Monday, June 30, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
By: Steve Benen
Grover Norquist has quite a history of being unhinged. He’s said the Estate Tax is morally equivalent to the Nazi Holocaust; he’s called WWII veterans “anti-American,” and he’s called bipartisanship “another name for date rape.” But this clown isn’t done pushing the envelope. Norquist dropped by The Times’ Washington bureau today and, as part of his negative critique of Obama’s liberal stances on economic issues and other matters, he termed the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee “John Kerry with a tan.” Since Norquist isn’t running for anything, he can get away with such remarks; we doubt McCain will be incorporating the line into his speeches anytime soon. Greg Sargent responded, “Guess it could have been worse. He could have termed the Illinois Senator ‘John Kerry in blackface.’ Such admirable restraint on Norquist’s part! It’s worth keeping in mind that John McCain has been cozying up to Norquist lately. Maybe some enterprising young political reporter can ask why McCain would want to be associated with this clown.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
My best friend recently broke up with her boyfriend. They have a baby together, and she moved to a shelter. Since the Break up she continues to have sex with him, but refuses to get back with him because she doesn't trust him. She asked me what should she do. Move in with him, or stay in the shelter until she owns place? If she stays in the shelter should she still have sex with him?
The District's Buppie POV:
Aww that darn POWER of D.I.C.K!!! Get us everytime. To me is makes no sense for your friend to being staying at a shelter and creeping out to get pipe from this dude. She has a child with him, so wheather she is comfortable or not, she is always going to maintain a relationship. Now if she feels like staying with him would cloud her judgement, then i understand the shelter thing. At the same time to me it makes sense to stay with him while your working for your own. OR cut him the hell off. Help your friend realize the reality of the situation.
Up&Coming Buppie's POV:
Fa real, fa real why the hell are you letting me and your baby stay in some damn shelter?? That's the first question I would pose if I were your friend. First and foremost I believe that regardless of the situation if she has no family or friends to go to until she gets on her feet she should still stay with him. I mean she is f*ckin the father of her child still but she can't stay with him??? She feels the need to stay in a shelter instead??? To me this is a no brainer. If your friend is so insecure with this man that she feels the needs to stay in a SHELTER clearly she should not still be engaging in sexual activity with him. I mean for all that you mine as well get yours and then go sleep on the couch! Rather than leave and go sleep in somebody's damn shelter!
Okay for a rational answer, I think your friend should stop and ask herself some questions.
A) What is best for her child?
B) If I do not trust this man why am I still engaging in sexual activity with him? Especially because the relationship is no longer just about him and I.
C) Why don't I trust this man?
I think that once she explores the answers to these questions she may be able to come to a more sensible answer within herself as to if her relationship is worth salvaging or if she needs to transform it so it will be a functional one for their child even though they are no longer together.
Miss Buppie Buppie's POV:
WTF? I don't understand this mess at all! Is he giving her the beat down every night or something? Otherwise I don't get WHY on earth she can't LIVE with him but she will still OPEN her legs to him. You need to tell you're friend to WAKE DA HELL UP! I'm guessing that her "no trusting him" is because he cheats? However, first things first, she has a child, and she needs to focus on what is BEST for that child, a healthy living environment. I'm not personally familiar with living in a Shelter, however I can only guess that its not the the best living environment. If the guy is not being abusive to her or her child, she might want to consider moving back in until she gets on her feet or perhaps, staying with a friend or family member. Moving back in the the child's father might mean putting her personal feelings aside, and concentrating solely on what's best for her baby. If her priorities are in order, this should not be a problem. If it is a problem, then she needs Jesus! Because NOTHING should come before you're child. Especially not D*CK! smh!
Monday, June 23, 2008
We would like to take this time to thank you all for the comments, the questions, the subscriptions, the additions to blogrolls, the passing the message about our blog, everything. We are growing and please know we thank each of you all for sticking with us.
Buppie. It is not just a blog. It is truly a movement. An Expression and Exchange of thoughts.I started this blog about seven months ago. Started off as something personal. Grew to include other contributors, and we still are growing.
Lately, the blog has been picking up. (THANKS TO YOU ALL)!
We really appreciate it! If you are local to DC, than perhaps you have seen our blog quoted in the Blogsphere of the "Washington Express" !! Thanks Washington Post and Express writers for featuring us.
And as we have been picking up, so have the comments and messages about us adding ADs and making money.
So our response is NO. Not yet.
The contributors and designers have so much more we want to bring you. We want to make sure we are giving our readers 120% of Sheer Buppieness before we add ADS and allow folks to make money off you all's clicks and page views.
So in the future yes you may see ADS, but as of right now we are staying ad free!
Friday, June 20, 2008
“You are amazed sometimes at how deep the lies can be,” she says in an interview. Referring to a character in a 1970s sitcom, she adds: “I mean, ‘whitey’? That’s something that George Jefferson would say. Anyone who says that doesn’t know me. They don’t know the life I’ve lived. They don’t know anything about me.”
Now her husband’s presidential campaign is giving her image a subtle makeover, with a new speech in the works to emphasize her humble roots and a tough new chief of staff. On Wednesday, Mrs. Obama will do a guest turn on “The View,” the daytime talk show on ABC, with an eye toward softening her reputation.
Her problems seemed hard to imagine last fall and winter. Mrs. Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer, appeared so at ease with the tactile business of campaigning and drew praise for humanizing, often with humor, a husband who could seem elusive.
Then came some rhetorical stumbles. In Madison, Wis., in February, she told voters that hope was sweeping America, adding, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” Cable news programs replayed those 15 words in an endless loop of outrage.
Barack Obama often blurs identity lines; much of his candidacy has seemed almost post-racial. Mrs. Obama’s identity is less mutable. She is a descendant of slaves and a product of Chicago’s historically black South Side. She burns hot where he banks cool, and that too can make her an inviting proxy for attack.
Fox News called her “Obama’s baby mama,” a derogatory term for an unwed mother. Christopher Hitchens, a Slate columnist, claimed — with scant evidence — that her college thesis proved she was once influenced by black separatism. National Review presented her as a scowling “Mrs. Grievance.”
The caricatures of Mrs. Obama as the Angry Black Woman confound her, friends say. Her own family crosses racial boundaries — her mother-in-law and a sister-in-law are white — and she has spent much of her adult life trying to address racial resentment.
In her freshman year at Princeton, a white roommate’s mother agitated for her daughter to swap rooms. Mrs. Obama was among a handful of blacks at a prestigious Chicago law firm. As a hospital executive, she navigated the often tense line between a predominantly white-run institution and a suspicious black community.
But the 44-year-old woman known even to friends as The Taskmaster sometimes speaks with a passion unusual for a potential first lady. She tells voters that “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual — uninvolved, uninformed.”
She says she intends to evoke a John F. Kennedy-like idealism and highlight her own journey, but in her commanding cadences, some people — and not just conservatives — hear a lecture.
Before her husband announced his candidacy, Mrs. Obama confided in friends: Barack and I will cut an unfamiliar figure to most of America.
“It’s such uncharted waters,” said Verna Williams, a Harvard classmate and friend. “In a sound-bite era, where you have to come with a quick and dirty take, she doesn’t fit what it means to be an African-American woman.”
Thursday, June 19, 2008
So I am convinced this shit was some type of evil setup. Recently I met a gentleman while out in DC from another state. (When I met him I was a little tipsy) Nevertheless we had a good 8 minute conversation and as a result he got my 10 digits. We began conversing over the phone a little and I immediately saw some pros and cons with this guy. We had some things in common and the conversation was chill but at times he got preachy. (I will come back to the preachy part) Aside from that everything was cool. Now he kept reiterating how he wanted to see me again before he ended up on my "he was cool but nothing came of it" list. So I was like yeah we will eventually. Then earlier this week he told me that he was coming to DC the next day and he wanted to see me while he was here. So I said sure why not?
So this dude gets here and looks NOTHING like I remember! (DAMNIT CHANDON AND RUM!) Granted he was not unattractive but he was around 5'6" and looked to be around 130 lbs. However, I could work through that. SO we chill and he begins to get on his preachy soapbox. For an hour and a half he talks about how you will never achieve the "American Dream" by filling out a W-2 and how western society sets us up to fail. He then proceeds to talk about how he works for himself and how much money he makes. We discussed how he quit undergrad after freshman year because to him it was a waste of time and it sets you up to fail. I told him I throroughly enjoyed my undergraduate experience. I found out he got an associates degree. He stated that he used to work for a company and make 50K but after taxes he only ended up bringing home 38K and how that frustrated him. He then says that blacks are disillusioned and he does not understand why people are so gun ho to work for other people and give their money back to the government instead of working for themselves and write everything off like he does! Now a lot of what he was saying was valid and insightful but after a while I simply felt like I was being "talked at" instead of "talked to". I told him that I do not think entrepreneurship was for everyone and he said "That's exactly what the MAN wants you to think so they can keep getting your money." So we continued to argue that point.
Then it got deeper when he started saying that "the Bible was all about astrology and dumb white people translated it wrong." So at this point I am irritated because it seems that this guy is taking pride in attacking everything I believe in. He then tells me he brought some DVDs about African theology and asked me if I would like to watch them. I passed.
So it is getting late and I am wondering when this man is going to leave my house because I have to go to work in the morning. So I go upstairs to get some water and when I come back down he is in pajamas! Like pajama pants and shirt with pool balls and pool sticks on them. Earlier that evening he was saying how he wore nothing name brand because that is just supporting the man. I noticed his hard bottom shoes that he liked to walk on the backs of and figured he was not that into fashion. I meant to ask him who made his pajamas but I was too through about the fact that he even had pajamas on and was pulling the covers back on the bed. Here is how the dialouge followed:
Me: What the FUCK are you doing?
Him: Oh I just assumed it was okay if I slept in the bed
Me: Well I guess we shouldn't go around making assumptions huh?
Him: C'mon I traveled all this way to see you.
Me: So you are staying here you have no other plans for coming to the area?
Him: Nope all for you. So you are really not gonna let me sleep next to you?
Me: Nope! but I got some extra blankets you can make a pallet on the floor!
At this point I am thinking this is all my fault! This dude came down here in the middle of the week thinkin he was going to come chill and get some action. I thought he had other plans not just visiting me. I felt kinda bad because when I was leaving to go to work in the morning he had to get the fuck out! But then again why would you drive 5 hours in the middle of the week solely for me and I haven't even given you the "I'm feelin you" yet?
He asked me if he could sit on the bed until I got tired. I was like well I am tired now. He sits on the bed anyway and does a spin ninja type move to lay across my lap. At this point I am so DONE! Like OMG this can NOT be happening to me! So I politely told him to get off of me. He then persisted in trying to touch me and I repeatedly pushed him away.
Him: I thought you were a fun girl! You are a little goody 2 shoes
Me: What you thought if you came down here I was going to give you the panties?
Him: Well I thought I would at least be able to touch you.
Me: Well, you were wrong! Goodnight.
He then proceeded to the floor where he went to sleep. The next morning I was ecstatic about going to work so this all could be over even though I was sleepy as hell from sleeping with one eye open. I politely said goodbye and am still just like WTF man?! I read this one completely wrong. I don't know what was more wrong. The fact that I even let him stay? I mean I felt bad he said he drove all that way to see me. (Which honestly freaked me the hell out.) Or is it more wrong that he came all that way and pretty much manipulated the damn situation?!
Monday, June 16, 2008
By TIM WISE
Hillary Clinton is finished, and contrary to the insistence of many of her supporters, sexism has had virtually nothing to do with it.
Gloria Steinem was wrong in her now infamous New York Times op-ed a few months back. Clinton's problem was not that she was a woman and that 'women are never front-runners' (indeed, just a few weeks prior to Steinem writing those words, Hillary had been just that, not that facts matter, I guess). Her problem was that she exuded, as did her husband even more than she, a sense of entitlement, a sense of being owed the Presidency, a sense that--as I've heard so many white women say these past few months--'it's our turn,' as if philogynous voting behavior were the moral duty of women everywhere.
Please understand, when I say that sexism has had nothing to do with Clinton's electoral demise, I don't mean to suggest that there were no men out there who voted against her because of sexist, even misogynist views. I have no doubt there were. And it is certainly true that Clinton faced repeated denigration by male media pundits who played upon gender stereotypes and sexist imagery in their criticisms of her. All of that happened, to be sure, and it is indefensible (Interestingly, the worst example of misogyny probably came from Clinton supporter James Carville who suggested that Hillary has more balls than Obama, and ya' know, balls are just what the world needs more of).
But the media's sexism, and even the sexism that resides to some extent in all men in this culture--not because of some inherent evil, but because of the conditioning to which we've been subjected and to which we've usually capitulated--had almost no effect on the overall vote totals in the Democratic primaries. In most states, Clinton received roughly half the male vote: about what you'd expect in any primary where you have two candidates whose policies are so similar, and where the ideological differences between them are so small. And in almost every state, Clinton won more than half of the white male vote, often much more. Though she failed to win very many black men to her side, it's hard to chalk this up to sexism, given the presence of a black candidate in the race, whose chance at victory naturally has excited folks in the African American community, just as Clinton's chances logically fired up millions of white women.
To believe that her defeats were due to sexism--as if to say, but for sexist male voters, she'd have won--would require one to believe that in the absence of such a pernicious bias, she could have expected to win, say, 6 in 10 male voters: a result unlikely in any primary season, where voters are choosing between two pretty equally liberal candidates. Although sexism may well have helped defeat Clinton in the general election, had she made it that far (since, at that point, many men would have sadly been attracted to the hyper-militaristic candidacy of John McCain), given the choice between Clinton and Obama in the primaries, there is simply no evidence to suggest that gender played a significant role in tipping the balance of votes in his favor and against her.
Indeed, in several states (like Pennsylvania, for instance), among men who said that gender mattered to their votes, most actually voted for Clinton. In other words, there were at least as many if not more men who liked the thought of electing the nation's first woman president, as there were those who repelled from the concept. Although this would likely not have been true in November, the presence of enough liberal white men in the Democratic primaries made gender a net wash for Clinton, if not a net benefit.
Of course, many Clinton supporters will say that the rest of the men lied. Some will insist that most of the men who said gender didn't matter to them were phonies, maybe even a bunch of Neanderthals, who probably gave all their buddies high-fives at the strip club later that night, joking about how they'd fooled the exit pollsters. Whatever. Hey, it could be, and probably was a dishonest answer for some. But again, once you look at the actual vote totals it becomes obvious--however surprising it may be for some--that the numbers of persons whose votes were cast against Clinton for sexist reasons couldn't have been that large: after all, no male candidate in a race between two men, where both were similar in terms of their policy ideas, and where both had similar voting records, could have expected to do much better than half the male vote, which is essentially how she did in this race. For sexism to have been the dispositive factor, it would have to be shown that Clinton lost the votes of men that she otherwise would have received, but for her gender--an utterly impossible task, because it simply isn't true.
In fact, here's the biggest irony of all: what Clinton's acolytes ignore is that had her final opponent this year been a white man, she would likely have received fewer votes from white men than she has received against Obama. Meaning that, if anything, Clinton has benefited more from white racism in her quest for the nomination than she was ever harmed by male chauvinism and misogyny.
Indeed, racism--the force that Steinem and other white second-wave feminists insisted would be less of a problem for Obama than "sociopathic woman-hating" would be for Clinton (to quote writer and feminist icon Robin Morgan)--almost did make the difference in the primaries. Although that racism has been insufficient thus far to derail Obama's success, it has indisputably been a more potent force in terms of dictating voting behavior among whites, than sexism has been for determining the votes of men.
To wit, exit poll results from several states, including California, Arizona, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, all of which indicate that the margin of Clinton's victories in all of these was either equal to or smaller than the numbers of white voters who admitted that race was relevant to their vote, and then cast their votes for Clinton. In California, for example, Clinton beat Obama by 416,000 votes, but based on the percentages from the exit polls, there were 442,000 for whom race was important to their decision and who voted for Clinton. In Indiana, Clinton's margin of victory was only 19,000, but based on the exit poll there, nearly 100,000 whites voted for Hillary, because of race. In Ohio, Clinton won by 220,000 votes, but based on the exit polls, there were 246,000 whites who voted for Clinton at least in part for reasons of race.
In other words, but for the votes of whites who were willing to admit that their votes were at least in part cast for racist reasons, she may well have lost all of those races, and the nomination battle would have been over far sooner. There is simply no way to interpret the vote of a white person who says "race matters to my vote" and then votes against the black candidate, other than as an act of racism, just as there is no way to interpret the vote of a man who says "gender matters to my vote" and then votes against the woman, other than as an act of sexism. When you consider the likelihood that far more whites voted against Obama for racial reasons than would be willing to admit it--a proposition bolstered by decades of research indicating that whites typically downplay their racial biases to pollsters--the relative importance of racism compared to sexism in this race becomes readily apparent.
If we assume that two similar candidates would, in typical circumstances (that is to say, yet another race in which two men were vying for the nomination), roughly split the vote among white voters, as they would among men, then we can see quite clearly the effects of racism on Obama. Although he managed to win roughly half the white votes in a few states, in most places he received only about a third, and sometimes quite a bit less. In state after state, this racial gap amounted to tens of thousands (often hundreds of thousands) of votes, totaling more than enough in several cases to cost him victories in those places. Even if we allow that every white woman who voted for Clinton had understandable, non-racist reasons for voting for her, rather than Obama--and indeed, most would have voted for her had her opponent been a white man, just as they did here--the numbers of white men whose votes were cast for racial reasons would have, in at least some states, been sufficient to alter the outcomes of the elections. And for certain, even in those states where the racist votes would have been insufficient to change the final outcome, there is no question that they diminished the size of his wins and made larger his defeats, in ways that have allowed the primary season to drag on month after month.
None of this is to say that racism is a more important social problem than sexism: both are entrenched and pernicious impediments to equal opportunity, and both relate to one another in any number of ways. This, it should be noted, is especially true for women of color, whose status as equal partners in womanhood (and whose unique experience as women in a racist society), is often ignored by white feminists. In fact, in this election, the call from various feminist quarters for women to stick together on the basis of sisterhood (and the anger often aimed at women of color for not doing so) took for granted that black and brown women experience the society only or mostly as women, rather than equally as folks who can't qualify for the perks of whiteness: a taking for granted that, in and of itself reinforces both patriarchy and white supremacy, by erasing women of color from consideration altogether.
Perhaps the defeat of Hillary Clinton will expose for all the underlying racial supremacy at the heart of much white feminist analysis. Perhaps it will allow the development of a more complete and thorough analysis of patriarchy and the way it interrelates with white supremacy to divide and conquer groups that often have common interests. Maybe it will force white women like Hillary Clinton to confront their privileged mindset, their sense of entitlement (which flows uninterrupted and almost effortlessly from the fount of whiteness to which white women have had access, in spite of patriarchy). Or then again, maybe it will just lead white women to become pissed at black folks, who they'll be encouraged to view as having "stolen" the Presidency from them.
It wouldn't be the first time that a group of white liberals had missed the point, after all.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Now, meeting a boyfriend in the club these days is unrealistic. However, there is something about the fact of being approached that in a sense boosts or affirms confidence. It makes us feel good to feel desired and men it makes you feel good to walk away with the deal complete.
Which leads me to this point. "Why is that women, especially black women, have to make themselves approachable?"
To my buppie women out there. You know what I mean right? You say no, and its why you have attitude? You just don't feel like dancing to one song with someone, and its why did you come to the club angry? You got on a fly ass outfit, your hair is done, you know you look good, but the ugliest guy with the one eye and patch is the only guy bold enough to holla??
What is going on here???
Black women are prejudged as being mean shyster hoes. No matter how nice she is, if she is black, many men come to the situation intimidated. They come in not wanting to put in the work to really try to build a rapport for that phone number.
See Exhibit A: This is what a black male posted to his blog.
Q. Do you date women who aren’t black?
A. Almost exclusively. Not because I don’t like black women, but because a.) black women tend not to be attracted to me and b.) most other races are. I love black women, but I’m not gonna break my balls just trying to get the time of day from a black girl when the hot indian girl across the room is asking ME for MY number.....
It’s admittedly frustrating, though, to see my non-black dates being scowled at by black women who would never date me themselves. Oh well.
There is prejudice oozing from this Q/A. How did it become that we get completely ruled out because a few did not run up to you and beg you to put your D_CK in our mouth??? Are men, buppie men too good to approach women anymore? I mean give us a chance. Not every black woman is the same. You want us to chase you? Is it not the universal rule that men should court women? Oh and then we scowl uh? Let me tell you that some folks are not comfortable with interracial dating. RACE is still an ISSUE. However, its most always pointed out when a black woman disapproves. Do you think Indian men like seeing you with their woman?? But they not scowling uh? Of course not, but because one is a evil doer black woman, its highlighted.
Listen to first 5 minutes. Homeboy is rambling:
What is going on in the world? Black women are being demonized! He tells us we need to become more feminine? Oh please! Men need to become more masculine, and stop being scared to approach a woman. What is it that women of other races do that makes them a appear more friendly?? Do you ever stop and think that maybe society makes you think black=evil? Makes you think pink nipples are preferable? And perhaps, just perhaps, these are your issues you project on to us? Perhaps my regular chill face reminds you of your discriminatory practice, or reminds you of yourself, and that is what scares you..
Some men have said that black woman have too many high standards. Oh really? I did not know having a job was so unusual? I mean after all about 130 million people in the US have jobs.
It frustrates me to hear an entire race discounted. As much as I am frustrated with black men, I will never say I would never date them, just because the last few have been shiftless, selfish, and dishonest. Yet they continue to degrade us! What happen to Equal Opportunity?
Do not discount us buppie women.
So how about this: Instead of us making ourselves MORE approachable, how about you men create better approaches?? Are we not worth it? We are quite comparable to all women of all backgrounds. Buppie women are capable of being just as friendly, sexy, and smart as any other woman. Do not be scared. If she is not smiling, perhaps she is waiting for the right man to crack a joke? Or maybe honestly, she may need a drink, so buy her one. If she is with a group of her girls, how about you catch her attention and ask her to step away from her girls so you can chit chat. BET she will do it. If she looks exxxxxxtra fly. Stop look at what you have on and examine if you may be on that level. If she is scowling, look her in the eye, and ask her "What can I do to make you smile?" And if she does not give you the D's (Digits or Draws), you know what EFF her not her entire race, ok?
Obviously if you work at Fox News you can get away with anything.
"Fox News Channel referred to Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama"
"Fox anchor E.D. Hill has apologized for referring to an affectionate onstage fist bump shared by the couple as a "terrorist fist jab," and Fox contributor Liz Trotta said she was sorry for joking about an Obama assassination."
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Awww don't they look cute together??
There has been speculation all day but I have not seen the numbers that prove that Obama has clenched the nomination! He is going to announce it anyway and probably is right now as I blog.
Now I am going to keep it real, but I am VERY concerned if he can honestly win against McCain. Why? Because he is black. Because he lacks white support. White people vote, after all it is their country.
I am also concerned for My homegirl HC! She went through it. You went from a sure thing, to yesterday news.
You got desperate too. And Yes someone even called you out:
I do not think HC has officially conceded, but if she had not, boy would you have put your party in a messed up situation. Still your party is a bit weaken by this nomination race.
So what can the democrats do, to secure the White house??
You see Obama has the electoral votes and super delegates, but HC has the people.(White hard workers according to her.)
So what is the Democratic party going to do??
Tell them MOFOs to run together!!! I say this because, the two of them together is a sure thing to knock these republicans out. We have already seen how Bush has ruined my life, no need for McCain!!! We need a democrat in the White House Bups. Otherwise my Buppie status will soon be revoked due to this failing dollar. We will then transform the blog to Expressions of a Broke B!tch! If Obama chooses some no name democrat, he is not going to win. Yes I said it. He needs HC.
There has been much speculation as who will clench the VP spot. It is not a bad spot to be HC. I heard you would be open. I mean after all, What if he gets assassinated?? (Her words not mine...)
At what point does a woman take upon herself to decide that she is your girl????
I specifically stepped out of jerk mode to stop a female in her tracks because I caught word that she was going around telling people I was her man.
We spoke on the phone, hung out, spent nights together...but we did not have sex.
We met in February, and I found out in April that we were together!
I live in New York, and she lives wayyyy down south, and to the west (I will not name the state for fear she reads despite my anonymity.)
Oh yea by the way...
WE DID NOT HAVE SEX
I purposely withheld Rich Jr from her because I did not want her going crazy to play the "you hit it, now you are my man" card.
But she did it anyway.
But i did give her what she called "the most passionate and greatest kiss she had ever gotten in her life..."
She admitted that to me, and she also told me that she loved me, about 3 weeks after learning my name.
- The Most Passionate and Greatest Kisser
The District's Buppie Response:
Let me tell you that some women, and I find myself doing this as well, Fall in Like/Love with the IDEA of a guy. The Idea he has a job, the idea of he loves his family, the idea of him being into church. I think your homegirl, is into the IDEA of you. Thus she created the IDEA of you and her!
Let me break it down, You and her were doing IDEALISTIC Boyfriend and GirlFriend things. Sure you were holding the pipe from her, but pipe does not determine a relationships. Lawd knows how many of us prefer PIPE without the relationship type things.
So what do you do! Exactly what you did you clarify things. Tell her be easy. Sure it will hurt her, but might as well now then later...
Up&Coming Buppie's Response:
You just gotta keep it real with females sometimes... LIKE ALL THE WAY REAL! Like look I like you and I can see us possibly growing into more HOWEVER, I want to take things slow and see where this goes before we stamp a label on it. Why are people so quick to label and define a relationship? Chill.
If she is disillusioned about you all having a relationship just clarify. Then evaluate if you want to proceed or not based upon her actions and reactions to what you say to her. She also sounds like she may be slightly inexperienced. I mean I guess you can fall in love in 3 weeks but do you really know enough about a person in that amount of time to do so. Also the fact that she has decided yall are official without including you in on it speaks to her inexperience.
Ms. Buppie Buppie's Response:
If we didn't have sex u ain't my man. Now once I give u the draws ..YOU my man, OKay! ::two snaps and a head roll:: LOL! The way my paranoid mind works, my guess would be that you're dealing with someone else and you're not ready to be committed to me. Therefore, you're not my man and homegirl is TRIPPIN! Man imagine if you lay the pipe? She might start sending out wedding invitations! LOL!
Monday, June 2, 2008
Now that we have that out of the way, back to the question, Do ALL men cheat?
Well I sure think so!
Probably because at this very moment, I can't honestly say that I know a guy that has NEVER cheated. However on the other hand, I can definitely say I know several that have.
Now, I'm aware that everyone might have his/her own definition of cheating. So here is my definition:
1. Of coarse there is the traditional, physical cheating, which includes but is not limited to, sex, kissing, licking, sucking, all forms of 4-play.
2. Then there is emotional cheating, which some people often don't consider 'real' cheating. To further elaborate, emotional cheating to me is when you still have feelings for someone else other than you significant other, like maybe an ex you still communicate with and often talk to them on a personal tip. This includes, but is not limited to,venting/complaining about your current relationship and comparing it to the past or having inappropriate sexually related conversations, i.e. "I wanna lick you like a lollipop"
I know everyone may or may not agree, but this is how I see it, ALL MEN CHEAT ..and if you don't think so then you might just be the perfect victim. The type that's going to accept, "I'm sorry, I won't do it again" or "I'm sorry, it just happened"..Now weather you decide to forgive him or not,you mostly likely won't forget. The TRUST in the relationship has been broken. And I'm sure we all know how IMPORTANT trust is in maintaining a healthy relationship.
I posted a similar topic about men cheating in a note and a few of my guy friends voluntarily responded to it. I selected two(2) of he conversations to share with you all. Why these 2? Now if you remember an earlier post titled "Its Hard out there for a (female) Buppie" each of these guys fits 2 out of the 3 'stereotypes' of male buppies I mentioned.
Now read on!
"Mr. Oh" a.k.a Mr. Bachelor / The Play Boy
ME: have u ever cheated?
Oh: yes i have been guilty of cheating in the past
ME: why did you do it?
Oh : why, no a solid reason why...
Oh : i think men think there rights of passage has to involve establishing this malehood and sex seems to be a way of acceptance
ME: did you ever admit it to the grl u were with?
Oh : yeah ..i came clean...well i got busted
Oh : but it was talked about...i felt soo damn bad
Oh : she was so hurt....i felt like shit...
Oh : it took her a minute to talk to me again
Oh : almost 2 years
Oh : but we are good friends now..its funny cause, i didn't realize how much she meant to me until it was over
Oh : for me..its all about lost
Oh : and i have lost some really good women in relationships because of this malehood
Oh : and once u lose something close...then u don't really want to lose no more
ME: what was ur excuse? Why did you do it?
Oh : why it happened? i am not sure
Oh its almost a sense of confidence in some aspect for men...it soo weird...but its just selfish really why men cheat
Oh : no other way to describe it...just str8 selfish...wants more than wats infront of us...
Oh : but we learn
Oh : and for wat its worth....we learn hard
Oh : well in my case
ME: ok so, real talk, when's the last time you've been in a serious relationship?
Oh : a year ago...
ME: and now, are you one of those guys thats "not looking for a relationship?
Oh : no not at all
Oh : i def wanna be in one
Oh : i took a year to get right
Oh : and now i am ready
Oh : but nothing serious yet...
Oh : its crazy...like i think my standards are a bit high...
Oh : not trying to sound no way....
Oh i am actually perusing one i think
Oh : but its been hard, she a doe doe
Oh but like some of the girls are beautiful fools...
ME: LOL so by going on mainly LOOKS, don't you think eventually you might get bored?
Oh : EXACTLY!!!!
Oh : which is why i am single now
Oh : its like there intrigue goes away so fast
Oh : I tell people all the time u have to have an interesting way of looking at life
Oh : i try hard to keep u into me..
Oh : but it don't always flow both ways
Oh : thats why its hard to find the right girls
Oh : but, I do believe I have meet a few in my life so far....
Oh : and i have none in my life currently
Oh : don't say much about me....
Oh : but the next time i happen to meet one...wrap me up i think
Oh : not to mention..i am not the walk away and get back together 3 and 4 times person
ME: what do you think is the possibility of you cheating again?
Oh : i have honestly made a conscience decision that I wont....
Oh : i have to start giving things i care about an Honest shot
Oh : and because it doesn't really take much to lose something worth wile...
Oh : i have had my fun, if thats what its called..
Oh : i mean these were not always the standard i held myself too
O h: not saying its a sure fetch thing
Oh : but its a start for me
ME: hmmm that's kool and all ...but lets be realistic, you know that relationship can be hard to maintain
Oh : i know i was in one for 5years
ME: how can you honestly say you won't cheat again?
Oh : well i can honestly say that i don't want to, when it comes down to it....hopefully i will past the test
ME: have you ever been cheated on?
Oh : yeah...
ME: how did that make you feel?
Oh : like shit...
Oh : i am not sure i wanna feel like that again...
ME: so knowing how it feels, why would you want someone else to go though that?
Oh: i don't, a lesson well learned hun
ME: what's you definition of cheating?
Oh : uhmmmmm...anything that involved breaking the trust of the one u love and involved with
ME: so it can range from flirtatious conversation to sex?
Oh : my mentor tells me that in gods eyes..LUSTing is cheating
Oh : exactly
Oh : conversations plant seeds, those leads to....
"Mr. B" a.k.a. Mr. Selfish / The Occasional Cheater
B: All men don't cheat
B: And women cheat just as often
B: In many diff. Ways
ME: ok, but have you ever cheated?
B: Umm sort of
B: I didn't really do anything...and I was weakened...I was drunk, my girl was out of town
ME: did you admit it to your girl?
B: It wasn't worth it
ME: why didn't you think it was worth it?
B: I stopped myself...realized I was wrong and apologized to the other girl and told her how I felt and that I knew I was wrong
ME: if it were the other way around, would you have wanted your girlfriend to tell you?
B: I'm indifferent
B: I would've
B: But I'd wish I didn't know
B: Cause I'm jealous and insecure so I would've thought she was a hoe and never trusted her again
ME: but if you told her, you would've wanted her to forgive you?
ME: but that wouldn't mean that you're a hoe and she can't trust you right?
ME: so why the double standard?
B : Cause I'm a guy
B: That's the society we live in
ME: have you ever been cheated on?
B: in an official relationship...
B: I can only assume
B: In dating relationships...yea
ME: even so, how did that make you feel?
B: I was ecstatic...filled with the utmost joy
ME: so the exact opposite
ME: what is your definition of cheating?
B: Wen u deceitfully search for some type of emotional or physical pleasure outside of your relationship
ME: so it can range from flirtatious conversation to sex?
ME: knowing how it feels to be cheated on, why would you want someone else to go through that?
B: I wouldn't
B: I think cheating is horrible. And it shows ur true weakness and insecurities. If u know ur promiscuous and know that ur a cheater u shouldn't b in a relationship. But most ppl just cheat cause they want some1 to love them @ home...and they wanna whore out secretly cause the excess attn feeds their insecurities of not desiring themselves.
ME: what about those that don't cheat often, or what about people like you
Brooklyn : Every1 makes mistakes.