Tag Archives: t-mobile

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

the EXpectation factor

Posted on by
235

Nothing irks me more than somebody passing off incorrect knowledge as a matter-of-fact truth. (Wait, that’s a lie. Sports teams from Boston, T-Mobile’s customer care and women who sound like Remy Ma irk me a bit more, but that’s besides the point)

This practice is especially prevalent when speaking about relationships, where many people swear by opinions and theories that are more idiotic than deshawn stevenson.

nowhere else is this more evident than the “fact” that men are typically willy-nilly in regards to dating; seeing and juggling multiple chicks without a concern or care in the world….a fact which couldn’t be further from the truth. we ALWAYS date with a concern, or, better yet, expectations, while in fact…

…women are actually the ones who will date without expectations. it’s women that’ll go out with someone, happy to get a free meal and a couple mojitos in preparation for the f-buddy coming over later, immediately after her “no-expectations” date….sometimes even having the date unknowingly drop them off at the f-buddy’s house!

ladies, don’t bother denying this because i know personally that this occurs. i’ve been that f-buddy, and, admittedly, i might have been at the other end of the equation as well. this scenario, which i’ve coined TCSE (the coldest shoulder ever) is quite possibly the cruelest accepted dating practice known to man, concrete proof that all women are direct descendants of dick cheney.

On the other hand, men don’t date unless we have some type of expectation. We don’t go on “dates” just to chill because we’re bored, or just because it’s nice out and we want to turn off our ac for a couple hours cause the electric bill was too high last month, or just to model the new ken cole boots we bought last weekend with the saved ac money, for two reasons:

1. typically, we’re the one’s doing the initial approach, which basically meant that we already imagined you eating salty cucumbers while sitting bucket-naked on a furry stool had some sort of romantic expectation for you before we even knew what the hell your name was

2. money. because we’re the ones generally footing the bill (which, as p remarked yesterday, could easily crawl into the $200 range in one simple night) we have to be extremely discerning in regards to who we decide to spend money on. we’re not spending the equivalent of our cable bill in one night just to “enjoy her company“, when we could have just as easily spent that money on the bootytalk box set on a pair of j’s and the scorsese collection

Now, admittedly, our expectations are limited. Every woman that we go out of our way to invite and go out with is placed in one of two categories.

Category One: Maybe I can settle down with this woman.

Category Two: Maybe I can settle down with this woman…tonight, preferably in a bed somewhere, although the back of my truck will do for now.

That’s it.

If a woman doesn’t fit into either of these categories for us, then we’re not dating her. Ladies, on every date you’ve ever been on and will ever be on, you’ll be sitting across the table from someone trying to decide if they want to wife you or just bed you. Even if a guy seems to be “going through the motions“, he’s sitting across from you thinking “Maybe I’ll get lucky and get some tonight from whateverthehellhernameis, even with my half-assed effort“.

now please excuse me while i go watch “the departed” for the sixteenth time. yeah, i know. 16 might sound a bit excessive…but at least i know exactly what to expect

—the champ