Thursday, June 7, 2007

Gisele Bundchen has "Bad Religion"
Wow, just wow. What can I add to an article like that in which Gisele takes on her boyfriend's religion (Catholic) on nearly every possible point in regards to sexuality? I think she stopped short of calling for gay priests. But not by much.

So apparently Gisele may have been pregnant with Tom Brady's baby after all, but aborted it? But wait, that would mean Tom Brady didn't use a condom, and Gisele said contraceptives should be mandatory! Ah, I love it when the conversation shifts from "You should allow X, people deserve the right to choose!" to "X is state law, people have no right to choose!". Fascist principles are so cute when models explain them! And I mean, if someone as famous as Gisele doesn't know any virgins, then they must not exist, because models are like, all-knowing scientists. And models are so cosmopolitan and worldly-wise too! They travel to all those cities in large packs, where I've heard they occasionally have deep, soulful conversations on philosophy with locals. Conversations like "No I don't want any food, please, just the gum" and "You poor man, how do you stand it, wearing non-branded clothing?" Yes, Gisele is definitely right and fashionable, again! Hmm, I wonder what the fashion is in hell this time of year--are shoulder pads making a comeback there too? ;-)


  1. Loved the comments. Hilarious. She is paid to walk & smile, oh, and to take off her clothes on occasion. She should stick to what she knows. Talking only gets her into trouble. I don't know about Brady but I remember it going around that she had an abortion while she was with Leo. And I'm sure she's more than a little pissed that Bridget Moynahan didn't abort. Gisele just HATES it when anyone messes up her affairs. There's a lively debate on this subject at:

  2. That was highly entertaining. It must be so hard to be a model.

  3. Where in that article does she shift to "X is state law, people have no right to choose!"?

  4. Pacifist Viking, if Gisele would have said "It's not fair to ban contraceptives", I would have agreed with her. But she says, and I quote:
    "It's ridiculous to ban contraceptives -- you only have to think of the diseases that are transmitted without them. I think it should be compulsory to use a contraceptive."
    For it to be compulory, there has to be a compeller; and that would be the government, would it not? I believe the government has the right to intervene in some issues with its citizen's. But you can't go from asking that a ban be overturned to insisting that the opposite of the ban be a rule instead!

    In case you're card-checking for biases :-p (which I have many, admittedly), I believe the same thing is not fair from the Christian right. It's one thing to say "They should allow prayer in schools if you want to", another to say "Every school should have prayer!"

  5. It's true that the "compulsory" line is odd--I'd want to know more of what she means (but as you've tried to show, she may not have been terribly articulate in expressing her opposition).

    The larger point is that the Catholic Church doesn't merely declare contraception wrong and forbid Catholics from using it; the Catholic Church opposes secular governments for encouraging or distributing condoms to anybody. So her first point about the ridiculousness of banning contraception is is valid; her next point about making the use "compulsory" needs further clarification, because it doesn't make sense.