Twitter is probably one of the main reasons I haven’t been blogging as much these days. While I still think that Twitter is pretty darn cool, I’m annoyed that it’s become flooded with celebretards, pundits and pseudo-experts.
One such is Mr. Rev Run.
Now, I’ll admit that I liked watching Run’s House. And that I follow him on Twitter. And that there was a time when more often than not, I enjoyed what he’s had to say.
But lately I think the Rev has been slippin’, saying things that are either blatantly contradictory or just plain don’t make sense.
Usually, I just ignore the offending tweet and move on. But yesterday, the Rev said something that made me red in the face.
Exhibit A
This made me raise and eyebrow for sure, but then he followed it up with this.
And so after giving Rev Run the super duper sista girl side eye through my Blackberry, I responded to him.
@RevRunWisdom And which scripture would that be? 7:47 PM Apr 28th via txt
It’s was legitimate question. I wanted to know where exactly in the Bible he’d read such a thing.
As is his way, the reverend did not respond directly to me (I’m sure I was not the only one to pose the question) but in general with the book and verse he was referring to.
1 corinthians 7:5 is the scripture… 8:11 PM Apr 28th via mobile web
I grabbed my (dusty to be sure, but still there) Bible and hurriedly looked up the scripture in question.
This is what it said.
New American Standard Bible - “Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”
GOD’S WORD® Translation - “Don’t withhold yourselves from each other unless you agree to do so for a set time to devote yourselves to prayer. Then you should get back together so that Satan doesn’t use your lack of self-control to tempt you.”
King James Bible - “Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”
I pondered this for a moment. This first thing that came to my mind was that I was not at all surprised to read something like this in the Bible. Religion has long been the champion of the patriarchy and it seems that a). women are doomed to pay for Eve earing that apple for all of eternity and b). there is plenty of justification for this to be found in the bible.
So I say to Mr Rev Run…
@RevRunWisdom The verse I read said “Do not deprive each other..” and yet you only addressed women. What about the men who withold?
And much later on he says this
Cheating is wrong.. period (#letsbeclear) 9:37 PM Apr 28th via mobile web
Either way, I don’t care where or how it was written. The sentiments expressed in that group of tweets are problematic for a number of reasons.
1. It’s contradictory.
You can’t say “cheating is never right BUT”. The word “but” means, to everyone with a halfway decent grasp of the English language, that there is an exception. “Cheating is never right BUT” and “cheating is never right PERIOD” are two completely different statements.
2. It doesn’t define “withholding”.
There is no single standard here. It is up to each couple to decide what a healthy sex life looks like for them. And even that’s not simple because often, partners will have differing levels of desire. If I don’t give it up to my man twice a day, is that “withholding”? I’m sure there are some who’ll think so. The danger here lies in the temptation to use the term “withholding” any and every time one partner is in the mood and the other isn’t.
3. It objectifies women and denies their autonomous right to their own bodies.
Do we really need to reinforce the notion that women were put on earth for the sole purpose of fulfilling the needs of men?
4. It implies fault on the part of the woman if her man cheats.
How do you say “cheating is never right” and then go on to heavily imply that it’s a woman’s fault if her man cheats? This view is damaging to women, that much is obvious, but what people don’t realize is that it’s also very damaging to men. It paints them as simpletons driven by their basest desires, incapable of reason and of making a basic moral choice.
This man just KILLS me with his fine-ness.
There were three things that were distinctly awesome about this film.
1. The first was the animation. Seriously it was some of the best CGI I’d ever seen. You could see the pores on Scrooge’s nose for Chrissakes! Visually, it was a stunning film.
2. Second, was the language. The dialogue wasn’t adapted, translated, or dumbed down. It was like they quoted Dickens word for word, and that gave the film a decidedly authentic and gown up feel. It made it even darker and less touchy feely.
3. Third, was the acting. I am always impressed when good acting comes across without my having seen the actor’s face and this film was no exception. Gary Oldman played the best tortured-ghost-with-dislocated-jaw I’ve ever seen (er, heard). And Jim Carey made an excellent Scrooge. I am continually impressed with how good he is in serious roles.
This is seriously one of the awesomest things I’ve ever seen.
OMFG! Time to break out the vintage NES. I remember being so frustrated that I couldn’t shoot that fucking smug ass dog!
Balsmic Glazed Scallops over Sauteed Mixed Greens. You bitched KNOW you want to come over for dinner.
Summer Berry Cobbler with Cinnamon Cream Cheese Biscuit Topping. Recipe coming soon on my food blog.
I’m sure many Wolverine fans like myself got uber excited back when Wolverine Origins #5 hit the shelves and Emma Frost dropped the bomb on Wolvie that his son was alive and well.
Man, that was revelation!
I don’t know about you but I was in the comic book store every month, faithfully buying that book and furiously turning the pages. I couldn’t wait to see what unfolded, how Wolverine was going to exact his revenge, and of course Daken’s big reveal.
And it was good.
But now, over a year later, I wonder if having the two characters resolve their issues wouldn’t be more interesting.
See at first the whole my-son’s alive/I-hate-my daddy storyline was exciting.
Daken leapt off the page. He had all his father’s rage but seemed more in control of it. I loved issue #13 when he royally kicked Wolverine’s ass. But now it’s like “ok we get it, the kid’s got daddy issues”.
Can we move on and develop this guy a little more now?
The problem with Daken is that he’s nothing without Wolverine. His very existence in the Marvel world is centered around his father. Therefore, his personality and interests are heavily influenced by him (and his hate for him) as well. That’s great and all, but after awhile it gets old.
If someone wrote into the comics next month that Daken forgave his father and was no longer hell bent on destroying him, then some writer somehwere would be forced to give the kid a life. And a personality. Give him something as a driving force other than Wolverine (because really, Wolvie has enough titles on the shelf as it is, he doesn’t need another one via Daken proxy)
I just want to see this kid grow. And this neverending storyline he’s caught in doesn’t seem to really exercise his tremendous potential as a character.
