Ivy Trendwatch: Prep 101: The Battle of Status & Social Rank
June 15, 2011
A few days ago someone who goes by the sobriquet “Andover Hotchkiss” posted the above image on Ivy Style’s Facebook page. It’s an ad for a book entitled “Prep 101: The Battle of Status and Social Rank,” by Dr. Charles Walker, Jr. and Cedric S. King that is supposedly due out next month.
The tome is written from an African-American perspective; the image above carries the following debate-inspiring (hey, I know you guys) quote from Andre 3000 of the band OutKast:
It will be interesting to see how prep style is interpreted by other cultures and future generations that have no association whatsoever to the original pedigree from which it came. Ironically, this “new blood” may be the very thing that keeps the “blue blood” aesthetic relevant.
I went on Google to do a little research. Now this is going to sound self-congratulatory when it’s merely meant to sound droll, but after seven years of blogging, I can’t tell you how many times I go to look something up only to find the answer on my own website.
To wit, one of the search results was this comment left by one of the authors on the About page last summer:
Thanks for your scholarly work and passion for mid-century garb. I am an African American, and I am releasing a book called “Prep 101.” It’s a historical preppie fashion guide that reveals secrets of the wealthy, and the cultural diversity that exists within the ranks. Prep 101 provides an in-depth review of those that are PREP-pared for Power and the battle for social rank and status.
I would love to discuss the book, and how we could share information that will reveal how smart dress has influenced the “great unwashed- those that follow ‘the crowd’ and don’t have a mind of their own. Please have someone contact me. Thanks.
I will do as the author requested and report back the findings. — CC
I am very interested in this book. Frankly, I find the sociological component of the neo-prep movement just as, if not more, compelling than the fashion it produces. One of the elements I enjoy most about Ivy-Style.com is its exploration of 50s and 60s jazz culture, and the insistence on a strong connection between ivy style and jazz style… speaking to an era when many battles of status and social rank were fought. I hope this will bear out in the Prep 101 book as well.
The Battle of Status and Social Rank. Once again let’s discuss
humanity in terms of ego and self absorption in terms of arrogance,
but don’t call it arrogance,its “human nature”……fascinating.
Here we go again of course with lib vs con, due to one innocent
remark made in observation of Mr Porter last post.
Libs? Have you happened to notice that humanity lies,cheats,
steals, even murders one another on a daily basis?
So take your dream of were all “equal” “we are the world”
“we are the children” of absolute nonsense and stop complaining
every single time someone who isn’t part of your brainwashed
matrix makes a little remark that upsets your pitiful hopes.
We have the right, to hate whomever we choose. Humanity is
not some gigantic loving family. The smarter, more intelligent
a person is the more you hate humanity and its never ending
insisting mouth that were “all basically good” deserving no
judgement whatsoever and basically authority is evil which is
your personal genesis.
That’s your biggest problem.Authority
It creates inequality.
“Love the sinner hate the sin???” No bigger jackass in all of
Christianity are the ones who believe that bs.
If – there ain’t no sinner – then there ain’t no sin.
Don’t be a hypocrite. If you hate the persons actions which
are an extension of who they are,then yeah,you HATE the
person. If one’s decisions don’t represent who they
are then what does??
PREP 101….eh, i’m sure It can stir debate, and introspection
and add to the overall discussion for better or worse.
But as long as you’re in the matrix of “all love…no
judging….” who cares what is discussed as a result.
Jinx, I normally agree completely with what you have to say, but I must disagree on this one.
First of all, I don’t buy into the myth of homosexual identity that has become standard. Up until not so very long ago, we understood that homosexual behavior was a choice, not “who you are.” There has been no scientific “breakthrough” finding a “homosexual gene” or any other such genetic determinism. The best we can say is that in some cases, there appears to be a genetic predisposition, but such tendencies do not determine one’s actions, any more than a genetic predisposition to addiction determines that someone will become an alcoholic. In the absence of conclusive data, we should continue to understand homosexuality as a voluntary choice: a freely chosen vice.
I’m sorry you have such a negative take on Christianity, but “love the sinner, hate the sin” is the only logical way to approach it. This is because we are all sinners, “and I am the worst of them all” (1 Timothy 1:15). If I hate someone because of their sin, I must hate everyone, including myself.
Sorry, but I won’t be walking down the misanthropy path the way our liberal comrades do.
Well, here’s hoping a good return for PREP 101 initial sales.
Henry?….I’m further to the right than you,that’s how
I meant my statements.
Any Christian who believes the “christian” way of life
is not to judge is insane and should not bother
believing in Jesus in the first place. Especially
when the bible is full of Jesus handpicking people
to go on missions of judging. Don’t forget to tell
David not to judge Goliath……….
People who hate christianity love finding out
the judgmental nature of the entire way of the
bible. They recognize the truth of christianity
more than you Henry,difference is they hate it,
you are supposed to be proud of it not a coward.
Following your logical approach, then there’s
No David,No Moses,No Joshua, No Paul,
no leaders ever .Period. The USA has lost
its christian heritage because our “christians”
have all turned coward, psyched out because
well after all…..you’re a sinner too…..
how a certain fallen angel loves hearing you say that.
IVY STYLE. It’s not just a blog, it’s an adventure.
Did anyone else notice that the stack of mufflers was lifted from the top of the stack from the J. Press FW09 catalog? It is obvious that the entire image is a digital creation (perspective is off), but why take from the Press catalog?
Me: “I disapprove of homosexual behavior.”
J. Ivy: “Henry must be a minority-hating racist!”
To which J Ivy responded,
“uh, yeah, …um…..see, Henry, the problem is that I never said that.”
And his next post is this:
“wow…this thread turned into a right-wing looney-tune Klan rally in no time flat!”
Do you see a problem here?
Now it’s true that I was conflating your responses with those of others on the previous post, and I ought not to have done that. But then your very next post confirms my paraphrase of your response.
Gentleman Mac,
This is some wash-over from the previous post. As Jinx put it, I made “one innocent
remark” in the previous post in which I expressed disapproval of homosexuality, and some of the commentariat started painting me as some sort of Nazi Klansman. (I probably eat live kittens for breakfast, too.)
Lots of emoting but not a whole lot of thinking. This is true whenever anyone resorts to name-calling, which seems to be the primary mode of “argument” employed by liberals these days.
Hackworth,
That is the stupidest comment I have ever seen on this site. (Note: I’m calling his comment stupid, not him. There’s a difference.)
“I made “one innocent remark” in the previous post in which I expressed disapproval of bigotry, and some of the commentariat started painting me as some sort of Socialist Commie (I probably eat live kittens for breakfast, too.)
Lots of emoting but not a whole lot of thinking. This is true whenever anyone resorts to name-calling, which seems to be the primary mode of “argument” employed by conservatives these days.”
You make some of the most asinine, bigoted, backwards, reactionary, xenophobic, ignorant comments on this site.
See, in Henry-logic, I didn’t call Henry himself asinine, bigoted, backwards, reactionary, xenophobic, or ignorant.
I called his COMMENTS asinine, bigoted, backwards, reactionary, xenophobic, and ignorant. There’s the difference.
Now if anyone jumps to the conclusion, inference, or insinuation that I said those things about Henry himself…well I just can’t help THAT, can I?
Sorry Henry but J.Ivy just mopped the floor with you.
I do agree that IVY STYLE really isn’t the place for this,
but its gone on this long,so be it.
Henry if you don’t have what it takes to get over yourself,
and your guilt ,because you’re a “sinner” too, then sit down
and shut up. You want to get involved in the philosophical
war between God and Satan, Jesus is looking for starters
not bench warming, guilt ridden wimps. You are truly
hypocritical. If you are a sinner too,then you have
NO RIGHT to rebuke.Your message can be ridiculed and
rendered worthless every time.
“Love the sinner hate the sin” is straight from the
mouth of Satan. There is no distinction. The sinner
IS the cause of sin. Besides,if you were a well rounded
student of the Bible,how about the passages regarding
once an individual is renewed by means of the spirit,
“born again” however you want to put it,he is no longer
a sinner in God’s eyes.1 John3:9.AND you are commanded
and expected to win the battle of sin in your soul.
You are not obligated to involve yourself in the rebuking
business anyway. But IF YOU INSIST, then realize
Jesus only wants those who have won the battle over
sin in their souls and can speak with 100% confidence
and no hypocrisy.AH, but you were liberal yourself once?
The guilt of the “i was no better myself
at one point” bs….then either accept the spiritual renewal
offered to you or sit the bench. God wants pure honesty
no matter what. If you truly can’t do it then simply don’t.
Yes, to judge and rebuke properly,you HAVE to get
personal and righteously HATE the sinner.
Again, you just can’t, too much guilt? Then stop
before Jesus has to get your attention himself.
“But IF YOU INSIST, then realize
Jesus only wants those who have won the battle over
sin in their souls and can speak with 100% confidence
and no hypocrisy.”
To be born again is no longer to be a sinner, but it does not mean that one may not fall and have to repent again. For this reason, Christ instructs: “Moreover if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican.” (Mt 18:15-17) It is possible to trespass and yet to be received back into the Church if one be repentant.
There is a difference between a repentant sinner who acknowledges his sins and strives for righteousness, and an unrepentant sinner who goes on sinning despite God. Christ does not call those who have already won a victory; he calls to repentance those who are fallen. Repentance includes an ongoing acknowledgment of one’s sins and one’s ongoing temptations and, in the long journey, perhaps one’s continuing falls. But get up each time in repentance.
Thus: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23) therefore “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 Jn 1:8), “wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12) We must not be too confident of our victory, but rely on Christ and be ready to repent.
However, there is hope for the Lord says: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Lk 5:32)
Even in repentance, one still experiences temptations; these are not themselves sins but they are the tendencies which, over a lifetime, one must battle against. Thus one can state the fact of one’s repentance, and the victory of Christ within one’s soul: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20)
But, at the same time, while yet rejecting sin and even while keeping clear of sin by the grace of God, one can still acknowledge the battle: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” (Rom 7:23) Those are not the words of a bench-warmer, Jinx, but of a fighting man. There is no hypocrisy in saying that one is repentant and yet one has in the past sinned, has felt temptation to sin in the present, and may fall (and by the grace of God repent) in the future.
We must be honest about ourselves, lest we fall, as Paul says. He certainly rebukes the sins of the Galatians and yet can still acknowledge the war within his own soul when writing later to the Romans.
While one must reject sin each time one repents, one cannot claim to have won in Christ the final victory until the end of one’s life when one can say: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim 4:7). Even then the victory is not one’s own
One can indeed hate the sinner but only insofar as he or she is a sinner; and that is only insofar as the person be identified wholly with sin. For as long as someone remain within the body, he or she can still repent. Therefore to hate the sinner as a human being (rather than only to hate his sins)–and therefore to reject him before Christ has judged him at the end–is actually to incur Christ’s judgment, who said: “You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who spitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Mt. 5:43-44)
One can hate the sin of the sinner, and one can hate that which is sinful in the sinner, but to hate utterly the sinner is to fail to love him or her. One must lovingly call the sinner to repentance, pray for his or her welfare, and extend that love to the sinner. This does not mean being dishonest, but it does mean acknowledging that the race is not over and that Christ himself desires the sinner’s repentance and offers the grace for it. We must do the same, by loving the sinner in this desire, and by helping him or her, turning away from his or her sin but not turning away from the sinner himself.
It’s nice to know that the people on this forum care about more than penny-loafers.
I eat better than you do Fogey. Ain’t nothing like Umberto’s in Laguna Beach.
I’m also a happier person than you are. You can tell by the way I prefer not to do dispense invective, swearing and racial slurs at complete strangers on the Internet.
I know jokes too. The best ones tend to make punchlines of themselves, kinda like you.
There’s no reason that comments on this blog should be limited to ideological skirmishes and bickering bloggers. If any married couples would like to air their dirty laundry, feel free to use Ivy Style as your clothesline.
Christian is right. IVY STYLE not a clothesline to hang out
unrelated subjects to dry. In closing, Henry, George is nothing
but another simpleton, with this “God loves everyone” bs….
Sure he does. Is that why at one point he eliminated the entire
population of the earth, save Noah and seven others? The
greatest death penalty in the history of humanity. Tell David he
was wrong to judge Goliath.Jesus commands the wandering tribe
Israel in the desert to pick up the sword and slaughter their
own brethren who had turned their hearts away from him.
Jesus also tells them to invade Canaan, slaughter every
last Canaanite, take the village it’s yours. We all know how that
turned out. WIMPS. God kicked out his number one angel
out of heaven who was holier than you could ever be,and
closer to God then any human. That angel is now destined for
hell.You think God gives a damn about anyone he’s sending
to a punishment like that, yeah,you need your medications.
All the fancy passage quoting doesn’t mean a damn thing.
I’m plain speak right to your face, not some pre programmed
organized religion sounding zombie.
SO, George is correct eh?.IF YOU FOLLOW THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF CHRIST CORRECTLY,
according to the Bible your nation is blessed.
What George stated IS INDEED what the majority of
our Christian body believes to be the proper Christian way
of life today.And we are at the lowest point ever, with
our enemy nearly crippling America, the Christian body
wiped out with PC tyranny…….because you have all
failed. You don’t end up this way when you’re following
correctly, only when you turn lukewarm and stray.
You are the reasons Christianity has finally failed in
America or things would not be the way they are.
Wiped the floor indeed Henry.
CHECKMATE.
oh..so you’re saying that someone other than you actually bothered to read George’s psychotic delusional religious-nut ramblings?
I stopped reading after i saw the words “Jesus” and “born again”. No need to continue reading any further as the poster has shown that logic and rational thought don’t factor into his thought processes. Belief in magic beings and his devotion to fairy tales of Iron Age desert shamans will always trump logic in his mind.
Ah, J. Ivy. So nice to see that you are such a superior being. Of course no one believes in that religious claptrap anymore!
Except that you did not arrive at the conclusion “there is no God” through introspection, reflection, and familiarity with the vast body of philosophical writings on the subject; you merely picked it up from the zeitgeist.
It was just a few decades ago that “everyone” knew that the biggest threat to humanity was Global Winter; somehow, that has transmogrified into the threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming–except that since the scandals at the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the evidence and support for AGW has grown weaker and weaker. Why, it’s on the verge of being debunked!
Funny how the zeitgeist changes.
But I’m sure you must be right.
From where I sit, you are no more than an anti-religious bigot. You don’t even know the first thing about the Bible; how can you possibly know it’s wrong? The Old Testament is, in essence, a history of the Jewish people. The New Testament is a history of Jesus and of the Apostles, a collection of letters, and the Book of Revelation. Only the ignorant and the hostile could mischaracterize it as “fairy tales.”
Obviously, your capacity for “logic and rational thought” are far superior to those of Newton, Einstein, and a host of other scientists who believe(d) in God.
George is not saying “God loves everyone.” One of the difficult things for many people to accept about the Gospels is that the God does not grant His grace to everyone and does not love everyone. God’s grace and love are only for those whom He has chosen.
Furthermore, God will judge us, and His judgement will be just. You allude to this in your list of God’s punishments for sinful men.
You are correct that America, once so abundantly blessed by God (as observed by Washington, amongst others) has strayed, and is now, if not accursed, at least “at the lowest point ever.”
“You are the reasons Christianity has finally failed in America…”
I fail to see how the shortcomings of our ancestors and elders are my personal fault.
It’s all fairy tales Henry. It may as well be “Harry Potter and the Talking Snake”.
Not sure exactly WHAT climate change has to do with anything, but your comments only confirm my points about you. You only believe what you want to believe. Facts are irrelevant to you. “verge of being debunked”? Only in the backwards bizarro world of conservatives.
It’s very telling that, with zero evidence, you believe without question all the fairy tales and fantastic nonsense about religion and invisible magic beings in the sky, while simultaneously refusing to believe what thousands of scientists say about climate change.
I’m not surprised at all though. You kind of HAVE to be a master of “cognitive dissonance” to believe all that religious crap. To analyze any of it rationally is to scary for you to contemplate. You can’t prove any of it, and that ironically is the entire basis of “faith”.
BTW…how do YOU know how I arrived at my beliefs (or lack thereof)? How do YOU know whether or not I know anything about the Bible?
Why would I have to read “philosophical writings” to decide I don’t believe in talking snakes and invisible magic beings in the sky? Perhaps YOU need to endlessly ponder that question, but it seems pretty obvious to me.
It seems to me, Henry, that YOU are the one who has come about his beliefs from “merely picking it up from the zeitgeist”. From your own particular cloistered, insular, conserva-world zeitgeist that is…
Conservatives always decide their views first, and then attempt to back up those views afterwards by ignoring things that contradict them.
After thousands of years of this stone-age religion crapola, either prove the existence of God, or shut the **** up about your delusions.
There is no point in attempting to engage in intelligent discussion with you, J. Ivy. Your vulgarity and hostility mark you as outside the realm of polite society.
Even so, you may wish to re-examine the snake oil being peddled as AGW. That house of cards is tumbling.
Remember me in a decade when we see not only how false the alarmist warnings were, but how dishonest the whole AGW debacle was.
I guess anybody who doesn’t believe in magic, and says so, is “vulgar” in your book?
It’s “play #1” in the conservative playbook to ignore anything that debunks their ludicrous unfounded belief system and then attempt to dismiss their “opponent” with snide insults rather than actually prove any of their so-called “points”.
Just SAYING the climate change is a myth, or debunked, without actually providing anything to back it up, is cliche rightwing tactics. It’s enough to just SAY it, repeat it ad infinitum, and that alone is supposed make something a fact.
Finding one paid-hack faux-“scientist” (which you haven’t even done) who is willing to argue against the thousands of other scientists who have come to a peer-reviewed consensus, isn’t proof of anything other than the fact that there are always people who can be bought off.
Apparently Henry is now adding “climate scientist” to his CV,….right next to “believer in magic”, “white supremacist”, and “homophobe”.
I typically don’t like to get into debates on homosexuality, just because they never seem to get anywhere, but after reading your outbursts of pious ignorance, I thought I might chuck in my two cents.
Now, I’ve never been one for political correctness, as I find it incredibly annoying, but to “disagree” with homosexuality kind of…doesn’t make any sense. I’m gay, and I’m a Republican, although I’ve given up on the whole religion thing long ago (having been subjected to the strenuous education of a New England private boarding school, I’ve learned not to willfully deny science).
To say that there’s no evidence that homosexuality isn’t a choice is nothing but blatant and outright misinformation. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychanalytic Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Neurological Association have all stated that after decades of research it has been concluded that homosexuality is NOT a choice and CANNOT be changed. I’d hate to burst your bubble, but you don’t have the medical authority to refute those organizations. Not to mention, with the suicide rate of gay teens being six times higher than that of their straight counterparts, you’d think the bigots would realize it’s not such a simple “choice.” I’d also like to point out that different brain activity has been DIRECTLY observed amongst gays compared to straights; the Caudate Nucleus is effeminate in a gay male’s brain; how the hell do you expect us to change our chemical makeup? Praying to Jesus?
Unfortunately, your kind and science don’t really go well together. You are a prime example of a TED discussion in which Michael Specter talks about science denial. Science has shown that homosexuality is not a choice, but you are still wrapped in the blanket of your upbringing, and you would rather hold your breath and stomp your feet than to let go of your momma’s apron and think for yourself. I shouldn’t worry about you. Your self-promoting intolerance carries enough stench to drive off anyone with enough intelligence to smell.
It’s funny that you guys even acknowledged this book and the book never released. What’s the ISBN # if it did? And wasn’t there already a prep handbook written long ago? Wouldn’t this be just a hack OF THAT? Bottomline the people whose names are attached are frauds that badmouth people and lie to make themselves look credible. One of them has owed me over $3000 for designs that he did not pay for since 2005 and they both sporadically harass me via social networks or via my own personal website out of the clear blue. They harassed me and accused me of being a part of this discussion. They make unrealistic threats and constantly harass me by way of threatening to sue ME for harassment ……. When I tell them to proceed they never do. They just continue to make empty roundabout threats. These are not even stand up guys let alone collegiates or preps so to write a book about it is so far out of their element I can’t imagine that they didnt steal or plagiarize.
I love your blog and writing. You should delete these threads attached here as they have nothing to do with your post. The fact department should also remove the post or acknowledge with an update that this book doesn’t exist. And worse, the site attached to the book (Facebook etc) is a scam.
CC – Did you ever discover what happened with this book (or lack thereof)? It doesn’t appear to ever have been published, as some commenters above have mentioned. I followed the Facebook page for a while out of curiosity. It started off with posts that seemed to promote the book, then quickly denigrated into self-promotional garbage advertisements about clothing and products that the page creator seemed to be peddling to the general public, and which were – in my opinion – as far removed from Ivy/prep aesthetic as is possible.
It appears to be pushing primarily women’s street fashion, and they offer client subscriptions to find clothing that they then sell to the customer. For $799 they’ll select three outfits for you per month that you then have the option of purchasing.
The page is filled with grammatical and spelling errors left and right and looks like a complete sham.
I am very interested in this book. Frankly, I find the sociological component of the neo-prep movement just as, if not more, compelling than the fashion it produces. One of the elements I enjoy most about Ivy-Style.com is its exploration of 50s and 60s jazz culture, and the insistence on a strong connection between ivy style and jazz style… speaking to an era when many battles of status and social rank were fought. I hope this will bear out in the Prep 101 book as well.
countdown to Henry in 3….2….1….
Me: “I disapprove of homosexual behavior.”
J. Ivy: “Henry must be a minority-hating racist!”
Interesting thought pattern you have.
The Battle of Status and Social Rank. Once again let’s discuss
humanity in terms of ego and self absorption in terms of arrogance,
but don’t call it arrogance,its “human nature”……fascinating.
Here we go again of course with lib vs con, due to one innocent
remark made in observation of Mr Porter last post.
Libs? Have you happened to notice that humanity lies,cheats,
steals, even murders one another on a daily basis?
So take your dream of were all “equal” “we are the world”
“we are the children” of absolute nonsense and stop complaining
every single time someone who isn’t part of your brainwashed
matrix makes a little remark that upsets your pitiful hopes.
We have the right, to hate whomever we choose. Humanity is
not some gigantic loving family. The smarter, more intelligent
a person is the more you hate humanity and its never ending
insisting mouth that were “all basically good” deserving no
judgement whatsoever and basically authority is evil which is
your personal genesis.
That’s your biggest problem.Authority
It creates inequality.
“Love the sinner hate the sin???” No bigger jackass in all of
Christianity are the ones who believe that bs.
If – there ain’t no sinner – then there ain’t no sin.
Don’t be a hypocrite. If you hate the persons actions which
are an extension of who they are,then yeah,you HATE the
person. If one’s decisions don’t represent who they
are then what does??
PREP 101….eh, i’m sure It can stir debate, and introspection
and add to the overall discussion for better or worse.
But as long as you’re in the matrix of “all love…no
judging….” who cares what is discussed as a result.
Jinx, I normally agree completely with what you have to say, but I must disagree on this one.
First of all, I don’t buy into the myth of homosexual identity that has become standard. Up until not so very long ago, we understood that homosexual behavior was a choice, not “who you are.” There has been no scientific “breakthrough” finding a “homosexual gene” or any other such genetic determinism. The best we can say is that in some cases, there appears to be a genetic predisposition, but such tendencies do not determine one’s actions, any more than a genetic predisposition to addiction determines that someone will become an alcoholic. In the absence of conclusive data, we should continue to understand homosexuality as a voluntary choice: a freely chosen vice.
I’m sorry you have such a negative take on Christianity, but “love the sinner, hate the sin” is the only logical way to approach it. This is because we are all sinners, “and I am the worst of them all” (1 Timothy 1:15). If I hate someone because of their sin, I must hate everyone, including myself.
Sorry, but I won’t be walking down the misanthropy path the way our liberal comrades do.
hmmm…how do straw boater hats stay on peoples heads?
A surprising comment from Laguna Beach Fogey. He wouldn’t know a joke if….never mind.
Looks like an interesting take on things, anyway.
@Henry
uh, yeah, …um…..see, Henry, the problem is that I never said that.
But you never let facts get in the way of a good rant, do ya?
wow…this thread turned into a right-wing looney-tune Klan rally in no time flat!
Well, here’s hoping a good return for PREP 101 initial sales.
Henry?….I’m further to the right than you,that’s how
I meant my statements.
Any Christian who believes the “christian” way of life
is not to judge is insane and should not bother
believing in Jesus in the first place. Especially
when the bible is full of Jesus handpicking people
to go on missions of judging. Don’t forget to tell
David not to judge Goliath……….
People who hate christianity love finding out
the judgmental nature of the entire way of the
bible. They recognize the truth of christianity
more than you Henry,difference is they hate it,
you are supposed to be proud of it not a coward.
Following your logical approach, then there’s
No David,No Moses,No Joshua, No Paul,
no leaders ever .Period. The USA has lost
its christian heritage because our “christians”
have all turned coward, psyched out because
well after all…..you’re a sinner too…..
how a certain fallen angel loves hearing you say that.
IVY STYLE. It’s not just a blog, it’s an adventure.
Where is all the gay and Christian stuff coming from with this post? I must have missed something; I need a latte.
Did anyone else notice that the stack of mufflers was lifted from the top of the stack from the J. Press FW09 catalog? It is obvious that the entire image is a digital creation (perspective is off), but why take from the Press catalog?
Henry,
Stop being a drama queen and come out of the closet already. It’s 2011, no one cares that you’re gay. It’s OK.
Your self-hatred makes this site a bore to read.
Someone, please put a fork in the whole preppy thing………..
It just got weird.
I said,
Me: “I disapprove of homosexual behavior.”
J. Ivy: “Henry must be a minority-hating racist!”
To which J Ivy responded,
“uh, yeah, …um…..see, Henry, the problem is that I never said that.”
And his next post is this:
“wow…this thread turned into a right-wing looney-tune Klan rally in no time flat!”
Do you see a problem here?
Now it’s true that I was conflating your responses with those of others on the previous post, and I ought not to have done that. But then your very next post confirms my paraphrase of your response.
Gentleman Mac,
This is some wash-over from the previous post. As Jinx put it, I made “one innocent
remark” in the previous post in which I expressed disapproval of homosexuality, and some of the commentariat started painting me as some sort of Nazi Klansman. (I probably eat live kittens for breakfast, too.)
Lots of emoting but not a whole lot of thinking. This is true whenever anyone resorts to name-calling, which seems to be the primary mode of “argument” employed by liberals these days.
Hackworth,
That is the stupidest comment I have ever seen on this site. (Note: I’m calling his comment stupid, not him. There’s a difference.)
It’s these kinds of discussions that make blogging about penny loafers so exciting.
Funny how Henry immediately assumes any Klan reference MUST be about him….
and I STILL didn’t say those words that you attributed to me.
But he DID manage to fit in yet another non-sequitir attack on “liberals” amongst his explanation about how un-bigoted he imagines himself to be.
“I made “one innocent remark” in the previous post in which I expressed disapproval of bigotry, and some of the commentariat started painting me as some sort of Socialist Commie (I probably eat live kittens for breakfast, too.)
Lots of emoting but not a whole lot of thinking. This is true whenever anyone resorts to name-calling, which seems to be the primary mode of “argument” employed by conservatives these days.”
@Henry
You make some of the most asinine, bigoted, backwards, reactionary, xenophobic, ignorant comments on this site.
See, in Henry-logic, I didn’t call Henry himself asinine, bigoted, backwards, reactionary, xenophobic, or ignorant.
I called his COMMENTS asinine, bigoted, backwards, reactionary, xenophobic, and ignorant. There’s the difference.
Now if anyone jumps to the conclusion, inference, or insinuation that I said those things about Henry himself…well I just can’t help THAT, can I?
Is this conversation Ivy but not Preppie or is it trad but not Ivy or should socks be worn with loafers?
Sorry Henry but J.Ivy just mopped the floor with you.
I do agree that IVY STYLE really isn’t the place for this,
but its gone on this long,so be it.
Henry if you don’t have what it takes to get over yourself,
and your guilt ,because you’re a “sinner” too, then sit down
and shut up. You want to get involved in the philosophical
war between God and Satan, Jesus is looking for starters
not bench warming, guilt ridden wimps. You are truly
hypocritical. If you are a sinner too,then you have
NO RIGHT to rebuke.Your message can be ridiculed and
rendered worthless every time.
“Love the sinner hate the sin” is straight from the
mouth of Satan. There is no distinction. The sinner
IS the cause of sin. Besides,if you were a well rounded
student of the Bible,how about the passages regarding
once an individual is renewed by means of the spirit,
“born again” however you want to put it,he is no longer
a sinner in God’s eyes.1 John3:9.AND you are commanded
and expected to win the battle of sin in your soul.
You are not obligated to involve yourself in the rebuking
business anyway. But IF YOU INSIST, then realize
Jesus only wants those who have won the battle over
sin in their souls and can speak with 100% confidence
and no hypocrisy.AH, but you were liberal yourself once?
The guilt of the “i was no better myself
at one point” bs….then either accept the spiritual renewal
offered to you or sit the bench. God wants pure honesty
no matter what. If you truly can’t do it then simply don’t.
Yes, to judge and rebuke properly,you HAVE to get
personal and righteously HATE the sinner.
Again, you just can’t, too much guilt? Then stop
before Jesus has to get your attention himself.
“But IF YOU INSIST, then realize
Jesus only wants those who have won the battle over
sin in their souls and can speak with 100% confidence
and no hypocrisy.”
To be born again is no longer to be a sinner, but it does not mean that one may not fall and have to repent again. For this reason, Christ instructs: “Moreover if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican.” (Mt 18:15-17) It is possible to trespass and yet to be received back into the Church if one be repentant.
There is a difference between a repentant sinner who acknowledges his sins and strives for righteousness, and an unrepentant sinner who goes on sinning despite God. Christ does not call those who have already won a victory; he calls to repentance those who are fallen. Repentance includes an ongoing acknowledgment of one’s sins and one’s ongoing temptations and, in the long journey, perhaps one’s continuing falls. But get up each time in repentance.
Thus: “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23) therefore “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 Jn 1:8), “wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12) We must not be too confident of our victory, but rely on Christ and be ready to repent.
However, there is hope for the Lord says: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” (Lk 5:32)
Even in repentance, one still experiences temptations; these are not themselves sins but they are the tendencies which, over a lifetime, one must battle against. Thus one can state the fact of one’s repentance, and the victory of Christ within one’s soul: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal. 2:20)
But, at the same time, while yet rejecting sin and even while keeping clear of sin by the grace of God, one can still acknowledge the battle: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” (Rom 7:23) Those are not the words of a bench-warmer, Jinx, but of a fighting man. There is no hypocrisy in saying that one is repentant and yet one has in the past sinned, has felt temptation to sin in the present, and may fall (and by the grace of God repent) in the future.
We must be honest about ourselves, lest we fall, as Paul says. He certainly rebukes the sins of the Galatians and yet can still acknowledge the war within his own soul when writing later to the Romans.
While one must reject sin each time one repents, one cannot claim to have won in Christ the final victory until the end of one’s life when one can say: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith” (2 Tim 4:7). Even then the victory is not one’s own
One can indeed hate the sinner but only insofar as he or she is a sinner; and that is only insofar as the person be identified wholly with sin. For as long as someone remain within the body, he or she can still repent. Therefore to hate the sinner as a human being (rather than only to hate his sins)–and therefore to reject him before Christ has judged him at the end–is actually to incur Christ’s judgment, who said: “You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbour, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who spitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Mt. 5:43-44)
One can hate the sin of the sinner, and one can hate that which is sinful in the sinner, but to hate utterly the sinner is to fail to love him or her. One must lovingly call the sinner to repentance, pray for his or her welfare, and extend that love to the sinner. This does not mean being dishonest, but it does mean acknowledging that the race is not over and that Christ himself desires the sinner’s repentance and offers the grace for it. We must do the same, by loving the sinner in this desire, and by helping him or her, turning away from his or her sin but not turning away from the sinner himself.
It’s nice to know that the people on this forum care about more than penny-loafers.
I eat better than you do Fogey. Ain’t nothing like Umberto’s in Laguna Beach.
I’m also a happier person than you are. You can tell by the way I prefer not to do dispense invective, swearing and racial slurs at complete strangers on the Internet.
I know jokes too. The best ones tend to make punchlines of themselves, kinda like you.
Bravo, Signore! A brilliant retortellini.
Thank you for clarifying.
Where you come from, I bet everything and everyone looks like trash. I bet it’s lonely at the top.
Where you live is California, right? I hear marijuana and tacos are pretty “haute” around your way.
There’s no reason that comments on this blog should be limited to ideological skirmishes and bickering bloggers. If any married couples would like to air their dirty laundry, feel free to use Ivy Style as your clothesline.
I respectfully step back. Sorry for all the gauche behavior.
Closet Queen Henry obviously needs psychiatric counselling.
George @ 11:59 am forgot to take his medication!
Oh, boy. Make that two big lattes.
George,
Thank you for the most excellent and informative comment.
Jinx, we have much to learn from him. George wiped the floor with you–and our friend J. Ivy.
Quiche,
Let me try to apply your own logic with you.
I assume that you condemn murder. You must therefore be a murderer.
I assume you are repelled by rape, You must therefore be a rapist.
Isn’t that fun?
Christian is right. IVY STYLE not a clothesline to hang out
unrelated subjects to dry. In closing, Henry, George is nothing
but another simpleton, with this “God loves everyone” bs….
Sure he does. Is that why at one point he eliminated the entire
population of the earth, save Noah and seven others? The
greatest death penalty in the history of humanity. Tell David he
was wrong to judge Goliath.Jesus commands the wandering tribe
Israel in the desert to pick up the sword and slaughter their
own brethren who had turned their hearts away from him.
Jesus also tells them to invade Canaan, slaughter every
last Canaanite, take the village it’s yours. We all know how that
turned out. WIMPS. God kicked out his number one angel
out of heaven who was holier than you could ever be,and
closer to God then any human. That angel is now destined for
hell.You think God gives a damn about anyone he’s sending
to a punishment like that, yeah,you need your medications.
All the fancy passage quoting doesn’t mean a damn thing.
I’m plain speak right to your face, not some pre programmed
organized religion sounding zombie.
SO, George is correct eh?.IF YOU FOLLOW THE
INSTRUCTIONS OF CHRIST CORRECTLY,
according to the Bible your nation is blessed.
What George stated IS INDEED what the majority of
our Christian body believes to be the proper Christian way
of life today.And we are at the lowest point ever, with
our enemy nearly crippling America, the Christian body
wiped out with PC tyranny…….because you have all
failed. You don’t end up this way when you’re following
correctly, only when you turn lukewarm and stray.
You are the reasons Christianity has finally failed in
America or things would not be the way they are.
Wiped the floor indeed Henry.
CHECKMATE.
@Henry
oh..so you’re saying that someone other than you actually bothered to read George’s psychotic delusional religious-nut ramblings?
I stopped reading after i saw the words “Jesus” and “born again”. No need to continue reading any further as the poster has shown that logic and rational thought don’t factor into his thought processes. Belief in magic beings and his devotion to fairy tales of Iron Age desert shamans will always trump logic in his mind.
Ah, J. Ivy. So nice to see that you are such a superior being. Of course no one believes in that religious claptrap anymore!
Except that you did not arrive at the conclusion “there is no God” through introspection, reflection, and familiarity with the vast body of philosophical writings on the subject; you merely picked it up from the zeitgeist.
It was just a few decades ago that “everyone” knew that the biggest threat to humanity was Global Winter; somehow, that has transmogrified into the threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming–except that since the scandals at the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the evidence and support for AGW has grown weaker and weaker. Why, it’s on the verge of being debunked!
Funny how the zeitgeist changes.
But I’m sure you must be right.
From where I sit, you are no more than an anti-religious bigot. You don’t even know the first thing about the Bible; how can you possibly know it’s wrong? The Old Testament is, in essence, a history of the Jewish people. The New Testament is a history of Jesus and of the Apostles, a collection of letters, and the Book of Revelation. Only the ignorant and the hostile could mischaracterize it as “fairy tales.”
Obviously, your capacity for “logic and rational thought” are far superior to those of Newton, Einstein, and a host of other scientists who believe(d) in God.
Sorry, Jinx, but I believe you’ve misread George.
George is not saying “God loves everyone.” One of the difficult things for many people to accept about the Gospels is that the God does not grant His grace to everyone and does not love everyone. God’s grace and love are only for those whom He has chosen.
Furthermore, God will judge us, and His judgement will be just. You allude to this in your list of God’s punishments for sinful men.
You are correct that America, once so abundantly blessed by God (as observed by Washington, amongst others) has strayed, and is now, if not accursed, at least “at the lowest point ever.”
“You are the reasons Christianity has finally failed in America…”
I fail to see how the shortcomings of our ancestors and elders are my personal fault.
Score: George, 1; Jinx, -1.
@Henry
It’s all fairy tales Henry. It may as well be “Harry Potter and the Talking Snake”.
Not sure exactly WHAT climate change has to do with anything, but your comments only confirm my points about you. You only believe what you want to believe. Facts are irrelevant to you. “verge of being debunked”? Only in the backwards bizarro world of conservatives.
It’s very telling that, with zero evidence, you believe without question all the fairy tales and fantastic nonsense about religion and invisible magic beings in the sky, while simultaneously refusing to believe what thousands of scientists say about climate change.
I’m not surprised at all though. You kind of HAVE to be a master of “cognitive dissonance” to believe all that religious crap. To analyze any of it rationally is to scary for you to contemplate. You can’t prove any of it, and that ironically is the entire basis of “faith”.
@Henry
BTW…how do YOU know how I arrived at my beliefs (or lack thereof)? How do YOU know whether or not I know anything about the Bible?
Why would I have to read “philosophical writings” to decide I don’t believe in talking snakes and invisible magic beings in the sky? Perhaps YOU need to endlessly ponder that question, but it seems pretty obvious to me.
It seems to me, Henry, that YOU are the one who has come about his beliefs from “merely picking it up from the zeitgeist”. From your own particular cloistered, insular, conserva-world zeitgeist that is…
Conservatives always decide their views first, and then attempt to back up those views afterwards by ignoring things that contradict them.
After thousands of years of this stone-age religion crapola, either prove the existence of God, or shut the **** up about your delusions.
We all know you are incapable of either.
There is no point in attempting to engage in intelligent discussion with you, J. Ivy. Your vulgarity and hostility mark you as outside the realm of polite society.
Even so, you may wish to re-examine the snake oil being peddled as AGW. That house of cards is tumbling.
Remember me in a decade when we see not only how false the alarmist warnings were, but how dishonest the whole AGW debacle was.
@Henry
“vulgarity”?
I guess anybody who doesn’t believe in magic, and says so, is “vulgar” in your book?
It’s “play #1” in the conservative playbook to ignore anything that debunks their ludicrous unfounded belief system and then attempt to dismiss their “opponent” with snide insults rather than actually prove any of their so-called “points”.
Just SAYING the climate change is a myth, or debunked, without actually providing anything to back it up, is cliche rightwing tactics. It’s enough to just SAY it, repeat it ad infinitum, and that alone is supposed make something a fact.
Finding one paid-hack faux-“scientist” (which you haven’t even done) who is willing to argue against the thousands of other scientists who have come to a peer-reviewed consensus, isn’t proof of anything other than the fact that there are always people who can be bought off.
Apparently Henry is now adding “climate scientist” to his CV,….right next to “believer in magic”, “white supremacist”, and “homophobe”.
Henry,
I typically don’t like to get into debates on homosexuality, just because they never seem to get anywhere, but after reading your outbursts of pious ignorance, I thought I might chuck in my two cents.
Now, I’ve never been one for political correctness, as I find it incredibly annoying, but to “disagree” with homosexuality kind of…doesn’t make any sense. I’m gay, and I’m a Republican, although I’ve given up on the whole religion thing long ago (having been subjected to the strenuous education of a New England private boarding school, I’ve learned not to willfully deny science).
To say that there’s no evidence that homosexuality isn’t a choice is nothing but blatant and outright misinformation. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychanalytic Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Neurological Association have all stated that after decades of research it has been concluded that homosexuality is NOT a choice and CANNOT be changed. I’d hate to burst your bubble, but you don’t have the medical authority to refute those organizations. Not to mention, with the suicide rate of gay teens being six times higher than that of their straight counterparts, you’d think the bigots would realize it’s not such a simple “choice.” I’d also like to point out that different brain activity has been DIRECTLY observed amongst gays compared to straights; the Caudate Nucleus is effeminate in a gay male’s brain; how the hell do you expect us to change our chemical makeup? Praying to Jesus?
Unfortunately, your kind and science don’t really go well together. You are a prime example of a TED discussion in which Michael Specter talks about science denial. Science has shown that homosexuality is not a choice, but you are still wrapped in the blanket of your upbringing, and you would rather hold your breath and stomp your feet than to let go of your momma’s apron and think for yourself. I shouldn’t worry about you. Your self-promoting intolerance carries enough stench to drive off anyone with enough intelligence to smell.
It’s funny that you guys even acknowledged this book and the book never released. What’s the ISBN # if it did? And wasn’t there already a prep handbook written long ago? Wouldn’t this be just a hack OF THAT? Bottomline the people whose names are attached are frauds that badmouth people and lie to make themselves look credible. One of them has owed me over $3000 for designs that he did not pay for since 2005 and they both sporadically harass me via social networks or via my own personal website out of the clear blue. They harassed me and accused me of being a part of this discussion. They make unrealistic threats and constantly harass me by way of threatening to sue ME for harassment ……. When I tell them to proceed they never do. They just continue to make empty roundabout threats. These are not even stand up guys let alone collegiates or preps so to write a book about it is so far out of their element I can’t imagine that they didnt steal or plagiarize.
Oh dear, another “scam”?
I would like to gain access to purchase prep 101 clothes
Ivy Style,
I love your blog and writing. You should delete these threads attached here as they have nothing to do with your post. The fact department should also remove the post or acknowledge with an update that this book doesn’t exist. And worse, the site attached to the book (Facebook etc) is a scam.
CC – Did you ever discover what happened with this book (or lack thereof)? It doesn’t appear to ever have been published, as some commenters above have mentioned. I followed the Facebook page for a while out of curiosity. It started off with posts that seemed to promote the book, then quickly denigrated into self-promotional garbage advertisements about clothing and products that the page creator seemed to be peddling to the general public, and which were – in my opinion – as far removed from Ivy/prep aesthetic as is possible.
Update: They’ve now re-tooled their page as “Prep 101: Personal Style Concierges.” Here is the link: https://www.facebook.com/Personal-Style-Concierges-121546517929865/timeline/
It appears to be pushing primarily women’s street fashion, and they offer client subscriptions to find clothing that they then sell to the customer. For $799 they’ll select three outfits for you per month that you then have the option of purchasing.
The page is filled with grammatical and spelling errors left and right and looks like a complete sham.