views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
HIV Positive Homosexual Guy Allegedly Cut Tips Off Condoms to Infect His Grindr Dates
I most usually focus on hetero-sexuals or heterosexual related issues, but there’s this story (another example of why being celibate isn’t so bad, you don’t have to worry about someone deliberately trying to give you a STI):
Christian Virginity Peddlers Vs Muslims Who Molest Girls & The Liberals Who Look the Other Way
I intended on making this blog post the other day but forgot. As I noted in one of my (Link): last posts, I have not visited SCCL (Stuff Christian Culture Likes) Facebook group since early June 2017 for reasons that are explained in that post.
A couple of weeks ago, someone in my Twitter shared a link to (Link): this pagetitled, “Jodi Heckert Pledged to Protect His Daughter’s Virginity, Now in Prison For Child Molestation”
If you scroll to the bottom of that page, there is a line that reads:
“H/T Stuff Christian Culture Likes.”
[Hat Tip to Stuff Christian Culture Likes]
So, I take it that Stephanie Drury, maintainer of SCCL Facebook group, posted a link to that news story on her group for her members to mock and cluck in worry over. This same, group, though, which is largely comprised of liberals, does not like for Islam to be called out for infractions against girls, women, or for anyone, really.
When I mentioned in one of (Link): my other posts critical of SCCL that about any time I see a terrorist mentioned on the news, the terrorist almost always turns out to be a Muslim (yes, it’s true, (Link): most of them are), several of Drury’s SCCL readers had temper tantrums.
Before I continue, allow me to quote from liberal, atheist, and Democrat Camille Paglia here:
But today’s liberalism has become grotesquely mechanistic and authoritarian: It’s all about reducing individuals to a group identity, defining that group in permanent victim terms, and denying others their democratic right to challenge that group and its ideology.
… The reluctance or inability of Western liberals to candidly confront jihadism has been catastrophically counterproductive insofar as it has inspired an ongoing upsurge in right-wing politics in Europe and the United States.
Citizens have an absolute right to demand basic security from their government. The contortions to which so many liberals resort to avoid connecting bombings, massacres, persecutions, and cultural vandalismto Islamic jihadism is remarkable, given their usual animosity to religion, above all Christianity.
…Right now, too many secular Western liberals treat Islam with paternalistic condescension…
Paglia is one of the few left wingers I’ve seen who comprehends.
Islam is notorious for sexism. Many of their Imams teach it is acceptable for husbands to beat wives. Honor killings, where Muslim families will stone girls or women to death for being rape victims, are not uncommon. In some Islamic nations or cultures, women are not allowed to ride bicycles, wear skirts, or obtain educations. (Examples with links to news stories of all those mentioned (Link): here)
What Christians need to remember about God’s design for sex.
…While the [Christian based sexual abstinence] movement is great at detailing— and exaggerating—the benefits of saving sex for marriage, it is dishonest about the challenges abstinence presents to couples who eventually tie the knot.
…Jessica Ciencin Henriquez recently detailed how the abstinence movement affected her sex life and marriage in a revealing article titled, (Link): “My Virginity Mistake.”
Henriquez relays how she pledged herself to Jesus at a purity ceremony at age 14, remained a virgin until she married six years later, and wound up divorced after she and her husband could not make things work in the bedroom.
Looking back, Henriquez states if she had not insisted on waiting for sex until marriage, she could have prevented her divorce.
Henriquez’s story is important because it highlights an issue the abstinence movement rarely acknowledges: sexual incompatibility within marriage.
While this issue may seem irrelevant, it is actually fundamental to traditional Christian beliefs about sex. The fact that sexual compatibility does not matter to Christians when choosing a spouse makes the shocking and countercultural statement that sex is not our God.
Single, Virgin Women Do Not Have Another Standard by Which to Be Saved, Contra Complementarian Group CBMW
The Bible does teach that people should remain virgins until marriage, but oddly, some Christians do things like omit men from this teaching (as though virginity applies only to women).
In this case, they seem to be conflating being single, and a virgin, with receiving salvation, as though there’s some other standard by which others are saved. Christians also frequently make much too much out of the marriage analogy, in which they pretty much seem to suggest that a person has to be married (and having sex) to truly know God or be in relationship with God.
The Biblical Personhood blog reproduces this quote from a Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood resource:
[from complementarian, CBMW, material:]
48. How can a Christian single woman enter into the mystery of Christ and the Church if she never experiences marriage?
[Their answer promotes offering your virginity to God. Nothing about becoming a Christian.] – CBMW, “Fifty Crucial Questions, Question 48
… The mystery of Christ and the church, likewise, is not about marriage or celibacy. Jesus loved you – male or female, single or married or divorced or widowed – first. Know you are loved by God, love God back, experience God’s love, and see how it never ends, and how it changes you to live for Him.
This is actually a rather old topic. I’ve discussed it in older posts such as (Link)this one.
I’m not a big fan of this “Born Again Virgin” terminology.
Regarding consensual sex (yes, I said consensual, because anti-Sexual Purity types always want to conflate or confuse consensual sex with sexual assault in order to dismiss the entire concept of sexual purity), either one is a virgin or is not.
If you’ve had consensual sex previously but are abstaining afterwards, I think the word “celibate” would be suitable and acceptable. You’re certainly not a “virgin” and so should not go by the “born again” term.
Miranda Kerr and Ciara aren’t alone – here’s why more women are skipping sex, pre-marriage.
…We’re not talking surgical reconstruction of the hymen here. Becoming a born again virgin isn’t a physical concept, it’s more a conscious decision to abstain from sex until you’re married. Essentially, it’s free virginity pass, even if you’ve already done the deed a plenty, or in Kerr’s case, had a child.
…Meanwhile back in 2008, Mariah Carey and Nick Cannon also declared their abstinence. “We both have similar beliefs, and I just thought that it would be so much more special if we waited until after we were married,” said Carey at the time. She divorced Cannon in 2014. Plus sized, supermodel Ashley Graham says she’d “sowed her oats” so she decided to wait until after she married her husband, Justin Ervin. When US songstress Ciara, who has a son with the rapper Future, got together with now-husband and Seattle Seahawks Quarterback, Russell Wilson, he proudly told the world they had decided not to have sex before their marriage.
‘I’m happier not hooking up’
However, it is not just celebrities that are abstaining from physical intimacy. Jo, a 28-year-old single, retail manager from Melbourne, relates to their desire to wait.
She has put the breaks on all sexual relationships until she’s found a man whose willing to put a ring on it.
You will notice that this study which is mentioned below describes how sexual stereotypes influence how parents teach their kids about sex: daughters (girls) are encouraged to be abstinent and to delay sex, but not boys.
I see this same exact (sexist) pattern among Christian families: Christians buy into secular stereotypes that girls should be as sexually pure as the freshly driven snow and Christians wrongly assume females lack a libido, but males are assumed to be sex-starved horn-dogs who lack control, and boys are not generally expected to remain celibate.
Ergo, females are taught in Christian sermons and other Christian content to sexually abstain. Christian boys don’t generally receive as much pressure or sermonizing on abstaining. There may be something “off” about Christian teachings about sex, since they are mirroring secular cultural assumptions about gender and sex in these matters.
On the other hand, regarding other (non sexual) topics, I can see how Christians might BENEFIT (or, ironically, be MORE in line with the Bible) if they went along with secular mores instead of with their incorrect biblical interpretation of some topics. But on this issue, they sound quite similar to secular culture, and are off they mark, I believe.
Parents play a key role in shaping sexual decision-making among adolescents — especially for girls.
A 2016 (Link): reviewof more than three decades of research found that teenagers who communicated with their parents about sex used safer sexual practices. Likewise, (Link): new research from Dutch investigators who studied nearly 3,000 teenagers found that young adolescents who reported feeling close with a parent were unlikely to have had sex when surveyed again two years later.
Notably, both research teams found that daughters benefited more than sons, and that the effective conversations and relationships were typically had with mothers.
According to Laura Widman, lead author of the review study and an assistant professor of psychology at North Carolina State University, “parents tend to talk about sex more with daughters than with sons, and we can speculate that that’s what’s probably driving these findings.
Boys may not get the messages as frequently or have the kind of in-depth conversations that parents are having with girls.”
….That parents have more frequent conversations with their daughters about sex and sexual development may be prompted by biological realities.
Menstruation, HPV vaccination (which remains more common in girls than boys), and the fact that birth control pills require a prescription might spur discussions that aren’t being had with sons.
Yet experts also agree that gender stereotypes play a powerful role in sidelining both fathers and sons when it comes to conversations about emotional and physical intimacy.
Andrew Smiler, a psychologist who specializes in male sexual development, noted that women generally “have a better vocabulary for talking about feelings and relationships than boys and men do.
Fathers may be a little more stoic, more reserved and more hands-off.” And, he added, “they may play to the stereotype of trusting boys to be independent and able to care for themselves.”
These same stereotypes can also tend to steer the conversation in one direction with daughters and another direction with sons. When parents do address sexual topics with their teenagers, they typically adopt a heterosexual frame with boys playing offense and girls playing defense.
“We usually view our girls as potential victims who need to be protected from pregnancy and rape,” says Sheryl Ziegler, a psychologist who provides mother-daughter seminars on puberty and sexual development, while boys are often cast as testosterone-fueled prowlers looking for nothing but sex. These assumptions often drive how parents approach the conversation.
Dr. Mary Ott, an associate professor of pediatrics at Indiana University and the author of a research synopsison sexual development in adolescent boys observed that, “when parents talk with boys, there’s an assumption that they’ll have sex and they are advised to use condoms. Whereas for girls, there’s more of a focus on abstinence and delaying sex.”
Washington Post Editorial by Ruth Everhart: Virgin Mary Offends Rape Victims By Her Purity
This anti-Purity Culture crusade has taken on new insane heights.
Sexual assault victims who write anti-Purity editorials keep confusing the issues of consensual sex with rape and wanting to toss out all of sexual purity teachings, which is in error. I have written of this phenomenon before, such as:
Whether you like it or not, the Bible does say that Mary was a virgin, and that being a virgin is expected of both sexes unless or until a person marries.
I am over 40 yeas of age and am still a virgin – and I’m a woman. I was engaged to a man for a few years in my early 30s and had an opportunity to fornicate, but I resolved to wait until marriage. I broke things off with my ex and remain single to this day.
I do not appreciate anti-Virginity editorialists besmirching my choice to sexually abstain by belittling virginity itself, or by attributing my choice (made of my own free will) to “patriarchy.”
First, here are the pertinent links with excerpts, and I will resume my commentary below:
In an article (Link): titled, “Our culture of purity celebrates the Virgin Mary. As a rape victim, that hurts me,” Ruth Everhart explains that especially in the Advent lead-up to Christmas, Mary becomes a problem for many Christians because of her pristine purity.
Mary “set an impossibly high bar,” Everhart writes. “Now the rest of us are stuck trying to be both a virgin and a mother at the same time.”
As a rape victim, this has been especially difficult for the author, she says, which led to her becoming a pastor, in order “to come to terms with Mary’s story.”
Everhart writes that she doesn’t blame her sense of ruin “entirely” on the Virgin Mary. In fact, it isn’t really Mary’s fault, she states; it’s the Church’s for manipulating Mary into a model of purity.
Christian Abstinence Speaker Forces Girl Students to Hear Mandatory Sexual Purity Message While Boys Excused
I am not opposed to Christians teaching their kids about the benefits or moral basis of remaining a virgin until marriage. I do believe the Bible teaches that position, actually.
However, I do take issue with the fact that Christians almost always emphasize staying a virgin for girls but not for boys. That seems to be the case here.
That the boys were excused for a sexual abstinence message is, in my view, incredibly sexist and sends the wrong message – both to boys and girls. This sort of thing also makes Christians look like backwards, sexist rednecks to the Non-Christians who blogged about this to mock it or criticize it – which they have.
I do think there is at least one possible positive: at least the teen girls are hearing that staying a virgin is a viable option.
Where-as many secular feminists and liberals are always mocking virginity and celibacy, so that they make young girls (and even older women) feel as though they MUST have sex or there is something wrong with them if they are not having sex, or if they don’t want to have sex.
Contrary to what ths Henning guy says, it’s not true that men have higher sex drives than women or are more visually stimulated than women, so Henning can drop that from his materials. God did not “wire men to be more sexual” than women. (I’ve done other blog posts on those topics before, so I’m not going to get into that here.)
It’s not a girl or woman’s responsibility to dress in such a way that a boy or man does not feel aroused, as Henning claims. Each boy and man is capable of controlling himself, regardless of how a girl or woman is dressed. Christians: stop making females responsible for the sexual sins and failings of males – even the Bible does not do this.
“Jesus Didn’t Die to Save My Hymen” Declares An Anti-Sexual Purity Advocate – My Response
I have addressed topics similar to this before on my blog, so instead of re-hashing all my previous points and arguments, I may just link you to a few of my older posts farther below.
(I should perhaps mention that I’ve had a long day today, am very tired, and currently have a bad headache, so I am not in top form to compose a post right now.)
Here’s the impetus behind this post:
I was reading through my Twitter feed today and saw a post where Janet Mefferd, Christian radio host, shared a comment about how an anti-Sexual Purity article Tweeted by Christian site ‘Relevant’ was Gnostic in nature, in that it talked about ‘sexual soul purity’ vs. ‘sexual bodily purity.’
You can read Mrs. Mefferd’s Tweet (Link): here, with some responses by me below it.
Where-upon an anti-Sexual Purity advocate I follow on Twitter by the name of April, shared Ms. Mefferd’s Tweet or another related Tweet by Mefferd with the comment above it, “Jesus didn’t die to save my hymen.”
Many people see sex as recreation; in the same league as golf or sailing. God sees sex as a unique portrayal of divine intimacy. “Honor marriage, and guard the sacredness of sexual intimacy between wife and husband.” (Hebrews 13:4 MSG) God is not anti-sex. After all, he invented it! He regards it as a holy act; a portrayal of the relationship he desires with us.
This editorial by Bryan, which was originally published on The Washington Post, did not sit well with writer Aimée Lutkin over at left wing feminist site Jezebel. Lutkin spends much of her post summarizing Bryan’s editorial.
Being happy and fulfilled and a woman at the same time does not automatically make one a feminist.
….Considering Bryan’s scholarly pursuits and her immersion in purity culture, it seems likely that her choices are influenced more by her Catholicism than the fight for equality between the sexes.
But hey, if Bryan feels free to disregard the needs of men to pursue goals like learning to scull on the Potomac and working a job she says is the best she’s had in her life, perhaps she has achieved her idea of equality through sexual abstinence.
In a world that frequently feels like it specifically wants to make women miserable, feeling some measure of happiness as an independent woman is a triumph. But although equality is a kind of triumph, triumph is not necessarily equality. Bryan says:
…Personally, my feminist dream definitely includes lots of consensual, joyful, sexual congress outside of marriage, without shame or religious condemnation, but we’re all dreaming a different dream.
Regarding this comment by Lutkin:
But hey, if Bryan feels free to disregard the needs of men…
I’m sorry, but what? Since when is sex a “need,” and who of the female sex cares if men are going without sex? Women are not obligated to give men sex to meet their supposed “need for sex.”
I thought feminists fought against men objectifying women to be used as sex objects? I thought feminists at Jezebel like to say, “Men, we don’t care about your boners.” Now, here we have a feminist writer at Jezebel telling women that they really need to care about men’s boners.
I note that left wing feminists are arrogant enough to think they alone get to determine and define for other women what feminism is.
Married Church Staffer Arrested for Secretly Filming Upskirt Videos of Girls, Women in Church Bathroom and While They Kneeled During Services – Equally Yoked is BUNK
Way farther below in this post is a link to a news story about a married church staff guy who was a pervert. (I think I first saw this news story via @watchkeep’s Twitter account.)
My Christian parents brought me up to think if I wanted to marry, that the best place for me to meet potential spouses would be at a church. I suppose the assumption with that is that the type of men who attend church regularly are going to be “safer” or better moral choices than the type of dude you might meet at a bar.
However, in the last few years of running this blog, I have seen (Link): so many news stories of church-going Christian men who get arrested for abuse or perversion, I now have my doubts about that.
Secondly, single women out-number single men in churches. I know that every church I’ve been to in person, I’ve been one of the few singles there. The only men in attendance and 80 years old, which would be fine if I were 80 too, but I’m not, and May December relationships (Link): make me want to barf.
Below is a news report of a church staffer who was caught secretly filming “upskirt” videos of girls and women in church bathrooms and during church services. That is bad enough as-is, but the report says that the church discouraged the women from contacting the police over this.
Five Things Every Married Man Should Stop Obsessing Over Around Single Women by J. Kamps
Thank you, Jean Kamps! Kamps is one of the very few married (Christian) women I’ve seen who comprehends how terribly Christianity, especially married Christian men, treat single women – the way most to all married, Christian men ASSUME (wrongly!) that all single women are minxes out to bed any and every married man we come across.
(These married Christian men must have some ego to assume I find them attractive enough to want to boink. I don’t. Women are visual too and have sexual desire, but we don’t want to sleep with any and every man we come across.)
Often times some of the assumptions Kamps is addressing here in an article by a married Christian man, are taught under the BGR “Billy Graham Rule.” I have blogged on this topic many times before. I will put links to some of those posts at the bottom of my post, under “Related Posts.”
Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex
The following editorial comes from left wing site Salon, known for publishing pieces by left wing feminist Marcotte, who likes to insist everyone respect women’s sexual choices except for virginity and celibacy – she thinks it’s okay to mock those (see this link and this link for more on that).
Most of the time, liberals are loathe to admit that it’s okay for adults (or kids) to be virgins or celibates. They often portray the state of being abstinent as being sexually repressed or weird. They get all judgey-judgemental about it, but at the same time ask us not to “slut shame” the people, especially women, who boink around like dogs in heat.
So, I was quite surprised to see this liberal editorial defending the idea that it’s okay for people to be chaste, and that people need to stop pressuring everyone to have sex. This sort of editorial from a left wing site is very, very rare.
Everyone calm down and stop judging young adults for “missing out on a good time”
….While the study’s findings are of cultural interest about changing sexual practices, an unfortunate side effect is the concurrent media sex panic. To wit: a Washington Post headline asked if this means “(Link): the end of sex?” while (Link): The Cuttouted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”
How Do We Solve a Problem Like the Singles? by Rachel Kilgore
Before I get to the link to the essay by Kilgore, which is hosted at MOS (Mortificiation of Spin / specifically, Aimee Byrd’s blog, ‘Housewife Theologian’):
For years and years on this blog, here on “Christian Pundit” blog, I have been explaining over and over again that most evangelical, Baptist, Reformed, and Fundamentalist Christian denominations, churches, and groups IGNORE adults singles – the older a single you are, the worse it is – the more ignored you are.
I have also commented on other people’s blogs under the Christian Pundit blog name, and under other names, alerting Christians to how horribly American Christians treat adult singles. I have Tweeted about it.
When Christians aren’t ignoring us older singles, and they do manage to notice our existence, many Christians shame us for being single. They insult us. They try to make us feel like we are losers (seriously, see (Link): this post, (Link): this post, (Link): this post), (Link): this post – I could cite many more examples from my blog of anti-Singles bias by Christians, but that should suffice.)
I used to be what is called a gender complementarian. I am not interested in spending a lot of time explaining what that means.
I am no longer a gender complementarian.
I am linking you here to a post about adult singleness at a blog (the one by A. Byrd) owned by what I would term “soft gender complementarians.”
“My boyfriend was intimidated by my sexual history. So I dumped him.” by T. Hornung
I’m not going to take the usual, secular, left wing feminist standard here (for one thing, I’m right wing and don’t always agree with secular feminists), where I’m supposed to say a woman’s sexual history is not a boyfriend’s business, or the boyfriend should not be upset by his girlfriend’s sexual past, and say, “Rah rah, women’s sexual freedom.”
I am forever amazed that “sex positive” feminists, whether they are men or women, assume that their previous sexual choices should not, or will not, have any consequences upon them or the people around them.
Some of us are more “serious” about sex than other people – sex actually means something to us, so yes, we find it troubling, and I suppose this is doubly so, if we are virgins over 35 years of age, and have to grapple with the fact that our current partner has had sex with other people in the past.
There is no such thing as the good ole’ days. It is a myth constructed by people with amnesia who have forgotten or have chosen not to remember the problems and perils of earlier days. Allow me to offer some evidence:
-An estimated 20% of American children live in poverty today. More lived in poverty in 1900 and an estimated 20% lived in orphanages because their parents couldn’t afford them.
“‘I Kissed Dating Goodbye’ [Book] Told Me to Stay Pure Until Marriage. I Still Have a Stain on My Heart” – Regarding: Dating Book by Author Josh Harris (with other related links about the IKDG book) and Criticizing “Purity Culture”
August 24, 2016 update: I added a new link at the bottom of this post: people continue to attack the idea of sexual purity by publicizing backlash against the Harris IKDG book.
I myself have never read the IKDB book, which was written by Harris. I have read about the book on other sites in the past, and it is my understanding the book discussed how to date, and other such topics, and is not strictly about sex or virginity.
The author uses this review of the IKDG book to bash “purity culture,” and in so doing, touches on the topic or staying chaste until marriage.
I am in the middle of this debate. I cannot completely agree with all the critics of “purity culture,” depending on what they are criticizing about it and why.
I believe that the Bible teaches both male and females are to sexually abstain until marriage, so I don’t believe in tossing out this teaching all because some young women feel they have been hurt or oppressed by it.
On the other hand, how some Christians have taught about sexual purity has been lop-sided – males are typically not addressed, only females – and Christians could do a better, or more sensitive job, in how they present the concept of remaining a virgin until marriage.
With that introduction, here is the link, with some excerpts (and note, I am not in complete agreement with all views in this piece; however, I’m not a supporter of a lot of Christian dating advice. Christian dating advice tends to act as an obstacle to singles who want to someday marry):
In 1997, Joshua Harris published “I Kissed Dating Goodbye,” a book that was in part a warning about the harm that relationships before marriage could cause. Harris evoked images of men at the altar bringing all their past partners with them into the marriage to reinforce the point that love and sex before marriage took pieces of your heart and made you less.
At the time, Harris was just 21, but he was already a rising star.
…He [Harris] was what we, as young evangelicals, wanted to be. And so we strove passionately to attain the ideal of premarital purity he laid out for us. Now, almost 20 years later, even Harris appears to be questioning whether his advice did more harm than good.
…But Harris’s book was hugely influential.
…On the surface, I am a purity-culture success story: I am a heterosexual woman, a virgin until marriage, now with two small children and a husband I deeply love. We attend church. We believe in God. And yet, for me, the legacy of purity culture is not one of freedom but one of fear.
Purity culture taught me that I ought to be passed down from father to husband, more an inheritance than a human.
I was taught that men are my cover and my shield, when for the most part they have been the ones causing damage through molestation, rape and abuse.
I was taught that my holy calling was to open my legs for one and only one and bear him children. Barring that, I was to keep them closed and never express desire or lust or fear or longing.
So many women in my life cracked under the untenable pressure, often giving up on God all together. Others were forced into marriages with men who hit them and hid their abuse behind another message of the church borne from purity culture, that God hates divorce.
WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This
This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.
The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.
Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.
Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.
At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.
This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.
I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)
I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.
I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.
As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.
I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.
I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.
I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.
The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.
And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.
The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.
What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.