in 2008 with the radio hit “I Kissed a Girl.” Even artists like Pink, who never disappeared from radio or the charts, have repackaged themselves and stepped away from a “radio-friendly” image and taken on an edgier sound and image.

This “edgy” and “sexy” reemergence has created a genre that Christian music can’t replicate. While the Christian music industry has always tried its best to create the “Christian” version of whatever was popular, Christian music can’t produce the sound of Katy Perry’s “E.T” and it can’t produce the lyrical makeup of Britney Spears’ “Hold It Against Me.”

So what does this mean for Christian music?

I truly believe the most popular bands/artists in Christian music will remain popular. Artists like Switchfoot, Third Day, Lecrae, and Casting Crowns all have staying power because they are producing quality music. However, since mainstream music is changing in a way that Christian music can’t follow, we may start seeing Christian music dive in popularity for a time. The Christian artists who have made their living mimicking mainstream music may find that they have a short shelf live. They may sell well in the Christian market for awhile, but they may not last more than an album or two.

I do find some encouragement in this. Because of the change we are seeing in mainstream music, the “copycat” crimes of the Christian music industry may finally be dead. This change has given Christian artists the opportunity to be unique in their sound and lyrics. For the first time in a long time, up and coming Christian artists don’t have to try to model their music off an already popular band. Instead, they can be original and creative. They can seek depth in their music and lyrics rather than aiming to be the Christian clone to someone else.

The world of music is always changing. But it seems that the world may finally have found a genre that Christian music can’t replicate.

[Screen shot taken from: http://christianmusic.about.com/library/blcomparea.htm]

It’s hard to find good music on the radio. I feel like I can set my radio on “seek” for an hour and never find anything halfway decent. It seems like every station is now filled with cheesy pop lyrics that are put to the sound of techno music and a booming bass. No offense Taio Cruz, but when the sun hasn’t risen and I’m driving to work at 6:30 am on a rainy Monday, I don’t want to get a pulsating headache while you tell me how you’re only gonna break, break my, break, break my heart.

I started thinking about what things will actually make me change the station on the radio, and I came up with this semi-serious, semi-humorous list:

1.) Starting your song with the lyrics “I know you want me.”
I’m pretty sure that’s about as self-absorbed as you can get. While someone may actually want you, do you really want to brag about it to the world? A little too conceited for me.

2.) Using your own name in a song, especially as the opening lyric.
Okay, I was wrong. THIS is the most self-absorbed thing you can do. And I’m talking to you Jason Derulo. Self-promotion is bad enough on Twitter and Facebook, but starting off your song by saying your name takes it to a new level.

3.) Using degrading terms for women as terms of endearment.
For the sake of my job, I won’t give examples, but I think you know what I mean. This started with rappers. They used terms to describe women that were typically reserved for prostitutes. Now this is becoming widespread. Even Britney Spears has used one of these terms to describe her followers. And sadly…people eat it up. I’m not sure when this became a positive thing, but it shouldn’t, and gives me plenty of reason to keep on “seeking.”

4.) Grunting to lead in to your lyrics.
Sorry if I offend all of the Pearl Jam fans out there, but my ears aren’t fans of hearing a grown man make weird noises before he starts singing. If I wanted to hear that, I’d listed to Ozzy Osbourne read his book.

5) Auto-tune.
No explanation needed.

6.) Singing a happy lyric, while sounding like you’re yelling at the guy who just killed your puppy.
Some people just seem mad even when they’re trying to act happy. I’m looking at you Nickelback. Only you can sing, “Look at this photograph. Everytime I do it makes me laugh” and make me want to cry out of fear. If you’re laughing, stop screaming. If you’re happy, don’t sound evil. If you’re on the radio, please stop singing horrible music.

7.) More bleeps than lyrics.
If you cuss so much in your song that I don’t even know what it’s about, you need help. I’m amazed that artists who want to make it rich and famous will produce songs that are stripped to 30 seconds in their radio edit. Hey geniuses, people hear your songs on the radio. If they can’t “hear” your song because it has all been bleeped, what’s the point?

8.) Songs that carry a “Don’t judge me” motif.
If you have to write a song that tells people not to judge you, chances are you’ve done some pretty dumb stuff that is going to be judged. If you’ve had multiple DUIs, neglected your children, faced drug charges, been to rehab multiple times, violently attacked people, beat your girlfriend, been charged with possession of a gun, and/or shot someone, no one is going to give you sympathy when you sing “Only God can judge me.” Definitely turning the station.

9.) Slamming us over the head with a skewed worldview.
Whether it’s Maroon 5, Lady Gaga, or Rage Against the Machine, I can only take so much propaganda. I know you want to be the next Bob Dylan or follow in The Beatles’ footsteps with your agenda-laced song, but I don’t want to hear it. I don’t care if you’re bashing Bush or Obama, I’m turning it. Even if your melody is catchy, if your music accuses me of being intolerant or judgmental because I don’t agree with your liberal outlook on life, I’m not listening to your song.

10.) Dave Matthews Band.

11.) Trying to be so deep and philosophical that your words carry no meaning.
I’m amazed at how many people can listen to some Coldplay songs and say “That song speaks to me so much!” Let’s be honest, you don’t have a clue what they’re singing about half the time. When bands are asked what their “deep” songs mean, they usually reply “I think our songs mean different things to different people.” Translation: We have no idea what it means.

[Photo Source: http://bit.ly/hSguDx]

By now you’ve probably heard the new darling of pop culture, “Friday” by Rebecca Black. If you haven’t, just wait until tomorrow. Facebook and Twitter will be filled with clever statuses and tweets signifying that it truly is Friday. The song, which was uploaded February 10, has already garnered over 43 million views on YouTube. To let you know how viral this thing has gone: the video has added nearly a million views in just the last 4 hours. I’d be shocked if the video isn’t over 50 million views by tomorrow…which of course, is Friday.

What’s ironic about the song is that despite having over 43 million views and being stuck in the head of people across the globe, the song isn’t what you would call “popular.” In fact, most are calling it “annoying,” “the worst song I’ve ever heard,” and “completely awful,” signifying their “hate” for the song.

Those are some very strong words (and once you read the comments on the YouTube you’ll realize they escalate to things much, much worse!) targeted at a 13 year old girl whose parents paid money to allow their daughter to record a song. Taking into account what people are saying, I’ll be the first to admit that the song is no Grammy award winner. In fact, when looking at the scale of excellence, it’s probably closer to Antoine Dodson’s “Bed Intruder Song” than it is to U2′s “Where the Streets Have No Name.” But yet there’s something about it that keeps making people go back for seconds, thirds, and fourths. There’s something about it that has caused people to create parody videos, fill out their statuses with lyrics, and even caused Tim Tebow to quote the lyrics on Twitter.

What is that “something?” I think that “something” is that many of us secretly like it.

If we’re being objective, we’d admit that it’s no masterpiece and it makes us laugh more than anything. But we keep talking about it, we keep singing it, and we keep falling in love with it over and over head.

Our culture has an affinity for things that are “awesomely bad.” We claim those things are annoying and that we hate them, but there’s something inside of us that just can’t get enough of them (i.e. see 80s music).

The truth is we avoid things we hate. I hate onions, so I don’t put them on my pizza or hamburgers. I hate turtlenecks, so I never wear them. I hate country music, so I don’t blast it in my car or on my computer.

We avoid things we truly hate. We go back to the things we secretly love.

So while Rebecca Black may never be the next Celine Dion and “Friday” may never take home “Song of the Year,” we’ll keep going back to the well for more because there’s something about it we just can’t get enough.

Maybe mockery really is the highest form of flattering.

Either way, prepare yourself…because tomorrow is Friday.

The Super Bowl has been over for 2 days, and yet Twitter is still filled with 4 things relating to the event: Aaron Rodgers, 400 fans who missed the game because their seats were considered unsafe, Christina Aguilera’s botched version of the Star-Spangled Banner, and the Black Eyed Peas’ halftime show.

As for quick thoughts on the first three:

Aaron Rodgers: Spectacular

The NFL’s handling of the seat situation: Inexcusable

Christina Aguilera’s performance: Horrendous (Not necessarily because she messed up the words, but because she included so many runs that I almost forgot what she was singing)

That leads me to the fourth element: The Black Eyed Peas.

Despite the grand entrance, the pyro, the razzle dazzle, the cameos from Slash and Usher, the costumes from Tron, and dancers with boxes on their heads, most of the Twitter world and blogosphere felt the performance fell short of expectations and came up a bit flat.

I’ll be the first to admit that the performance was anything but spectacular. The audio was mediocre at best, the BEPs just stood in place most of the performance like a Southern Gospel quartet (you’ll never hear that comparison again), the vocals (especially Fergie) were atrocious, and the performances by Slash and Usher were forgettable.

So while the grand spectacle was not up to standard for a typical Super Bowl Halftime performance, I’ve noticed the disappointment for some has gone beyond the failed audio and flat vocals. It seems as though some have been disappointed that “nothing shocking happened.”

Ever since the infamous “wardrobe malfunction” in 2004, the NFL has tried to tame its Halftime show by bringing in artists like Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Prince, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, and The Who. Although these are all reputable and notable artists, none presented the threat that became apparent when MTV controlled the Halftime show in 2004.

However, this year was different. Bridgestone went out on a limb and booked the Black Eyed Peas. Even before we knew who would play in the Super Bowl, speculation was already mounting as to what crazy and shocking acts would come from their performance. In fact, on Bodog, an online gambling site, fans could even bet on what Fergie would wear for the performance, providing options that were modest, semi-modest, and not modest at all.

After 30 minutes of watching mediocre talent, many of us were left with a thought of “That’s it?” We were expecting more, both in talent and in shock value. With the exception of Fergie’s outfit, many were pleased that the Black Eyed Peas kept things somewhat PG/PG-13 despite all the weirdness that surrounded the performance.

However, while some were pleased with the tameness, others were disappointed that the BEP’s didn’t push things far enough. They wanted shock value. They wanted Monday morning water cooler material. They wanted something that would make the FCC blush. But they didn’t get it, and they were disappointed.

Our country has reached a point where very little shocks us. We’ve become so desensitized to sex, media, abuse, and a myriad of things that we no longer want normal or tame. Rather, we seek the things that push the limits and “shock” us in a new way. We want our senses to be stimulated in new ways and we want to push the envelope until the uncomfortable becomes perfectly acceptable.

And as that never ending search continues, our culture will continue to search for what is shocking, and only be disappointed when we realize it no longer is.

[Photo source: http://bit.ly/hvGMVy]

I wish I was making this up.

When I saw the commercial, I thought it couldn’t be real. It had to be some “fake” advertisement that would run on The Soup or some other show that takes shots at pop culture, right? Wrong.

The show: Bridalplasty. Its aim: A reality show where 12 engaged women compete to win a dream wedding and plastic surgery, with the emphasis being more on the plastic surgery than the actual wedding.

Here’s how the show/game is played: The winner of each week’s challenge gets one plastic surgery procedure from her wish list. The winner of the competition gets a wedding of her dreams and multiple plastic surgery from her wish list. (If this sounds similar to Fox’s 2004 show, The Swan, it should. The same doctor who performed the surgeries on The Swan is the doctor behind the surgeries on Bridalplasty.)

On the flip side, the groom does not even get to see his bride until the wedding day, where she reveals her new look.

Yes, this is real.

Engaged women are actually competing to win plastic surgery. No, not Lasik eye surgery. Not surgery to repair broken bones. Surgery to enhance features that are otherwise working properly.

And how is E! marketing this show? With this promo: “Every bride wants to look her best on her wedding day but for the women competing on E!’s new series, Bridalplasty, only perfection will do.”

It’s not a surprise that I find this disgusting, insulting, and degrading. The message it sends is vain and self-serving. Think about the end of the promo line again: “Only perfection will do.” It’s not talking about intellectual perfection. It’s not talking about personality perfection. It’s not even talking about natural physical perfection. Its definition of “perfection” is an unnatural alteration performed by a surgeon to create or enhance something.

Although ratings were low for the premiere episode, it still brought in over 900,000 viewers. Viewers were fed the lie that perfection comes in physical appearance; being who God made you to be in never “enough.”

Some writers weighed in on the show. Mark A. Perigard of the Boston Herald said:

The show feeds “the idea that a woman’s worth is based on attaining the perfect physique by any means.”

Chris Spargo of Hollywood Life commented:

Bridalplasty’s “whining blonds” are “almost all in perfect shape” yet they still feel compelled to obliterate their “minor imperfections.”

Again, I wish I was making this up.

Unfortunately, it’s all too true. We have a show featuring attractive women in near perfect shape, who already have a significant other, competing to win plastic surgery procedures.

Or maybe we should call it what it really is: A pseudo-reality show featuring women with low self-esteem, competing to win plastic surgery that will give them the false hope of attaining emotional and physical perfection.

I have to ask, why would anyone go on this show? Even more, why would someone who is engaged go on this show? The only answer I can find is that these women must be so insecure and dislike themselves so much that they’re looking to find fulfillment wherever they can. Obviously these already-attractive women haven’t found fulfillment in themselves. They obviously haven’t found it in their fiances. What they don’t see is that they won’t find it in their surgeries either. When the show is over and the cameras are turned off, these women may see a different person in the mirror, but they’ll still dislike the person they see on the inside.

If you are the parent of a teenage girl or if you are a young woman yourself, think about the message this show is sending to females everywhere. This show feeds into the lie that physical appearance is everything. It doesn’t matter who you are on the inside as long as you are beautiful on the outside.

The real reality is that what you look like on the outside pales in comparison to who you are on the inside. Unfortunately, so many people refuse to believe that. They are willing to sacrifice their character, money, and even safety in hopes of “feeling” like a new person. It saddens me that there are hundreds of thousands of women around the world who are willing to waste money on changing the exterior, because they know fixing the inside will hurt even more than the surgery.

I wish I was making this up.

Sadly, this has become a “reality.”

I’m tired of hearing about Brett Favre.

I was tired of hearing about him when he retired. I was tired of hearing him when he came out of retirement. I was tired of hearing about him when he retired again. I was tired of hearing about him when he came out of retirement again. I was tired of hearing about him when he contemplated retirement again.

If having ESPN dominated by “Will he or won’t he?” stories was not enough, several weeks ago a scandal broke with Favre at the center.

(If you are not familiar with the story, I am purposely withholding certain details because of their graphic nature.)

The scandal that broke alleged that Brett Favre had sexually harassed Jenn Sterger, a reporter who worked for the New York Jets when Favre was their quarterback.

Within hours of the allegations, the Internet was flooded with suspicion of a possible suspension for Favre. Favre’s wife, who recently wrote a book, became a commodity for morning talk shows and magazine interviews. Sterger, the one who was allegedly harassed, became the victim in the incident.

Before I continue, please let me say that if the allegations have any truth to them at all, then Favre is in the wrong, both as a person and as a husband. Harassment is never right in any situation and cannot be justified nor can excuses be made.

Please keep those previous statements in mind when you read what I am about to say next. While people had no problem pointing the finger at Favre and condemning him for his (alleged) behavior, I was surprised that very little was said about Sterger. From all reports, it appears that Sterger did not accept the (alleged) advances and even tried to shut them down, which is what a person should do. She also is not the one to come forth with the allegations. That credit belongs to a trash sports tabloid site. However, Sterger’s background may provide a learning opportunity and teachable moment even more than Favre’s.

While Sterger is often referred to as a reporter and TV show host, she also has less credible things on her resume. Sterger has appeared in publications that are considered “pornography” and “soft-core pornography.” She also received plastic surgery to try to help her with her career. In addition, Sterger is known for wearing revealing clothing on camera, including during her days with the Jets.

Before you start thinking I’m running to the defense of Brett Favre, let me be quick to say that’s not happening. Harassment in any shape or form is wrong. Regardless of dress, talk, and action, no one should ever be harassed. This includes verbal, physical, and sexual harassment. Harassment is wrong. End of story.

Here is the point I am finally getting at and why this post is labeled “Sending Mixed Signals to the Opposite Sex.” When Jenn Sterger posed for pornographic magazines and underwent surgery to try to help her career, what message was she sending to guys? What kind of guys did she think she would attract? When a girl poses in a pornographic magazine, she’s not sending the message of “I’m a professional. I’m an intellectual. I respect myself.” Instead, she’s sending the message of, “I’m an object. I adore the attention of men. I’m using my body to gain attention. I am making money off of the lust of others.”

This absolutely boggles my mind. No woman wants to be harassed, used, or taken advantage of. Yet why do women present themselves in a way that screams, “I’m an object. Desire me for what’s on the outside, not the inside.” It seems that some women crave attention to such an extent that they’re willing to sacrifice their values and integrity just to be noticed. It’s sad. It’s sickening. It’s a double standard.

Now this does NOT excuse men for lustful thoughts, harassment, or improper conduct. Men, if we lust after a woman or harass a woman, it is a sin and a very severe sin. No matter how a woman dresses or acts, we are to remain pure in thought and action. If we cross the line, it is OUR sin.

But women, when you present yourselves in a way that is immodest, indecent, and even pornographic, what are you expecting to happen? In an extreme sense, you’re inviting harassment to take place. Put in a milder way, you’re being a stumbling block to men everywhere. And for what? To get noticed? To get a better job? To gain the eye of a man who only sees you for your body? It makes no sense.

Many times we think we have two lives: we have a professional life, and then we have our personal life. In many ways, we don’t want the two to overlap. We want to be like an actor in a movie, stepping on the set, playing a part, and then walking away from all of it hours later and becoming someone else. The truth is, we can’t have it both ways. We don’t get to live a compartmentalized life.

There are too many mixed signals in the world. Guys send them to women. Women send them to guys. Sometimes we think we know what we want, but we don’t always like the consequences of our decisions. That’s why it’s so important to decide now what you want to be later. If you want to be a person of integrity who is respected, start acting that way now. Don’t waste your life today and expect everything to fall into place tomorrow.

(Photo Source: http://bit.ly/ad52Zb)