Every once in a while - okay .. fuck it, for me it's been often - a person goes through some life changes. A little over a year ago (April 1, 2010, to be precise), I returned to Minneapolis from Sioux Falls. Now, shortly after the one-year anniversary of my return, I've celebrated another anniversary.
May 29, 2011 was my one-year anniversary with Jeremy. Plus, I'm now three weeks into my new job as a Customer Contact Professional with a Financial Services company.
It's weird how quickly things turn around. A month ago I was barely scraping by, now I don't have to worry about money again. I'm loving the job and things are going great. Soon Jeremy and I will be moving in together. All these positive changes have made me reflect on the last four years of my life.
2007 started off with a bang and I was fabulous. Then I moved and things were still fabulous, but I moved without a real savings so in 2008 I ended up fucking myself pretty hardcore. Three years of hardship have taught me ... save, save save!!! Also, I feel like I am so much more grown up now. I never understood that I had to go through all that. I mean, yes I was bad with money and spent like it was going out of style, but from the ages of 18-30 I had plenty of personal money, always paid my rent on time, helped friends, and always had good jobs. I guess I never went through that phase of not having all that in my early twenties like most people do, so when this hit me really hard at 30/31, I had no real clue how to deal with it.
Now, at almost 33, I feel like know enough to avoid it in the future.
This just goes to prove my theory, at least in the personal aspect, that the 20's are merely a "legally adult extension" of our teens. I mean, let's face it, we don't learn how to be adults in our teens. We learn how to be adults in our twenties.
Who knows ...?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Monday, March 21, 2011
Britney Spears
Lately I've been listening to a few of the leaked tracks on Britney Spears' upcoming seventh studio album, Femme Fatale, including the first two singles "Hold It Against Me" and "Till The World Ends."
While I don't exactly approve of the disc title, it's her album and she can call it anything she wants. She is, after all, Britney Spears. Perhaps my biggest issue with Spears' new music is her continued use of Autotune. Take a listen to "Till The World Ends." I'm not referring to her use of the device just to smooth out of her voice. The vocal manipulation is extremely similar to what Cher did on Believe in 1999. I realize Britney has never been, and probably never will be, much of a live singer (have you seen the woman dance?) but her voice sounds unrealistically young here. She sounds exactly the same as she did when her debut single, "... Baby One More Time" hit the airwaves in October 1998. A woman's voice deepens with age, especially if she's a singer. My last real problem is her role as a songwriter. Her creative role has increased with each album she's released, but other than "Everytime" from 2003's In the Zone, she's never written a smash hit. Perhaps though, like Cher, writing is just simply not one of her strengths.
Also unfair is the fan war between Britney and Lady Gaga. While both artists dominate pop music, that's pretty much where their similarities end. Both stars grew up in entirely different backgrounds, different home lives, different experiences. Personally, I do think Gaga is a superior writer (as she writes most of her own tracks with very little co-writing) and her vocals do not need an Autotune, which is evident if you see her live. Her tiny little body boasts a powerhouse voice. Britney, however, is a superior dancer and has a unique ability to professionally pair herself professionally with the best producers in the business.
Comparing Britney and Gaga is like trying to compare Cher with Stevie Nicks. Both ladies are divas but have approached their careers differently; same can be said for Britney and Gaga. Part of Britney's enduring and endearing charm is the fact that she's been around forever. "... Baby One More Time" hit the radio in October 1998, and the album of the same name dropped in January 1999. Her longevity in the pop world, something that is extremely hard to come by for most these days, is a testament to the fact that she made a lasting connection with her fans and with the American public and the public's lasting fascination with her turbulent public life.
While she would still no doubt be successful, I seriously doubt she would have the same monster success if she were just now surfacing on the pop scene. Pop music is so saturated with girls all vying to be the next pop queen, it can actually be seen as brilliant that Gaga uses outrageous fashion and stage production to accentuate her music. It gave her an edge. Timing has always been incredibly instrumental in the music business. If an artist or album or song, no matter how fantastic, is thrust onto the public at the wrong time the whole thing can flop. Britney emerged at a time when we really didn't have any pop sweethearts. There was no Gaga, no Ke$ha, and we had very little exposure to Beyonce at that point. America and pop music were ready for Britney at that point.
I was recently listening to a radio interview conducted last week with Stevie Nicks, who has a new album out in May, on longevity in the volatile music business. Nicks has always stated that to remain relevant and alive in the business an artist's best bet is to write their own songs. Songwriting may not be Spears' strong suit, but with each album she has increased her role in the writing and production areas.
I can only imagine the stress she must go through each time she records. After all, record industry execs pressure her to be just as successful as all her previous outings. Spears is no stranger to music industry lows, but what happens when she releases an album that just doesn't do that well at all? 2007's Blackout, despite its critically favorable reviews, is the closest thing Spears has come to a commercial flop. What happens when she releases an album that sells less than a million copies?
Sooner or later she's going to experience commercial failure, or something to the equivalent. No one's streak goes on forever. A hundred artists with far superior music credentials have released amazing albums that, mostly due to timing, were commercial flops. It happens to everyone. To her credit, Spears possesses a very Madonna-like quality of upgrading her image.
That's why I was so disappointed by the music video for "Hold It Against Me." Conceptually I understand what she was going for, I understand the imagery and the intellectualism behind it all. It just came out wrong. It reminds of something she would have done at 24, not a girl who is turning 30 this December.
While I don't exactly approve of the disc title, it's her album and she can call it anything she wants. She is, after all, Britney Spears. Perhaps my biggest issue with Spears' new music is her continued use of Autotune. Take a listen to "Till The World Ends." I'm not referring to her use of the device just to smooth out of her voice. The vocal manipulation is extremely similar to what Cher did on Believe in 1999. I realize Britney has never been, and probably never will be, much of a live singer (have you seen the woman dance?) but her voice sounds unrealistically young here. She sounds exactly the same as she did when her debut single, "... Baby One More Time" hit the airwaves in October 1998. A woman's voice deepens with age, especially if she's a singer. My last real problem is her role as a songwriter. Her creative role has increased with each album she's released, but other than "Everytime" from 2003's In the Zone, she's never written a smash hit. Perhaps though, like Cher, writing is just simply not one of her strengths.
Also unfair is the fan war between Britney and Lady Gaga. While both artists dominate pop music, that's pretty much where their similarities end. Both stars grew up in entirely different backgrounds, different home lives, different experiences. Personally, I do think Gaga is a superior writer (as she writes most of her own tracks with very little co-writing) and her vocals do not need an Autotune, which is evident if you see her live. Her tiny little body boasts a powerhouse voice. Britney, however, is a superior dancer and has a unique ability to professionally pair herself professionally with the best producers in the business.
Comparing Britney and Gaga is like trying to compare Cher with Stevie Nicks. Both ladies are divas but have approached their careers differently; same can be said for Britney and Gaga. Part of Britney's enduring and endearing charm is the fact that she's been around forever. "... Baby One More Time" hit the radio in October 1998, and the album of the same name dropped in January 1999. Her longevity in the pop world, something that is extremely hard to come by for most these days, is a testament to the fact that she made a lasting connection with her fans and with the American public and the public's lasting fascination with her turbulent public life.
While she would still no doubt be successful, I seriously doubt she would have the same monster success if she were just now surfacing on the pop scene. Pop music is so saturated with girls all vying to be the next pop queen, it can actually be seen as brilliant that Gaga uses outrageous fashion and stage production to accentuate her music. It gave her an edge. Timing has always been incredibly instrumental in the music business. If an artist or album or song, no matter how fantastic, is thrust onto the public at the wrong time the whole thing can flop. Britney emerged at a time when we really didn't have any pop sweethearts. There was no Gaga, no Ke$ha, and we had very little exposure to Beyonce at that point. America and pop music were ready for Britney at that point.
I was recently listening to a radio interview conducted last week with Stevie Nicks, who has a new album out in May, on longevity in the volatile music business. Nicks has always stated that to remain relevant and alive in the business an artist's best bet is to write their own songs. Songwriting may not be Spears' strong suit, but with each album she has increased her role in the writing and production areas.
I can only imagine the stress she must go through each time she records. After all, record industry execs pressure her to be just as successful as all her previous outings. Spears is no stranger to music industry lows, but what happens when she releases an album that just doesn't do that well at all? 2007's Blackout, despite its critically favorable reviews, is the closest thing Spears has come to a commercial flop. What happens when she releases an album that sells less than a million copies?
Sooner or later she's going to experience commercial failure, or something to the equivalent. No one's streak goes on forever. A hundred artists with far superior music credentials have released amazing albums that, mostly due to timing, were commercial flops. It happens to everyone. To her credit, Spears possesses a very Madonna-like quality of upgrading her image.
That's why I was so disappointed by the music video for "Hold It Against Me." Conceptually I understand what she was going for, I understand the imagery and the intellectualism behind it all. It just came out wrong. It reminds of something she would have done at 24, not a girl who is turning 30 this December.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Gagging Me With The God Spoon!
Mike Huckabee, a Republican Presidential candidate possibility, has publicly spoken out against Natalie Portman (and other Hollywood starlets) because she is pregnant, unwed, and happy. Portman is engaged to choreographer Benjamin Millepied, who worked on her film, "Black Swan," but Huckabee says she's sending out the wrong message. He went on to say that when wealthy actresses have children without being married it sets a bad example for America. Huckabee named Portman specifically in his broadcast.
Although Huckabee never came out and said it, his opinion is based on parochial religious values, that a child must be raised by a mother and father who are married.
The Supreme Court has upheld a lower court's ruling, citing that members of the Westboro Baptist Church are legally allowed to protest and picket military funerals as part of their First Amendment right to free speech. The WBC, spearheaded by crazy loonfucker cult leader Fred Phelps, has been picketing military funerals for years. They hold up signs saying God is punishing America for its acceptance of homosexuality and abortion by bringing home dead soldiers. The WBC first gained national attention when they picketed Matthew Sheppard's funeral. While it pains me to admit the High Court did make the correct decision (I mean c'mon, realistically they have to make unemotional, logical rulings that fall within the law), this sickens me. Phelps and his band of hillbilly inbred goat fuckers have promised to quadruple their protests. This is the church that decided it was going to protest the funeral of nine-year-old Christina Greene, who was killed in the shootings that critically injured Gabby Giffords.
Albert Snyder, whose son Matthew, a Marine lance corporal, was killed in Iraq. The WBC picketed Snyder's funeral. Snyder reacted to the High Court's ruling with an ominous foreboding. He indicated that somebody, someday will get hurt if this does not stop, citing that all it takes is one soldier with really bad PTSD to react in the wrong manner to a protest.
Embattled Republican politician Newt Gingrich, who will no doubt enter the Republican Presidential Primaries, recently appeared at a rally in Houston, TX. Politics was not the topic of his discussion, however. It was religion. Rick Santorum, also considering a bid in Presidential Primaries, launched an attack on the left by attacking the globally accepted and proven account of The Crusades, which actually embarrasses most moral Christians. Santorum went on to say that that the Crusades were justified and not an example of Christian aggression. I think Santorum should go back to history class and read about the Massacre of Jerusalem in 1099. That is but one example I can think of. Michele Bachmann, Republican senator from Minnesota, has been quoted as saying "politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their PUBLIC and private lives do not belong in office." Hey Michele, you have heard of 'separation of church and state' right? Your 'good book' has absolutely no fucking place in my government. Bachmann has always been a favorite on the Values Voters Summit, and an outspoken supporter of "Christian government" and "normal people values."
Perhaps two of the biggest engines on the hypocrisy train are Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. Gingrich speaks out in favor of "traditional, conservative family values," but has had more than one extra-marital affair. Palin has a teenage daughter who got pregnant as a teenager and is now a single mother and speaking out on abstinence. Yes, abstinence worked so well for you Bristol, why not speak out on the advantages of birth control or condoms? Like Gingrich, Palin has championed the causes of conservative family values and like Bachmann, is a Tea Party favorite. Wow, I said Tea Party, not Tea Bagger ... I must be getting soft.
Then you have the entity known as Fox News. Glen Beck spends much of his time on the air spouting racist nonsense and whipping the hillbillies and bible thumpers into an End-of-Days frenzy about Obama and the left by scapegoating Muslims. Then you have Joel Richardson, who wrote an entire book about how Obama is the Antichrist. Richardson even found a way to correlate Obama and his Antichrist status, the recent uprisings in the Middle East, and the union protests going on in Wisconsin. Whew! Now that's Imagination! The way he explained this was it was really the Muslim Brotherhood that was behind the Madison, WI. protests, in order to turn Wisconsin into part of the Calpihate. This would, in turn, cause labor unions to destroy Israel. For those who are unfamiliar with the term, caliphate means "dominion of the caliph," and refers to the first system of government established by Islam. Now, Fox News, which employs the slogan "fair and balanced," actually hired Richardson as an Antichrist expert. Fair and balanced, my gay fairy ass!
How about this? How about the Republican party give us one viable candidate that is not sucking the proverbial cocks of every campaign-contributing religious organization in America?
What I have just spent the past several paragraphs ranting about is what is making me sick about the Republican party. Yes, I will outright admit to you that I think Governor Scott Walker is a slimy douchecock who should be removed from office. This assface admits to a prank caller the Republican governorships' plan to bust unions and he's still getting support. This proves that the plan to bust unions has nothing to do with balancing budgets. Unions are the primary financial support of Democratic campaigns. Bust them up and Democrats can no longer viably compete with Republicans in many races.
Now I'm not going to go into the pros and cons of Unions; I've already done that.
The main purpose of this post is to point out how harmful religion is to government, in American society. Not all Americans are Christian Fundamentalists, and these politicians in the Fundies' pockets aren't going to do us any real favors.
Now I know I am going to piss off a few people with this next thought, but fuck it. I always say what I want. In my humble fucking opinion, one of the biggest problems with American politics is Christianity. Now, before you all douse me holy water and chase with torches, hear me out. I'm not bashing religion or faith (yes, faith and religion are actually two different concepts), but the Founding Fathers (hello Tea Baggers, I'm talking to you bitches since you frequently invoke the intentions of the Founding Fathers in your rhetoric) also came up with something I mentioned earlier - separation of church and state. Again, religion has no place in government.
I'm going to go off on a tax-free tangent for a moment. Churches enjoy a tax-exempt status here in the United States, but I say that's bogus and bullshit. Yes, I know many churches use their donations to help their communities, but why aren't those churches speaking out against the larger churches that do not? Sorry Pastor Bling Bling, but a donation plate does not mean you get to roll up to Church every Sunday in a BMW and a Prada suit. Any Church/Religious organization that gets involved in politics should have their tax-exempt status revoked. I wonder if Westboro Baptist Church still enjoys a tax exempt status? Probably.
Why? Seriously why the fuck do we allow religious organizations tax-exempt status when they get involved in politics? That makes them political organizations, not religious organizations.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Separate Accounts Do Not Equal Separate Bedrooms!
So I know it's Valentine's Day in four days, and for the first time in years I'll actually have a boyfriend (notice, I said boyfriend, not simply dating someone) on that day. Those of you who know me know Valentine's Day has been a blackened day for years now. So, I owe this all to my beautiful boyfriend. I am not blogging about Valentine's Day, however.
I have been reading a lot lately about couples concerned about combining bank accounts when they get married or enter into a joint-living situation. I think most of us who are in our late twenties or early thirties grew up with parents who had joint accounts. It makes sense; you're married, you're joint basically. Why not have a joint account? It alleviates any mistrust one may feel toward his or her partner about their spending habits. After all, the bank statement or online banking is there to peruse. A night of fabulous spending on drinks with the girls or an ATM withdrawal at the strip club with your buddies isn't something you can hide from your spouse when they can see it in black and white.
I recently had this conversation with my boyfriend. We don't live together, but we're approaching the nine-month mark very shortly, so we've discussed living together. One of the topics that has come up in this ongoing discussion has been a joint account.
Proponents of joint accounts cite unity and trust as reasons for combining your funds into one pot. You're a couple, why keep separate money? A joint account facilitates trust and openness. Separate accounts make it easier for your spouse hide something from you. It takes away from the romance of marriage or whatever commitment you've entered into.
Romance does not always survive reality. Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce, that goes for undocumented partnerships as well. When a couple divorcing goes into a Bitter Battle Barbie attack mode, money is almost always involved. How to split what you've accumulated together? And, how many couples who stay together fight constantly about money? Are you super pissed off about how much money your husband spent on new golf clubs, but you're bitter because he questioned you spending $100.00 on a night out with your friends or $300.00 on a fabulous pair of shoes?
Separate accounts solve that problem.
Also, let me make a few other points.
1. Just because you've fallen madly in love, have dated for a while, and want to spend your life with someone doesn't mean you're on the same financial page. Not everyone has the same ideals, outlook, and values when it comes to money. How many spendthrifts end up in love with frugal savers who can't stand their spending habits?
2. You should not expect your spouse or spouse-to-be to have the same monetary values as you going into the relationship.
3. This applies to all other facets of marriage and committed relationships; love does not conquer all. Sure, love is fabulous, but love doesn't solve the every day nitty gritty problems. Love is the reason you work through those problems but it does not offer a solution. If you or your spouse (to-be) has poor spending/saving habits they won't magically disappear because you're in love.
4. What you consider a fantastic purchase and a great bargain your spouse may balk at. Hey, it happens. One of you wants to build a home theater system while the other wants a new car or a new wardrobe. You're never going to have the same ideas on how to spend your money.
5. Let's say, horror of horrors, you're getting divorced or you're ending a very long-term relationship with someone you've lived with for years. Hey, it's ugly but let's face it: it happens. Money is the bitter pill or the chocolate icing on a cake you wanted frosted with vanilla. Sure, divorce is a legal proceeding so a dividing of the assets is going to happen. Undocumented monogamous, committed relationships are free and clear of this arrangement for the most part. Still, almost all of us work. We collect a paycheck. Let me present a scenario to you. A man and woman are getting a divorce after ten years of marriage. On top of every problem they're facing, they now have to go and open separate checking accounts while they dissolve the joint account. Both of them are paid via direct deposit. You can't always stop a direct deposit right away. Sometimes it takes a pay cycle or two. So paychecks are deposited into a joint, disputed account (that either of you can close at anytime or empty without the other's consent). In situations where divorces are bitter and brutal do you want your angry spouse having access to your paycheck? Probably not.
I don't understand why separate accounts are seen as bad things in a marriage or committed relationship. If you have a problem writing two checks to pay one bill, then keep separate accounts but open one joint one. You can each have your own accounts and transfer funds into the joint account to cover your household expenses only. That way, you're both pay equal shares of the rent/mortgage, utilities, etc., but you've still got control of your own money. It makes for less headaches and arguments.
In my own personal case, I would never ask or expect my boyfriend to pool all his money into one account with mine. I am adult enough to admit I'm not the greatest with money, and I do have debt. I do purchase more lattes at Caribou and Starbucks than I should. I buy clothes when I shouldn't. Do I want every purchase I make questioned? No, I most definitely do not. He knows he's better with money than I am, too. Also, what would happen if a debt collector came after me and my (joint) bank account? My boyfriend's earnings would be collected to cover that debt each time they were direct-deposited into the account. And, although we would undoubtedly get a head's up from the bank (or court order) he may not be able to stop a direct deposit before a check is deposited into the account. I do not want that kind of liability on my shoulders. Now, I'm not saying I'm ready to be sued or anything, but this kind of situation could happen if I suddenly became unable to keep up with my bills.
To be honest, I think any couple entering into a cohabitation where they share rent and utilities should go to financial counseling together. Many couples are suited for joint accounts and many are not. Most are definitely not, in my humble opinion. I think the stigma associated with separate accounts (Oh, you're not really committed if you can't share all your money) prevents many couples from seeing the logic behind this idea.
I have been reading a lot lately about couples concerned about combining bank accounts when they get married or enter into a joint-living situation. I think most of us who are in our late twenties or early thirties grew up with parents who had joint accounts. It makes sense; you're married, you're joint basically. Why not have a joint account? It alleviates any mistrust one may feel toward his or her partner about their spending habits. After all, the bank statement or online banking is there to peruse. A night of fabulous spending on drinks with the girls or an ATM withdrawal at the strip club with your buddies isn't something you can hide from your spouse when they can see it in black and white.
I recently had this conversation with my boyfriend. We don't live together, but we're approaching the nine-month mark very shortly, so we've discussed living together. One of the topics that has come up in this ongoing discussion has been a joint account.
Proponents of joint accounts cite unity and trust as reasons for combining your funds into one pot. You're a couple, why keep separate money? A joint account facilitates trust and openness. Separate accounts make it easier for your spouse hide something from you. It takes away from the romance of marriage or whatever commitment you've entered into.
Romance does not always survive reality. Fifty percent of all marriages end in divorce, that goes for undocumented partnerships as well. When a couple divorcing goes into a Bitter Battle Barbie attack mode, money is almost always involved. How to split what you've accumulated together? And, how many couples who stay together fight constantly about money? Are you super pissed off about how much money your husband spent on new golf clubs, but you're bitter because he questioned you spending $100.00 on a night out with your friends or $300.00 on a fabulous pair of shoes?
Separate accounts solve that problem.
Also, let me make a few other points.
1. Just because you've fallen madly in love, have dated for a while, and want to spend your life with someone doesn't mean you're on the same financial page. Not everyone has the same ideals, outlook, and values when it comes to money. How many spendthrifts end up in love with frugal savers who can't stand their spending habits?
2. You should not expect your spouse or spouse-to-be to have the same monetary values as you going into the relationship.
3. This applies to all other facets of marriage and committed relationships; love does not conquer all. Sure, love is fabulous, but love doesn't solve the every day nitty gritty problems. Love is the reason you work through those problems but it does not offer a solution. If you or your spouse (to-be) has poor spending/saving habits they won't magically disappear because you're in love.
4. What you consider a fantastic purchase and a great bargain your spouse may balk at. Hey, it happens. One of you wants to build a home theater system while the other wants a new car or a new wardrobe. You're never going to have the same ideas on how to spend your money.
5. Let's say, horror of horrors, you're getting divorced or you're ending a very long-term relationship with someone you've lived with for years. Hey, it's ugly but let's face it: it happens. Money is the bitter pill or the chocolate icing on a cake you wanted frosted with vanilla. Sure, divorce is a legal proceeding so a dividing of the assets is going to happen. Undocumented monogamous, committed relationships are free and clear of this arrangement for the most part. Still, almost all of us work. We collect a paycheck. Let me present a scenario to you. A man and woman are getting a divorce after ten years of marriage. On top of every problem they're facing, they now have to go and open separate checking accounts while they dissolve the joint account. Both of them are paid via direct deposit. You can't always stop a direct deposit right away. Sometimes it takes a pay cycle or two. So paychecks are deposited into a joint, disputed account (that either of you can close at anytime or empty without the other's consent). In situations where divorces are bitter and brutal do you want your angry spouse having access to your paycheck? Probably not.
I don't understand why separate accounts are seen as bad things in a marriage or committed relationship. If you have a problem writing two checks to pay one bill, then keep separate accounts but open one joint one. You can each have your own accounts and transfer funds into the joint account to cover your household expenses only. That way, you're both pay equal shares of the rent/mortgage, utilities, etc., but you've still got control of your own money. It makes for less headaches and arguments.
In my own personal case, I would never ask or expect my boyfriend to pool all his money into one account with mine. I am adult enough to admit I'm not the greatest with money, and I do have debt. I do purchase more lattes at Caribou and Starbucks than I should. I buy clothes when I shouldn't. Do I want every purchase I make questioned? No, I most definitely do not. He knows he's better with money than I am, too. Also, what would happen if a debt collector came after me and my (joint) bank account? My boyfriend's earnings would be collected to cover that debt each time they were direct-deposited into the account. And, although we would undoubtedly get a head's up from the bank (or court order) he may not be able to stop a direct deposit before a check is deposited into the account. I do not want that kind of liability on my shoulders. Now, I'm not saying I'm ready to be sued or anything, but this kind of situation could happen if I suddenly became unable to keep up with my bills.
To be honest, I think any couple entering into a cohabitation where they share rent and utilities should go to financial counseling together. Many couples are suited for joint accounts and many are not. Most are definitely not, in my humble opinion. I think the stigma associated with separate accounts (Oh, you're not really committed if you can't share all your money) prevents many couples from seeing the logic behind this idea.
Monday, February 7, 2011
No, We Aren't Sluts!
So a thought crossed my mind earlier tonight while watching Sex and the City (the series, not one of the films). How many of us are ever truly 100% honest with our partners about our sexual pasts?
Whether it's the number of people we've bedded or certain types of sexual experimentation we're certain our partners would disapprove of or judge us harshly on, I feel everyone withholds information about their sexual past from current partners.
Of course, how many of our current romantic partners truly want a complete run down of our sexual histories? Let's face it ... most of us have had dozens of partners. Some of us have even crossed into triple digits. Now, when I say sexual partners I mean jobs of all kind ... blow jobs, hand jobs, fucking, sucking, rimming, pussy-eating, strap-on using, threesomes, foursomes, group sex, voyeurism, hand-cuffs, whips and chains, neck-ties, belts, and every other adult kink act one can think of.
But let me branch off. In this modern age, defining a partner by the number of sexual partners and/or activities they've participated in prior to the current relationship is barbaric. Personally, I've never considered a partner with a vast sexual history someone to be ashamed of. Quite frankly, I respect any adult honest enough to hold their head up high when it comes to their sexual past.
I never understood the parochial value of saving one's self until marriage (or a marriage-equivalent). It's so fucking wretched, to be honest. At the risk of sounding harsh, I personally would not want to bed a virgin at this point in my life. If you are a virgin, and you marry someone who is not a virgin, do you really think they're going to enjoy that wedding night? Yeah, they will enjoy fucking your tight ass (or pussy, if that's the case) and popping your Cherry Darling, but the blow job your perform will be without technique and probably full of teeth. And when they're fucking you, you probably won't have much in the way of rhythm and skill.
I'm not knocking virgins. I'm just saying ... why are you waiting? Have sex already!
Back to my point, though ... I do not understand why people are so offended when they find out their partner has had a prior sexual experience that was vast, to say the least. If you weren't acting like such a prude bitch they would have probably told you about it.
Now, I will admit I've not always been so honest in my romantic history. I've had boyfriends in my past where I held certain things back. I've never outright lied about a sex act I've participated in. If they asked, I told. I just never volunteered. In my current relationship, however, I've been very blunt about my sexual history. It was very important to me to do that in the beginning. Information has a way of bubbling its way to the surface - I've learned from shitty experience - so I felt it was best to just lay my sexual past out there.
But does this kill romance? Not at all! In fact, your sex life will be a lot more rewarding if you show off all your skills.
Now I'll admit, I used to feel guilty rolling through my twenties, racking up sex partners left and right. But at thirty-two, very happy in my relationship with my beautiful boyfriend, I find myself proud of my sexual past.
Am I A Wretched Cunt?
So I just had a conversation tonight with an old acquaintance from the city I used to live in. I've known this guy for about five years now. I've never really gotten to know him real well; he's always just been this "friend" I've had random conversations with from time to time over the years. He's nice enough, don't get me wrong. We just never hung out that much.
Part of this may be due to the fact I'm ten years older than he is. Even though I have, in the past, had a habit of dating younger guys and befriending younger people I find the older I get the more annoying young people become. My boyfriend is five and a half years younger than me, and I do have several younger friends, but I no longer go out and party with younger people and many of the "younger" people I know have simply fallen into the acquaintance category. I think this is mostly owing to the fact that I've crossed the threshold (thirty) and even though thirty is no longer considered old, I feel I have no patience for the angst and drama of a twenty-two year old. After all, a thirty-two year old man has his own set of complex problems, far more evolved and different than a man ten years younger.
So my aforementioned friend was bitching and moaning about all his problems; no one loves him, he has no money, he has no job, he has no life, he wants to die, blah blah blah. Now, I'm not saying someone wanting to die is a blah blah blah state of affairs. After all, I'm not a completely heinous cunt. However, I feel like I have no patience for the "oh my poor life" attitude coming from someone who is twenty-two.
Does that make me a wretched bitch?
After all, I did offer him some compassionate advice. Simply put, I told him he is never going to be happy in a relationship until he can learn to make himself happy. I realize this is a harsh concept for many to grasp; I don't personally understand why. I mean, I've been single for very long periods of time in my adult life and I've never been seriously depressed about it. In fact, up until I started dating my current boyfriend I had been single for about two years and was completely happy and content being single. Sure, I was super excited about having a boyfriend, but it wasn't something I expected to find. I was not out looking for one.
In my humble fucking opinion, that's why my relationship is working.
Part of this may be due to the fact I'm ten years older than he is. Even though I have, in the past, had a habit of dating younger guys and befriending younger people I find the older I get the more annoying young people become. My boyfriend is five and a half years younger than me, and I do have several younger friends, but I no longer go out and party with younger people and many of the "younger" people I know have simply fallen into the acquaintance category. I think this is mostly owing to the fact that I've crossed the threshold (thirty) and even though thirty is no longer considered old, I feel I have no patience for the angst and drama of a twenty-two year old. After all, a thirty-two year old man has his own set of complex problems, far more evolved and different than a man ten years younger.
So my aforementioned friend was bitching and moaning about all his problems; no one loves him, he has no money, he has no job, he has no life, he wants to die, blah blah blah. Now, I'm not saying someone wanting to die is a blah blah blah state of affairs. After all, I'm not a completely heinous cunt. However, I feel like I have no patience for the "oh my poor life" attitude coming from someone who is twenty-two.
Does that make me a wretched bitch?
After all, I did offer him some compassionate advice. Simply put, I told him he is never going to be happy in a relationship until he can learn to make himself happy. I realize this is a harsh concept for many to grasp; I don't personally understand why. I mean, I've been single for very long periods of time in my adult life and I've never been seriously depressed about it. In fact, up until I started dating my current boyfriend I had been single for about two years and was completely happy and content being single. Sure, I was super excited about having a boyfriend, but it wasn't something I expected to find. I was not out looking for one.
In my humble fucking opinion, that's why my relationship is working.
Go Go Gadget, Martini!
Last week I saw the cutest little kid in a stroller in this little costume (I can't tell you what kind of costume it was). Now, ordinarily people see cute little children and their hearts melt.
Mine doesn't. In fact, it goes frigid. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate children. In fact, I have absolutely wonderful nephews and a beautiful niece. However, since I never want a child of my own, I'm often disgusted by how over-indulgent parents allow their children to become. Alright, let me clarify a statement I just made ... I don't hate MOST children. Let's be real here, people, many children are just assholes. Small, mewling, diaper-shitting, crying, screaming assholes in need of a spanking.
Now, I remember (and my mother will verify this) that my little brother and I did not act like little shit heads in department stores. If we screamed, cried, threw a fit, our mother was respectful enough of everyone around us to get us the fuck out of the store quickly. If we ever wanted to shopping with her again, we had to promise not to act like shit heads. Yes, we had our moments of "I want this, I want it, I want it, I want it now!" I also knew that when my mother said "No," and had that certain look in her eyes it was time to shut the fuck up.
We did not act like the children I see today who plop themselves down the floor, screaming as though someone is bludgeoning them with a machete, protesting with all their forty-seven pounds. I saw a woman yesterday drag her toddler (who sat on the floor in protest because she refused to buy him a toy) across the sales floor of my store. I called AP on my walkie to watch her. She kept threatening to beat his ass.
Don't get me wrong. As a kid who grew up in the eighties, most parents who spanked their children only did so when absolutely necessary. The only times I was ever spanked as a child was when every other disciplinary technique failed.
But this bitch who dragged her child across a sales floor by the arm ... first of all, you OBESE CUNT, way to pull your child's arm out of its socket! Jerry and Maury are lined up ready to make another million off your stupid fat ass. Second, if you're actually going to bring a child into this world and keep him/her, learn some parenting skills. Have you heard of Social Services??? My tax dollars are partially being spent to help you become a better mother. Use them, you idiotic bitch.
This all makes me wonder what kind of parent I'd be. Yes, I'm compassionate and sensitive, and loving and caring and all that bullshit, but I'm no longer as patient as I used to be. The thought of 3AM feedings for a mewling infant makes me want to reach for the martini shaker. Go, Go, Gadget Martini!
Yet, even though my parents are awash with grandchildren (thanks Josh!!!), a very small part of me wonders, do I want to procreate? Hell, even if I could spend a few days jerking off in some cups for some baby-longing lesbians, I'd being doing my part to ensure the best part of humanity survives! After all, I was an adorable baby and an even more adorable child. I've got the pictures to prove it. Yet, there are millions of babies all over the world born to parents who are unworthy or who simply do not want to be parents. If I were to suddenly develop a longing to be parent, I'm 99% certain I would rather adopt a baby than create one of my own.
Mine doesn't. In fact, it goes frigid. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate children. In fact, I have absolutely wonderful nephews and a beautiful niece. However, since I never want a child of my own, I'm often disgusted by how over-indulgent parents allow their children to become. Alright, let me clarify a statement I just made ... I don't hate MOST children. Let's be real here, people, many children are just assholes. Small, mewling, diaper-shitting, crying, screaming assholes in need of a spanking.
Now, I remember (and my mother will verify this) that my little brother and I did not act like little shit heads in department stores. If we screamed, cried, threw a fit, our mother was respectful enough of everyone around us to get us the fuck out of the store quickly. If we ever wanted to shopping with her again, we had to promise not to act like shit heads. Yes, we had our moments of "I want this, I want it, I want it, I want it now!" I also knew that when my mother said "No," and had that certain look in her eyes it was time to shut the fuck up.
We did not act like the children I see today who plop themselves down the floor, screaming as though someone is bludgeoning them with a machete, protesting with all their forty-seven pounds. I saw a woman yesterday drag her toddler (who sat on the floor in protest because she refused to buy him a toy) across the sales floor of my store. I called AP on my walkie to watch her. She kept threatening to beat his ass.
Don't get me wrong. As a kid who grew up in the eighties, most parents who spanked their children only did so when absolutely necessary. The only times I was ever spanked as a child was when every other disciplinary technique failed.
But this bitch who dragged her child across a sales floor by the arm ... first of all, you OBESE CUNT, way to pull your child's arm out of its socket! Jerry and Maury are lined up ready to make another million off your stupid fat ass. Second, if you're actually going to bring a child into this world and keep him/her, learn some parenting skills. Have you heard of Social Services??? My tax dollars are partially being spent to help you become a better mother. Use them, you idiotic bitch.
This all makes me wonder what kind of parent I'd be. Yes, I'm compassionate and sensitive, and loving and caring and all that bullshit, but I'm no longer as patient as I used to be. The thought of 3AM feedings for a mewling infant makes me want to reach for the martini shaker. Go, Go, Gadget Martini!
Yet, even though my parents are awash with grandchildren (thanks Josh!!!), a very small part of me wonders, do I want to procreate? Hell, even if I could spend a few days jerking off in some cups for some baby-longing lesbians, I'd being doing my part to ensure the best part of humanity survives! After all, I was an adorable baby and an even more adorable child. I've got the pictures to prove it. Yet, there are millions of babies all over the world born to parents who are unworthy or who simply do not want to be parents. If I were to suddenly develop a longing to be parent, I'm 99% certain I would rather adopt a baby than create one of my own.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)