Playboy Vs. The Pope


July 25, 2012 by mattfradd

Compare the two following statements. The first is from a 1954 edition of Playboy magazine, the second is from Pope John Paul II. Decide for yourself who the real man is.

“All sophisticated playboys are interested in virginity…. Most men realize that virginity is an unpleasant little matter to be disposed of early in life…[in taking her virginity,] you are actually doing the girl a service. Some may suggest that you are trying to deprive them of something — trying to take from them a cherished possession.

This is nonsense. Actually, you are giving them a new freedom — a means of enjoying life more fully…. Some difficulties have arisen because of the confusion (in female minds) between virginity and purity. The two have nothing to do with one another, and it is important that you point this out at the proper moment. Thus, armed with our conviction, we are ready to begin.

First, of course, we must select a suitable subject…. Once we’ve found out subject, we are ready for the approach…. [don’t bother with non-virgins because] it robs you of the special pleasure of spreading the good news and that after all is what this article is all about.”
– Article from Playboy Magazine (September 1954)

“A man is capable of fully accepting a womans gift of herself only if he’s fully conscious of the magnitude of the gift”

-Pope John Paul II

13 thoughts on “Playboy Vs. The Pope

  1. Another heavy hitting post, Matt. Thanks. Hey, btw, I think I served on the same NET year as your wife. Was she on NET Ministries in 00-01?

  2. Brian says:

    I like this little contradiction: “Some may suggest that you are trying to deprive them of something… This is nonesense” & “don’t bother with non-virgins”. Taking their virginity is a favor to them by freeing them of their restrictions but remember, we’re not interested in non-virgins. So virginity is the source of our infatuation (or in playboy’s case lust) and we, in turn, want to take that away from them and console ourselves that we’re not depriving them of anything (only the one thing that interests us about them). Very sound philosophy there!

  3. Timon (AKA Rick Stevens ;) ) says:

    There is no coincidence that the sacrifice of virgins to the false idols of ancient times is now replaced with the sacrifice of virgins to secular man’s new idol: himself.

    Thanks Matt for reminding us what real men are all about.

  4. I found the quote in the Playboy article interesting: [don’t bother with non-virgins because] it robs you of the special pleasure. Herein we see the crux of the whole problem: pornography, among many other problems, reduces sexuality to the person’s pleasure and that alone. There is no gift of self, no pleasing another involved, no gift, only taking. Keep up the good work, Matt!

  5. zak says:

    Saying the pope’s message is better than that of playboy’s, whilst most likely true, isn’t exactly saying very much is it?

  6. Paimon says:

    You’re not really comparing like-for-like though: I don’t know the date for the Pope’s statement, but John Paul II wasn’t even Pope until 1978, and the effect of the feminist movement in the intervening decades places the two statements in very different contexts.

  7. I feel such disgust after reading this excerpt from Playboy. I wish I had a more “ladylike” response to it. Ought I feel guilty for this disgust? I also feel angry. Ought I feel guilty about this anger? I wonder how God wishes for me to respond. Why am I shocked, surprised? Why am I seemingly not prepared to handle the ugly truth about this world? (Somehow I learned to feel uncomfortable using words like “ugly,” or feeling disgust, or realizing that I am angry — because all of these things are, well, ugly, and that would make me ugly. Right?) But deeper than this is a thought which says… if I can focus on John Paul’s message, if I can focus on the Light, on the existence of the community of Light, I can feel protected, empowered, and ready to join the forces of Love. Indeed life is a battlefield, the soul is free, and God calls us incessantly to himself… Some apparently do say “no, God, no…” I wonder if they are even aware of it. I wonder if they really believe, deep down, that what they are doing and saying is good. If the Devil can really appear to us as an angel of light, are we equipped to see through him?

    • Rachel says:

      Dont worry Anda Cristina I feel angry too. I think its only natural to feel that way after reading such a disgusting statement. God gave us those feelings so theres nothing wrong with it.

      But as for any man who thinks the Playboy statement is better than the late Holy Father’s, it must only be because it helps you to justify using women for your own selfishness. “Once we’ve found our SUBJECT…” Subject? Oh yes, that is really going to set women “free”… not! No girl needs no man who sees her as nothing more than a subject to “set her free” thank you very much.

  8. Rachel says:

    JP2 is the dude. I’d rather paty at the Vatican than the Playboy mansion any day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Don't miss a post - enter your email address below.

Join 3,133 other followers

New Book!

My new DVD: How to Win an Argument without Losing a Soul.

Free E-Book!


Blog Stats

  • 895,881 Visits
%d bloggers like this: