i’ve had a t-mobile sidekick for almost 6 years now. purchased during my pretentious piece of sh*t days, i reveled in the fact that i had the coolest toy on the block, a device that, from winter 02 to maybe the summer of 03, was actually a virtual panty-dropper
***editors note: the champ realizes that the aforementioned sentence says more about the moral quality (or lack thereof) of the beautiful fools he chose to bag back then than anything else, so you dont have to remind him. end of editors note***
along with the wow factor, i had justifiably practical reasons for owning a kick. i didn’t own a pc or a mac at the time, so all my web surfing, instant messaging, and blog updating came from my phone.
today, despite the fact that there’s at least 25 different phones that are more user-friendly, more aesthetically pleasing, and more practical than the sidekick, i haven’t changed phones. sure, they break once every six weeks, have the battery life span of a gnat, and occasionally allow shower mist to give em irreversible water damage, but because t-mobile has been so good to me, i’ve remained loyal.
this last paragraph could potentially be a perfectly snarky pro t-mobile advertisement…if not for the fact that it was complete and utter bullsh*t
i still have a sidekick because i was bullied by a middle aged indian woman into signing a completely inane lifetime two year contract last year, a perfect bookend to the original completely inane two year contract i signed in 2004. i still have a sidekick because i don’t want to kick up the 300 to break the contract, and even if i did, right now i honestly don’t want to go through the hassle of letting everyone in my address book know of my new phone number and email address. i still have a sidekick because i hate my other f*cking options, loyalty be dammed.
my unfortunate phone situation is actually a perfect analogy for a phenomenon ive been thinking about lately…eventually manifesting in the form of a question i posed on the hostess’s blog some time last week:
i’ve heard many black women profess loyalty as their reasons for sticking with black men and not entertaining the though of being with an “other”, but many times these same women also profess that they’re not physically/sexually attracted to the others and don’t feel as if the others are attracted to them.
so, if someone feels as if they don’t have any other realistic options or choices, can they really take the moral high ground and cite loyalty as their reason for “sticking it through”?
how can you measure the loyalty in someone who doesn’t feel as if they have any favorable choices? can a guy making 40 a year profess “brand loyalty” when leasing a camry, when he knows damn well that if he was offered a bentley coupe for the same price, he’d sign that contract quicker than a crackheads heartbeat while pulling out his wang and pissing on the hood of his old toyota
i’m not suggesting that every black woman who pulls the loyalty card is optionless. sh*t, i’m not suggesting that any black woman is optionless, but many times their reasoning for said loyalty blantantly contradicts the idea of loyalty itself. if you honestly feel that black men are the only ones who can please you sexually, then really, how “loyal” is it to exclusively sleep with brothas? if you honestly feel like the brads and chads of the world aren’t attracted to you at all, can you really take the racial (and morally ambigious) loyalty high ground?
that’s it. talk amongst yourselves while i scour the net for ways to set fire to the t-mobile headquarters in bellevue, washington break my sidekick contract. hopefully they have some type of “loyalty clause” that allows me to get out for free.