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 ————-
CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)
Oh no. Just look at the CDC being a bunch of slut shamers!
How dare the CDC point out there are any benefits to sexually abstaining – because this just ruins some of the liberal, left wing, secular feminist talking points and probably gets the Anti-Purity Culture Crusaders upset (note: I do agree there are some problems with Purity Culture teachings, but unlike most of those who rant against it, I don’t think the Bible teaches that God is a-ok with pre-marital sex.)
Dec 6, 2016 | 9:06 AMA new Centers for Disease Control study examines teenage health behaviors in connection to their self-reported sexual activity and shows those who remain abstinent are much healthier on many fronts than their sexually active peers.The (Link): report [which is a PDF document NOT an HTML one], titled “Sexual Identity, Sexual Contacts, and Health-Related Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9-12, United States and Selected Sites,” showcased the results from a 2015 survey that monitored several categories of health-related behaviors like tobacco usage, drug and alcohol use, sexual habits, unhealthy dietary behaviors, and behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries and violence.The report concludes “that students who had no sexual contact have a much lower prevalance of most health-risk behaviors compared with students” who had sexual contact…..With regard to smoking, teenage virgins are 3,300 percent less likely to smoke daily than their peers who are sexually involved with someone of the opposite sex, Stanton computed from the report’s data.Teen virgins are 9,500 percent less likely to smoke daily than their peers who are sexually involved with someone of the same sex or in a bisexual relationship, he added. Continue reading “CDC Report: Virgin Teens Much Healthier Than Their Sexually Active Peers (2016 Report)”
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.
Evangelical Russell Moore Criticizes Other Conservative Christians For Supporting Sexually Smarmy Donald Trump but Moore Has Attacked Adult Virginity
In the midst of the current election season, we have some conservative Christians who are upset with other conservative Christians for supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump.
The media have been reporting around the clock the last couple of weeks with all sorts of allegations that Trump has groped women and so on. In spite of some of this questionable to clearly sexist behavior, some conservative Christians have spoken up to defend Trump in public, which really angers Russell Moore.
Considering that Moore has criticized adult, Christian virgins in the past (see this postand this post), I find it pretty rich that he wrote an editorial, which was carried by the Washington Post recently, criticizing other Christians for not supporting biblical sexual ethics in light of Donald Trump’s smarmy behavior towards women.
I have additional commentary below this long excerpt:
…Journalist Mark Halperin (Link): noted this weekend that virtually all of the “reaffirmation of support” for Trump, following the disclosure of his sexually predatory recorded comments, were from religious conservative leaders. This is a scandal and a disgrace, but it should not be a surprise.
…We know nothing new about Donald Trump. He has told us about his view of women, his view of sexuality, his views of marriage and family for more than 30 years. He has gloried in reality television decadence before reality television was even invented, in his boasts to tabloid reporters. He reaffirmed who he is over and over again, even during this campaign — from misogynistic statements to racist invective to crazed conspiracy theorizing.
And yet here stands the old-guard Religious Right establishment. Some are defending or waving this away, with the same old tropes they’ve used throughout this campaign.
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.
Sexual Morality in a Christless World – Re: Book by M. Rueger
Please note: if my one time stalker John Morgan is still at this blog, don’t be surprised if he sees this post by me and either leaves comments on the blog posts I link to below, or else does a new blog post on his blog mentioning this book. Why do I find this habit of Morgan’s annoying? Please (Link): click here to find out.
Someone did a post or two about a book by M. Rueger called “Sexual Mortality in a Christless World.” Here are a few links about it.
There are Christian singles who find themselves celibate not because they WANT to be but because they could not find a spouse. They are “Circumstantially Celibate,” as opposed to being “Deliberately Celibate.” Such celibates were not “gifted with Celibacy” by God, nor were they chosen or foreordained by God to be single and celibate.
And I have some additional comments below this excerpt:
The Rev. Dr. Rueger includes a fascinating treatment of sexual morality in the Greco-Roman world. The wide practice of homosexuality in that classical culture–specifically, pederasty, the sexual use of young boys–is particularly illuminating.
He also treats sexual morality in the ancient Hebrew world, which was not without problems of its own (such as easy divorce). The Christian perspective on sexual morality, he shows, has always been counter-cultural. It took its shape from consideration of our identity in Christ.
He says that those who are hailing a “new” sexual morality that has progressed past “traditional values” have it exactly backwards. The “traditional” sexual morality exemplified in the ancient world was one of promiscuity, homosexuality, pederasty, prostitution, and rape. In contrast, Christianity offers a “new” perspective on sex, one that challenges culture in a way that is truly progressive.
…His approach is not just laying down the Law, insisting on a moralism that no one can live up to.
I will say that this one comment –
His approach is not just laying down the Law, insisting on a moralism that no one can live up to.
-Sets off a red flag for me.
Depending on how the author of that blog post means it, and how that concept the book author uses it, it may be the same spin I see from Christians often – that sexual purity, or celibacy, is an (Link): “heroic feat” that (Link): only a few, who have been gifted by God, can manage. This view (Link): is incorrect.
I’m over 40 years of age, I most certainly have a libido, and it’s sexual self control that has kept me a Virgin this long. It hasn’t been due to prayer; not God’s grace, not purely “faith in Jesus,” and other vaguely spiritual talk that Christians often apply to this topic.
Staying a virgin is based on one’s personal choice; there is no spiritual mumbo-jumbo involved. God did not wave a magic wand over me and remove my sexual desires.
If I can do it (and I’ve done it), anyone can – but most choose not to because they are lazy and lack self discipline.
(Note I am talking about consensual sex here. Too often, anti-sexual purity crusaders like to muddy the water by conflating sexual abuse with consensual, extra-marital sexual behavior.)
Preacher Mark Driscoll Disparages Virgins and Virginity (Again)
If you have found this blog post by way of another source, please note that the person sharing it likely does not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed below.
I do not personally agree with ALL of Purity Culture teaching (or with how it is taught), but I still believe that Bible does prohibit sex except for married couples (married being ‘one man to one woman’).
Unfortunately, many of the anti-Purity Culture proponents I see online seem to think the Bible does not teach sexual ethics at all, or, they seem to feel that everyone should just ignore what the Bible says about sexual morality and do whatever they want.
This is the sort of post I would rather not make. It’s the sort of post I sit around hoping another blogger will address, but it looks like it falls to me.
Preacher Mark Driscoll has disparaged virgins and virginity before (see (Link): this post on my blog)- his views on adult singleness are also narrow and un-biblical.
As I’ve noted in a much older post (please see (Link): this post), about the only people I see defending fornication (pre-marital sex) are those who are either on an “Anti Purity Culture Crusade,” or are they themselves self-admitting fornicators.
How convenient that adults who have not lived up to the Bible’s standard of no- nooky- prior- to- marriage are the very same ones who shame adult virgins for being virgins, for wanting to marry a fellow virgin, and/or for being upset that their intended spouse is not a virgin.
I’m pretty tired and worn out by self-professing fornicators lecturing me (or people like me), a 40-something actual, honest- to- God virgin, about sexual sin, sexual standards, and grace.
Here is a link to the piece I am discussing in this post:
Why This New Yorker Didn’t Start Having Sex Until She Turned 30 Years Old
I think this paper meant to say she lost her virginity sometime around the age of 30, not that she “waited 30 years.” If you frame it as though she waited 30 years, you are unintentionally suggesting that it’s normal for infants to have sex.
Lianne Stokes didn’t lose her virginity until she was 30 years old. A miraculous feat in New York City, where people have sex everywhere, including the subway. “Sex drives our culture. Everyone is obsessed with it,” says Stokes, who details her quest to get rid of her “V-card” in her hilariously honest debut memoir, “Below Average: A Life Way Under The Bar.”
Raised in Nyack in the early 1980s, the daughter of an outrageous Vietnam-veteran father, Stokes always felt like an outcast. As she grew up, her intimidating, wacky dad scared away potential boyfriends. “My father starts every conversation by asking ‘Do you hunt?’ I grew up with a cartoon-character version of what men are like,” says Stokes. “I was never able to relate to boys.”
More Than 40 Per Cent of Japan’s Adult Singles are Virgins, Says Study
Cue all the left wing wackos, 99% of whom think pre-marital sex should be the norm, who will say these guys are all “repressed,” and cue the 99% of conservatives and conservative Christians in America who will say these singles are weirdos who should be marrying young and popping out tons of rug rats. Nobody but nobody respects the choice of adults to remain virgins (or be celibate).
By the way, American Christians should stop relying on “bedroom evangelization” to increase Christian numbers, as the New Testament does not teach this concept: the Bible teaches that converts are to be made by Christians sharing the Gospel with Non-Christians, not by Christians marrying each other and having children.
I’d like to offer another view about this news story.
American Christians (and their secular counterparts) tend to assume that most people, or everyone, is having sex prior to the age of 25 or 30 (see this link).
Many Christians wrongly assume that remaining a virgin into adulthood is a (Link): “heroic” or (Link):“impossible” feat, and is only possibly by a (Link): tiny fraction of super holy adults that God “gifted” with celibacy. This story shows all that to be bunk. Single adults in Japan are staying virgins in droves!
Now, being celibate when you’d rather be having sex can be difficult at times – it’s not always an easy task – but, contrary to secular assumptions and idiotic teachings put out by most conservative (and some liberal) Christians, it is NOT an impossible deed only a tiny percentage of adults are capable of. It does not take a “special gifting of God” to be celibate, either – I don’t think many Japanese in Japan are Christian, are they?
More than forty per cent of young singletons in Japan are virgins, according to a new study that highlights concerns about the country’s demographic challenges. Japan already suffers from the world’s oldest population and a shrinking birthrate, with the government struggling to incentivise marriage and parenthood.Now a survey of unmarried people aged 18 to 34 found that around 42 per cent of men and 44.2 per cent of single women had never had sex.The study is carried out by Japan’s (Link): National Institute of Population and Social Security every five years…. The new data however indicates, that, if anything Japanese men and women are growing apart.
I’m a 32-Year-Old Virgin, and I’m Living the Feminist Dream by K. Bryan
Parts of Bryan’s essay resonated with me. There are different reasons I decided to abstain from sex, but avoiding things such as sexually transmitted diseases, having to spend money on birth control, and men using you for sex just to dump you the next day were a few of my own reasons, and she cited one or more of these reasons in her essay.
My name is Kate. I’m 32 years old. I’ve never had sex.
When I was young, I always imagined I would be married by 25 and have a brood of kids. Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew to “make disciples,” and I thought it would be cool to take that verse literally and have 12 kids. I wanted enough kids to fill a baseball team, a hockey bench and a big house full of love.
That obviously didn’t happen. Or it hasn’t happened yet. But I love my life. …
Do I feel a void because I’m not married and I don’t have children yet? Sure. Do I wish I were having sex? Of course.
But I believe that I’m living a fuller, better life because of my commitment to sexual integrity. I spend all day, every day doing the things that I want to do, because I’m not wasting my time worrying about waking up next to a stranger, contracting a sexually transmitted infection or missing a period.
Editorialist at WaPo Argues That Single Christian Adults Can Have Sex So Long As They are Chaste About It – Also Speculates that Jesus Was “Probably” Celibate
Edit: I originally assumed when first writing this post that McCleneghan is a dude, but it appears that McCleneghan is a woman(?).
I’ve said this before on my blog, but I will say it again: if you want to fornicate (have sex outside of marriage), go right ahead, but stop trying to justify it by saying God, Jesus, or the Bible is fine with it.
I’m over 40, still a virgin, I did not have sex with my ex fiance while we were a couple. I have a libido.
I’m still celibate. By this stage in my life, I’m now okay with the idea of having sex prior to marriage if I am in a stable, committed relationship, but should that happen, I will freely admit that it is a sin as far as God or the Bible is concerned.
I’m not going to sit here and argue that my fornication (should it occur) is peachy keen with God because I’m being faithful to the one guy and only boinking the one guy.
…I’m compelled by the idea that Jesus was probably celibate, but that it would have been for a purpose, and that it might have been hard to bear sometimes.
…Jesus was fully in relationship with many. He had intimate friendships, and he was dedicated to his work. If his celibacy was hard, he was not overly anxious about it; he leaned into the other parts of his life.
Jesus was different and his path was likely puzzling to those around him, even as it puzzles us still today.
.. One of the most unfair things the Christian tradition has foisted on singles is the expectation that they would remain celibate — that is, refraining from sexual relationships.
When Jerome, the Catholic priest and scholar, arrived in Rome in the middle of the fourth century, he discovered a circle of noblewomen living in elaborate homes on the Aventine Hill who were nothing like their neighbors.
They’d given up their silk clothes and pearl earrings, the hairstyles and rouge and musk, even bathing, as signs of vanity, and were now wearing coarse robes made of goat’s hair. They stayed almost entirely in their houses, fasting and praying, discussing Scripture; in secret, they might visit a nearby basilica or martyr’s tomb.
They never allowed themselves to rest on couches or cushions of any kind, and at night they slept on thin mats on the floor— though they hardly slept, spending those hours, instead, crying and praying.
Most importantly, these women—some of them widows, some only recently of marrying age, all converts to Christianity—had each taken a vow of chastity.
…Many of the female leaders of Christianity—in the Catholic Church in particular, with its 1.25 billion followers around the world—are barred from being fully ordained and are closely overseen by men. But this was not always the case. Scores of early Christian women—like Marcella, the desert-dwelling Susan, or the scholars Melania and Paula— embraced radical lives, helping the young religion fan out across the Roman Empire and beyond.
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.
“‘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.
A man who was acquitted on rape charges following a retrial in 2015 claims he is going on a hunger strike after being informed he must notify the police 24 hours before having sex.
According to (Link): Newsweek, the unidentified man, living in North Yorkshire, England, is subject to a “sexual risk order” applied to anyone police feel poses a risk of sexual assault — even if they have never been convicted.
A new study by a pair of Notre Dame economists received some media attention this week. It found that school districts that instituted condom distribution programs in the early 1990s saw significant increases in the teen-fertility rate [as well as an increase in sexually transmitted diseases].
But more interesting is the question of whether criticism of economic libertarianism will be broadened to encompass the (Link): moral libertarianism that both underlies it and inspires the parallel drive toward the liberation of sexuality from moral judgment.
Understood in this wider sense, we’ve been living through an extended libertarian moment since the early 1960s.
Moral libertarianism presumes that no authority — political, legal, or religious — is competent to pronounce judgment on an individual’s decisions, provided that they don’t negatively effect other people. Thanks to this assumption, a grand edifice of inherited moral and legal strictures on sexuality have crumbled over the past half century, leaving individuals free to live and love as they wish, as long as everyone involved gives their consent.