Ever the voyeur, Evangelical culture warrior Franklin Graham took to Facebook to slut-shame Duchess Kate Middleton for bearing her breasts on a private French beach. Pictures of the topless Middleton were made public in 2012 by French magazine Closer without her permission. Middleton and her husband, Prince William, have filed a $1.6 million suit against Closer and regional newspaper La Provence for violating their privacy.
Prince William, in a written statement submitted to the court, had this to say:
In September 2012, my wife and I thought that we could go to France for a few days in a secluded villa owned by a member of my family, and thus enjoy our privacy. We know France and the French, and we know that they are, in principle, respectful of private life, including that of their guests.
Graham, feigning sympathy for Prince William and Kate, used the violation of their privacy as a pretext to preach the Evangelical gospel of “No Boobs Allowed.”
What’s with Evangelical preachers and their obsession with and fear of women’s breasts? Are breasts the reason Franklin’s Daddy, Billy, refused to be alone with any woman who was not his wife? Billy’s no-boobs-allowed policy — called the Billy Graham Rule® — is followed by countless Evangelical preachers and male weaklings. Vice President Mike Pence made the news several months ago when it became known that he too followed the Billy Graham Rule:
“In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.”
Pity these pathetic, weak men who can’t keep their minds in check when in the proximity of women who refuse to wear Evangelical burkas. I have written before on this subject: Another Example of Evangelical Fear of Women’s Breasts and Clay Yarborough and the Evangelical Fear of Breasts.
Perhaps it is time for women to picket Franklin Graham’s rallies and other red-meat-for-Evangelical-zealots events. Off go the tops and bras, exposing to Franklin and his fellow school boys a beautiful plethora of female mammary glands. Wouldn’t that be a sight to behold, especially when the women are arrested for public indecency? If men did the same, no arrests would follow. Men baring their mammary glands is legal, but women doing likewise is criminal, a reflection of Christianity’s influence on our laws. Yet again, women are held to a different standard from that of men.
Count me as one person who is absolutely T-I-R-E-D of Evangelical moralizing by men such as Franklin Graham and his fellow misogynists. Sadly, Graham’s slut-shaming of Middleton received thousands of likes. The good news? Hundreds of people voiced their objections to Graham’s words in the comment section. Graham will likely view the negative comments as a sign of fall of Western Civilization. Just wait, Franklin, until the Grandmas of America picket your meetings and unleash their breasts. You will then, for sure, see the FALL of Western Civilization.
“Just wait, Franklin, until the Grandmas of America picket your meetings and unleash their breasts. You will then, for sure, see the FALL of Western Civilization.”
Amen, Brother Bruce, amen! And oh my how far it’s fallen. roflmao
Reminds me of that scene in Hulu’s Handmaid’s Tale, where Ofwarren is shamed by Aunt Lydia and the other handmaids-in-training for having been gang-raped as a young girl.
“Who led them on? Whose fault was it?” Aunt Lydia asks, prompting the other handmaids to chant “her fault” over and over.
You know, Bruce, making fun of the effect of age on women’s breasts is pretty damn insulting in its own right. Not as bad as Franklin Graham’s slut-shaming Kate Middleton for getting photographed in what she thought was a private moment, but not good. Please, don’t do that.
Ugh…that Franklin Graham is even considered a “leader” in fundie circles is nauseating, to say the least. His education is in business, not theology or even “biblical studies.” He’s never pastored a church or led a congregation. Daddy Franklin no doubt hoped his son would follow in his footsteps and take over his “crusades” someday–such as seems to be common in the big fundie families–but it seems Franklin’s wild ways in his younger days must have scuttled that idea. (Franklin has admitted to drinking and using drugs as a teenager, and there have been rumors in North Carolina for decades that he was spotted hanging out in gay bars more than once, back before anyone knew he was Billy Graham’s kid…perhaps that’s why he doth protest too much when it comes to the “sin of homosexuality?”) Since preaching was out, Franklin took over the Samaritan’s Purse charity (where he draws an obscenely large salary for one who heads a “charity”) and nowadays he seems to mostly style himself as a policy mouthpiece for the priggish Puritan values of the “christian” right. No surprise then that he blames Kate Middleton for the invasion of her privacy–in the priggish world of Franklin Graham, the shameless little hussy should never, ever take off her top off outside ever, even when she is on private property in a country where they aren’t nearly so uptight about public nudity as people are in the “morally superior” (ugh) U.S.!!!
Franklin Graham always looks like he smells something foul. He’s clearly a miserable human being. I don’t know that he is frightened by the sight of women’s breasts so much as he is disgusted by them. If the rumors about him are true, then he’s probably a closeted gay man who has never been able to live an open and authentic life because of who his daddy is. As much as I despise him, I somewhat pity him as well.
Here’s my problem with Graham’s comments. He lays the responsibility at Kate Middleton’s feet! I’m sorry, but they are a married couple, doing things that married couples do! They were in a place where they had an absolutely reasonable expectation of privacy! Why is it Ms. Middleton’s fault that a stupid-ass photographer decided he just HAD to snap a pic of her boobs and then SELL it???!!! Mr. Graham, get a clue. Being who they are, the “Royals” are harassed and haraunged nearly 24/7, 365 days a year by the so-called press! Just imagine for one moment how utterly exhausting and frustrating that is! So doesn’t it stand to reason that, in the course of NORMAL husband/wife activities like a PRIVATE vacation, someone might be photographed with their “pants” down, at least in their case? I find that to be incredibly sad! Mr. Graham got it wrong. This is NOT a question of modesty or morality. It’s a question of ethics. It’s also a question of appropriateness and common decency. The last I knew, taking pictures of a woman who is topless (or in any other state of undress) unless she was posing for said pictures, is considered creepy and “peeping tom” behavior. An activity that people, who are not in the press, are usually arrested for, if caught. Ohhhhh, but wait, it’s the paparazzi and the Royals, so, fair game. Fine. If you’re a professional photog who does not engage in taking nude pictures by those who would consent to such pictures, it’s my opinion that said photographer is an unethical jackass for marketing a picture that he/she took of a PRIVATE moment. And it was inappropriate for the publisher to have purchased and then published said pictures, AND out of the bounds of human decency to have not just destroyed them so that Ms. Middleton’s privacy could be protected. Oh, but wait. It’s the Royals! They don’t have the luxury of privacy! So Mr. Graham, instead of blaming Ms. Middleton, why don’t you turn your moralizing on the photographer and the publisher, for THEIR behavior in all of this. Oh, but wait. Forgive me, but that would require the use of common sense. It’s probably just easier to blame the woman. Hmmm. I suppose not much HAS changed since Adam & Eve, eh? That’s the problem with most believers. They think they’ve changed, but really haven’t.
Pingback:Health Repeal, Trump and Tyrants, Lincoln Really Blew It – FairAndUNbalanced.com