shuttersmiley replied to your post“What makes sleepy hollow so refreshing it’s that it’s the first time…”shuttersmileyI see your point and I’ll add this: Since when is friendship completely incompatible with being in a romantic relationship?These the same motherfuckers who would be all about the two leads getting together if Abbie was a white woman or man. And they wonder why people can’t stand them.if my memory serves me right, people were all changing their panties cause they got niagara-falls wet when Chandler and Monica got together. They were the most unlikely couple ever, and yet everyone was pleased with the pairing…In fact, one of the strongest arguments people would use to defend that choice was the fact that they were friends first and then it evolved into that dreamy relationship people still remember 10 years later after the show ended. Chandler would go “And the best thing is that I married my best friend” and the audience would sigh so hard but then, all of a sudden after years and years of being comfortable with the poor choices made by mainstream media, we’re supposed to believe they started to really care about the sanctity of platonic relationships for the sake of “innovation”? NO. GET. OUT.The main issue here is not that they don’t ship them in a romantic sense, the issue here is the fact that when it happens in other shows it’s supposed to add layers to an interesting story…But the shadow of possibility in this particular show it’s an outrage cause…you know. How is the sassy, strong, independent black woman gonna deliver that role if god forbid, she shows interest in another human being? Cause of course, romance = lost of personality. Yeah…That’s not sexist at all. Defining a woman by how she chooses to relate to a man is not sexist at all. Nope. ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY WHITE DICK AND HIS POWER TO MAKE OR BREAK AN INTERESTING FEMALE CHARACTER.
….. Make or break an interesting BLACK female character, as they only apply that “logic” to fictional black female characters (please see all the wank surrounding Lt. Nyota Uhura of the Star Trek reboots).
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
Proof positive that the way the Bible was written so long ago doesn’t really apply in the modern age the way some people think.