Thursday, December 16, 2010

Middle-Aged Babies

Lately, I've been feeling like I'm the butt of some sick joke involving me and middle-aged men.  Like moth to a flame, this particular demographic of men is drawn to me for some unknown reason--and believe me I'm not bragging. 

Or maybe its not me, maybe its just that I happen to be a Twenty-something year old girl.

It's not a novelty that men are attracted to women younger than them, and women are attracted to men who are older than them.  Psychology states that women develop emotionally faster than men.  Biology states that a woman's ability to reproduce expires way faster than a man, making younger women a prized possession compared to their menopausal elders.  To top that off, men tend to place a higher value on physical attractiveness, making the younger woman, once again, the victors in the most desirable demographic race.

Being a Twenty-something, I get that age-lines tend to get blurred.  22 and 28? meh, not that big of a deal.  A ten year difference even becomes less of a thing as we all age.  But when men in their 50's actively pursue me? Then we have a problem.  We've all seen it on T.V. , middle-aged billionaire men who parade women around  20-30 years their junior.  Forgive me for being harsh, but it all seems perverted, predatory, and just overall pathetic.

Do you really think that hot brazilian model would be dating that not-so attractive older man (ie. Donald Trump) if he didn't have money? I don't think so.

So what's the root cause of this trend? Is it the age old "women want security, men want to spread their seed" thing, or do many middle-aged men go through a crisis in the life that makes them want to seem like they are still hip and youthful by garnering a younger woman?

I also wonder if more middle-aged men would pursue hot 20 yr old models if they had the money to buy them.  In any case, middle-aged men, leave me alone!!

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Facebook Spies

The phone rings at 2 am. You're wondering who's calling you at such a late hour, and then one of your closest friend's names pops up on the screen.  You answer praying that she's okay, when she tells you she just found (insert boo's name here) chatting it up with his ex-girlfriend on Facebook, and its all over his page!

We've all heard stories like these before.  Some unsavory behavior is discovered on Facebook after you or a friend went through tagged photos, wall-to-wall comments, picture comments and friends of friends pages, until you find something--that "a-ha! I knew it!" moment that you will confront your S/O about when he/she gets home.

But does all this Facebook spying relieve relationship anxiety or worsen it?

I was discussing this same issue with one of my good friends recently. Her argument was that if you have a gut feeling that your man is doing something you don't like, then its okay to snoop on him. My argument was that if he gives you a bad feeling, it doesn't matter whether you have spied or not, you already lost your trust.  If you spy, find something you don't like, but stay in the relationship then why does it even matter.  It only really matters if you leave or change the boundaries of the relationship.

If you are the type that MUST  know everything in order to feel sane, then doesn't that mean you cannot trust your partner?  Trust implies that you don't need evidence that your man is doing the right thing, you already assume he is.  

So then what happens to those who trust their partner but have Facebook proof that they shouldn't be so trusting?  Say, for instance, you have an issue with your boyfriend drinking, but then find  an incriminating Facebook photo of him at a party with an empty shot glass in front of him and eyes that look foggy and glazed over.

If he was indeed drinking, do you leave him or give him a reprimand and stay with him?
Do you even confront him about the photo and just trust that he wasn't drinking and assume that it was someone else's drink in front of him?

Are you guilty of Facebook Spying?

Thursday, December 2, 2010

The American Dream

America is the land of opportunity.  Its the place where everyone is supposed to have equal opportunity to achieve their ultimate goals in life, which in most cases include being filthy rich.

The problem with this is that it is ideal but not the reality. 

The reality is that the rich cannot exist without the poor.  You have to take from someplace in order to have the skewed distribution of wealth that is so prominent on wall street.

The reality is capitlism has a way of finding its victims, while simultaneously blaming them for their woes.  In most cases the victims happen to be minorities.

The reality is corporations and politicians exploit these dreams and make a profit of you when the reality hits.

So when do we start taking personal responsibility for ignoring the reality in hopes of realizing the "dream"? If you have bad credit and still take out a large bank loan  in order to purchase a home, or max out your $2000 card limit in order to get that big screen TV, whose fault is it the you're in over your head in debt? You or the companies'?

The reason why we are in this recession is not solely the fault of the government or the big companies, we are at  fault as well for focusing too much on the ideology and ignoring the reality.  The phrase "mind over matter" is overrated.  We have faced a cultural shift in which anybody can be anything because they said so, and have been enabled by people willing to make money off them.

Is this wrong?

Is it okay to try to live for an ideal instead of living in reality?

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Free Weezy

The first time I heard this refrain was at the Jay Z and Eminem concert in Yankee Stadium. Major artists were popping out left and right, making surprise appearances.  Kanye West, Beyonce, and even Mary J. Blige came out and ripped the stage...then Drake came out.  Now, its no secret that my love for hip hop has depleted to the point of non-existence, however, I respect drake as an artist and think he is actually a talented rapper amongst a sea of talentless fools.

As expected, Drake invoked a wild response from the crowd .....then the music slowed...

The beat was smooth...the lyrics flowed with a mixture of venom and sweetness that gave me a glimmer of hope for the future of hip hop...


"When I say Free you say Weezy!"


Last time i checked the phrase "Free___ (insert convicted person here)" was meant for those who were wrongfully convicted. Wayne knowingly violated NYS law by bringing a weapon into a club.  This isn't Nelson Mandela or Dr. King breaking the rules in order to bring justice to black people.  This is an individual, with 4 (or more?) kids making an irresponsible decision and doing the time for it.

What is it about the black community that continues to support young black men going to jail, by throwing them parties before they go in, and parties when they get out? Why are so many young black women saying "free weezy", when his mysoginistic lyrics (at best) hardly send the message of respecting  us?

Now...maybe people are giving him a pass  because they think his music is "great" and the stuff of legend...(which i strongly disagree with).. but at what point does a person's detrimental behaviors start to affect who they are as a public figure (see Charlie Sheen)? Should Lil' Wayne be celebrated in the way that he is, and if so, why?

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Is Waiting to Have Sex Worth It?

...As a female I always had the notion that my "goodies" were something to be protected from the onslaught of testosterone driven men that were only after me for one thing, and one thing only.  It was only the worthy man that would eventually gain access to my nether regions, the one who wanted me for ME.

two problems with this notion : (1) The implication that ONLY males are capable of lusting after someone for pure sexual pleasure (2) How can you really know if you are only lusting after someone, until your lust is satisfied?

My point is, it doesn't matter how long you wait to have sex, nor does it really matter --not necessarily in terms of physical health-- IF you have sex.  It is only when you add emotions into the equation that sex really means nothing more than an act of pure physical enjoyment.  For example:

Couple A represents a long-term committed relationship:  Girl meets Boy.  Girl likes boy, but nothing serious.  After 3 weeks they have sex, and continue to have a sexual relationship even though the feelings are not quite developed yet.  During this entire period, they do not go out on any official dates.  2 months later, Boy asks Girl to be his official girlfriend, and the two enjoy a long and healthy relationship (dates and all!).

Couple B represents a short-term dating/"unofficial" relationship.  Boy meets Girl.  Boy compliments Girl's physical appearance all the time, calls her sexy, and tells her how much he likes her.  He aggressively pursues Girl by texting her everyday and taking her out on romantic dates.  Girls is VERY attracted to Boy, but decides to wait until 3 weeks to have sex with him, because she considers herself a "respectful" girl. From then on they continue a sexual relationship, but Boy begins to hit Girl up less and less, until he finally just disappears without any explanation.

Now, in both scenarios, the Girl waits to sleep with her love interest for 3 weeks , and both situations have dramatically different outcomes.  Alot of females say that you can never get a guy to really like you unless you wait to have sex.  I've also heard females say they don't want to have sex because they're afraid to get emotionally attached.  Ummm...I don't think that its possible to suddenly develop deep feelings for someone you don't even know right after you sleep with them, but I could be wrong.

It can be argued that by waiting to have sex with someone, then you can take the time to get to know them without sex clouding your mind.  However, in my experience, even if you take this time, whether it be 6 months, 12 months, or 2 yrs, sex doesn't dramatically change how someone is going to feel about you.  In my opinion, it is false to think that sex creates emotions, I think its the other way around.  Emotions are the catalyst for sex, whether they are feelings of lust or love.  so....

Is waiting to have sex really worth it??

Tuesday, October 19, 2010


....the lights are dim.  The quaint little restaurant is ablaze with candlelight swaying tantalizingly from our table.....  
 He gazes tauntingly into my eyes, as if daring me to say something.  Finally he says,  "so..tell me about yourself"

 "There's not much to tell I'm a pretty shy girl"

"Come on, at least tell me what kind of guys you like...tall, dark, light..?"

"I don't really have any preferences"

"Well, I can be honest and tell you that I don't really like dark skinned girls."

WAIT!!! did he just say that???

The topic of complexion in the black community has been debated more times than T.I. has been in prison.  It is such a heated --and at times exhausting-- debate,  that I told myself not to even bother posting on it.  Little did I know this topic would actually have some kind of relevance in my personal life.  As a female who falls on the lighter side of the complexion spectrum, I've never had the direct experience of being rejected because I was a darker shade than was desired, nor have I ever knowingly dated someone who felt that way.  However, it always bothered me to hear many of my black male friends express this same exact sentiment, over and over.

I'll never forget one time in college, I was watching a music video with two of my boys and somehow we got to talking about how there are rarely any dark skinned girls in hip hop videos.  One of my boys said "well, there aren't that many pretty dark skinned girls", in a matter-of-fact tone of voice.  Of course, I lambasted my friend for being ignorant and went on a long spiel about why he was wrong for thinking that.  In the middle of my rant two dark skinned girls walked in, listened for a minute, and with a look of disgust on their faces said "you're not even dark skinned so why does it even matter?"

Fast foward to the present...

This phrase was brought up again when I told my friend about the guy I dated who told me he doesn't like dark skinned girls.  My friend said "why be offended, you're not dark skinned, so obviously you're his shouldn't matter.  Besides, its just a preference."

There are many reasons why this bothered me (I'll explain in a new post).. but one  of the most obvious was that this "preference" spoke to a mentality that dominates the black community.  Why is it that this particular preference has a high frequency amongst black males? It is also represented in our videos, song lyrics, and movies.  Is this merely just a preference or is it guided by a more sinister theme of self-hate?

Now, I am of the school of thought that preferences do not simply exist of their own accord, but are guided by things that we may be unaware of.  I also do not just view myself as a black individual, but many times as part of a whole entire group of black females.  Therefore, is a person wrong for weighing in on a topic, if they don't really represent what they are defending?  Do you believe preferences merely exist, or are guided by something else?

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Are you the One?

"Don't put all of your eggs in one basket"

That's the advice I've been given over the years regarding men and relationships.  The logic behind this advice is that you'd be foolish investing your time in one person, when you have no idea whether or not they're worth it.  When he f*cks up, then you will have backup and never have to deal with his B.S.  Basically, you're using "multiple eggs in one basket" as a preemptive strike to ease the pain of getting hurt or to avoid the pain all together.  Ultimately, you eventually hope to find "The One" and u can drop all but one egg, and live in Hollywood romantic bliss!

Back to Reality

Can this pain really be avoided?  I've tried the multiple men at one time thing, and, regardless of how many men I was dealing with it still hurt when dude #1 stopped calling and I begrudgingly called dude #2 just to have something to do.  It also didn't feel so good when I dated one guy, and knew he didn't call me that night because Wednesdays were reserved for "Stacey". 

The question I've always asked myself was, does dating more than one person at a time just dilute your interest in all of them and end up making NONE of them special?  how can you really be sure if you like someone wholeheartedly, if you're only investing minimal energy in them? Example:

Jason meets Girl # 1 first, who is beautiful, intelligent, and fun.  He dates her for a week, likes her, but wants to take it slow.  Next, Jason runs into Girl # 2 who has the same qualities as #1, but has "something" about her that supposedly makes her stand out.  Eventually, Jason starts calling girl #1 less and doesn't take her out as much.  All the while he is taking Girl #2 to the Opera, his mom's house, and the backseat of his jeep.  Girl #1 is eventually supposed to take the hint that Jason is not that into her, while he and Girl #2 are moving in to their new apt.

Now, did Jason really "find the one", or did he just CHOOSE who the one was for him was based on the amount of energy he put into her? could he have had the same outcome with Girl # 1 if he took her to the opera too, and never even gave Girl #2 the time of day? what, then, happens to all the Girl # 1's who are lead  to believe the guy was interested, then left by the wayside without any explanation?

Is the notion of "The One" just a Hollywood myth or does it have more to do with choices than fate?

Friday, October 15, 2010

Mirror Mirror on the Wall

....Who's the prettiest of them all?

Snow White was the classic story about a bitch Queen who was  hating so hard on a younger woman's beauty that she tried to kill her.  All the while said beautiful girl tra-la-las through a forest all day being blissfully pretty, her only real danger being TOO beautiful for her own good.

This story and many variations of it have played itself out in many aspects of pop culture.  The crazy thing is that these are kids stories.  From youth, girls are conditioned to think that being beautiful is an essential part of womanhood.  Mothers and Fathers make sure they tell their little girls that they are "beautiful" and "pretty" in order to re-enforce a positive self-image.  Then the media proceeds to bombard you with beautifying products and suddenly you find yourself crying to your girlfriends about the numerous guys you had "relations" with because you wanted to feel pretty.  Growing up doesn't make things any easier, whether you're a 20 yr old girl wondering why you didn't get any "looks" in the street or a 40 yr old woman setting up her next botox appointment. 

The issue of feeling pressure to always be beautiful is so damaging that Dove deodorant has begun what they call 'The Campaign for real beauty' that tries to expand the definition of beauty in order for every girl to feel included in that category, thus never falling victim to feeling ugly.  Even Tyra Banks, former supermodel, is confident that this "big tent" approach to beauty will solve the self-esteem issues face by many girls today.

I see a MAJOR flaw in this plan.  Whether  a parent that tells their little girl "you're beautiful" or suggest she get an extreme face make-over, they are both contributing to the same problem:

Too much emphasis on beauty

The way  I see it, the heart of the matter is that girls get the message that beauty reigns supreme and everything else follows.  What about being smart or kind or any other characteristics that make you a great person ? The reality is that there will always one of two things: (1) an overall societal standard of beauty, and (2) different individual's perceptions of beauty... and your little girl may only fit into one or none of those categories.  A 400 pound woman may not be society's standard of beauty, but some dude will probably love that. On the flipside Rhianna may fit the general standard, but some dude will be like "nah, not for me.."

 We have to teach our kids to be strong enough to deal with being an exception to the rule.  No matter how large the category of beauty is, there will always be outliers...and if she is an outlier, then so what? She has to be able to deal with the fact that someone, somewhere will think she's ugly, and she'll be grounded enough to not have a mental breakdown. 

Bottom is a bitch! Maybe Walt Disney was on to something...

Thursday, October 14, 2010

We are the World

When Michael Jackson wrote this feel-good song in 1985, the intent was to evoke a sense of empathy amongst the international community. Fast forward to 2010 and the  phrase "We are the World" has taken on a new meaning.  These days  people think they really ARE the world ...and the biggest trending topic?


Websites such as Facebook and Twitter have enabled us to talk about ourselves all day all the time, and are even formatted in a way that promotes constant self-expression.  Well now you have to ask the question, which came first the proverbial chicken or the egg?  Is it that people have changed and become more self-obsessed in light of this new social-networking phenomenon, or have we always had narcissistic tendencies, but no means to properly express them?

There also seems to be a bigger issue at bay that not only involves Facebook but has permeated every aspect of our culture, including music, art, fashion and even politics.  The notion of "regular" people is now being redefined, and people who have no talent, no style, and no political knowledge, are now "singers", "cover models", and "politicians".  People who agree to have a camera follow them 24/7 and show off their regular lives become quasi celebrities and get featured on shows such as Dancing with the Stars, and even go on to sell  ghostwritten books.  Nowadays, some autotune and a hot beat, suddenly you're a singer.   People can now be somebody without actually having the characteristics that it takes to BE that somebody. 

For instance, the Tea Party movement came out of nowhere and now has infiltrated REAL politics, with people such as Christine O'donnell and Carl Paladino having a real shot at winning the midterm elections.  Many people say "no, there's no way they will elect someone who thinks evolution is a myth" or, "who will elect a guy who condones racism?" However, the allure of these people is that there are many ordinary folk who think just like them.  The attitude seems to be: why have someone who is Harvard educated, or a career politician? I'd rather have the person who represents me have the same knowledge about politics as I do.

As a people, we are sending the overwhelming message that hierarchies no longer exist--that the ordinary people are just the same as the so-called outstanding people, and we all have an equal opportunity to be whoever we choose to.  Its like Democracy on crack!

The question is, is this good for us?