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.
5. It places the burden on the woman to hold the relationship together.
What happened to partnership? We say that we believe this concept but the truth is that the blame is often place don the woman if a relationship does not work out. In our society, there is way too much emphasis on what a women must do in order to keep a man. What about the other way around?
6. It doesn’t take into account the many legitimate reasons for “withholding”.
What if a husband is abusive? Just got diagnosed with an STI? Just came out of the closet? These are extreme examples but would you say that “withholding” is forbidden in any of the above cases? What if the physical attraction is lost but the intimacy and commitment remain?
7. It ignores the fact that men too “withhold”.
Women are not the only ones who “withold” sex. There are plenty of men who don’t sleep with their partners for various reasons. And not because they can’t for whatever reason, but because they don’t want to. Let’s revisit the scripture. It said “do not deprive each other…”. I take that to mean that the man should not deprive his woman as well. So what of men who withold sex from their partners? Of course it is OK because men are allowed to be individuals and masters of their bodies. They’re allowed to say no. No one questions this. And no one should. So let’s extend women the same courtesy please.
8. It ignores the concept of female desire.
So what if she just doesn’t want to? Really stop and consider that for a minute. What if tonight, or this week, or this month she just doesn’t want to. In the beginning of a relationship, before things get intimate, it MATTERS whether or not she wants to. But after a couple has been having sex for awhile, suddenly it stops mattering if she wants to or not. It’s just expected. He feels entitled to it. Sex is a duty. OK but then how enjoyable do you expect the sex to be when one person is just not into it.
9. It’s a self serving interpretation of the scripture.
This makes perfect sense when you take into account that the bible was written by men. We see this time and time again, people revising and reinterpreting scripture to serve their needs. What better way to guilt a woman into sleeping with you than by saying “God want’s you to”. When I read the verse, that’s not what I get from it at all. I see it clearly saying that sex is a healthy part of any marriage and that both partners should desire one another and make love when they see fit. And that it isn’t necessary to abstain from sex unless you are doing so for spiritual purposes. That’s a far cry from “God says you have to do me tonight or you’re going to hell (and then I have his permission to cheat on you to boot).”
The lesson here is that no one, not even a husband has sovereignty over a woman’s body. Or anyone’s body for that matter. There’s a word for that. It’s called slavery.
