Tag Archives: fallacy

raw: the champ’s debunking of six commonly held relationship fallacies

Posted on by
172

as you all know, we at vsb.com we drink vitamin water™ while we pride ourselves on giving you the unfiltered truth. like busta and nadya suleman, “we make sure everything remains raw”.

with this in mind, and keeping with our commitment to fight crime, i’ve decided to devote today to my debunking of six commonly held relationship fallacies. enjoy and sh*t

1. fallacy: “men truly desire women who have non-negotiable standards”

truth: most physically attractive women are able to have non-negotiable standards because they’re physically attractive women. they’re allowed to do sh*t that most other women aren’t.

men desiring women who have non-negotiable standards has nothing to do with their non-negotiable standards and everything to do with the fact that a woman with non-negotiable standards is more likely to be physically attractive.

summary: standards smandards

2. fallacy: “most men are commitment-phobic.”

truth: most people who think they have plentiful and attractive options are commitment-phobic, regardless of gender. it just so happens that men tend to look at their options optimistically, while women’s option-sightings tend to be more realistically pessimistic.

summary: options allow you to say “commit deez”

3. fallacy: “upgrading” cities exposes you to numerous new romantic options, bettering your chances to find compatible mates”

truth: changing cities will not better your chances¹. while there may be more options, there will also be more competitors, and the competition will be more fierce.

summary: wackness transcends population figures

4. fallacy: “men love funny women”

truth: men love women with a sense of humor and the ability to “get” and appreciate jokes…not necessarily make them. “funny” women with a endless staccato of jokes, witty insults, and clever comebacks usually remind men of other men, regardless of how attractive they are.

summary: although we love liz lemon, we think shes drier than eraser dust

5. fallacy: “women decide within a minute whether or not a man is a potential bed partner.”

***this isn’t necessarily a fallacy. it just doesnt tell the whole truth.***

the whole truth: while women have made their potential bedding decision within sixty seconds, a man has decided whether or not a woman is relationship material…in less than five. thats all it takes for a man to decide if a woman is a potential wife. sure, her actions can take her out of the running, but if she doesn’t make the cut in the first five seconds, shes not even in the race.

summary: its a man’s world

lastly…

6. fallacy: “a mans reluctance to be completely open relationship-wise is a defensive mechanism designed to protect himself emotionally”

truth: a mans reluctance to be completely open relationship-wise is a defensive mechanism designed to protect the woman he’s involved with. men fear breaking a heart more than having their heartbroken. most of us are experts on facing and dealing with rejection…but complete b*tches when it comes to giving it.

summary: no comment

of course, i’m sure a few of you disagree with some of my assertions. thats ok. you disagreeing has no bearing on me being right, so please…disagree away.

“hardcore like quick draw mcgraw/ f*ck what you heard you ain’t heard this before/ i make sure everything remains raw”

¹ unless you’re from los angeles

—the champ


return of the black man’s hat: the loyalty fallacy

Posted on by
326

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.

—the champ