I’m going to do you a favor before you head over to the spyware infested scam site parading as a gossip blog that is claiming to a have “scandalous” picture of the left’s new favorite punching bag Carrie Prejean and give you a picture that is actually equally as racy:

Now imagine she was turned away from you, topless but with her arms positioned so that you get just a glimpse of side boob, the same amount that you would see if she was wearing this top and there’s your “racy” photo. You’ll excuse me if I don’t seem particularly impressed but I started out my blogging career on a Wrestling/Sci-Fi blog where I posted pictures of models like this:

(Model/Indy Pro-Wrestler Tara Bush)

Lefty activists live in their own little world where people on the right are all the preacher from Footloose. I’m far to the right of most people and I have promoted models and artists that are much more risque than Prejean’s Victoria’s Secret inspired “racy” photo. I, and most people I know, understand three things that people attacking Prejean are hoping the general public are too stupid to know:

1. Models often take off their clothes for particular photo shoots.
2. Christians aren’t religiously prohibited from modeling.
3. There’s nothing wrong with artistic, or non-artistic, nudity.

The only problem I would have with this supposedly racy photo is that the girl was apparently 17 when it was taken, but I don’t remember liberals mocking Jessica Biel when she posed topless at 17. Who’s the real hypocrite?

Always ready to propagandize for some lefty cause celebre, Matt Lauer, who claimed the world would be ending about now a few years ago, used his dreadful morning televison program to claim conservatives would be disgusted by Prejean’s photos. Lauer even claims the photo is too graphic to run on air, even though it’s simply a Victoria’s Secret style underwear modeling shot.  As Allahpundit points out, NBC had no problem airing self-glorifying videos made by the Virgina Tech killer, so the sudden onset of Victorian sensibilities at the Peacock is suspect, to say the least.

Only the most partisan flack would think that Lauer claiming this fairly tame photo was too hot for TV was not a cynical ploy designed to make people think she basically made porn by a news organization which thinks its viewers are too dumb to be able to find a copy of the photo with a Google image search and see for themselves that Lauer was lying.

This profound disrespect for the people watching is a part of the overall misanthropy that has become acceptable in society, especially by the left I would put forward, as are the misogynist attacks on women launched by men who hate anyone who doesn’t kowtow to them. This attack was of course kicked off by professional douchebag Perez Hilton, who also recently called Tila Tequila a whore for having a body cast done at a cancer charity. In that post I point out that Hilton’s brand of class envy based misogyny has become an accepted part of the public discourse and it is something that men (and no matter how affected his behavior, Perez Hilton is still first and foremost a man and thus, I feel, should be judged by a certain standard of behavior) should be ashamed to partake in.

In this case he is leading a movement to call her a hypocrite as if models can’t have religious views on marriage. This is silly. I’m a Republican and I support gay marriage (or I did, after the MLK memorial service was interrupted by ACT UP I decided to put my energy into causes where the people have some class) which doesn’t make me a hypocrite. If I was a Christian and supported gay marriage I would be a hypocrite because the Bible does in fact spell out what constitutes a marriage. Christians can support a state sanctioned civil union called a marriage, but Marriage is a sacrament in Christianity, so to them having gays receive the sacrament of marriage would be like holding a rave in a church.

In other words, Prejean isn’t a hypocrite, she’s a woman who works as a model who’s drawn the ire of people who believe that a woman is only deserving of respect when they parrot the ideas they believe in. She is yet another woman targeted by a misogynist to whom society gives a free pass because he lisps and has the mannerisms of an 8-year-old girl. My godfather was a gay man, and he was a man’s man. He comported himself with dignity, class and respect. He did not accept that being gay meant living in a state of perpetual effeminate adolescence and he never delved into misogyny of any type. He and most gay men are ashamed of Perez Hilton being held up as a spokesman for them, by straights of course.

The mincing effeminate act that Perez Hitlon puts on may charm the New Yorkers who think of gays as some sort of urban elves whose sole purpose in life is to entertain them, but it does more to hurt the cause of gays who want to be treated equally than a thousand Carrie Prejeans. Perez Hilton creates an image of gay men not as adult men who like other men, but immature “men” who hate women and seek to degrade, humiliate and abuse them at any opportunity. Cattiness is wearisome in women, in men it’s unseemly at best.

This is not keen insight. Every observer sees this and even Matt Lauer knows Prejean did nothing wrong, which is why he resorted to lying on air about how racy her photo was. Lauer, and people like him, will do anything to prove he supports gay rights even trample the rights of a woman. Perez Hilton is a rallying point for leftists to show their support for gay marriage, even though he is clearly not only wrong but a horrible person who is doing a disservice to gays by making a living being a cartoonish caricature of one.

So who in this scenario is really the hypocrite?