The confusion of puritanical hedonism

I’m a little confused by our society’s puritanical hedonism.

Formula One has just axed ‘grid girls’ because they are no longer appropriate in a world of sexual liberation, as reported by the ABC:

There won’t be any so-called “grid girls” at the Australian Grand Prix this year.

The F1 has decided the long-standing practice is no longer appropriate, and they won’t be used at any more Formula One events.

Grid girls normally walk onto the track before the start of a race to stand in front of each driver and hold up their number.

They are usually dressed in tight uniforms.

“Over the last year, we have looked at a number of areas which we felt needed updating so as to be more in tune with our vision for this great sport,” F1’s managing director of commercial operations, Sean Bratches, said in a statement.

“While the practice of employing grid girls has been a staple of Formula 1 grands prix for decades, we feel this custom does not resonate with our brand values and clearly is at odds with modern day societal norms.

So far as I understand it, the two most empowering jobs for females these days are to be a prostitute or a CEO. The former makes a business selling female ‘services’ to men and the latter makes a virtue promoting female-driven change in a man’s world.

One literally sells sex 24/7, while the other sells a message that a focus on sex is sexist.

One makes a business based on man’s attraction to females, and the other is leading the business of denouncing man’s attraction to females.

Somewhere in between these two is the Hollywood starlet. They make a buck selling sexuality on the big screen and then go around denouncing the fact that men proposition them off it.

And so far as I understand it, the only moral position that is deemed worse than whatever moral position Harvey Weinstein follows, is the one that advocates monogamous marriage.

Put your neck above the parapet for that idea and you’ll quickly realise it’s not an idea that has much support in today’s world.

Remember the broo-ha-hah when it was revealed that American Vice President Mike Pence would not dine alone with a woman other than his wife? This was a small part of it:

“The revolting thing about Pence’s no-meals-with-women rule isn’t prudishness. It’s that he’s limiting key professional opportunities to men,” wrote Ian Millhiser, an editor at ThinkProgress.

It’s not on to hit on women in the workplace today. Nor is it acceptable to take measures to prevent it. And protecting a marriage ‘hurts’ women.

You need to be extreme today. Extremely hedonistic. Extremely puritanical. Or extremely hypocritical and both at the same time (this one seems to be the favoured option).

The one thing you can’t do is promote ‘normal’ or the limits that underpin it and stave off confusion and anarchy.

You cannot recognise that there’s a time and place for sex and that it is called marriage.

Nor can you acknowledge the inherent sexual attraction and tension that always exists between men and women and that daily overcomes and destroys the vows of marriage, or take any measures to protect marriage from destruction.

So we end up with rules for the extreme and bans on grid girls but legal protection of pornography, prostitution and perversity…

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

1 Comment

  1. Despite Multiculturalism interpretations, Australia has a Constitution, we don’t need any other Laws; especially not a Draconian issue like Sharia. Definitely NO.
    Grid Girls? Who cares? Leaves things as they are. Attempting to bring about change to the point of confusion. Some people need to get an honest job and work hard.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest