I once heard a pimp say "You can't have just one, cuz having one is so close to having none !" I used to really run with that line, I had to be about 23/24. I was really feeling myself. I had what is commonly referred to as a "stable". I was dating 4-5 women regularly. And that don't count the late nights, the one nighters, etc. . .On top of that, I moved with a pack of wolves. We would move in a minimum of 3 maximum of 6. All of us had a slightly different style different look, different demeanor.We appealed to a wide demographic. Lol. But when we were together the hunt was on. We would be in the club, cookout, carnival, bar, what have you. Silent signals, with a look you could call for assistance to distract the hater, come scoop the drunk chic, or the biggest of them all; takingone for the team. You know the group of ladies on the dance floor dancing in a circle that all men are scared of. We could break the circle with ease. By one, barging right in and matching up one to one. Sometimes we create our own closed circle enticing them to enter. We had legendary nights filled with conquests, subplots, and twists that hollywood would love. At this point we been cliquing for 7/8 years. Me, I started at 17. I was working spending money each week pretending I was balling. Bad Boy was in charge from 1am-2am. I would blow most of my check trying to buy a new outfit, droppin cash at the bar, renting cars. And I was going out 2, 3, 4 time a week. Don't let it be a long weekend that we would dub "keep it movin weekend". We was frontin' and stuntin' hard !
Fast forward to current day. These days most of the wolves with the exception of me have wives, children, have been born again, and drive minivans instead of sedans and coupes. The life I used to live, the thoughts I used to have, still affect me. Because what you don't see in the above paragraph, is alcohol abuse. What you don't see is me losing the most special woman in my life. (family not included) What you don't see is the heartache I put her through. And how I repeated the behavior with other women that were close to me. I consistently employed the "never quit 'em" tactic. And meanwhile, I thought I was the man. The day I woke up and realized that I was not a man, because I was living a lie. I pledged that morning not to lie to a woman again. But life goes on. And lessons are learned. So these days, I try hard not to hurt a woman. Karma is a muthafucka. And I done spent a lot of lonely nights in the last 3 years. The women who were special to me, some proposing to me, some helplessly in love, have all sadly but thankfully for their own good, moved on. So where does that leave me. Yearning for love. Learning how to again. Learning how to use charm yet be sincere. How to be mysterious, but still be clear. I'm learning how to be me again.
Here lies my dilemna. The game has changed. The names have changed. And I still have residue from my old ways. So, I operate on only two premises when "dating". The first which I prefer is balls to the wall. All or nothing. I did this a lil less than a year ago, I got a girlfriend, it lasted a month and a week. I mean I don't enjoy the fronting, the posturing, the games, and my ego is way to big to be second string so lets committ to getting to know each other exclusively with the guards down, and if you get to know me and ain't feeling me cool. Unless, I'm functioning on my second mode of operation which is best summed up "we just fucking". Now, I much rather have meaningful short (if need be) relationships and learn and practice loving than just fucking cuz i done spent a decade just fucking.
But I find most women are scared to go all out from jump street. And I can respect that. But it leaves me with plan b or confused about what the hell i'm doing.
So where do I go from here ? Forward !
manlaw: A real man is capable of loving one woman with all his being !
ps. all theories and principals expressed are the sole property of conscious1 and are subject to change without notice. . .
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Never Quit 'Em
"Never quit on a woman, Gregory. Make them quit you."
That is the quote I hear everytime I go home and visit my other dad.
My other "dad" was my long time neighbor. I have been knowing he and his family since I was six years old and our relationship is father and son like.
So what does he mean by that?
He means never close ties with a woman you are getting down with, even if you guys break up. If you end your sexual relationship, it is because she said so.
He also means that even if you move on to another woman, make sure you have your other woman on standby in case your relationship with new girl fizzles.
So I asked him supposed the woman is crazy and abusive?
"He maintains never quit on them because you never know."
He also means you can still be cool with a woman and ten years after the last "hit", you can still get some if you never quit on her and the opportunity presents itself.
So today, I make CJS's eddict an official MANLAW:
Never quit on a woman, make them quit you. The only time you quit on a woman is when you are MARRIED, engaged or in a serious relationship. And fellas you can quit on a woman when you are frankly tired of that conquest.
That is the quote I hear everytime I go home and visit my other dad.
My other "dad" was my long time neighbor. I have been knowing he and his family since I was six years old and our relationship is father and son like.
So what does he mean by that?
He means never close ties with a woman you are getting down with, even if you guys break up. If you end your sexual relationship, it is because she said so.
He also means that even if you move on to another woman, make sure you have your other woman on standby in case your relationship with new girl fizzles.
So I asked him supposed the woman is crazy and abusive?
"He maintains never quit on them because you never know."
He also means you can still be cool with a woman and ten years after the last "hit", you can still get some if you never quit on her and the opportunity presents itself.
So today, I make CJS's eddict an official MANLAW:
Never quit on a woman, make them quit you. The only time you quit on a woman is when you are MARRIED, engaged or in a serious relationship. And fellas you can quit on a woman when you are frankly tired of that conquest.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Fight For Your Rights
So it's been mighty quiet on this forum. I know I have been because of other assignments have not allowed me to write in this area. However, I have run into something that the fellas would appreciate and the ladies will say, well good for her.
So the New York Post reported on Sunday that New England Patriots football coach Bill Belichick must answer tough questioning from attorneys in his divorce case against his wife. It starts with the phone records. The gist of the story is that the husband is blaming the Super Bowl coach for breaking up his union with his wife and he is going all out to defend his honor. But before the manlaw is rendered, here is the story.
A judge has thrown New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick for a loss - allowing divorce lawyers to grill the gridiron guru on his alleged relationship with a New Jersey woman, The Post has learned.
Belichick, whose team squares off in the Meadowlands today against the Jets, faces a legal blitz by the woman's angry husband, who accuses the veteran coach of wrecking his marriage.
Morristown Superior Court Judge Thomas Manahan granted a motion by Vincent Shenocca last month to let his lawyers subpoena Belichick in Massachusetts and question him under oath about his involvement with Sharon Shenocca, 41. She met Belichick in the 1980s when she was a receptionist for the New York Giants and he was the team's defensive coordinator.
The judge also issued an order that Belichick could be subpoenaed to produce all bank, credit-card and other financial records over the last five years that show any payments to or for Sharon. Her husband suggests Belichick has secretly financed his estranged wife's "extravagant lifestyle" by giving her cash, paying her bills, compensating her for "services rendered," or funneling money to Sharon's sister and brother-in-law in New York.
Sharon, who is unemployed and has no "visible means of support," her husband claims in court filings, enjoys "membership in an upscale health club, the constant attention of a personal trainer, a vacation in Jamaica, a beach-home rental at the Jersey Shore for the entire summer, purchases of furniture and new clothes, and travel by chartered jet."
Vincent Shenocca, 42, a construction supervisor, also demanded that Sharon provide documents to back up her claim that she has gotten by with money "borrowed from family and friends."
Lawyers for both sides did not return phone calls from The Post. It was unclear whether Belichick's deposition has yet occurred or been scheduled.
Sharon urged the judge to deny her husband's request to question Belichick, calling him a "public figure." But Manahan found "good and sufficient cause exists" for Belichick's deposition.
Belichick is also being asked to hand over any records showing if he paid for any of Sharon's living expenses, vacations, travel, hotel stays, or purchase or rental of any real estate. The subpoena covers any money that Belichick turned over to Sharon's sister, Theresa Radigan, or her husband Ned Massey.
Since the increasingly bitter breakup made headlines in Boston and New York, Sharon has fought back. She filed papers in July accusing Vincent of leaking the case to newspapers to "create scandal and innuendo," and to generate sympathy for his side. Saying the publicity could hurt their two children, ages 5 and 7, she asked Manahan to seal the public records, which he has not done.
Vincent filed for divorce last February, citing "a lack of intimacy for at least a year," and his wife's "constant phone calls" and refusal to stop "accepting large monetary gifts" from another man.
Sharon insisted her friendship with the man was platonic and "never hidden" from her husband. She also said she shared the money she received with Vincent.
Belichick was identified in subsequent court papers as the other man.
Vincent has told The Post he stayed home with the kids while Belichick flew his wife and her sister to the 2004 Super Bowl.
Belichick split up with his wife of 28 years, Debby, in 2004.
Sharon has not responded to requests for comment.
MANLAW: Fellas if your wife decides to leave your ass for another man, be sure you go out like a soldier. Don't punk out. Don't let slide off your back and pay both alimony and child support. It looks like the dude above is setting himself up for such a scenerio.
But...if you knew your woman was balling like that for a very long time, you should at least get some benefit from it if you are not going to for the juggular.
So the New York Post reported on Sunday that New England Patriots football coach Bill Belichick must answer tough questioning from attorneys in his divorce case against his wife. It starts with the phone records. The gist of the story is that the husband is blaming the Super Bowl coach for breaking up his union with his wife and he is going all out to defend his honor. But before the manlaw is rendered, here is the story.
A judge has thrown New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick for a loss - allowing divorce lawyers to grill the gridiron guru on his alleged relationship with a New Jersey woman, The Post has learned.
Belichick, whose team squares off in the Meadowlands today against the Jets, faces a legal blitz by the woman's angry husband, who accuses the veteran coach of wrecking his marriage.
Morristown Superior Court Judge Thomas Manahan granted a motion by Vincent Shenocca last month to let his lawyers subpoena Belichick in Massachusetts and question him under oath about his involvement with Sharon Shenocca, 41. She met Belichick in the 1980s when she was a receptionist for the New York Giants and he was the team's defensive coordinator.
The judge also issued an order that Belichick could be subpoenaed to produce all bank, credit-card and other financial records over the last five years that show any payments to or for Sharon. Her husband suggests Belichick has secretly financed his estranged wife's "extravagant lifestyle" by giving her cash, paying her bills, compensating her for "services rendered," or funneling money to Sharon's sister and brother-in-law in New York.
Sharon, who is unemployed and has no "visible means of support," her husband claims in court filings, enjoys "membership in an upscale health club, the constant attention of a personal trainer, a vacation in Jamaica, a beach-home rental at the Jersey Shore for the entire summer, purchases of furniture and new clothes, and travel by chartered jet."
Vincent Shenocca, 42, a construction supervisor, also demanded that Sharon provide documents to back up her claim that she has gotten by with money "borrowed from family and friends."
Lawyers for both sides did not return phone calls from The Post. It was unclear whether Belichick's deposition has yet occurred or been scheduled.
Sharon urged the judge to deny her husband's request to question Belichick, calling him a "public figure." But Manahan found "good and sufficient cause exists" for Belichick's deposition.
Belichick is also being asked to hand over any records showing if he paid for any of Sharon's living expenses, vacations, travel, hotel stays, or purchase or rental of any real estate. The subpoena covers any money that Belichick turned over to Sharon's sister, Theresa Radigan, or her husband Ned Massey.
Since the increasingly bitter breakup made headlines in Boston and New York, Sharon has fought back. She filed papers in July accusing Vincent of leaking the case to newspapers to "create scandal and innuendo," and to generate sympathy for his side. Saying the publicity could hurt their two children, ages 5 and 7, she asked Manahan to seal the public records, which he has not done.
Vincent filed for divorce last February, citing "a lack of intimacy for at least a year," and his wife's "constant phone calls" and refusal to stop "accepting large monetary gifts" from another man.
Sharon insisted her friendship with the man was platonic and "never hidden" from her husband. She also said she shared the money she received with Vincent.
Belichick was identified in subsequent court papers as the other man.
Vincent has told The Post he stayed home with the kids while Belichick flew his wife and her sister to the 2004 Super Bowl.
Belichick split up with his wife of 28 years, Debby, in 2004.
Sharon has not responded to requests for comment.
MANLAW: Fellas if your wife decides to leave your ass for another man, be sure you go out like a soldier. Don't punk out. Don't let slide off your back and pay both alimony and child support. It looks like the dude above is setting himself up for such a scenerio.
But...if you knew your woman was balling like that for a very long time, you should at least get some benefit from it if you are not going to for the juggular.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Red Hot Equals
Part One: Short & Sweet (or, an unbelievable lesson from the kitchen) :
I don't want to be asked ANY questions about this, but realer words I've never spoken. Brothers, I know some of us like to cook, and occasionally we try to get fancy with it. That's cool. But if you ever, ever, ever, for any reason, are handling jalapenos or chili peppers while cooking, and afterwards need to scratch or otherwise adjust your testicles...wash your damn hands first. Whatever's in those things that burns the hell out of your tongue, well, let's say that ain't the only thing they'll light up.
Ok, humor at my dumbass expense aside, today's Part Deux deals with questions of equality. Specifically my own personal belief that people have taken the concept of "equality" too far, sometimes to their own, and maybe even society's detriment. Let's begin at the beginning, shall we?
In the last couple of weeks, I've had at least two women ask me whether I thought men, for lack of a better word, are less manly these days. One asked as she lamented how many weak brothers she came across on the dating scene; another asked as she pondered where things might have gone wrong with her 20 year old brother, who is becoming more of a no-account by the day. The boy's living rent-free yet refuses to accept basic responsibilities like doing dishes, cleaning up, helping with utility bills or pitching in to help a sick, down-on-her-luck raise. (Slanguistics note: in the 412 area code, "raise" means "mother".)
My answer to their question about men: absolutely. I think my generation is less manly, in many senses of the word, than previous ones. Why?
Because over the last few decades, there has been a tremendous shift in social paradigms between the sexes. Many are for the better: no one could argue that American society is worse off because women have attained a higher level of parity in salary, professional opportunities and overall social status with men, and things will be better when all disparity is eliminated. But what happens when "parity" gets misconstrued as "equality"?
Let me step back and reiterate: there's anything wrong with parity in society, i.e., parity of rights, responsibilities and the ability to get ahead on every level. But I think we need look no further than our civil rights movement to dissect how "equality" can be a concept gone tremendously wrong. When the movement was about parity -- i.e., equal rights and protections -- many black communities provided for their own with businesses, churches, and in some places, their own defense forces (see Forrest Whitaker's "Deacons for Defense"). Still, basic civil rights and protections were necessary for those communities to achieve parity in society and truly thrive.
But "parity" gave way to "equality", civil rights became a struggle for integration and in many respects assimilation. Many of the strongest black institutions died and left were communities that weren't communities at all, "equal" in the eyes of the law, but with no real parity, and remain without economic and social anchors to this day. Again, why (I know I'm getting long winded -- stick with me y'all)?
Because there is no real "equality" in any sense of the word. Equality means "sameness". Blacks and whites are NOT culturally the same in this country, never have been for the most part, and likely won't ever be. That's a good thing, so long as there are protections to ensure parity, which as a concept is akin to civil rights. Same goes for men and women. Should women have parity with men in society? No question in my mind. But are we "equal", as in the same? Absolutely not. I'm not a woman. Don't behave like one. Can't behave like one.
But many people, I think, take "equality" too literally. And when that happens, people who should celebrate their yin and yang as a positive that fosters balance in the context of parity, trying to occupy the same space. Black folks are trying to be white -- going along to get along -- but never making it. Women are taking on the mantra of "independent sistas" -- proclaiming no need of a man and usurping in many instances roles that men are likely better suited for (ladies, please don't bristle at that. I'm sorry, there are just some things that men are better suited to do, even though you CAN do them. The opposite is also true).
So when you have women trying to occupy that same space as men, what's the next logical step: men, as "equals" would begin to occupy the same space that women did. Thus, less manly men. Your thoughts?
I don't want to be asked ANY questions about this, but realer words I've never spoken. Brothers, I know some of us like to cook, and occasionally we try to get fancy with it. That's cool. But if you ever, ever, ever, for any reason, are handling jalapenos or chili peppers while cooking, and afterwards need to scratch or otherwise adjust your testicles...wash your damn hands first. Whatever's in those things that burns the hell out of your tongue, well, let's say that ain't the only thing they'll light up.
Ok, humor at my dumbass expense aside, today's Part Deux deals with questions of equality. Specifically my own personal belief that people have taken the concept of "equality" too far, sometimes to their own, and maybe even society's detriment. Let's begin at the beginning, shall we?
In the last couple of weeks, I've had at least two women ask me whether I thought men, for lack of a better word, are less manly these days. One asked as she lamented how many weak brothers she came across on the dating scene; another asked as she pondered where things might have gone wrong with her 20 year old brother, who is becoming more of a no-account by the day. The boy's living rent-free yet refuses to accept basic responsibilities like doing dishes, cleaning up, helping with utility bills or pitching in to help a sick, down-on-her-luck raise. (Slanguistics note: in the 412 area code, "raise" means "mother".)
My answer to their question about men: absolutely. I think my generation is less manly, in many senses of the word, than previous ones. Why?
Because over the last few decades, there has been a tremendous shift in social paradigms between the sexes. Many are for the better: no one could argue that American society is worse off because women have attained a higher level of parity in salary, professional opportunities and overall social status with men, and things will be better when all disparity is eliminated. But what happens when "parity" gets misconstrued as "equality"?
Let me step back and reiterate: there's anything wrong with parity in society, i.e., parity of rights, responsibilities and the ability to get ahead on every level. But I think we need look no further than our civil rights movement to dissect how "equality" can be a concept gone tremendously wrong. When the movement was about parity -- i.e., equal rights and protections -- many black communities provided for their own with businesses, churches, and in some places, their own defense forces (see Forrest Whitaker's "Deacons for Defense"). Still, basic civil rights and protections were necessary for those communities to achieve parity in society and truly thrive.
But "parity" gave way to "equality", civil rights became a struggle for integration and in many respects assimilation. Many of the strongest black institutions died and left were communities that weren't communities at all, "equal" in the eyes of the law, but with no real parity, and remain without economic and social anchors to this day. Again, why (I know I'm getting long winded -- stick with me y'all)?
Because there is no real "equality" in any sense of the word. Equality means "sameness". Blacks and whites are NOT culturally the same in this country, never have been for the most part, and likely won't ever be. That's a good thing, so long as there are protections to ensure parity, which as a concept is akin to civil rights. Same goes for men and women. Should women have parity with men in society? No question in my mind. But are we "equal", as in the same? Absolutely not. I'm not a woman. Don't behave like one. Can't behave like one.
But many people, I think, take "equality" too literally. And when that happens, people who should celebrate their yin and yang as a positive that fosters balance in the context of parity, trying to occupy the same space. Black folks are trying to be white -- going along to get along -- but never making it. Women are taking on the mantra of "independent sistas" -- proclaiming no need of a man and usurping in many instances roles that men are likely better suited for (ladies, please don't bristle at that. I'm sorry, there are just some things that men are better suited to do, even though you CAN do them. The opposite is also true).
So when you have women trying to occupy that same space as men, what's the next logical step: men, as "equals" would begin to occupy the same space that women did. Thus, less manly men. Your thoughts?
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Trapped in the Closet
So I was chilling in the airport in New Orleans when I ran across this story in my hometown paper.
Husband shoots man found hiding in bedroom closet
He batters wife; intruder has emergency surgery
From staff reports
After he returned from work to his Uptown home early Monday and found a man hiding in a bedroom closet, Gregory S. Becknel shot the man in the stomach, turned on his wife and hit her several times in the face, New Orleans police said.
Becknel, 39, then called police, who found the man in an upstairs closet suffering from a gunshot wound.
The man, Marvin D. Bell, 40, underwent emergency surgery at Elmwood Trauma Center after the 6 a.m. incident. He was in stable condition Monday afternoon.
Becknel's wife, whose name was not released, suffered a swollen right eye and a swollen, cut lip.
Police transported Becknel, who lives in the 500 block of Soniat Street, to Orleans Parish Prison and booked him with attempted second-degree murder and domestic abuse.
Officers recovered a .40-caliber semi-automatic handgun believed to have been used in the incident, as well as one spent casing.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
In love with a fantasy
We've all dated this chic at some point, and if you haven't, you will. We don't hate her, generally, because usually she means well. Let's say her heart's in the right place, but her priorities, well, they're a different story.
The chic of whom I speak is Miss Misdirected, as in misguided and confused about her priorities. She's the woman who is constantly telling you about what she wants out of her life or relationship, but whose actions say tell a completely different story. This takes many forms, so in the unlikely event you've not yet run into her (which means she's around the corner plotting on you -- RIGHT NOW), allow me to run down some examples of her ill behavior.
Miss Misdirected is the woman you've dated for a while who pledges her undying love for you, for whom all conversations tear down a path toward matrimony: When will it be? Why not sooner? Why not now? Unfortunately for her, when it comes to her outlook on actually doing wifely things -- cooking, keeping the muhfuggin house clean, giving you the Billy Clint relaxation treatment on a regular basis, et cetera -- Miss Misdirected wants to flip the script. Why, she'll ask, would I want to do that for somebody who doesn't know whether he wants to be with me?
How about WHY would any man want to be with a woman who asks such silly questions? This woman would be better off having she and her friends dress up in wedding gowns just to experience her fantasy, and then return to her regular life afterwards.
But let's not wallow in trivial things here: how often she cleans up or gets on her knees does not a woman make. A real sign you're dealing with Miss Misdirected is that she's not yet grasped what real priorities are, and she wants to project her own immaturity onto others, especially YOU. She wants the man, but doesn't believe she's got any work to do on herself to get him. She has a so-so relationship, but believes the only compromising that should be done to make it better should be on his part. She's just fine, thank you. She wants a better career, better life, better whatever -- but just can't see that her own, old, bad habits are holding her back.
But make no mistake, fellas: if you recognize the symptoms of this ailment but don't see them in your own woman, then Miss Misdirected just might be you.
The chic of whom I speak is Miss Misdirected, as in misguided and confused about her priorities. She's the woman who is constantly telling you about what she wants out of her life or relationship, but whose actions say tell a completely different story. This takes many forms, so in the unlikely event you've not yet run into her (which means she's around the corner plotting on you -- RIGHT NOW), allow me to run down some examples of her ill behavior.
Miss Misdirected is the woman you've dated for a while who pledges her undying love for you, for whom all conversations tear down a path toward matrimony: When will it be? Why not sooner? Why not now? Unfortunately for her, when it comes to her outlook on actually doing wifely things -- cooking, keeping the muhfuggin house clean, giving you the Billy Clint relaxation treatment on a regular basis, et cetera -- Miss Misdirected wants to flip the script. Why, she'll ask, would I want to do that for somebody who doesn't know whether he wants to be with me?
How about WHY would any man want to be with a woman who asks such silly questions? This woman would be better off having she and her friends dress up in wedding gowns just to experience her fantasy, and then return to her regular life afterwards.
But let's not wallow in trivial things here: how often she cleans up or gets on her knees does not a woman make. A real sign you're dealing with Miss Misdirected is that she's not yet grasped what real priorities are, and she wants to project her own immaturity onto others, especially YOU. She wants the man, but doesn't believe she's got any work to do on herself to get him. She has a so-so relationship, but believes the only compromising that should be done to make it better should be on his part. She's just fine, thank you. She wants a better career, better life, better whatever -- but just can't see that her own, old, bad habits are holding her back.
But make no mistake, fellas: if you recognize the symptoms of this ailment but don't see them in your own woman, then Miss Misdirected just might be you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)