a quick survey for everyone out there. . .
1. when dating do you date one person at a time ?
2. what are the pro's of dating multiple people simultaneously ?
3. what are the con's ?
Me, I prefer to date one person at a time but I gotta be feeling her and feel like I'm getting what I need in return.
The pros are guarding against developing real feelings. I mean 3 first dates in one month. If you are into variety.
See answer # 2
ps. Women please try to be honest with this. . .I promise I wont use it against you in a court of law !
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Dope Sick Love
I was a feind. Became one at 17. She melted my heart instead of cones of ice cream.
Two kids orientated when our friendship was originated then it was like pieces of puzzles, complicated.
I fell in love at 17. I mean fell. On some stomach flippin. nervous, blissfully happy, jr prom, sr prom, and the whole nine. But I didn't understand the moves I was making. I blame it on my pops and my brother. You can expect a 17 to be conscious of self. I didn't become Conscious1 til 25. So, I recently turned 30. Milestone like a muhfucka. Naw. I don't think it's a milestone. No different than Feb 29th this year. I make my own milestones. But back to the topic.
Recently I been headed back to the lab w/o an ass to grab so then I think about all the pals I had. One after another one. I'd touch another one. Then date another one and ask the last if she was done. I get a cravin' like I feind for nicotine but I don't need a cigarette know what I mean ?
I'm feelin dope sick. Detoxing myself from love. I hardened myself and became a cold calculating brother. I been in withdrawal for a decade now. This rehab has not been working. I've tried everything. Clubbin. Alcohol. Tobacco. Crying. Seclusion. Depression. Working Harder. and the list goes on. But I don't get that feeling. I don't smile when a woman I'm dating calls. I don't look at a chic eyeing me and then think about her. I ain't felt no one like that in years. I mean I might smile if I thought I was going to get some. But that ain't all I'm looking for.
They say when a dope head gets out of detox they usually OD cuz they are chasing the feeling they had when they first got high. Which now requires much more dope. I'm chasing that high. I been using. . .but it ain't been the pure ish.
But wait, I got that Kentucky brown, she's giving me that feeling. I'm hot, she is the spoon, and we finna get high off this love.
Two kids orientated when our friendship was originated then it was like pieces of puzzles, complicated.
I fell in love at 17. I mean fell. On some stomach flippin. nervous, blissfully happy, jr prom, sr prom, and the whole nine. But I didn't understand the moves I was making. I blame it on my pops and my brother. You can expect a 17 to be conscious of self. I didn't become Conscious1 til 25. So, I recently turned 30. Milestone like a muhfucka. Naw. I don't think it's a milestone. No different than Feb 29th this year. I make my own milestones. But back to the topic.
Recently I been headed back to the lab w/o an ass to grab so then I think about all the pals I had. One after another one. I'd touch another one. Then date another one and ask the last if she was done. I get a cravin' like I feind for nicotine but I don't need a cigarette know what I mean ?
I'm feelin dope sick. Detoxing myself from love. I hardened myself and became a cold calculating brother. I been in withdrawal for a decade now. This rehab has not been working. I've tried everything. Clubbin. Alcohol. Tobacco. Crying. Seclusion. Depression. Working Harder. and the list goes on. But I don't get that feeling. I don't smile when a woman I'm dating calls. I don't look at a chic eyeing me and then think about her. I ain't felt no one like that in years. I mean I might smile if I thought I was going to get some. But that ain't all I'm looking for.
They say when a dope head gets out of detox they usually OD cuz they are chasing the feeling they had when they first got high. Which now requires much more dope. I'm chasing that high. I been using. . .but it ain't been the pure ish.
But wait, I got that Kentucky brown, she's giving me that feeling. I'm hot, she is the spoon, and we finna get high off this love.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Because black men read, too....
...We're proud to bring you the inaugural installment of the BML Book Club. Hell, Oprah did it, why can't we? Not to mention, unlike her show, you're more likely to find a rapper on our couch than a serial fabricator. (Take that, Harpo.)
In all seriousness folks, this is one of the new features we're going to do throughout 2007, where periodically we'll post about a book that one or all of us has read or plans to read. It won't be formulaic, as in, "we recommend this book because it meets x, y, and z, criteria"; instead we'll just choose things that we think you should have in your bookshelf (if you don't own enough books to have a bookshelf, stop reading this, open a new tab to Barnes & noble.com, and hit us back up when you do, you illiterate slug) -- either because they're humorous, or thought-provoking or maybe we just liked the picture on the cover.
So without further delay, selection numero uno comes from friends of the BML family. Authors Natalie Moore and Natalie Hopkinson stopped through Boston and showed y'boy PGS and Skinny G some love on the promo tour for their new book, "Deconstructing Tyrone: A New Look at Black Masculinity in the Hip-Hop Generation". I'll be honest: I haven't started reading the book yet because I was forced to put a bow on my copy and stick it under a tree until Christmas Day, but at least I bought one, showed up a the book signing and dragged a photographer from Boston magazine in off the street to give the homegirls some play. Besides, when you get two sistas writing a book that goes beyond the normal bullshit male bashing so common to discussing black males, how can you NOT show love? (Hint: that link above is to the Amazon.com page where you can BUY THE BOOK. Yeah, you. I said "BUY THE BOOK". These girls gotta eat, too.)
Selection number two, for most of you I'm guessing will fall in the category of "Shit I wanted to put in wifey's stocking in place of that Tiffany's bracelet but I didn't have the balls to." Dr. Laura Schlessinger's "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands", was first published in 2004, but from the faces of a lot of married cats I see, they should update and re-issue this puppy annually. I'll let the author's own description of the book speak for itself:
"...Women no longer understand their own ability to create the relationships and family life that they truly desire. Years ago women were taught by their mothers that they needed to be wise and sensitive and "work" their men -- —they knew how to create and maintain a happy and well-functioning relationship using their so called "feminine wiles" in benevolent and mutually satisfying ways. Today, women have replaces these feminine wiles with disdain, hypersensitivity, criticism, bullying and nagging...Dr. Laura explains that emotionally men are "simple" creatures and women only need provide such basic necessities as respect, gratitude, food, sex, and some space for "guy time" in order to achieve the happy home they truly desire."
Happy reading.
In all seriousness folks, this is one of the new features we're going to do throughout 2007, where periodically we'll post about a book that one or all of us has read or plans to read. It won't be formulaic, as in, "we recommend this book because it meets x, y, and z, criteria"; instead we'll just choose things that we think you should have in your bookshelf (if you don't own enough books to have a bookshelf, stop reading this, open a new tab to Barnes & noble.com, and hit us back up when you do, you illiterate slug) -- either because they're humorous, or thought-provoking or maybe we just liked the picture on the cover.
So without further delay, selection numero uno comes from friends of the BML family. Authors Natalie Moore and Natalie Hopkinson stopped through Boston and showed y'boy PGS and Skinny G some love on the promo tour for their new book, "Deconstructing Tyrone: A New Look at Black Masculinity in the Hip-Hop Generation". I'll be honest: I haven't started reading the book yet because I was forced to put a bow on my copy and stick it under a tree until Christmas Day, but at least I bought one, showed up a the book signing and dragged a photographer from Boston magazine in off the street to give the homegirls some play. Besides, when you get two sistas writing a book that goes beyond the normal bullshit male bashing so common to discussing black males, how can you NOT show love? (Hint: that link above is to the Amazon.com page where you can BUY THE BOOK. Yeah, you. I said "BUY THE BOOK". These girls gotta eat, too.)
Selection number two, for most of you I'm guessing will fall in the category of "Shit I wanted to put in wifey's stocking in place of that Tiffany's bracelet but I didn't have the balls to." Dr. Laura Schlessinger's "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands", was first published in 2004, but from the faces of a lot of married cats I see, they should update and re-issue this puppy annually. I'll let the author's own description of the book speak for itself:
"...Women no longer understand their own ability to create the relationships and family life that they truly desire. Years ago women were taught by their mothers that they needed to be wise and sensitive and "work" their men -- —they knew how to create and maintain a happy and well-functioning relationship using their so called "feminine wiles" in benevolent and mutually satisfying ways. Today, women have replaces these feminine wiles with disdain, hypersensitivity, criticism, bullying and nagging...Dr. Laura explains that emotionally men are "simple" creatures and women only need provide such basic necessities as respect, gratitude, food, sex, and some space for "guy time" in order to achieve the happy home they truly desire."
Happy reading.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Too Much Information...
I rarely side with Wendy Williams on a lot of things.
However, I must give her temporary amnesty for this interview with Carmen Bryan. (NSFW - not safe for work...I really mean it).
Seriously, I mean there are so many manlaws in this interview you could fill up a legal sized piece of paper (front and back).
Let's get to the excerpt that made me shudder in my computer chair.
Wendy to Carmen: So, you've slept with guys who have slept...with LOTS of women. You say that you caught one STD. Which strain of STD was it?
Carmen to Wendy: Chlamydia (with a smile on her face)
Wendy turns to Shawn (her studio sidekick): Is Chlamydia curable?
Shawn turns to Wendy: Yeah it is curable.
Wendy turns to Carmen: I knew he would know.
Shawn continues talking to Wendy while she's talking to Carmen:
I've never had it but I know it is curable.
Wendy to Carmen: So is that the only STD you've ever had?
Carmen to Wendy: Yes.
Wendy to Carmen: When is the last time you've had an HIV test?
Carmen: In 1999.
Wendy to Carmen: You haven't slept with anyone since 1999?
Carmen to Wendy: No. I wouldn't say that.
Wendy to Carmen: Were you having unprotected sex?
Carmen to Wendy: On occasion.
Wendy to everyone in the studio: Everybody is burning. E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y is B-U-R-N-I-N-G. New chairs please.
Wendy finishes this comment as she takes out a can of Lysol and starts spraying in Carmen's direction.
Hence the MANLAW: These days, it is important to know YOUR STATUS. However, it is more important that you know the status of a woman especially if you are going out into the rain without a rain coat. You might catch a cold and that cold might not be curable.
This has been a public service announcement from the brothers at BML.
However, I must give her temporary amnesty for this interview with Carmen Bryan. (NSFW - not safe for work...I really mean it).
Seriously, I mean there are so many manlaws in this interview you could fill up a legal sized piece of paper (front and back).
Let's get to the excerpt that made me shudder in my computer chair.
Wendy to Carmen: So, you've slept with guys who have slept...with LOTS of women. You say that you caught one STD. Which strain of STD was it?
Carmen to Wendy: Chlamydia (with a smile on her face)
Wendy turns to Shawn (her studio sidekick): Is Chlamydia curable?
Shawn turns to Wendy: Yeah it is curable.
Wendy turns to Carmen: I knew he would know.
Shawn continues talking to Wendy while she's talking to Carmen:
I've never had it but I know it is curable.
Wendy to Carmen: So is that the only STD you've ever had?
Carmen to Wendy: Yes.
Wendy to Carmen: When is the last time you've had an HIV test?
Carmen: In 1999.
Wendy to Carmen: You haven't slept with anyone since 1999?
Carmen to Wendy: No. I wouldn't say that.
Wendy to Carmen: Were you having unprotected sex?
Carmen to Wendy: On occasion.
Wendy to everyone in the studio: Everybody is burning. E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y is B-U-R-N-I-N-G. New chairs please.
Wendy finishes this comment as she takes out a can of Lysol and starts spraying in Carmen's direction.
Hence the MANLAW: These days, it is important to know YOUR STATUS. However, it is more important that you know the status of a woman especially if you are going out into the rain without a rain coat. You might catch a cold and that cold might not be curable.
This has been a public service announcement from the brothers at BML.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
FUBAR
In military parlance, this means "Fucked Up Beyond All Repair". It's what they say when a tank or some other piece of vital equipment gets blown up or otherwise damaged to the point where it cannot be fixed. Key thing to remember here is that there's a difference between something being FUBAR'd and being completely destroyed; in some ways a FUBAR is worse because the damaged equipment is still laying around, a visual symbol of a major fuck-up.
Ok, so what's this got to do with Manlaw? A lot, because, as men, we've all FUBAR'd a relationship (if you haven't, you've never had a relationship, or you're just perfect, in which case you're not really a man. Real talk.) It could be the aftermath of the one mistake you made that you'll never really be forgiven for, or the cumulative effect of you not taking seriously signs that a woman is getting tired of your bullshit -- until it's too late. In other cases it may not have to do with a woman at all -- any relationship or important connection can be FUBAR'd by mistakes big and small.
So, brothers, we here at Manlaw invite you to tell us about your FUBARs -- share your stories of lost love, like or whatever that you had no choice but to sit and watch as it stood, damaged but beyond your ability to fix. No worries, you can remain anonymous and we promise not to make (too much) fun of your idiocy in ruining a good thing.
Ok, so what's this got to do with Manlaw? A lot, because, as men, we've all FUBAR'd a relationship (if you haven't, you've never had a relationship, or you're just perfect, in which case you're not really a man. Real talk.) It could be the aftermath of the one mistake you made that you'll never really be forgiven for, or the cumulative effect of you not taking seriously signs that a woman is getting tired of your bullshit -- until it's too late. In other cases it may not have to do with a woman at all -- any relationship or important connection can be FUBAR'd by mistakes big and small.
So, brothers, we here at Manlaw invite you to tell us about your FUBARs -- share your stories of lost love, like or whatever that you had no choice but to sit and watch as it stood, damaged but beyond your ability to fix. No worries, you can remain anonymous and we promise not to make (too much) fun of your idiocy in ruining a good thing.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
What's the world come to?
Every once in a while, man bites dog. Or there's a freak snowstorm in August. Or a black man gets pulled over by cops who don't shoot at him 100 million times when he reaches for his driver's license.
But rarely does a man get over in divorce court. So rare it is, in fact, that when it happens, it's newsworthy: CBS Sportsline reports today that the former tennis great Chris Evert has to pay out $7 million to get unhitched from her husband. Yeah, you read it right -- a judge, in Florida of all places, let a man walk into court with divorce papers and walk out with cash. Her cash. Cats must be barking at dogs today. Pigs flying. Nelly speaking on Spelman's campus.....
But rarely does a man get over in divorce court. So rare it is, in fact, that when it happens, it's newsworthy: CBS Sportsline reports today that the former tennis great Chris Evert has to pay out $7 million to get unhitched from her husband. Yeah, you read it right -- a judge, in Florida of all places, let a man walk into court with divorce papers and walk out with cash. Her cash. Cats must be barking at dogs today. Pigs flying. Nelly speaking on Spelman's campus.....
What's next, huh? How about a spray-on condom?
So during the day I come across weird stories and this one is no different.
I have no manlaw for this. The piece speaks for itself.
Los Angeles Times
Posted November 30 2006, 2:23 PM EST
BERLIN -- German sex educators plan to launch a spray-on condom tailor-made for all sizes.
Jan Vinzenz Krause from the Institute for Condom Consultancy, a Singen-based practice that offers advice on condom use, said the product aimed to help people enjoy better and safer sex lives.
"We're trying to develop the perfect condom for men that's suited to every size of penis," he said. "We're very serious."
Krause's team (spraykondom.de) is developing a type of spray can into which the man inserts his penis first. At the push of a button it is then coated in a rubber condom.
"It works by spraying on latex from nozzles on all sides," he said. "We call it the '360 degree procedure' - once round and from top to bottom. It's a bit like a car wash."
Krause said the plan is to make the product ready for use in about five seconds. He said it would function more effectively as a contraceptive because it would fit better and not slip.
However, before the new condom can be sold in shops, the firm must ensure that the latex is evenly spread when sprayed, as well as optimise the vulcanization process.
Krause hopes the high tech condom, which will be available in different strengths and colours, will on the market by 2008.
He said the spray can would likely cost some 20 euros ($26) as a one-off purchase. The latex cartridges - sufficient for up to 20 applications - would cost roughly 10 euros, he said.
Krause said he had hit upon the idea when considering the difficulties some people faced using condoms, and drew inspiration from spray-on plasters now used in medicine.
I have no manlaw for this. The piece speaks for itself.
Los Angeles Times
Posted November 30 2006, 2:23 PM EST
BERLIN -- German sex educators plan to launch a spray-on condom tailor-made for all sizes.
Jan Vinzenz Krause from the Institute for Condom Consultancy, a Singen-based practice that offers advice on condom use, said the product aimed to help people enjoy better and safer sex lives.
"We're trying to develop the perfect condom for men that's suited to every size of penis," he said. "We're very serious."
Krause's team (spraykondom.de) is developing a type of spray can into which the man inserts his penis first. At the push of a button it is then coated in a rubber condom.
"It works by spraying on latex from nozzles on all sides," he said. "We call it the '360 degree procedure' - once round and from top to bottom. It's a bit like a car wash."
Krause said the plan is to make the product ready for use in about five seconds. He said it would function more effectively as a contraceptive because it would fit better and not slip.
However, before the new condom can be sold in shops, the firm must ensure that the latex is evenly spread when sprayed, as well as optimise the vulcanization process.
Krause hopes the high tech condom, which will be available in different strengths and colours, will on the market by 2008.
He said the spray can would likely cost some 20 euros ($26) as a one-off purchase. The latex cartridges - sufficient for up to 20 applications - would cost roughly 10 euros, he said.
Krause said he had hit upon the idea when considering the difficulties some people faced using condoms, and drew inspiration from spray-on plasters now used in medicine.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
What in the hell....
So yes we have not posted in a while... But today I was fired up so I had to write.
So I went to the lunchroom and my co-workers were at a table discussing things.
So I was told a tale by the female in the group.
She tells me her boyfriend of over a year and half asked for a watch and a suit for Christmas.
She says she will give him the suit but not the watch.
So I say buy that dude his "Cartier".
She says she is not buying the watch because of some old wives tale.
"If you buy a watch, watch him leave you."
I was like what in the hell.
Now full disclosure. My boy had on a watch given by an ex and they broke up.
So then the female goes on by saying, if you get married, all of that goes by the waste side.
I am like is this another way for a woman to get a man to marry them. If that's the case, bump that mess.
MANLAW: When asking for a gift beware of the hidden implications of such a request!
So I went to the lunchroom and my co-workers were at a table discussing things.
So I was told a tale by the female in the group.
She tells me her boyfriend of over a year and half asked for a watch and a suit for Christmas.
She says she will give him the suit but not the watch.
So I say buy that dude his "Cartier".
She says she is not buying the watch because of some old wives tale.
"If you buy a watch, watch him leave you."
I was like what in the hell.
Now full disclosure. My boy had on a watch given by an ex and they broke up.
So then the female goes on by saying, if you get married, all of that goes by the waste side.
I am like is this another way for a woman to get a man to marry them. If that's the case, bump that mess.
MANLAW: When asking for a gift beware of the hidden implications of such a request!
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
A brief intermission....
Manlaw fam:
We know, we know. Feels like somebody done disappeared us of late. No worries. I can vouch that Marlo, Chris and Snoop don't have us slumped and limed down in a vacant rowhouse.
To the contrary: As hard as we work to be creative and bring you the best of the best when we're writing, we're working harder when we're in the shadows. In other words, don't count us out. We're still around, lurking, plotting, planning, putting the G4 in the hangar and the Maybach 57 in the garage...only so we can ride the 62 out to the tarmac where the G6 is waiting. Mile high club, baby.
So bear with us. We'll be back before you know it, shinin' wit suede muthafuckin Ballys on. In the meantime, relax and enjoy the archive....
We know, we know. Feels like somebody done disappeared us of late. No worries. I can vouch that Marlo, Chris and Snoop don't have us slumped and limed down in a vacant rowhouse.
To the contrary: As hard as we work to be creative and bring you the best of the best when we're writing, we're working harder when we're in the shadows. In other words, don't count us out. We're still around, lurking, plotting, planning, putting the G4 in the hangar and the Maybach 57 in the garage...only so we can ride the 62 out to the tarmac where the G6 is waiting. Mile high club, baby.
So bear with us. We'll be back before you know it, shinin' wit suede muthafuckin Ballys on. In the meantime, relax and enjoy the archive....
Monday, October 30, 2006
Ask Manlaw Part 1
This is the first set of questions sent to brothersmanlaw@yahoo.com. Remember we will not reveal the names of those who submit questions.
Do you feel that a man and a woman can truly be platonic friends despite any lingering attraction?
SPCHRIST response
No. If one party (male or female) thinks the other is attractive...there is always the chance that party will test the curiosity in the future.
SKINNY G response
There will always be a sense of uneasiness when it comes to one party being attracted to a female friend. That party will attempt to gain the attention of the opposite sex by doing things that they would not do with other friends. It can't be a true platonic relationship with those attractive feelings.
Why do you think some women never give "good guys" a chance in favor of the "bad boys"?
SPCHRIST response
If women actually gave "good guys" a chance and stopped chasing "bad boys", they would have absolutely nothing to complain about.
SKINNY G response
I recall when I was a young G in high school and the rep on me was quoted by a female friend about me. "Greg, I could not date you because you are too nice and I would feel bad because I would cheat on you and you would not cheat on me."
I was like what kind of bullcrap is that. So as I got older I also experienced that women are more intreagued by guys who have a sense of excitement. It's usually those guys who live on the edge. But my question is how do you know good guys don't live on the edge too, but it's a different type.
But today I find that as ladies get older they tend to go for less drama after dealing with the wanna be thugs of yesteryear.
Do you feel that a man and a woman can truly be platonic friends despite any lingering attraction?
SPCHRIST response
No. If one party (male or female) thinks the other is attractive...there is always the chance that party will test the curiosity in the future.
SKINNY G response
There will always be a sense of uneasiness when it comes to one party being attracted to a female friend. That party will attempt to gain the attention of the opposite sex by doing things that they would not do with other friends. It can't be a true platonic relationship with those attractive feelings.
Why do you think some women never give "good guys" a chance in favor of the "bad boys"?
SPCHRIST response
If women actually gave "good guys" a chance and stopped chasing "bad boys", they would have absolutely nothing to complain about.
SKINNY G response
I recall when I was a young G in high school and the rep on me was quoted by a female friend about me. "Greg, I could not date you because you are too nice and I would feel bad because I would cheat on you and you would not cheat on me."
I was like what kind of bullcrap is that. So as I got older I also experienced that women are more intreagued by guys who have a sense of excitement. It's usually those guys who live on the edge. But my question is how do you know good guys don't live on the edge too, but it's a different type.
But today I find that as ladies get older they tend to go for less drama after dealing with the wanna be thugs of yesteryear.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Back to the grill again !
You told a tale, okay a personal one, testifying that you are a changed man -- but my question is:
What would you change?
Gooders Girl posed the question. Allow me to answer. I will keep it dating specific as I'm sure you are not interested in a complete life story.
First, I would change the fact that my father never gave me nor my older brother the game. As my role model and the man I trust the most and am closest too, this is who I wanted to help explain the game to me. For this exercise game will be the same as knowledge. Ma Dukes gave me a science book at 11 or 12, every subsequent lesson was self taught or learned through; books, porn, the fuzzy playboy station that we didn't really get, high school peers, experience.
Second, I wish I understood the responsibility of it. Especially emotionally, not only to my self but to the girls involved. My first time was her first time, but for me it was just a conquest because I was tired of being the virgin in the group when the cool guys talked. Her, it was she really liked me. I ended up hurting her because I didn't understand game. She and I are platonic friends now.
I would change my first true love. Well I wouldn't change much. Just the fact that I took it for granted. The fact that I didn't understand that work needed to be done consistently for our love to be maintained. I thought love was self sustaining. It wasn't. She and I were platonic friends before lovers and are platonic friends now after our physical love.
I would change the fact that I took all of my experiences with women and for years used them to exploit their feelings more efficiently. At the same time exploiting my self, my character. I would change the fact that I negatively influenced young men to behave like me and mistreat young women. Hell, occasionally I still catch myself doing it.
I would change. . .now that I think of it. I wouldn't change it for me, because without me walking that path who's to say I would understand the game as I do now. I would change it for a son if God blesses me with one. For a daughter, I would buy a shotgun !
disclaimer: goodersgirl please don't take this post as anymore than me finding your question one that I wished to answer out loud.
What would you change?
Gooders Girl posed the question. Allow me to answer. I will keep it dating specific as I'm sure you are not interested in a complete life story.
First, I would change the fact that my father never gave me nor my older brother the game. As my role model and the man I trust the most and am closest too, this is who I wanted to help explain the game to me. For this exercise game will be the same as knowledge. Ma Dukes gave me a science book at 11 or 12, every subsequent lesson was self taught or learned through; books, porn, the fuzzy playboy station that we didn't really get, high school peers, experience.
Second, I wish I understood the responsibility of it. Especially emotionally, not only to my self but to the girls involved. My first time was her first time, but for me it was just a conquest because I was tired of being the virgin in the group when the cool guys talked. Her, it was she really liked me. I ended up hurting her because I didn't understand game. She and I are platonic friends now.
I would change my first true love. Well I wouldn't change much. Just the fact that I took it for granted. The fact that I didn't understand that work needed to be done consistently for our love to be maintained. I thought love was self sustaining. It wasn't. She and I were platonic friends before lovers and are platonic friends now after our physical love.
I would change the fact that I took all of my experiences with women and for years used them to exploit their feelings more efficiently. At the same time exploiting my self, my character. I would change the fact that I negatively influenced young men to behave like me and mistreat young women. Hell, occasionally I still catch myself doing it.
I would change. . .now that I think of it. I wouldn't change it for me, because without me walking that path who's to say I would understand the game as I do now. I would change it for a son if God blesses me with one. For a daughter, I would buy a shotgun !
disclaimer: goodersgirl please don't take this post as anymore than me finding your question one that I wished to answer out loud.
WBML-TV
for all of you that subscribe to brothersmanlaw television you may have to adjust the contrast of your set before viewing. . .
I had a couple things on my mind I wanted to share. . .It's been that kind of couple of weeks ! I meant to disagree with some of the things I've read since the last time I posted. I am well aware that this is brothersmanlaw, I am also aware as I hope all of you are that sometimes brothers fight, sometimes they disagree, sometimes they just don't see eye to eye. I was reading phantom zone and I felt like Greg didn't do me justice. And in the interest of contrast and balance, I wanted to present my difference of opinion.
A. Guys they want to immediately have sex with;
B. Guys they might be interested in having sex with;
I can roll with both of these. I always believed the woman usually knows at-a-glance. You might be able to talk your way into some. But 7 times out of 10 you talk yourself out of some. Holla if ya hear me !
C. Guys who will forever be emasculated into "friends" (translation: no sex -- ever -- no matter what you do or how hard you try.)
My first problem here is that there are so many more categories(ie; sugar daddies, pimps, . . .but that's a whole nother post.) My direct issue is to say that "friends" = emasculated. I mean damn, I have female friends that I have never slept with for a myriad of reasons including they ain't feelin me like that but should I not be "friends" with them ?
It makes me ask myself, can I be friends with a woman I am attracted to and not try to sleep with her. Shit, I hope so. I have female friends who are married who weren't married or unnatractive when we became friends. I hope to get married. Should I warn my future wife that all these women immediately want to sleep with me, might be interested in sleeping with me or are going to emasculate me.
I love to believe the first one is the most true. . .gimme a minute to think about that. Ahhh yes ! I mean I did look through my phone book last night wanting to get some and saw a bunch of women's names that were just platonic. I wish I had a found a non-platonic relationship, but this wasn't To be true not last night. Too bad I didn't get any numbers off of my reformed pimp routine, I was projected thourgh December. But let me not be digruntled. Greg did drop some gems about men hiding your physical interests. I wholeheartedly agree. Fellas, be slow and sweet if you are slow and sweet. Not if you are a ho and street. And the manlaw produced was "be who you be" is close to my highschool yearbook quote penned 13 years ago.
A true brothersmanlaw passed down to me from my brother when i was 16:
("As long as you're you, I'll be me")
as far as the bad boys getting all the chics. . it's true women love a bad boy but them cats don't last. . .and good women don't want them anyway. . .
now before I go, before the comments begin, let me leave you with this. I ain't writing to get a rise out of you, okay a little. I'm writing cuz I enjoy sharing my thoughts. I ain't baggin blogger broads (broads only used for aliteration, i swear !) . I ain't trying to come off as the sensitive blogger. Besides, most of ya'll don't know me from Adam. I am trying to provide contrast to the blog, the same contrast that i also possess in my thoughts, a different mindset to the party. So please rather than trying to diagnose or expose, attempt to understand. Cuz on the real, "Game always recognizes game" and ya'll see it because I didn't even have to mention no names.
next post is gooders girl inspired from this comment: You told a tale, okay a personal one, testifying that you are a changed man -- but my question is:
What would you change?
STAY TUNED
I had a couple things on my mind I wanted to share. . .It's been that kind of couple of weeks ! I meant to disagree with some of the things I've read since the last time I posted. I am well aware that this is brothersmanlaw, I am also aware as I hope all of you are that sometimes brothers fight, sometimes they disagree, sometimes they just don't see eye to eye. I was reading phantom zone and I felt like Greg didn't do me justice. And in the interest of contrast and balance, I wanted to present my difference of opinion.
A. Guys they want to immediately have sex with;
B. Guys they might be interested in having sex with;
I can roll with both of these. I always believed the woman usually knows at-a-glance. You might be able to talk your way into some. But 7 times out of 10 you talk yourself out of some. Holla if ya hear me !
C. Guys who will forever be emasculated into "friends" (translation: no sex -- ever -- no matter what you do or how hard you try.)
My first problem here is that there are so many more categories(ie; sugar daddies, pimps, . . .but that's a whole nother post.) My direct issue is to say that "friends" = emasculated. I mean damn, I have female friends that I have never slept with for a myriad of reasons including they ain't feelin me like that but should I not be "friends" with them ?
It makes me ask myself, can I be friends with a woman I am attracted to and not try to sleep with her. Shit, I hope so. I have female friends who are married who weren't married or unnatractive when we became friends. I hope to get married. Should I warn my future wife that all these women immediately want to sleep with me, might be interested in sleeping with me or are going to emasculate me.
I love to believe the first one is the most true. . .gimme a minute to think about that. Ahhh yes ! I mean I did look through my phone book last night wanting to get some and saw a bunch of women's names that were just platonic. I wish I had a found a non-platonic relationship, but this wasn't To be true not last night. Too bad I didn't get any numbers off of my reformed pimp routine, I was projected thourgh December. But let me not be digruntled. Greg did drop some gems about men hiding your physical interests. I wholeheartedly agree. Fellas, be slow and sweet if you are slow and sweet. Not if you are a ho and street. And the manlaw produced was "be who you be" is close to my highschool yearbook quote penned 13 years ago.
A true brothersmanlaw passed down to me from my brother when i was 16:
("As long as you're you, I'll be me")
as far as the bad boys getting all the chics. . it's true women love a bad boy but them cats don't last. . .and good women don't want them anyway. . .
now before I go, before the comments begin, let me leave you with this. I ain't writing to get a rise out of you, okay a little. I'm writing cuz I enjoy sharing my thoughts. I ain't baggin blogger broads (broads only used for aliteration, i swear !) . I ain't trying to come off as the sensitive blogger. Besides, most of ya'll don't know me from Adam. I am trying to provide contrast to the blog, the same contrast that i also possess in my thoughts, a different mindset to the party. So please rather than trying to diagnose or expose, attempt to understand. Cuz on the real, "Game always recognizes game" and ya'll see it because I didn't even have to mention no names.
next post is gooders girl inspired from this comment: You told a tale, okay a personal one, testifying that you are a changed man -- but my question is:
What would you change?
STAY TUNED
Friday, October 20, 2006
A new feature
In an attempt to spur more conversation manlaw will embark on a new feature called "Ask Manlaw".
We will answer questions based on your experiences in a blog entry. The brothers of manlaw will attempt to give our expert opinions.
We will not reveal the person's who submits questions.
If you want to ask the brothers any question we will post our responses. Email at brothersmanlaw@hotmail.com.
We will answer questions based on your experiences in a blog entry. The brothers of manlaw will attempt to give our expert opinions.
We will not reveal the person's who submits questions.
If you want to ask the brothers any question we will post our responses. Email at brothersmanlaw@hotmail.com.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The Phantom Zone
During life men will meet a number of women. They will encounter women they are attracted to and there are women they will befriend.
We will focus on the combination of the two.
There is the notion that women women say they want the man that they love to be their best friend also.
There are some women who say that may not be the case.
It is my belief that women are full of shit when they say they want their man to also be their best friend.
When a woman meets a man they have three categories to place a man into:
A. Guys they want to immediately have sex with;
B. Guys they might be interested in having sex with;
C. Guys who will forever be emasculated into "friends" (translation: no sex -- ever -- no matter what you do or how hard you try.)
But the main reason that many men fall into the "friend" trap is because they act like friends at the outset of the relationship (or very soon after). Because they're shy, nervous around women, scared of rejection, insecure, or just desperate, they hesitantly hang around in the background, fumbling and sweating, hoping women will notice them and get the hint that they're interested.
In other words, they cloak their interest and shy away from openly declaring their sexual intentions. They are not sexually confident men. They don't want to expose themselves to rejection. But the truth is, you can't act like a friend and expect a woman to be attracted to you.
Women are attracted to male strength and masculinity (just as men are attracted to femininity). This is why bad boys (who are sexually confident men) are never friends -- they're always sexual partners.
However, women complain about these same "bad boys" as the men that they don't want
for a mate.
But men who are gentlemanly, accommodating, sincere and warm are the guys who are generally at the bottom of the totem pole.
MANLAW: Fellas be who you be.
I have been told by many women in my past that they didn't appreciate the person that I am because of their perceptions. But I have always been consistent in my approach to life. If you are a stone cold gentlemen be that. If you are like 50 Cent. Be who you be and don't let the ladies change who you are because if you change, you are living a lie for yourself and for your woman.
If you fall into that friend zone, don't fret, in the long run she will regret the label.
We will focus on the combination of the two.
There is the notion that women women say they want the man that they love to be their best friend also.
There are some women who say that may not be the case.
It is my belief that women are full of shit when they say they want their man to also be their best friend.
When a woman meets a man they have three categories to place a man into:
A. Guys they want to immediately have sex with;
B. Guys they might be interested in having sex with;
C. Guys who will forever be emasculated into "friends" (translation: no sex -- ever -- no matter what you do or how hard you try.)
But the main reason that many men fall into the "friend" trap is because they act like friends at the outset of the relationship (or very soon after). Because they're shy, nervous around women, scared of rejection, insecure, or just desperate, they hesitantly hang around in the background, fumbling and sweating, hoping women will notice them and get the hint that they're interested.
In other words, they cloak their interest and shy away from openly declaring their sexual intentions. They are not sexually confident men. They don't want to expose themselves to rejection. But the truth is, you can't act like a friend and expect a woman to be attracted to you.
Women are attracted to male strength and masculinity (just as men are attracted to femininity). This is why bad boys (who are sexually confident men) are never friends -- they're always sexual partners.
However, women complain about these same "bad boys" as the men that they don't want
for a mate.
But men who are gentlemanly, accommodating, sincere and warm are the guys who are generally at the bottom of the totem pole.
MANLAW: Fellas be who you be.
I have been told by many women in my past that they didn't appreciate the person that I am because of their perceptions. But I have always been consistent in my approach to life. If you are a stone cold gentlemen be that. If you are like 50 Cent. Be who you be and don't let the ladies change who you are because if you change, you are living a lie for yourself and for your woman.
If you fall into that friend zone, don't fret, in the long run she will regret the label.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Game Time Decisions
Doug Williams, a rising black comedian, once did a sketch on BET’s renowned comedy show ComicView. Williams compared a relationship to a football team, where the head coach is the woman and the quarterback is the man. Each party has a 50 percent interest in the success/or failure of the team.
As any sports reporter, like me, will tell you, the success of a football team always comes down to the relationship of the head coach and the quarterback. The team will not thrive if there is dissension in the ranks between the head coach and any star player, which is usually the quarterback.
Why do I bring this up?
Simple.
In life, I hate liars, cheaters and thieves but somewhere on the second tier of people I despise are head coaches that can’t make a game time decision (a.k.a. also known as the indecisive woman syndrome). A game time decision is a choice that has to be made with the clocking ticking down and the game (in this case the relationship) on the line.
Hence, the MANLAW.
Fellas beware of the head coach that routinely fails at making game-time decisions before the clock runs out. If she can’t make up her mind when it is time you need to run fast, run far and run like Forrest Gump until she’s no longer viewable in the rearview mirror.
I have always measured the character of a head coach based on how that coach handled adversity. Any coach can make a decision when they have a billion options and things are going smoothly, but a true coach that I would play my ass for is a coach that I can trust in the clutch.
What happens when a head coach continually fails with clock management? The quarterback loses confidence in their head coach and starts calling his own audibles at the line of scrimmage. Very soon, the quarterback and the head coach are getting into a highly visible spat on the sideline. The relationship goes down hill from there and soon you have an avalanche in which only ownership can stop with a decision about which party do you keep, the head coach or the quarterback?
As the cliché goes, if you don’t know your history you are doomed to repeat it. In about 80 percent of the cases, ownership sides with the player. Fellas remember this manlaw the next time you have a head coach that is playing not to lose rather than playing to win the game.
As any sports reporter, like me, will tell you, the success of a football team always comes down to the relationship of the head coach and the quarterback. The team will not thrive if there is dissension in the ranks between the head coach and any star player, which is usually the quarterback.
Why do I bring this up?
Simple.
In life, I hate liars, cheaters and thieves but somewhere on the second tier of people I despise are head coaches that can’t make a game time decision (a.k.a. also known as the indecisive woman syndrome). A game time decision is a choice that has to be made with the clocking ticking down and the game (in this case the relationship) on the line.
Hence, the MANLAW.
Fellas beware of the head coach that routinely fails at making game-time decisions before the clock runs out. If she can’t make up her mind when it is time you need to run fast, run far and run like Forrest Gump until she’s no longer viewable in the rearview mirror.
I have always measured the character of a head coach based on how that coach handled adversity. Any coach can make a decision when they have a billion options and things are going smoothly, but a true coach that I would play my ass for is a coach that I can trust in the clutch.
What happens when a head coach continually fails with clock management? The quarterback loses confidence in their head coach and starts calling his own audibles at the line of scrimmage. Very soon, the quarterback and the head coach are getting into a highly visible spat on the sideline. The relationship goes down hill from there and soon you have an avalanche in which only ownership can stop with a decision about which party do you keep, the head coach or the quarterback?
As the cliché goes, if you don’t know your history you are doomed to repeat it. In about 80 percent of the cases, ownership sides with the player. Fellas remember this manlaw the next time you have a head coach that is playing not to lose rather than playing to win the game.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Ladies...The Truth Hurts!
So I came across a real thought provoking email from this brother, who will remain nameless.
(written by a brother)
Bottom line--if I sleep with a woman I don't know or care about SEX is NOT going to make me care. (I stopped doing that years ago) That kind of sex is like scratching an itch. Once a man scratches, he's through. He ain't sitting around thinking about that spot that itched or how good it felt scratching it. He's moving on with his life until that spot itches again and it don't matter which hand he scratches it with, just as long as he gets rid of the itch. Too many women PRETEND they can handle a sexual fling, but wind up getting caught up and wanting us to romance and wine and dine them and pretend we're having a "relationship" when it's NOTHING but a booty call. Come on, ladies, y'all know I'm telling the truth.Unfortunately, ladies, you are part of our problem. You sleep with us BEFORE you know us or what we're about. Having sex with a man does not automatically make that a "relationship". Many women will deny they think like this but I'm speaking from personal experience. Also, ladies know when their men are fooling around and still turn a blind eye by getting mad at the other woman. Now, what kind of sense does that make? Why should that woman make YOU (a total stranger) a priority in her life? IF HE DID NOT MARRY YOU HE IS STILL SINGLE. The "other woman" is not breaking up a "happy home". Many women marry men who were cheating BEFORE they walked down the aisle and then are SHOCKED that a fancy wedding dress or an expensive walk down the aisle didn't change who he was. Why should he change? YOU let him know it was acceptable by sticking around that long. Ladies, start living with your eyes OPEN. Most shady men give themselves away one way or another, usually before the first 30 days. Women have to stop "rewarding" unfaithful men by pretending it ain't happening. All of us Black Males do not cheat. I do not cheat on my lady so don't buy the hype. I know other BM who do not but many men WILL cheat if there are NO real penalties for it. Stop jumping into bed with brothers YOU DON'T KNOW. That means fewer opportunities for men to cheat. Women have to STOP being so afraid to ask the important questions that would reveal his TRUE lifestyle. Worry LESS about what kind of job he has and what kind of car he drives and encourage him to talk about his past, particularly his past with women. OPEN those ears and listen. Does he put down his ex-women and blame them for everything? And don't be so vain. You are NOT a better woman than his last. If he dogged her out, you will probably be NEXT. Observe him when you are with him. Do you have his home number? Work number? Have you seen where he lives? Where he works? Is he secretive? Did you ask if he's married or engaged? How does he treat other people? Listen to what he says, NOT what you want to hear. the days when sex wouldn't KILL people but now? there's no excuse and if a Black Woman takes that huge risk of sleeping with a STRANGER then she better protect herself -- sexually AND emotionally. Show our azz the door if we pressure you for sex too soon. Don't be afraid to be alone. After you give our azz some you will probably be alone anyway but now you feel like a fool. In other words, take your time and check us out. if we REALLY like you, we'll stick around. BUT if you decided to sleep with a man you hardly know, PROTECT yourself and keep your expectations to ZERO. We do not owe you a relationship or another date just because you had sex with us. That's not how it works, baby. I have TOO many female friends who give me horror stories that could have been avoided if they'd done their homework first OR moved SLOWER before giving up the panties. I try as a BM to give them the best advice I can but that won't mean a damn thing if BW continue to live in a dream world. You are TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE for your own sexual behavior the same as I am. Blaming the man won't change a damn thing. Black Women have to look in the mirror and take SOME of the blame for what's wrong with BM/BW relationships. Let me end by saying.... SEX DOES NOT = A RELATIONSHIP GIVING A MAN A READY-MADE FAMILY WILL NOT MAKE HIM COMMIT IF HE DOESN'T WANT TOA MAN WILL NOT RESPECT A WOMAN WHO DOES NOT RESPECT HERSELF OR HER BODYIF YOU TRADE SEX FOR MATERIAL THINGS YOU ARE PROSTITUTING YOURSELF IF HE DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF HIS OTHER CHILDREN WHY WOULD YOU HAVE A BABY WITH HIM?IF YOU REWARD A DOG WHY SHOULD MEN STOP BEING DOGS?BRING MORE TO THE TABLE THAN YOUR BODY. NO YOUR P*ZZY IS NOT MADE OF GOLD. IT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS I THINK IT IS. BELIEVE THAT. BW are going to have to raise their standards if they expect BM to do it. The question is, are my beautiful BW up to the challenge? Are you willing to be strong and stop taking the easy way out? Ladies, ladies, ladies, hit me back with some truth, not some bullshyt. I don't want to hear: "What you said don't refer to me 'cause I got my shyt together and I'm a proud black woman who intimidates men and I never made no mistakes, it's those other women who do things like that." No, no, no! I don't want to hear you putting yourself on a pedestal because I KNOW you've made mistakes. I want you to hit me back with some TRUTH. What are BW going to do about these shady, shaky relationships that wind up in divorce court 60-70%% of the time, that's if we bother getting married at all? What are BW going to do DIFFERENT to make this shyt better? Hit me back, ladies. "Just take me as I am or have nothing @ all...."
MANLAW: Just tell the truth and be really honest with yourselves. Remember, the blame should first start with you.
(written by a brother)
Bottom line--if I sleep with a woman I don't know or care about SEX is NOT going to make me care. (I stopped doing that years ago) That kind of sex is like scratching an itch. Once a man scratches, he's through. He ain't sitting around thinking about that spot that itched or how good it felt scratching it. He's moving on with his life until that spot itches again and it don't matter which hand he scratches it with, just as long as he gets rid of the itch. Too many women PRETEND they can handle a sexual fling, but wind up getting caught up and wanting us to romance and wine and dine them and pretend we're having a "relationship" when it's NOTHING but a booty call. Come on, ladies, y'all know I'm telling the truth.Unfortunately, ladies, you are part of our problem. You sleep with us BEFORE you know us or what we're about. Having sex with a man does not automatically make that a "relationship". Many women will deny they think like this but I'm speaking from personal experience. Also, ladies know when their men are fooling around and still turn a blind eye by getting mad at the other woman. Now, what kind of sense does that make? Why should that woman make YOU (a total stranger) a priority in her life? IF HE DID NOT MARRY YOU HE IS STILL SINGLE. The "other woman" is not breaking up a "happy home". Many women marry men who were cheating BEFORE they walked down the aisle and then are SHOCKED that a fancy wedding dress or an expensive walk down the aisle didn't change who he was. Why should he change? YOU let him know it was acceptable by sticking around that long. Ladies, start living with your eyes OPEN. Most shady men give themselves away one way or another, usually before the first 30 days. Women have to stop "rewarding" unfaithful men by pretending it ain't happening. All of us Black Males do not cheat. I do not cheat on my lady so don't buy the hype. I know other BM who do not but many men WILL cheat if there are NO real penalties for it. Stop jumping into bed with brothers YOU DON'T KNOW. That means fewer opportunities for men to cheat. Women have to STOP being so afraid to ask the important questions that would reveal his TRUE lifestyle. Worry LESS about what kind of job he has and what kind of car he drives and encourage him to talk about his past, particularly his past with women. OPEN those ears and listen. Does he put down his ex-women and blame them for everything? And don't be so vain. You are NOT a better woman than his last. If he dogged her out, you will probably be NEXT. Observe him when you are with him. Do you have his home number? Work number? Have you seen where he lives? Where he works? Is he secretive? Did you ask if he's married or engaged? How does he treat other people? Listen to what he says, NOT what you want to hear. the days when sex wouldn't KILL people but now? there's no excuse and if a Black Woman takes that huge risk of sleeping with a STRANGER then she better protect herself -- sexually AND emotionally. Show our azz the door if we pressure you for sex too soon. Don't be afraid to be alone. After you give our azz some you will probably be alone anyway but now you feel like a fool. In other words, take your time and check us out. if we REALLY like you, we'll stick around. BUT if you decided to sleep with a man you hardly know, PROTECT yourself and keep your expectations to ZERO. We do not owe you a relationship or another date just because you had sex with us. That's not how it works, baby. I have TOO many female friends who give me horror stories that could have been avoided if they'd done their homework first OR moved SLOWER before giving up the panties. I try as a BM to give them the best advice I can but that won't mean a damn thing if BW continue to live in a dream world. You are TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE for your own sexual behavior the same as I am. Blaming the man won't change a damn thing. Black Women have to look in the mirror and take SOME of the blame for what's wrong with BM/BW relationships. Let me end by saying.... SEX DOES NOT = A RELATIONSHIP GIVING A MAN A READY-MADE FAMILY WILL NOT MAKE HIM COMMIT IF HE DOESN'T WANT TOA MAN WILL NOT RESPECT A WOMAN WHO DOES NOT RESPECT HERSELF OR HER BODYIF YOU TRADE SEX FOR MATERIAL THINGS YOU ARE PROSTITUTING YOURSELF IF HE DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF HIS OTHER CHILDREN WHY WOULD YOU HAVE A BABY WITH HIM?IF YOU REWARD A DOG WHY SHOULD MEN STOP BEING DOGS?BRING MORE TO THE TABLE THAN YOUR BODY. NO YOUR P*ZZY IS NOT MADE OF GOLD. IT IS ONLY AS GOOD AS I THINK IT IS. BELIEVE THAT. BW are going to have to raise their standards if they expect BM to do it. The question is, are my beautiful BW up to the challenge? Are you willing to be strong and stop taking the easy way out? Ladies, ladies, ladies, hit me back with some truth, not some bullshyt. I don't want to hear: "What you said don't refer to me 'cause I got my shyt together and I'm a proud black woman who intimidates men and I never made no mistakes, it's those other women who do things like that." No, no, no! I don't want to hear you putting yourself on a pedestal because I KNOW you've made mistakes. I want you to hit me back with some TRUTH. What are BW going to do about these shady, shaky relationships that wind up in divorce court 60-70%% of the time, that's if we bother getting married at all? What are BW going to do DIFFERENT to make this shyt better? Hit me back, ladies. "Just take me as I am or have nothing @ all...."
MANLAW: Just tell the truth and be really honest with yourselves. Remember, the blame should first start with you.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
"a change gon' come"
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. . .
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. . .
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)