In 2004, Angelina Jolie was named the sexiest woman alive by Esquire magazine. At the time, I thought, “that's an odd pick.” Don't get me wrong. Angelina is attractive and hot and all, but honestly, the sexiest. I can think of others who in my opinion are sexier. However, I have to say, after watching her interview on Anderson Cooper 360° last night, the picture to the left has to be the sexiest picture of her I have ever seen, and quite possibly the sexiest picture of anyone I have ever seen.

Now I should state that I am a sucker for simplicity. Take college for example. The sexiest part of college, in my mind, were all the girls roaming around in their pajamas. This is not to say that I don't appreciate well dressed occasions, however, I usually find "cute" sexier than "hot" and "simplicity" sexier than "done-up." So this statement about Angelina isn’t just a “noble” relation of good works equaling sexiness (I am not that good of a Christian). I actually do find this picture above to be sexy. But I digress.

To see someone so attractive and wealthy, with literally endless possibilities in ways to spend that money and fame, choose to make poverty an issues closest to her heart is inspiring. When all of her other celebrity cohorts are spending their money on Botox and plastic surgery so they can be the scoop of Esquire's pointless designations or E!'s countless "sexiest people countdowns," Angelina has taken her sexiness and turned it into one of the most noble works on the planet: taking care of the poor, especially children.

I have to say the coolest thing about Angelina is that she both talks the talk and walks the walk - which is rare in Hollywood (and the world). She is as loud as anyone out there about poverty. But she also gives up 1/3 of her income, adopted two children, and travels to countless countries all in the name of poverty. Having both of those elements makes me respect Angelina more than just about any celebrity or well-known political figure in the entire world.

So Esquire, you got it wrong this year by naming Jessica Biel the new sexiest woman alive. That title still goes to Angelina, and this picture is the proof.

This past weekend, I actually freed a couple of hours to do one of my favorite things: sit at the pool. It has all the great elements. Outside, yet not strenuous. Stress-free. And most importantly, usually involves a bunch of friends sitting around talking.

This weekend, myself and four girl-friends (yes, I am always outnumbered and it isn't as "cool" as it sounds, but I digress) of mine were out there. Like Stephen Colbert, I don't like to read. Why would you want to ruin a perfectly good day at the pool by "boring-it-up" by reading. But nevertheless, my friends sure do. So they brought books, magazines, etc...

One magazine in particular was People. This week it featured (among others) Matthew McConaughey, who, these particular group of girls have quite the crush on. As they passed along the magazine, comments began to fly out of their mouths, "ohh check out this picture," to which the response back would be, "ohh just wait, it gets better."

Now it is at this point that I had to speak up. But I should add this disclaimer, I am not a jealous person, nor do I look to Matthew as what I aspire to be as a man. So my line of questioning that followed was purely inquisitive in nature not stemming from any insecurity. Nevertheless, it was now that I piped up and asked, "if the roles were reversed and I were sitting here with a Maxim talking to my guy-friends, would you think that is appropriate?" The immediate response was, "no, because these guys have their cloths on." To which I responded, "why does that matter?"

And here is my point. Men and women (usually) are wired differently. What stimulates my desire for a woman/relationship is different than what stimulates a woman's desire for a man/relationship. Needless to say, all these magazines, whether cloths are on or not, exploit the wirings of men/women to create a false sense of expectation for a relationship. To which I say, I personally am not threatened by my friends lust over these magazine-men. However, all women need to look in the mirror and recognize their "appreciation" of these men and the sensitive facts of their lives shared in the magazines is the same thing as men's "lust" over the Maxim-women. To say otherwise is hypocrisy, whether by the pool or not.

P.S. I should add that most of what I have said above was said to them in person, and this is not some attempt to take a cheap shot at them. In addition to that, all four of these girls are quality girls, of which, despite their momentary lapse of hypocrisy, I can say with the utmost confidence that this world would be a much better place if all woman lived up to the same standards as these four amazing women.

Well it is in the news again, so I figured I better comment on it. Like the image to the left of this, Jesus said marriage is between one man and one woman. And I agree with this wholeheartedly. I do believe, the God-honoring, morally acceptable relationships is between a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female that have been bonded in the holy act of matrimony. So thus far, I have all the right-wing conservatives on my side, right?

Well here's where it gets interesting. I support same-sex civil union (whether we call it marriage or not, is just a matter of semantics). Why? Do I think it is right? No. Do I think it is necessarily good for our culture? Probably not. So why do you support this? Because Jesus said...

We recently had Shirley Phelps Roper from the wickedly world famous godhatesfags.com and for organizing the picketing of soldier's funerals on the radio show I produce. I was proud of Allen for sticking up, on theological grounds (which no one else in the Media can do), and saying with a loud voice, you don't speak for us. His point, and I agree with him, is that if you are going to have godhatesfags.com, you need to have godhatesdivorce.com and godhatespornography.com and godhatesstealing.com and godhates-dare I say-gossip.com.

And this is my point with Christians today. We scream, at the top of our lungs that we do not want homosexual marriage on moral grounds, this of course effects 2% of the population. Yet we do nothing to make divorce illegal, which effects 50% of the population. We need to be a consistent "political group" if we are going to be a political group - or else the world will continue laughing at us like they already do. We either need to take the perspective that we are going to be a "God-honoring" government in all aspects of law (including divorce), or concede to the fact that we are not a Christian nation. We will never be a Christian nation. And ultimately God does not call us to enforce a Christian nation, but rather seek change in people's hearts on a one-on-one basis, not through sweeping laws that will force God's law on those who don't want to follow it.

When I was doing my senior thesis on Globalization's effects on the Middle East/West Relationships, I came across an interesting quote that speaks to the dilemma of today's current political environment. This was said by a Muslim friend of Phillip Yancey. "In the Qur'an, I can find nothing to teach us how to be a minority religion, while in the New Testament I can find nothing to teach Christians how to be a majority religion." And that is why I think we are struggling as a political group. The past elections showed that Christianity has a lot of power in this democracy - maybe more than any other single force in this country. Yet Christianity was not founded on these grounds. We were small. We were persecuted. But yet we thrived. If Christianity can thrive in a culture as oppressive to their mission as Rome was before Constantine, I don't think Gay Civil Unions are going to truly be the downfall of Christianity in America.

Jesus said to live righteous and holy lives. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your enemies. Jesus said to love our neighbors as ourselves. But ultimately, Jesus said, I give you the choice to do otherwise.

I went on vacation last week straight from the radio show, which meant that I didn't get to see The Simpsons (along with Family Guy on Sunday nights makes for an incredibly hilarious evening after working a typical 15 hour day on Sundays). Because of vacation, I just recently watched The Simpsons season finale last night (entitled Homer and Marge Turn a Couple Play). It never ceases to amaze me how The Simpsons can be funny, even after 17 years on the air!

About half way through the show, Tabitha (aka Fiona per Simpson's Episode guide) decides to sing a new song she wrote in honor of her marriage's rekindled love. The song is entitle "Sexy-Marriage Land" and includes a "Britney-spears-look-a-like" cartoon figure, dancing with a pole, with words like monogamy, and health benefits dancing in the background.

What strikes me is how easy it is for Hollywood to make marriage sex so unappetizing. Even with Bart's comment at the end, "something makes me want to give her five bucks," still doesn't do anything for the overall feeling at the end of the scene. That feeling is, man, "sexy-marriage land" is retarded. Who cares about health benefits in relation to sex.

This brings me back to a conversation I had while working at the Allen County Courthouse in Fort Wayne, IN when I was 18 years old. This conversation made me realize sex was like marshmallows (and brace yourself, this one might get long).

I should start off by saying that I am "technically" a 23-year old virgin (technically means that in past relationships I have "fooled around" but never had intercourse, I am not saying fooling around is acceptable, but at least now you know where I am coming from). Anyway, I know this means that half of the people reading this now feel I have absolutely no credit to talk about sex. But give me a second, and if you want a good read by the fireplace, check out my Senior Thesis on a Theology of the Erotic to prove I have at least spent a lot of time thinking about sex.

Now back to the good stuff. I worked at a crazy, but fun, office while at the courthouse. Most of the people there were under 25, most didn't have a college degree, and they still liked to party. It kind of had a "Sex in the City" feel to it, only instead of New York it was Fort Wayne, IN, and instead of Carrie and Samantha it was Sarah and Kimmy.

One day when the bosses were at a conference, and the day was wrapping up, we all gathered back in a corner of the office and started discussing a whole bunch of stuff. Somehow, it eventually got to the fact that I was a virgin and waiting for marriage to have sex. A girl named Kimmy heard this and looked me straight in the eye and with the most concerned look in her face said, "ohh honey, sex doesn't begin at marriage, sex ends at marriage."

Now I liked Kimmy a lot, she was cool. And I know she liked me a lot. So she was by no means trying to make fun of me or put me down. She seriously thought she was helping by informing me of this social revelation that sex ends at marriage. Now I put up an argument, but the day was ending rapidly and we were all walking out the door.

On the drive home, rethinking the conversation, I realized that sex was like marshmallows. I know, you're confused. But hold on (I told you this one would get long).

When I was like 10 I remember watching an Oprah show (no I am not a big fan of Oprah, but for some reason I was watching this day and it has stuck in my head ever since). Now Oprah was doing a show on how you can tell your two year old will be gifted.

The premise was this. A bunch of 2-year olds were given a marshmallow and told if they could hold off on eating the marshmallow for 20-minutes they would get a second marshmallow. Now some kids popped that sucker in their mouth right away. Others stared at the thing and somewhere between minute 1 and minute 19 they popped the thing in their mouth. A select few put the thing out of their sight and went on doing whatever else they were doing at the time.

Now think with me for a minute. Lets say 2 year old had the ability to taunt each other and think at a higher level. Lets say those that ate their marshmallow turned to the kids who hadn't eaten the marshmallow and told them how great their marshmallow was. It tasted so good. It was so much fun. I loved it. Nothing they said would be a lie. They could even continue by saying, why do you even think someone is coming back to give you a second one. You have no guarantees. You better eat your marshmallow now before it gets stale and nasty. Again, nothing they said would be a lie. And they are right, there was no guarantee that anybody was coming back with more marshmallows.

The point is this. For 20 minutes, the kids who hate their marshmallow got all the fun, while the kids who waited, which I am sure seemed like an eternity, had to tough it out. BUT, at that 20 minute mark, that is when the kids who ate their marshmallow stopped having all the fun, and the kids who didn't eat their marshmallow began having fun. And in addition to that, the kids who didn't eat their marshmallow got to experience a whole new level of fun the first group of kids wouldn't even understand (because they only had one marshmallow as appose to two).

So this all comes back to Kimmy. You see, she was probably right. Sex, when outside of God's will, probably doesn't begin at marriage but ends at marriage. But for those who can stick it out, they'll understand a more fulfilling and truly satisfying sex life that the first group couldn't ever understand.

Which brings me back to the Simpsons. You see, while "Sexy Marriage Land" was being sung, and words like monogamy and health benefits flashing in the background, the writers missed the point. Sure, there are things like health benefits, commitment, and security in "marriage-sex," but that doesn't mean their aren't words like hot, erotic, and nasty either. Sex was designed to be fun in a marriage by the Creator. And its about time society started enjoying "sexy-marriage land."