June 28, 2005 :: Pour some sugar on me

I recently discovered a quite fascinating online dating/personals website. It's called www.sugardaddyforme.com. The aim of this site is to pair up willing sugar daddies with pliant sugar babies. Somewhat coincidentally, the youngun recently asked me for "help" moving out of her mama's house and into an apartment with her best friend. The "help" she was asking for took the form of $650, which amounts to her share of the first month's rent and deposit. Obviously, the sugar daddy view kicked in for her. I guess steak and eggs wasn't enough. How she plans to live on her own when she can't even cover her own rent... well, I really hope her plan wasn't to ask me for money every month. On the other hand, from a strictly mercenary viewpoint, $325 a month as a portion of one's budget devoted to dating, really isn't ridiculous.

This got me to thinking.

Not about the specific situation with her, you can rest assured I won't be paying rent for her or anyone else but myself (for one, I can't give away $300 every month!). But more about the character of such relationships, and whether or not they are really as reprehensible as they are made out to be. It's not a traditional, "equally yoked" kind of relationship, to be sure. It's more of a symbiosis. You give me something you want, I give you something I want. Some might characterize it as a business transaction, but I think it is deeper than that, because the two might have genuine affection of some sort for each other. If that is the case, if the man enjoys the company and taking care of a (very) young lady, and she enjoys being around him and taking advantage of what he has to offer, then why should we condemn that? Aren't they essentially consenting adults? Are there any victims here? Yes, its sort of paternal, but in a transactional psychology sense, there is no game here because the roles are explicit.

I contrast this situation with the classic "golddigger" scenario. In that situation, a woman will pretend she is interested in a man solely for who he is (or whatever the typical PC list of approved traits is) when she is really interested in what material things he can do for her. The mark (or sucka) is then taken for an emotional loop because he thinks they are in love, but he is the only one who feels that way. When he discovers this, usually he becomes embittered and determined to dog out whoever the next woman (or all the next women), because of course he can't get back in any meaningful way at the one who truly deserves his retribution. This breeds a community of deceitful users on both sides. Bad all around.

I realize that the argument I've constructed has also been used to justify why prostitution should be decriminalized. In some sense, that is the extreme extension of what I am saying. But I think the sugar daddy relationship is a bit more. Prostitution really is a business transaction. A sugar daddy and his sugar baby may truly be happy and comfortable in each other's presence, with genuine affection.

I'm still not paying her rent, though. But she can have steak & eggs anytime she wants!

posted by Rainmayun at 2:15 PM -

---

June 24, 2005 :: Why (some) women are single

HER: chu doin this weekend?
ME: a little of this, a little of that
ME: going to the african american heritage festival today
HER: oh me too
HER: maybe I'll cya there
HER: u got a date?
ME: you could call it that
ME: you goin with a date?
HER: lol
HER: nope I'm rollin solo
HER: nobody loves me
ME: awww stop
ME: did you even ask anyone to go
HER: nope
HER: they should be asking me!
HER: I'm tired of asking ppl
ME: ummmm
ME: ok
ME: did you at least mention it to anyone
ME: so that they would know you want to go
HER: no I shouldn't have to do that either
ME: so how the hell is anybody going to have a clue what to invite you to
HER: is that what it takes these days?
HER: shyt just invite me anywhere
ME: you went to the club didnt you
HER: meaning?
ME: didnt you get invited there?
HER: yes
HER: kinda
HER: not really
ME: ok i dont know what that means
HER: lol
ME: maybe these guys (whoever they are) dont even know you are open to being invited
ME: to go anywhere
ME: maybe you need to offer some hints
ME: men are not mind-readers you know
ME: these guys may not even know you are interested
HER: I hear u
HER: bottom line I'm rolling solo

posted by Rainmayun at 12:03 PM -

---

June 23, 2005 :: Say my name, say my name

Warning: This post may be perceived as arrogant. Proceed at your own risk.

As I have mentioned many times in the past, I have a lot of female friends. A good number of them have boyfriends or are dating what I will call "significant others" - men with whom they are practically but not nominally exclusive. Same difference, for the purposes of this discussion. I have noticed that, strangely, a good number of them don't refer to their S.O.s by name when speaking to me about them. I don't mean that they use nicknames; I mean they consistently refer to him as "him" or "mister mayun" or sometimes just "my dude". And I mean that they don't necessarily use this language to address him directly or toward other people.

As usual, I have a theory about this.

Now, let me preface this next paragraph with this statement: I do not believe every woman wants to sleep with me. Far from it. I think I do alright, though. At least a 7 out of 10.

OK, here goes the theory: I think the women who don't refer to their S.O.s by name do so subsconsiously because they are open, on some level, to a romantic relationship with me. In many cases, that is a remote or farfetched possibility, for various reasons, not all of which have to do with my famed pickiness. But so far (re-checking the mental checklist), the theory holds true.

I think men probably do this too, although I don't have any anecdotal evidence to back this up. Do you think you speak about your S.O. differently to someone for whom you hold a torch than for someone who really truly is just a friend? And will these so-called friends disappear if I get married (which, I admit, is a dicey gamble) and the torches get extinguished? These are the things I wonder.

posted by Rainmayun at 3:09 PM -

---

June 21, 2005 :: Chastity, but no prudence

Want to get your wife, girlfriend or daughter a stylish and shackling gift at the same time? Get her some forget-me-not panties. They will allow you to keep careful tabs on her health and location from wherever you are.

Heart-rate or body temperature rising? She might be having a heatstroke. Arrive at her rescue thanks to the Sensatech technology.

Worried about her spending too much at the mall? See when she goes and how long she spends there.

And remember, when the pantyMap technology shows that she's running through the alley and the woods behind your house, chances are she hasn't gone feral, but that she's placed them around the dog's neck as a joke!

Hours of endless fun! Order today!

posted by Rainmayun at 3:31 PM -

---

June 20, 2005 :: Flipped and scripted

I went and saw a black indie film on Friday called "Flip the Script". I have to admit, I didn't have the highest expectations for production quality or entertainment value. My faith in black cinema has been shaken by a string of horrible movies. While I appreciate that the van Peebles family tries to write direct and produce their own work, I will never see How to Get the Man's Foot Outta Your Ass unless you tie me down, give me a No-Doz IV drip and pry my eyelids open a la The Clockwork Orange. You can have Diary of a Mad Black Woman. You can have Booty Call. Although I think it's amusing how Jamie went from Bunz to Best Actor, I'd rather see him in Collateral.

But this movie was good! I even got over the fact that I paid $20 each, plus a $9.40 "processing fee", to get tickets to a freakin' MOVIE, by reminding myself that it was for the benefit of a decently good organization which I will soon join. Even Robin Givens wasn't unwatchable in it, and when's the last time you saw her in something truly entertaining? It was laugh out loud funny at least every 5 minutes or so.

The movie did have some weak points. Teck (who apparently isn't famous enough to actually have pictures on any of the bios I found online in a casual search) is a horrible, HORRIBLE actor. The plot has some saccharine moments, and some turns and plot holes so obvious you could drive a Hummer through them. The good bits, though, were the dialogue here and there, stuff that's so genuine and natural you know it couldn't have all been written in the script. Ad-libs by talented actors are a wonderful thing.

Oh and let me add: for that $20 (plus outrageous ticket "processing fee") they gave us some "soul food" (read: dried up chicken, calcified mac & cheese, brown rice and leathery collard greens) and "open bar" (read: they had malibu, bacardi, some sort of vodka, fruit juices and Coke. That's it). But the best part? It was a "bourgie" black event where I barely recognized ANYBODY, except one cat I went to school with, and one of my young cousin's friends from Hampton who recognized me. It's difficult to break out of the small, tight-knit circles in DC and to break into new ones, but this was a new group, and I liked it.

On second thought, all you DC people who I already know, forget you read anything in this post.

Atlanta people, go see it! It's coming on June 24th.

posted by Rainmayun at 2:46 PM -

---

June 16, 2005 :: Unfathomable crimes

Check out this article about a man who may have molested literally thousands of kids. I guess child molestation issues are inadvertently a recent theme in my blog, but I just could not pass this one up.

They say this man molested 36,000 kids. That alone is incomprehensible.

But then he kept detailed records of each and every time he did it?

I am no psychology expert, and I couldn't even pretend to understand the pathology at work here. Some people will say he recorded things because he subconsciously wanted to be caught (as they said about R. Kelly). I think, though, when they crack the encryption on that server, they'll see that no one uses that kind of encryption if they want to be caught. This is just a sick, sick man. And that is my professional diagnosis.

Makes me wonder, though, if a whole lot of the girls and boys that are being molested and abused (1 in 4 for girls, 1 in 6 for boys) are all being targeted by a small minority of molesters.

posted by Rainmayun at 6:19 PM -

---

June 14, 2005 :: Guilty after proven innocent

Of course, everybody knows by now that Michael Jackson has been found not guilty on all ten counts. I'm not going to even bother linking to an article, you can find them on your own. There are some deeper consequences here that bother me, though.

The jury of 12 of his peers (if it is indeed possible for MJ to have peers in any sense) sat through 14 weeks of intense, detailed trial presentations and testimony. The public at large sat through 14 weeks of sound bites, news blurbs and fluffed up dramatism in various forms of media, designed to sell advertising and magazines and whatever else needed selling. The jury of 12 found him innocent on all counts. The public, by and large, still believes he is guilty and just "got away with it". Obviously, one group is in a better position to pass judgment. In fact, one group in particular is required to pass judgment. The other group? Getting lots of exercise leaping to conclusions.

What disturbs me the most about this are some particular comments I've heard from friends. In a nutshell, there is nothing that anyone could ever say or do to convince them that MJ did not molest children, and that he should be under some jail right now, if not burning in a lake of fire in hell. I sure am glad they're not sitting in the jury in a trial for me. It disturbs me most because these are black people saying this to me, black people who know full well the massive miscarriages of injustice that have been perpetrated upon us through the vehicle of the American judicial system. Too many of us have been sentenced to death (and other onerously long sentences) by way of wrongful, spiteful and racist convictions. If there is any one thing we should wish from the courts, it is for a fair trial. As far as I can tell, MJ got one, and the jury decided he was innocent. That is good enough for me.

For the record, I don't hold an opinion on MJ's guilt or innocence, because I know I don't know nearly enough about any of the people involved, and I wasn't standing in the room when whatever happened happened. I said the same thing when OJ was on trial, and people tried to tell me I was weaseling out. There is absolutely no rational basis for any person not involved in the trial (and indeed, probably not anyone but OJ, Nicole and Ron) to know what happened that day, and to say otherwise is just puffery.

Besides, if you think MJ should be under the jail, then you just ought to think R. Kelly should be his bunkmate. At least we have a tape of that!

posted by Rainmayun at 10:29 AM -

---

June 06, 2005 :: I'm not gay

... but apparently I like some of the same stuff that gay men like. To wit:

• I like house music. Specifically, San Francisco house music. I don't ever go to clubs that play it, though, because they're full of gay men, and I don't enjoy being hit on by men. But the music is good.


• I have a better sense of color than the average man, by virtue of being a sometimey graphic designer. I actually care about the aesthetics of some things, although I probably overcompensate by letting my home go almost completely uncoordinated and undecorated.


• I have a tendency to wear brighter colors than most men. I think this is because I live in DC now, and it was less of an issue in any of the 3 cities on the west coast in which I have lived. It's been mostly suppressed since moving to DC, which quite possibly is the most repressive city on the planet that I'd still actually want to live in. Apparently it's only acceptable for men to wear blue, black, gray and white here. Any other color draws comments and stares. Lately I've been saying fuck it and wearing what I want to wear, but still.


• I like fancy restaurants. It's enjoyable and fun to me to go to a nice restaurant which is trying to do something more than just shovel grub in front of you. Novel cuisine is an experience I think everyone should have on a regular basis. I don't think it's a coincidence that the major share of such restaurants here in DC are in gay neighborhoods. I like cooking too, sometimes. My chili is swiftly becoming my best recipe.


• I've been accused of being metrosexual. I don't think I groom myself meticulously enough to qualify, but everyone has her own perceptual threshold. I have accumulated a variety of products in my bathroom for various specific purposes. I've gotten in trouble for having shampoo in my shower before. All I've got to say is that shampoo is better than bath soap at cleaning hair.

of course all of this evidence is circumstantial, but that's beside the point. With the hysteria over down-low men, and the special focus of that hysteria on DC, I get asked about this way more than I care to answer. Most people who ask get immediately removed from the mental rolodex as someone I'd care to hang out with, as it often says more about them that they asked than how I answer does about me. Whatever their concept is of how men should behave, I ain't it. There are a few genuinely curious yet still non-judgmental questioners, but they are few and far between.

I just wish I could figure out how to write a book about this and make my millions.

posted by Rainmayun at 4:05 PM -

---

June 01, 2005 :: Battle of the sexes: Taboo edition

I played Taboo at a barbecue on Monday. (Not familiar with the game? An explanation is available here.) As usual, the teams were divided into men vs women. This time, though, I had to play with the women's team because I was late, and they already had five men to four women. I agreed to defect, for the sake of helping out the women, who were already badly losing when I arrived.

Women always seem to lose at Taboo. I quickly discovered that these women were no exception. I had to read clue cards immediately. Here are some examples of clues I gave:

"One of the top fast-food chains has this as their #1 sandwich."

"The original funk band, they featured George Clinton and Bootsy Collins. Also, the people who run the country in Britain sit here."

Maybe not the best clues ever, but all the men on the other team instantly knew what I was talking about. At least with the sandwiches, the women were guessing, albeit very, very badly. "Big Mac!" A good guess, but no. "Quarter Pounder!" I said "The other big chain!" They were clueless. Time expired. Even worse, the funk band clue elicited silence and blank stares from my team, as the men chuckled and laughed.

It gave me a chance to see if I was a superior clue-giver or if women just don't think and communicate in a way that's good for Taboo. I'm inclined to think the latter. Women make an art out of not saying what they are really thinking. Here's an example, courtesy of datfuule:

Woman: I'm thirsty.

Man (to himself): So noted.

(MAN CONTINUES WATCHING TV)

(WOMAN BECOMES ANNOYED THAT HER THIRST IS UNSLAKED, AND DECIDES TO VERBALLY ABUSE MAN)

(MAN BECOMES CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT HE DID WRONG)

This is what she really wanted to happen:

Woman: I'm thirsty.

Man: What would you like me to get you from the fridge, honey?

This is how the man would expect things to happen:

Woman: I'm thirsty. Can you get me a beer?

Man: OK.

Note that the man wants the woman to say directly what she wants, to avoid confusion, whereas the woman wants the man to be so in tune with her and her needs that she doesn't even need to say it, he just telepathically gets it. In woman fantasy land, the interaction looks like this:

Man: You look thirsty. Would you like me to get you a beer?

Woman (to herself): He's such a wonderful man!

Obviously, men aren't telepathic and don't care to be, so that ain't happening. Hopefully one day women figure this out, so they can become better Taboo players, and worthy adversaries.

Oh, and the answers to the clues? "Whopper" and "Parliament".

posted by Rainmayun at 12:08 PM -

---