Archive for April, 2009

30
Apr
09

this just in: riff raff spend quality time.

i was riding the bus over the weekend (which, unfortunately, i’ve found myself doing way too often these days) and saw something i couldn’t have made up if i tried…

i was sitting at the front of the bus, across from two young kids (the boy was probably a young teen and the girl was definitely a single digit) who i noticed happened to be having a full-blown conversation with the bus driver. they were chatting as if they knew each other, but i assumed maybe the driver was keeping them company since they seemed to be traveling alone.

then about two minutes into my ride, i heard the little girl call the driver “mommy”. i quickly looked around to see if anyone else had heard (or witnessed) this exchange. for one reason or another, i was completely shocked. this bus driver had her kids riding the bus with her! then it occurred to me…maybe she was off on take your kids to work day, which was just three days prior — better late than never.

as i sat anxiously awaiting my stop (i absolutely HATE buses; and not just city buses…i hate greyhound buses, yellow school buses, and “luxury” buses just as much!), i debated how i felt about the situation. naturally, my first thought was how incredibly riff raff of this woman to bring her kids on the bus with her (this is not an office boo, this is a city bus). and to make matters worse, she had an attitude with anyone who attempted to ask her a question and was chatting with the kids like she wasn’t driving a bus with people on it!

then i started to (over-)analyze the situation (as i always do), and thought about all the other things these kids could’ve been doing on their own. i decided that bringing her kids to work (even if it was on a bus) was better than leaving them at home or out on the streets by themselves.

sundays were always family days for me, so i figured there was really no better time than this very sunday for them to be spending quality time together. i have to give credit where credit is due; it’s not every day you come across riff raff spending quality time with family.

(deep down, i’m still finding it just a bit difficult to imagine those kids telling their friends that they rode the bus with their mom up & down 16th street, but i’ll be over it by the time this is posted.)

29
Apr
09

sextrology.

 

since we’re coming to the end of my birthday month, i figured now was a perfect time to share some aries facts from one of my favorite reads – sextrology by starsky & cox.

can’t say i know much about any other sign (typical aries self-concern), but i’m pretty much a believer when it comes to my own. i’m an aries to the core, so none of this should really come as a surprise. just a few snippets…

principle: selfhood is paramount and the aries woman is most concerned with its preservation. she is a realist, taking little stock in emotions or spiritual concerns, which, like everything else in life, are simply matters of practicality. her sign’s matter-of-fact motto is “i am.” (amen.)

polarity: females in masculine signs (fire, air) are not aligned with the gender polarity of their sign and thus enact instead of embody the quality-element combination of the sign. aries woman therefore sees to “start fires,” smoking out problems to bring about desired results. as the zodiac’s premier strategist, she is able to rile others into a fury or otherwise force their hand while she remains cool, calm, and collected. (definitely a handy trait to have!)

sign number: one being the loneliest number is typically not a problem for the privacy-loving aries. independence is of primary concern and a certain oneness with existence is something she is inherently provided to experience. unlike many others, the aries woman doesn’t feel a burning need to be partnered.

psychology: aries woman can be selfish in the extreme. she typically lacks compassion to some degree, and she is often overly contemptuous of other women. she lacks empathy and her competitive edge can lead to under-handed behavior or cheating. she has great difficulty with romantic commitment and will sometimes quit relationships rather than communicate or compromise. as she’s sexually liberated, fidelity is not a particular strength. (well damn…can a sister get some love?)

body rulership: aries rules the head, which, in the case of aries woman, points to the need for an independent mind as well as a strategic outlook on life distinguished by prudence and self-protection. mars rules masculine traits in both sexes, the adrenal system, signaling flight rather than fight in females of the sign. (we already know i’m a lover – not a fighter – but i always thought i had just a little bit of fight in me. humph.)

straight turn-ons (for women): younger men; swarthy looks; rugged builds; body hair, stubble, beards; large penises, foreskin; f-f-m threesomes; sex on-the-side; mutual masterbation; laborers, lumberjacks; big hands, meaty forearms; girl on top; face sitting; (active) b + d, humiliation; cuckolding, groveling; (passive) analingus; standing sex, on the floor; one-night stands; male rape fantasies; strangers, casual sex; male strippers, escorts; role-reversal; male locker rooms; sweat, body odor. (i will admit, i’m disturbed by male rape fantasies.)

gay turn-ons (for women): younger women; blonds; femmes; straight, married women; (active) seduction; (passive) worship; (active) penetration; performing striptease; threesomes, foursomes; one-night stands; first encounters; face sitting; struggle, rough-housing; fingering; mouth music; (active) teasing, lite torture; strangers; f-f-m threesomes; double dildos; biting, nippling; rubbing, humping, scissoring; mind games; (active) lite s + m. (mouth music — dare i ask?)

i’m not a big time astrology guru, but that was fun, wasn’t it?? for a small fee, i’ll let you borrow the book. :)

29
Apr
09

vegetarianism isn’t what it used to be.

a couple of months ago i decided to become a vegetarian. i was a vegetarian for two and a half years in high school, and that was because i had recently visited a petting zoo (as a camp counselor) and was completely and utterly turned off by all of the chickens & turkeys running around. they were dirty and gross, and i was sick to my stomach at first sight. i’ve never been into red meat (save for pepperoni and bacon, of course), so poultry and the occasional fish dish didn’t seem like much to give up.

my vegetarianism came to a halt for two reasons: 1. my mother eventually refused to keep cooking completely separate meals for me (this means if she cooked chicken and rice, all i ate was rice; which just doesn’t cut it after a few days) and 2. my doctor wasn’t a huge fan of my new eating habits, and told me not all blood types (mine included) could do without consuming meat straight from the source (i guess the vitamins didn’t make much of a difference). so, simple as that, i put my petting zoo experience behind me.

there isn’t really any solid reasoning this time around. when people ask me why, i ask why not? just because, i suppose. i’m not one to protest the use of fur, leather, ivory (is that still an issue?), or any other animal products. i don’t think folks should test drugs, makeup, etc. on animals (rats are insignificant to me); but i don’t make a big stink about it. and if you salivate over a big, juicy piece of cow meat, more power to you! (just don’t offer me any.)

the most interesting point about being a vegetarian these days is that i’m not actually a vegetarian. i’m still eating fish (which i’ll give up once i get through the last can of tuna in my cabinet), so i’m actually a pescetarian. and when i went to dinner last week with a friend of mine, i learned that she’s not just a vegetarian, but a lacto-ovo vegetarian. no one is just a vegetarian anymore; there are so many options! so if you’re thinking about coming over to the green side, do your research before incorrectly labeling yourself.

i’ve provided a cheat sheet below:

flexitarian = (occasional) meat eater that actually enjoys eating a mostly vegetarian diet

pescetarian = with the exception of fish, abstains from eating all animal meat & flesh

lacto-ovo vegetarian = no meat or fish, but eats eggs & dairy products (from this category stems lacto vegetarians & ovo vegetarians)

vegan = no meat, fish, eggs, dairy or any animal-derived ingredients (there’s a heated debate about whether or not honey should be included in a vegan diet)

raw vegan = same as a vegan plus doesn’t eat any processed foods that have been heated above 115° farenheit

pollo-vegetarians = vegetarians that eat poultry (chicken, turkey, duck)

so when i get through this last can of tuna, i’ll shed my pescetarian ways and enter the world of lacto-ovo vegetarianism. i’ll be sure to let you know how it goes…

23
Apr
09

straight girls aren’t gay (part 3).

given that (homo)sexuality seems to be top of mind for most folks these days, i’m going to break down my sexuality continuum theory for everyone…

we have super gay folks at one end, and uber straight folks at the other. everyone else is somewhere in between (and in my personal opinion, i’d say middle-dwellers constitute upwards of 70% of the population; which basically means even if you identify as a straight person, on my continuum you’re probably still a middle-dweller).

the majority of middle-dwellers are straight-identified, but have more than likely either thought about having a same-sex experience, or have actually participated in such. and this applies to men just as much as women. (however, it’d be very difficult to get men – or any one man, for that matter – to admit to this, given that our society has not condoned man-on-man fantasies, sexual experiences, etc. as they have for women. and although it will take much longer, i do believe that we will eventually reach a place where we’ll see men kissing other men in the club. but i digress…)

middle-dwellers are a very diverse group of folks (more so than the super gays and uber straights). with that, here are the categories i’ve come up with (so far) for middle-dwellers:

[please note that most references will be of women, as i'm most familiar with their habits & tendencies, but all categories apply to men just as easily]

the dreamer – these are folks that are possibly closest to the border shared by middle-dwellers and uber straight folks. they’re completely straight (not to be confused with uber straight), but every now and then have a thought, dream, or even fantasy (for the slightly more adventerous dreamers!) about hooking up with – or more likely, just kissing – someone of the same sex. these thoughts don’t consume them, but they’ve definitely occured. my favorite dreamers: barbara walters & oprah. i don’t believe either woman has ever really considered hooking up with another female, but given their high-profiles in broadcast journalism and the entertainment industry, i can’t imagine after interviewing plenty of lgbt folks, they haven’t wondered at least just once what the rage was all about!

the peacock – these folks just want attention. they can be found kissing someone of the same sex in the club, during a game of truth-or-dare, or in the back of someone’s car – usually always at the request of others. they slap asses on-demand. and why you ask? “because it’s fun,” they’ll tell you (not to mention insert random name here told me to). attention-seekers don’t deserve a spot on the favorites list.

the wifey (hubby) – these folks tend to move from a serious hetero relationship (usually married for 5+ years with 2 kids or so) into a serious same-sex relationship. the hetero relationship generally ends amicably, and a same-sex rendevous blossoms when the wifey finds comfort and support from (one of) her (only) lesi buddies or acquaintances. they fall in love (the kids & ex-spouse usually embrace the relationship) and the blended family lives happily ever after. this is a lesi relationship by circumstance; falling in love with the person for who they are and not what they are; a mere case of sexuality being trumped by love. my favorite wifey: cynthia nixon. she has gone from a serious hetero relationships to significant, long-term same-sex relationship and takes it for what it is – a serious love connection. cynthia doesn’t identify as a lesi, as far as i know (and that’s a-ok in my book). rock on!

the robert kelly - i’d classify these folks as teetering the border between middle-dwellers and super gays. in fact, their gay friends, lovers, and acquaintances usually don’t even know robert kellys get down hetero style (the typical “vice versa” should be implied here). this is a true case of living double lives (to what extent can be somewhat arguable, i suppose). i try my very best not to pass judgment on these folks, because i know it’s typically a chronic case of denial, fear, and self-loathing. everyone has a process, and we can’t all be resilient to our familial and societal woes at age 16. my favorite robert kelly: jl king. he put men on blast and gave women all over the country something to think about. he created “a movement of awareness” and put us all onto the down low phenomenon. and in my opinion, he forced dudes to take accountability for their actions. kudos for real.

the tall glass of water – these folks love a tall (or short, if you know what’s best!) glass of water, whether it’s a chick or a dude. they appreciate beauty and enjoy a good time (“time” being a euphamism of course!), and couldn’t really care less who it comes from. these folks are probably the most in tune with their sexuality of all middle-dwellers, and might be referred to as bisexual in laymen’s terms. my favorite tall glass of water: angelina jolie. brangelina is in full effect, but my girl definitely gets down with the get down.

the scientist – these folks embrace their curiosity (or let it get the best of them, depending on your perspective). they know what goes through their mind when a cutie of the same sex walks by, and they’re not afraid to act on it (well, sometimes they might need a little cohersion). they’ll never be in a same-sex relationship, because that’s not what they want. they’re only interested in experimenting. and if they don’t get what they expected the first time around, a few additional experiments may be necessary (and usually always with more than one experimentee). plain and simple, scientists are only interested in either proving or disproving theories. i have a few favorite scientists, but if i told you who they were, i’d have to kill you.

the #2 – if life was a mcdonald’s, these folks would walk in and order a hetero lifestyle with a same-sex on the side (better known as a #2). they want to have their cake and eat it too. they want a normal life (defined as such by society’s heterosexist terms, of course) for convenience, but refuse to give up the same-sex experiences they enjoy so much. these folks (generally) don’t deny having what they want on the side. they’d just prefer to keep it there. i would bet money (9 times out of 10) that the hetero spouse knows about the side piece, and has no problem with it (assuming of course, it’s the woman with the side piece; otherwise the side piece is more than likely an unknown). #2’s are not to be confused with tall glasses of water, who are usually unmarried. if i listed my favorite #2’s, it would only be speculation; so i’ll refrain for now.

this is a work in progress, so there may be some additions in the near future.

keep in mind…according to my statistics, only 3 out of every 10 of you are either super gay or uber straight. the middle-dwellers are among us!

21
Apr
09

ms. california.

i hope everyone just watched ms. california and perez hilton being interviewed by my boy matt lauer on the today show. i’ll revisit this recent controversy a bit later in more detail, but here are some initial thoughts:

1. matt lauer is the man! he knows just what to ask, and how to ask it.

2. perez hilton is a perfect example of how the opressed always make the best (or worst, depending on your perspective) opressors. he made a few judgmental remarks about ms. california, and it seemed to only be in an effort to push his cause (equal rights/gay marriage) along. i’m still trying to understand why folks tend to think that’s ok.

3. ms. california could’ve definitely won herself that crown if she hadn’t answered the question based on emotion. in my opinion, it’s not about compromising your beliefs; it’s about choosing your words carefully and giving a smart answer. everyone knows you’re supposed to steer clear from politics and religion in those types of situations. that was on her to be quick on her feet.

4. i do agree, however, that perez’s question was a bit polarizing given all that’s going on in the world of gay marriage.

more to come…

21
Apr
09

beautiful mind.

i was explaining to a friend the other day why having a conversation with me can be difficult at times (yet often entertaining), and figured i’d share…

i’ve come to the conclusion that my mind runs close to 3.4 million thoughts, memories, stories, etc. per second. and i’m sure this is why i tend to interrupt folks as much as i do (because i get distracted not only by my own thoughts, but by yours too). :)

one second i’m talking…and the next i’m trying to remember what i was saying just a moment before. it’s like a statement, word or thought triggers another statement, word or thought. and then i eventually lose track of what i was actually saying. my mind chases random thoughts like a dog chases its tail – round and round and round.

so if you notice a long pause when engaged in a convo with me, don’t be alarmed…i’m just trying to get my mind right.

18
Apr
09

let’s all just (not) be friends.

have you ever been force-fed a friendship based on the principal that you share some random (and usually uncontrollable) characteristic(s)? why is it that people seem to think all black (or white, chinese, mexican, whatever) folks will automatically get along just because they’re black? or that all gay people love each other, just because they share the same struggle?

true, i’m generally inclined to like products, services, etc. that come from people (or companies started by people) like myself, but those consumer-supplier relationships are usually from afar. i’m certainly never convinced that i should actually hang out with these people.

prime example: i love suze orman. i think she’s awesome and gives completely useful and efffective financial advice. she relates to her audience, whether they’re young, middle-aged, gay or straight. she just plain gets it. i’ve recently learned, however, (from someone completely authorized to call it) that she travels with an entourage of like 14 deep and happens to be particularly high-maintenance. am i completely turned off by that? nope. because no one is telling me they know i’ll love her and we’ll really hit it off, or that we must hang out sometime.

a few scenarios for you to consider:

1. an acquaintance (this rarely happens with actual friends) goes out and meets some dude at a local dc bar. he’s from brooklyn. friend says “you totally have to meet my friend! she’s from brooklyn too. you’ll love her!”

acquaintance tells me, “i met this guy from brooklyn the other night! i told him about you. we all have to hang out some time!” ok cool, whatever…

i go out with said acquaintance, and bk dude is at the bar. “oh my gosh! that’s the dude i was telling you about. let me introduce you…”

i buy dude a drink because he’s from brooklyn. bad move. dude is uber lame and a bit of an ass. guess i got got. the fact that we’re both from brooklyn no longer has any bearing on anything. in fact, i kinda low key wish i wasn’t from brooklyn at this very moment, just so i can dip out of this convo real quick.

acquaintance is confused. “why do i want to go to the other end of the bar?” because dude is lame. acquaintance raises an eyebrow, “no he’s not. he’s from brooklyn!” yeah, i’m just as shocked. but i guess not all brooklynites are as cool as this one. ;)

at least we got that out of the way before acquaintance had the chance to actually plan an outing with dude.

2. an old friend from school (not college) has a co-worker who went to spelman. old friend is hyped, because old friend is the only co-worker of said spelmanite that knows someone who went to spelman (even though old friend knew nothing about spelman before i decided to attend). even better, said spelmanite has plans to visit dc in the coming weeks.

old friend tells co-worker, “i have a friend that went to spelman, and she lives in dc! you two should totally hang out! i’ll put you guys in touch.” i suppose it wouldn’t be very sisterly of me to decline the invite to meet a fellow spelmanite, so i agree to hang out with her when she visits dc.

we meet. she’s a year ahead of me, and thinks i look familiar. her name doesn’t ring a bell and i’m certain i’ve never seen her a day in my life. we throw out a few names, professors, campus events, and we can’t connect on anything related to spelman.

i’m starting to feel awkward because this chick is totally lame. and not because she was clearly couped up somewhere in LLC2 for each of her 4 years on campus, but because she’s just lame (not to mention a bit weird). i call old friend as soon as i get home, and tell them to please refrain from offering me up as their only spelman connection in the future. old friend doesn’t understand why we didn’t have a blast together; afterall, she did go to spelman.

ok well…womp, womp. she’s lame. (and as much as we all like to pretend there aren’t any lame or weird spelmanites, somehow there are. lucky for them, i never aspired to become a college admissions officer.)

3. i’m out with a few friends, and a mutual lesi acquaintance comes up in conversation. friends ask why i’m not best buds with said lesi acquaintance. “you’re both lesis, why don’t you hang out more often?” friends want to know.

because chick is a nazi lesi, and i don’t really get down like that. not all lesis are buddy-buddy just because they’re lesis. she’s cool, just not someone i would necessarily call to kick it with.

can we all just (not) get along, and that be ok?

17
Apr
09

piracy.

the_us_navy2

when i saw this image (thanks ash!), i felt somewhat inclined to introduce folks to the one-eyed pirate. many of you may be wondering how i – of all people – know a bona fide one-eyed pirate. but if you’ve ever been out for a solid night (or day) of drinking with me, you too have (more than likely) met the one-eyed pirate.

here’s an SAT throwback for you: sasha fierce is to beyonce, as the one-eyed pirate is to crystal.

the one-eyed pirate only comes out on (semi) special occasions. but when the oep is in the house, the oep is IN THE HOUSE (and a great time for all can be guaranteed). we should all be slightly concerned however, because the somalis are making a bad name for pirates these days. hopefully the oep won’t get shot dead from the fantail of anyone’s destroyer!

16
Apr
09

running waldo.

every morning – without fail – on the same block, at the same time, this skinny little guy wearing (what seems to be the same pair of) jeans, sneakers and a windbreaker runs past me, with his backpack hanging off of one shoulder. the first time i noticed him, i naturally assumed he was late.

then i saw him the next few days in a row, running right past me again, and thought it was a bit strange. and from what i can tell, he’s definitely going somewhere. i mean he’s dressed street clothes, not work-out gear. (although i have entertained the idea that maybe he doesn’t have sweatpants or shorts to run in, and that he uses the backpack instead of a weight bag or belt of sorts.) either way, it just seems odd.

i don’t think i’ve ever seen him walk – not once. and his pace never changes. it’s kind of like a trot; a steady jog, as opposed to full-speed running. and if he doesn’t have the light, he’ll jog right over to the adjacent corner and trot up the street until he can cross over. but it’s not until he reaches the next corner (which is up a bit of a hill) that he’s stops jogging for a few paces, and then starts right back up again.

and while it might seem weird that i’ve observed this guy so closely, i promise you’d be curious too. i don’t know when or where he starts his jog, but it usually ends within a block or two of me. and it’s just so incredibly weird. one of these days i really want to ask him why he jogs in jeans while carrying a backpack?  i just can’t imagine he’s running late every single day, and wouldn’t have adjusted his schedule by now.

things that make you go hmmmmm…

15
Apr
09

nature or nurture.

as i walked along what i’ve now dubbed as “riff raff road” (7th st., nw – chinatown – dc) the other day with a co-worker, we stood in bewildermint wondering whether or not riff raff was a result of nature or nuture. clearly the debate has been ongoing about homosexuality, but i don’t think the issue has ever been raised about riff raff.

personally, i’m not convinced that 4-year-olds can just become riff raff. i mean really, where would they get such inclinations from? in my opinion, folks are pretty much born into riff raff situations. not sure if they actually come out as such; but when your diapers are store-brand, your baby clothes are fubu, and your little baby hairs are braided tight as shit, i can’t really be convinced that there was much hope for you.

you see, i don’t believe that (the majority of) gay folks would choose to be gay if given the choice. however, i’m almost positive if you told some teenager they could wear whatever they want, never have to go to school, and learn to work the system, they’d choose to do so. kicking it on the streets with little to no worries, giving people hell just for fun, and getting paid by “the system” seems like a pretty good deal.

and while i’m making seriously sweeping statements, i’m going to stand by my generalizations this time around. but i promise to reevaluate, as soon i meet some riff raff that prove me wrong. until then, the debate continues…

nature or nurture?