"I'm smiling now, but if you bite my neck again, this'll be the last time we have pier sex"

One of the best (and worst) things about being an adult is the occasional realization that certain things you never wanted to believe to be true are, in fact, true. On a macro level, these realizations are good because they help you grow and see the world for what it truly is and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But, however good this knowledge may ultimately be, it still stings a bit to learn that you believed some wrong-ass shit.

In the past few years or so I’ve had (at least) two such realizations. One was already touched on by Panama last week in “Is This What Growed Up Feels Like?” But, while P admitted feeling a little ashamed that he was a fan of such ignant rap, I feel no such shame. I’ve stopped trying to explain how the misogyny, nihilism, and overall misandry present in much of popular rap — even rap made by “conscious” artists — is just some sort of postmodern social commentary reflecting on the trails and tribulations of post-industrial inner city society and finally admitted to myself that I just happen to like some ignorant-ass, vulgar-ass, violent-ass music that’s ignorant, vulgar, and violent for no reason. I’m not sure what exactly that says about me, but it’s about time I stopped trying to believe that wasn’t true.

The second realization wasn’t as easy to accept. I was either at my friend’s aunt’s house or outside of a greyhound station bathroom (can’t remember which) when I first remember hearing that “a man should love his wife a bit more than she loves him.”  In both instances, I was too busy making sure no improbably fast six-legged creatures crawled on my chicken to pay much attention to the phrase.

As the years passed, I began to hear it more and more, but it was never actually said with any type of sane explanation. A girl I dated in college once told me that her mom told her never to like a boy more than the boy likes her. When she asked her why, she apparently mumbled, shook her head, and said “because you don’t want to end up with the gout and worms like your grandmother, that’s why.”

Explanation or not, that sentiment just never really sat right with me. A relationship idealist, I believed that the best partnerships were formed when both parties fell in love simultaneously and loved each other equally. Plus, as a young man doing whatever the f*ck I needed to do to stay the hell away from any burgeoning relationship with “friend’s zone” potential, the idea that I need to be more into a woman than she was into me was an affront to my pride and the complete antithesis of everything I “learned” from the baseheads selling jumper cables outside of my barber shop through experience.

I don’t know exactly when or where I started to accept this sentiment as truth, but I do know today that it is undeniably, unequivocally, and uncomfortably true. Thing is, while (many) men seem to reject this sentiment because it seems to balance the dating and relationship scale in the woman’s favor, it’s actually necessary because that part of the game is already balanced in our favor. Us falling first and harder doesn’t do anything but even things out.

To wit, I’m assuming most of the thousands of men who will visit this blog today have been in at least one good relationship, and possibly more. I’m also going to assume that, in at least 50 percent of these relationships, the guy eventually “won” the woman over by “growing on” her. Basically, he was really feeling her, she was “eh” about him at first, but he eventually managed to somehow convince her that he was worth being with/sleeping with/swallowing, etc.

Now, if I were to ask how many of these men ended up happy with a woman that they were “eh” about at first until she convinced him that she was worth being with, I doubt I’d get many replies. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if I didn’t get any.

Because of certain sociological and biological factors largely out of our control, women aren’t really able to grow on men the same way we can grow on them, making it paramount that we (men) are the ones who show the most initial interest. Basically, while there’s a good chance that a good relationship can spring if a guy has grow on a chick, there’s absolutely no chance of it happening if the opposite occurs.

Also, another completely unscientific and unresearched theory to add to the rest of the completely unscientific and unresearched theories presented today is that men who aren’t head over hills about the woman they’re with are more likely to do things that “unsettled” men do — i.e., cheat, be non-committal, stay emotionally unavailable, etc.

Obviously, men in love do still do these things, but I just don’t think it happens as often as a man who doesn’t really feel like he put the time and effort into “winning” anybody. Just as women are more likely to value men who are wanted by other women but chose to pursue them, men are more likely to value the women they chose to attempt to win. It’s a truth I didn’t really want to admit, but I guess learning new shit is the best part about being a grown-up. (Actually, being able to drink moosetracks milkshakes for breakfast while sitting on your couch butt-naked and watching “Miller’s Crossing” without anyone saying a gotdamn thing is a pretty good part about being a grown-up, but that’s besides the point)

Anyway, people of VSB, do you think think it’s true that the best relationships happen when men fall in love a little harder and a little faster than the woman they’re with? (For some strange reason, I get the feeling that the responses will be split along gender lines. I may be wrong, though) 

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

"Why are you smiling?" "Just thinking about how lucky you are that I like your cologne."

I’m generally a fan of things Jason Segel has a hand in — “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” “Knocked Up,” etc — so it didn’t take much convincing for me to go see “The Five-Year Engagement” a few days ago. Without giving any spoilers, I’ll say that I enjoyed it but was somewhat disappointed by the fact that it started to veer into “Whoa. I’ve never seen this relationship situation really addressed in a movie before“ territory — which I greatly appreciated — but then got a bit more Hollywood towards the end.

Now, I understand why movies do tend to inch toward the “Hollywood relationship.” Although we bitch and clamor for realism, we still do generally want to be entertained and feel good at the end, and showing certain types of “real-life” relationships might cause people to enter the theater with buckets of hot buttered Zoloft instead of popcorn.

With this in mind, here are four types of real-life relationships you’ll probably never actually see in a movie

1. The man with the life-long side piece

In one of the most baffling types of real-life arrangements in existence, there are men who  have started and ended multiple relationships but managed to maintain the exact same side chick throughout each one. I guess it makes sense — comfort and consistency are, frankly, the shit — but if that isn’t the most ambitious-less, Everest College-ass relationship shit I’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is.

2. The f*ck buddies who don’t even really like f*cking each other

A couple years ago, a friend told me about an arrangement she had with a guy who’d come through once a week, have a couple glasses of moscato with her, and then would proceed to have terrible, awful, unbearably awkward sex with her. They both hated it — apparently he once fell asleep while she was on top of him, woke up, gave a couple more pumps, and fell back asleep — but this “relationship” continued for a couple months.

Thinking that this friend was an just a sad anomaly of coital despair, I told the story to another friend, who expressed that she also was in a similar arrangement — a full NBA season (seven months) of awful sex. When I asked her why she continued a friends with migrant worker benefits arrangement, she replied “I don’t know. I guess I just liked the way he smelled.”

3. The people only dating because…wait, why the hell are they dating again?

I was actually in a relationship like this a few years ago. We didn’t really like each other all that much, we both knew it wasn’t going to last longer than a year, and, well, did I mention the fact that we didn’t really like each other all that much?

I guess you can say that we stayed together because of the sex, but is it really worth staying in a relationship where both parties give each other a 5.5 to on the “10 point Like Scale” just because you’re sleeping with them four times a week?

It ended after exactly one year, which was maybe 11 months too long.

4. The people who’ve always pined for each other…but die without ever actually getting together

In the movies, these situations usually get resolved with some contrived-ass deferred meet cute that puts them in a situation where they have no choice but to realize that they need to be together.

In real life, though, sometimes these people continue to see each other in passing and at parties and continue to wonder and fantasize, but never actually hook-up — a situation as sad as the thought of Derrick Rose proctoring a PSAT. (Too soon?)

Anyway, people of VSB, can you think of any other types of relationships you’ll never see on screen? Also, if anyone out there has actually been in one of the type of relationships described today, come to #REMINISCEDC Saturday night and either I or Panama will give you a hug (if you’re a woman) or a shot (if you’re a man). Actually, f*ck it. Hugs and shots for everyone!

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

Pic only chosen because I thought it was funny that this image was the first thing to pop up when googling "single black man"

While most will probably remember 2012 as the “Year Of The YOLO” (and by “most” I mean “like seven people“), it holds special significance for me because it’ll likely be the first year since 2002 where I spent the entire year single. I haven’t completed a full calender year yet — May will make it seven months since the former Lady Champ and I decided to go our separate ways — but because I seem to enjoy doing random anthropological experiments on myself for absolutely no reason (and because I’m an INTJ and INTJs apparently suck at relationships), I’m confident that I’ll make it to 2013 without having to change my Facebook relationship status again.

Anyway, if I could sum up my seven months of singledom in one word, it would most likely be “interesting.” I’ve met some “interesting” people, done some “interesting” things, made some “interesting” decisions, and, most importantly, thought some “interesting” thoughts. The most “interesting” of these “interesting” thoughts? Being a single man is kind of overrated.

Now, as I stated on the day where I wrote about orgasms, “overrated” doesn’t mean “bad.” In fact, as the careers of Tupac and Derrick Rose continue to prove, something can be very, very good — even great — and still be overrated. I’ve enjoyed being single, and will likely continue to enjoy it. But, while it seems like many assume that being a single man (a single Black man, at that) is nothing but an utopic stream of easy popsicles, cold pancakes, and syrupy p*ssy, there are a few downsides.

1. It can be very lonely

As a person who wanted to be single, is a natural introvert, and generally enjoys doing things by himself, I’m surprised by how, for lack of a better term, “noticeable” the solitude and loneliness of singledom can be. Even when seeing multiple people and/or having tons of friends, being single means that you are…single, by yourself, and there may be times when you want to have someone around but there will be no one that you want to be around readily available to be around.

Then, to add insult to injury, if you’re an angsty motherf*cker like me, you’ll start thinking things like “Wait. I’m a single man. A single Black man. My dad named me after Dolemite. Shaka Zulu is my second cousin. People who’ve never even met me call me “Champ” for chrissakes. Why the f*ck do I feel lonely right now?” which’ll make it even worse.

2. You have to wear condoms. And, wearing condoms sucks

If you’re one of the 137 people left on Earth who always has protected sex — even if in a long-term, monogamous relationship — just skip this section and move on to #3. Also, I’ve left a plate of gotdamn sugar cookies at the end of this post as a reward for your duty. Please eat them with a gotdamn smile.

If you’re not one of these people, you should be able to relate to how frustrating it’s been to go from condom-less sex to having to worry about having gotdamn condoms all the damn time. And, even if you’re not actively having sex, “Do I have condoms?” and “Since I don’t have condoms, is there somewhere close where I can buy them?” always has to be on your mind.

Also, from a logistical perspective, they’re a hassle to put on, they smell like a pack of slutty balloons, and “sex with condoms” will always be the Mike Conley of coitus.

There is always the alternative — just don’t wear condoms while single, either — but I think one Cromartie per generation is enough.

(Btw, is it just me, or has the price of condoms spiked dramatically in the past four years? I was last single in 2008, and I don’t remember a box of condoms costing as much as it does to fill a gas tank. Does this qualify as a “first world problem?” If a Black blogger bitches about condoms in the woods, would Kanye’s missing draws make a sound?) 

As much as condoms suck, they don’t suck as much as…

3. Having to participate in the dating game

In a paradox so annoying that I almost didn’t mention it today because I plan on spending an entire day on this sole topic soon, I love meeting new, interesting women but I hate the process that usually goes along with meeting new, interesting women.

I understand (and appreciate) the purpose of the process, but knowing why it’s necessary doesn’t mean that you have to enjoy it.

4. The superficial romantic connections synonymous with singledom gets old

Ironically, the best thing about being a single man — possessing the ability to have myriad short, commitment-free relationships AT THE SAME DAMN TIME!!! — ends up being one of the worst after enough time has passed.

This actually hasn’t happened to me yet. I guess I’m still in the single honeymoon phrase. But, I’m certain it will, and the thought of this happening is already depressing me.

Actually, this entire list is getting depressing. ***Making note to self to make sure tomorrow’s post is about the playoffs or strippers or something***

5. You start to realize some, um, “unpositive” things about yourself

I’ve been in three long-term — “long term” = “monogamous relationship lasting at least a year” — relationships as an adult. Each of these relationships failed, and my wanting to be single was the main catalyst behind each of these failures. Now, because I’ve always been a guy who did all the “right on paper” relationship things — I’ve never cheated, never physically or verbally abused any girlfriends, always followed the chivalry handbooks, etc — I’ve always assumed that I’m good at being a partner. But, these last few months have made me realize that I have some real deficiencies in the relationship department — personality quirks that have subtly sabotaged each relationship I’ve been in.

I wouldn’t quite call myself a trojan horse — the sabotage isn’t intentional (at least it’s not consciously intentional) — but I’m just not very good at this relationship thing right now, and I intend to spend the rest of 2012 trying to figure out why.

That’s it for me today. Fellas — single or coupled up — how do you feel about the concept of singledom? Is it all the beer commercials make it out to be, or do you agree that it may be slightly overrated? Also, ladies, are the “single man problems” expressed today at all similar to any “single woman problems?”

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

Finger-licking good

(The following is a revised version of an entry posted three years ago. Happy Friday.)

One of the most peculiar things about “pastor chasing” is the fact that you have no idea (and no real control) over what’s going to pop into your head while you’re doing the deed. sure, you might begin the festivities with the thought of your girlfriend or Roxy Reynolds or the bespectacled big booty Applebee’s waitress you met last week, but your Id takes over once you get into the zone. And, as we all know, our Id’s are on crack. Sometimes the “pop-ins” are understandable (“Damn. I need to go to Caribana again“). Sometimes they’re intriguing (“Wow. Who knew my subconscious had a thing for Jill Marie Jones?“). Sometimes they’re bizarre (“Elastigirl?? Well, she did have a fat ass. and she’s flexible“), and sometimes they’re…well… …sometimes Annie the Chicken Queen – the woman from the Popeye’s Chicken commercials – pops into your head wearing nothing but an apron and bucket of butterfly shrimp, and, well, sometimes that just happens.

Because its Friday and I’ve already provided enough TMI this week, I won’t go into the myriad sexual, racial, and psychological undertones present with me fantasizing about a lascivious middle-aged cajun chicken-leg lady. But, I will say that this is a perfect example of the cringe-worthy fantasy–what happens when we find ourselves reluctantly sexually attracted to someone (whether it’s an elderly neighbor, a member of the Dipset, or Wanda Sykes) for reasons we can’t (and don’t want to) understand or explain.

Anyway, you’ve already heard enough from me. People of vsb.com, who are your cringe-worthy, “i’ll die before i tell someone i’m actually seriously attracted to this motherf*cka“, fantasies?

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

"Thanks Dad for the advice and for dressing us alike in this picture!"

In the comments of yesterday’s post, numerous people brought up the fact that the advice I’d give to a teenage son had a bit of a different feel than the advice I’d give to a teenager daughter. Paraphrasing, while the daughter-centric advice was “protective, thoughtful, and caring,” the son-centric advice came off as “harsh, snarky, asshole-ly, and cynical.”

I responded to a few of those comments to explain why the son’s advice and the daughter’s advice may have seemed contradictory, but I felt like I needed to say a bit more. Today is “a bit more.”

Both lists were coming from the same place — a father’s want for his children to have the best, happiest, and most fulfilling lives possible. But, since males and females are (obviously) very different — different motivations, different fears, different expectations — the advice did need to be different. For instance, the very first thing I told the son — he should try to wait until he’s in his early 30′s before getting married and starting a family — is, for various biological and sociological realities, absolutely awful advice to give to a young woman. This isn’t to say that young women can’t be successful if they followed that same path, but they’d have a much less likely chance of that happening than a guy would.

Anyway, realizing these differences, the advice I gave my daughter was a bit more protective and concerned with minimizing risk. Why? Certain “mistakes” such as having a baby at a young age or staying in a bad relationship far too long — things that aren’t “mistakes” per se, but will be interpreted as such — are generally more damaging for a woman than they would be for a man.

Is this fair? No. But, the fact remains that young women just aren’t able to get away with many of the things that young men are able to, and as a father it would be irresponsible not to recognize that reality. In my opinion, teaching a daughter how to spot and avoid bad situations is the best dating/relationship/man advice any father can give her.

I want both “team daughter” and “team son” to win the game. But, while “team son” needs to play to win, “team daughter” would be best served playing not to lose. The fact that women have certain “advantages” over men (and by “certain advantages over men”  means “pretty much everything men do is specifically structured around getting access to them“) means that “team daughter” starts the game with a 30 point lead, and “not doing anything stupid or reckless to give up that lead” gives them the best chance at winning.

Team son, on the other hand, will need a deep playbook, a reliable substitution pattern, an advanced scouting report, an offensive and defensive coordinator, and some favorable refs to have a shot at winning. Basically, while team daughter can be the 1996 Chicago Bulls — a team that, since they had the two best players in the league (as well as the best coach, best rebounder, best defense, etc), basically won games by just showing up at the gym — team son needs to be the 2008 Boston Celtics — a bunch of grimy, shit-talking, cheating, crafty, and resilient motherf*ckers to be competitive

Fair? No. But again, this is a reality, and (IMO) parents should prepare their children for the world that is, not the world they wished existed.

Last thing. I want to make clear that this was the advice I’d give to my children, not what I think every parent should tell their sons and daughters. It’s not meant to be universal, easily palatable, or politically correct, and it’s based on what I — as a man who’s had very specific experiences in his three decades on Earth so far — think would be the best way for them to navigate the dating and relationship world.

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”) 

Stop frontin

We’ve all heard the story.

Boy meets Girl at annual Delta pie-eating contest boat ride afterparty. Boy’s impressed with Girl’s diction and the barely perceptible gap between her thighs when she stands up. Girl’s, well, Girl’s not annoyed with the way Boy holds his drink. Girl, tired of being the only one in the crew without a spades partner for game night, gives Boy her number. Boy and Girl go on several decent, but completely mundane dates. During the middle of the 8th date, Girl happens to glance at a nearby booth and see a man that looks exactly like Idris Elba. Girl gets so aroused by this that she quickly ends the date, takes Boy back to her place, and finally lets him hit. Since Girl is a decent Delta woman, a Christian, and a mulatto, having sex with Boy means that Boy is now her boyfriend. Boy agrees because, well, they’re having sex now and he wants to continue the sexual gravy train. Neither is all that enthused with each other, but because they’re too nice to break up — and because both live in cold apartments, making bed partners practically necessary — Boy and Girl date for 14 years. One Sunday afternoon, while both are sitting on Girl’s couch, watching “Cougartown” or whatever the hell else people in bullshit relationships watch, both Girl and Boy literally die of boredom. And, since no one bothers to check on them for weeks, their pets (two dogs, a cat, and a collection of stink bugs no one ever bothered to kill) eat their remains.

While there are many pluses to being smart/upwardly mobile/(slightly) bougie, a huge drawback is the fact that much of your existence is about keeping up appearances. This results in many of us entering “good on paper” relationships, where we get in (and sometimes stay in) couplings where while it looks like you two should be together, something is just missing that keeps the relationship from being great. And, what makes this even worse is the fact that both parties are aware of this fact, but they continue going through the motions because, well, they’re smart and they think they can outsmart this situation as well.

Anyway, willingly entering half-assed relationships is just one of the many dumb-ass things that smart people regularly do, and here’s a few more.

Have unprotected sex

Yes, everyone does it. But, as I’ve already explained in detail, when we do it it’s worse for three reasons:

A) We have no excuses. We’re educated about sex, we have enough disposable income to purchase an endless supply of contraception, and we all remember TLC’s “Waterfalls” video

B) We think our eyes (“She has a masters. She has to be clean. Plus, she shops at IKEA.”) are smarter than the free clinic

C) We actually have the most to lose. So what if Plaxico and Dominosha don’t use a condom and get pregnant? They already have eight kids between them. Might as well hope for twins so they can at least play 5 on 5 against each other when they’re all in the county jail in 19 years. But, despite the fact that we all know that unwanted kids have a way of derailing dreams and plans and annual trips to the national Urban League Conference and shit, many of us still through caution (and our semens) to the wind.

Try to “outsmart” nature

I’m not going to say that this is something that educated women tend to do much more often that educated men, but educated women do this much more often than educated men. Basically, this is what happens when a woman reads “The Bluest Eye” and some Bell Hooks and all of a sudden thinks that certain gender-specific things (ie: generally speaking, women aren’t “built” to be able to sleep around and be completely carefree about it.¹) that have been proven over the last billion or so years don’t apply to her.

(BTW: Am I the only one who has trouble understanding why (some) women seem to be fighting tooth and nail to be able to adopt the very worst stereotypically “man-centric” characteristics? It’s like a scientist developing a meat alternative to beef, but instead of mimicking the taste or the protein benefits, he devises something that clogs your arteries and makes you take five shits a day)

Eliminate perfectly good romantic options for extremely stupid f*cking reasons

Let’s just say that if you refuse to date a chick because you found out that, in 1998, she happened to sleep with a guy you just deleted from your Facebook friends list last week because you don’t really remember him from middle school and he doesn’t seem to really get the purpose of Facebook, you may very well likely deserve to not be allowed to breathe anymore.

Anyway, people of VSB.com, can you think of any other dumb-ass dating and relationship-centric things that educated people regularly do?  

¹If you’re angry about me saying this, don’t be mad at me. Blame God. Or Eve. Or Jim Jones. Either way, don’t blame me

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

***For all the folks in the DC area, this Saturday, April 7, from 930pm-3am at Liv Nightclub (11th and U Street, NW) is another edition of #REMINISCE, the party dedicated to all 90s everything brought to you by VSB, Shine On Me, and Just Cause Events. It’s FREE BEFORE 11 w/RSVP (reminiscedc.eventbrite.com), a Courvoisier sponosred open bar from 930-1030pm, and no dress code! It’s cheaper to come out and party. Last month’s party was OFF THE HINGES! Somebody shook my hand when they left and just said, “Thanks P, for throwing this party…” <—- not lying. So come and make it do what it do this Saturday at Reminisce!***

***A (somewhat) paraphrased summary of a conversation I had with a female friend last week***

“I read your “Slut” post”

“Congrats!”

“Shut up.”

“What did you think?”

“You’re a semantics ho.”

“You always give me the best compliments.”

“That wasn’t a compliment. More like an assessment of how annoying your awkward principles are”

“Thanks!”

“Anyway, I see the point you made, and I agree…kind of, sort of. But, there are certain words that’ll never be cool. Bitch. C*nt. Kappa, etc. Slut is one of them. There’s just too negative history behind it.”

“Why are you bringing this up now?”

“Something about that discussion just rubbed me the wrong way. It wasn’t really the discussion itself, either. It’s just…I don’t know. I know that promiscuous women are  frowned upon by men, but I have trouble understanding why y’all n*ggas even care. I get the whole male ego thing, but if a woman is sleeping with you, devoted to you, and monogamous, why should it even matter how many men she’s slept with before she met you?”

“You kind of answered your question right there. I doubt that most adult men would dead a relationship with a woman who’s sleeping with, devoted to, and in love with him just because he found out that she’s been around the block more times than a mailman with dementia. Thing is, if he found out that information beforehand, he’d probably be less likely to want to get into a relationship with her”

“Why?”

“Because, many men feel that a woman who has been promiscuous is less likely to be devoted to him, monogamous, and capable of staying in love with him. Basically, it’s not as much about “being with someone everyone else has been with” as much as it’s about “The more men she’s been with, the less likely she is to be completely fulfilled by what I’m bringing to the table.” You really don’t “get the male ego thing” because this is all about ego.”

“Yea, I’ve heard that before, and I still don’t get it.”

“Get what?”

“The visceral dislike many men have of promiscuous women. I guess I understand why it matters. What I don’t get is why it seems to matter to y’all so damn much. Are all of you really that damn insecure?”

“Hmm”

“Why are you making that face?”

“I know you hate my analogies, but I have no choice but to make another one now.”

“Give it to me.”

“That’s what she said.”

“Huh?”

“Nevermind. Anyway, remember the conversation we had about homosexual men, and how you wouldn’t be able to be with a dude who’d done even one non-straight thing in the past — even if you knew the guy was devoted to you and monogamous?”

“Of course. I’m not special, though. Most women feel that way.”

“Exactly.”

“Exactly what? Will you stop speaking in f*cking code for once?”

“How you (most women) feel about “hetero” men who might have done something gay before is exactly how many (if not most) men feel about promiscuous women.”

“Apples and oranges. How do those things even compare? It’s nowhere near the same thing.”

“Maybe not, but how that knowledge makes the opposite gender feel and react is the same. The same reasons why many woman wouldn’t want to be with a guy with a homosexual past — the doubts she’ll have if she’ll ever be enough for him, the fact that she might not be able to help picturing him f*cking or getting f*cked by another man, etc — are the same things going through many men’s heads when thinking of promiscuous women.”

“I don’t believe you.”

“That’s ok. You don’t have to.”

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

It happens at least once a season. Someone on a few high profile blogs or websites will state their particular take about the whole “women are attracted to assholes” thing, and, as was seen last week at Jezebel, The National Review, Male Fide, and Chateau Heartiste, each of the (combined) thousands of responses these articles will generate will fit into one of eight categories.

1. Women using anecdotal evidence to deny that women are attracted to assholes. 

2. Women saying that it is true…for young women and stupid women. Mature women don’t  fall for the same tricks

3. Women saying “It’s not that we like assholes, it’s just that “nice” guys are usually assholes in disguise. So, why not just deal with the real thing?”

4. Women reluctantly agreeing with the theory that asshole men are generally more attractive to women, and cursing God for giving them such predictable vaginas

5. Women happily agreeing that it’s true that women are into jerks. 

6. Men using anecdotal evidence to state that assholes don’t win. (i.e. “I’m a nice guy, and I stay swimming in ass, yo.“)

7. Men stating that assholes do win, and also saying that any woman (or man) who doesn’t agree is being dishonest.

8. Men stating that assholes win, and using this info as proof that women are generally f*cked up people, and also using it as an excuse for why their lame ass hasn’t gotten any p*ssy since Big P*ssy was still alive on “The Sopranos”

Where do I stand in all of this? While I don’t think that women are inherently attracted to assholes per se, I do believe that many of the characteristics that turn women’s panties into Niagara Falls happen to be possessed in abundance by men who happen to be assholes.

I do not think this is a coincidence, though. Men (and women) who happen to be at the top of the food chain are given more asshole-leeway. A 10 can get away with more sh*t than a 7 can. Also, since they’re used to people treating them like they’re the sh*t, they possess less incentive not to be assholes.

It’s funny, though. A part of me wants to believe that not being as asshole is the way to go, but both anecdotal and observational evidence doesn’t agree with that. Even from my own personal experience, I’ve found that being me, but an aloof, distant, apathetic, and (somewhat) mysterious me does actually work better than being an open and, dare I say it, “nice” me.

Anyway, that’s enough from me today. People of VSB.com, how exactly do you feel about the theory that women are generally attracted to assholes? Also, which one of the eight are you?

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock or one of Eddy Curry’s areolas for the past week, you’ve undoubtedly heard about the controversy involving Rush Limbaugh and Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke.

(Abridged version: During an unofficial Congressional hearing about contraception last Thursday, Fluke argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions, testifying that students at Georgetown pay as much as $1,000 a year for contraception. Limbaugh spoke about this on his radio show the next day, and referred to Fluke as a “slut.” Predictably, the hundreds of thousands of different angles you can take on this news story has given everyone associated with media a never-ending hard on since it broke.)

Now, Limbaugh is an disgustingly wealthy man (seriously!!!) who’s amassed his fortune by being very good at being a syphilitic chickenhawk, so him saying nasty things about a young woman is about as “dog bites man”-ey as a story can get.

Yet, in the past couple days, as I read Limbaugh getting publicly pimp-slapped by President Obama and clicked on several different articles written by several very serious people accusing him of “slut shaming,” one question kept popping up in my head: Why is “slut” a bad word?

Now, this question is (obviously) rhetorical. I know exactly why slut is considered to be such a pejorative term. I also don’t mean in any way to suggest that Fluke shouldn’t have been offended, angered, hurt, and saddened by Limbaugh using a word like that to describe her.

Thing is, my question isn’t about Limbaugh or Fluke or the contraceptive controversy. (Please re-read that). It’s not even about the term itself as much as what it’s used to describe: a person (woman or man) who has (or had) many sexual partners.

If, as many progressive, open-minded and liberal people say they believe, having numerous sexual partners isn’t a thing that a person needs to be ashamed of, why is there still such a negative connotation attached to the words commonly used to describe people who fit that definition?

I know that words like slut and ho and skank are used to shame, but if the acts themselves aren’t shameful, how are those words still given that power, and why haven’t we thought of any replacements?

You can argue that the mere act of creating a word to describe a person’s sexual activity is judgmental in itself. That argument breaks down, though, when you realize that not only do we have words to describe all human activity, we have also have considerate (and occasionally condescending) euphemisms for any terms that may have any type of negative connotation. We all know that “seasoned” means “old” and “plus-sized” means “fat,” but we still regularly incorporate the code words because they just sound less derisive.

Promiscuity, though, has no such euphemism. There’s no generally accepted “kind” way of saying “slutty.” Perhaps someone reading this can, but I can’t think of a way a person can reference someone having a much larger than usual amount of sexual partners¹ and it not come across as potentially (and likely) incendiary. I’ve heard people ironically refer to themselves or their friends as “slut” or “ho,” but once you remove the irony and the tongue-in-cheekness, it always stings (or is meant to sting).²

I wonder if this is because, despite what we might publicly say, we — men, women, liberals, conservatives, feminists, womanists, and bigamists alike — all still kind of feel that there is something off with a person who sleeps around. I don’t know. I do know, though, that it looks like I have no answers to that rhetorical question.

Maybe one of you might. if promiscuity isn’t a bad thing, why do you think that every single term used to describe a promiscuous person has such an unquestionably negative connotation? Basically, if being a “slut” isn’t a bad thing, why is “slut” still such a bad word? And, since it’s still a shitty word, why haven’t we thought of a word or even just a euphemism to replace it?

²There’s an obvious parallel here between “slut/ho” and “nigger.” No further thoughts, just pointing that out

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)

"You sure you don't want some Kool-Aid? I'll even get you some ice. And a pickle."

We’ve all been there before.

Girl invites boy over for movies, lukewarm purple Kool-Aid, and the unspoken assertion that, unless Boy shows up smelling like pickles or dressed like Chris Brown, Boy and Girl are going to have sex that night. Boy manages not to mess things up, and, lo and behold, the night ends with Boy and Girl making the beast with two backs. Boy and Girl have had sex with each other before, so this is no big deal. But, for whatever reason, sex seems to be a bit more intense tonight. The “mac and cheese” sound¹ is in full effect as moans are a little louder, growls are a little deeper, and the concept of time is a complete non-motherf*cking factor. Boy has a laser beam-like focus on Girl’s various spots, making Girl speak languages that have been dead for five centuries. When Girl eventually climaxes, the earth will shake, the moon will blush, and the ghosts of Ikea will place a phantom order to replace Girl’s soon to be broken bed. Girl enthusiastically lets Boy know that she’s 32 to 47 seconds away from orgasm, a statement that excites Boy and forces him hit spots with even more precision. Unfortunately, Boy becomes a bit too excited, and Boy climaxes right when Girl has hit the 5 to 8 second mark. Boy, realizing Girl’s thisclose to a cop calling orgasm, tries to finish the job, but isn’t erect enough to hit Girl’s spots anymore. Seconds later, Boy is completely flaccid. Boy rolls over, says “I’m sorry” and offers to get Girl some lukewarm Kool-Aid while Girl lays in bed and wonders if a female judge would acquit her if she happens to kill Boy but tells the judge her reasoning for the murder.

Regardless of age, color, creed, and feelings about Linsanity, every sexually active man reading this has “stopped short” before. We can’t help it. Even though we know that if we can hold off for just 10 more seconds your body will turn hot day fire hydrant, sometimes we’re just unable to stop.

Sure, there are certain ways to prolong things when this happens (i.e.: think about Kurt Cobain, switch positions, scream “Don’t move a gotdamn inch!!!!”, etc), but sometimes things reach a point of no return, and the woman’s near climax will be forever lost to the deep, dark, surprisingly damp, and surprisingly angry space in space where “close, but not quite orgasms” eventually settle.

Anyway, “stopping short” is just one of the many legitimately f*cked up things all men do to women, and here’s four more. 

2. Eat all of your food, and drink each of your beverages

Out of all the things on this list, this one isn’t really our fault. You can’t say things like “Make yourself at home.” and then get pissed when we take you to your word and eat all of your leftover pizza, half of your Cheetos, each of your lettuce wraps, and a full slab of your turkey bacon. 

3. Pretend like we did absolutely nothing to encourage women to continue flirting with us

It’s usually nothing too disrespectful or too egregious. But, despite how much we feign ignorance, we know when women are flirting with us, and we also know that all it takes to dead the flirting is to act indifferent, apathetic, or even occasionally annoyed. Despite this knowledge, we’ll still return the smile or the hug or the lunch invitation or even ever so slightly laugh at her attempt at “Ok, I’m going to say something that’s supposed to be funny. It’s clearly not, though. Let’s see if he takes the bait and laughs” humor.

4. Intentionally give awful dating advice

My favorite is when men suggest that, since it’s the 21st century, chicks need to “woman up” and start approaching guys.

Nevermind the fact that no man in the history of mandom has ever been in a happy and healthy relationship with a woman who approached, bagged, and pursued him. We’re generally lazy motherf*ckers who just enjoy when women put in some of the work…even though these “working” women probably aint ever gonna make it past the 2am Wendy’s drive-thru.

5. Pretend like we’re completely unable to remember birthdays, anniversaries, plans, shopping instructions, and any other information more important to you than it is to us

Admittedly, I probably do this more than anything else on the list. I can tell you exactly what Michael Jordan’s average PPG was in the 86-87 NBA season without googling it (37.1), but if a woman I happen to be seeing asks me to remember to pick up some eggs and celery from the store before I come home, my brain all of a sudden turns Tyga as I’ll faux-try to remember those difficult-ass details so hard that I’ll start drooling; a elaborate subterfuge with a clear and precise goal in mind: She never asks me to do that again

Anyway people of VSB, I’m sure I’m forgetting a few. Can you think of any other legitimately f*cked up things all men regularly do to women? Also, fellas, can you think of legitimately sh*tty sh*t that all women do to us?

¹When sex is very good, it sounds like a pot of mac and cheese being mixed with a wooden spoon.

—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)