It's no coincidence that during these times when the spotlight shines brightly on bullying Taylor Swift would include on her latest album a song called "Mean." Someday, I'll be living in a big ol city, and all you're every gonna be is mean/Someday, I'll be big enough so you can't hit me, and all you're ever gonna be is mean, she sings.
No, this isn't a review of the song; it's merely a commentary. Perhaps she's singing about an abusive parent or a mean child in school. Either way, Taylor's not using dirty, underhanded tactics to deal with her bully. She's not fighting fire with fire, as the saying goes. She's being the bigger person, walking away, but reminding her tormentor that "all you're ever gonna be is mean" if you don't change.
It's very easy in bullying situations for the victim to want to fight back with violence or to embarrass the bully (fighting fire with fire). Neither of those tactics work. Some people say that in order to stop from being picked on, you have to stand up for yourself and throw the first punch. Unfortunately, there's a good chance that will just lead to you getting your ass kicked. The idea of a bully (someone who's, in theory, bigger than you) running scared because you dared to throw a punch is laughable. More likely, the bully will throw a punch right back, which is the exact situation you're trying to avoid.
If you want to preserve your own life and well-being, inciting violence does not seem like the wisest move. That doesn't mean you need to back down or run away or act scared. Standing up to a bully simply means letting him or her know regardless of what they do and say, you're not going to let it affect you. Eventually, they realize their strategy isn't working and they'll leave you alone. That's the ultimate goal.
I've been bullied. I was picked on. But in my life I've only thrown one punch. I survived my youth by avoiding confrontation. I wrestled someone to the ground once, but that was as far as I took it.
Bullies pick on the weaker because it's easier to push them around . . . obviously. Fighting back with violence doesn't make you stronger, it just makes you look desperate. It means the bully has achieved his or her goal by getting into your head and making you do things you don't wanna do. If a bully just wanted to fight, he'd pick on someone bigger who likes fighting.
Not only do you risk serious injury by fighting back aggressively, you also stoop to his or her level. You've become a bully yourself. Suppose you fight back, and suppose you somehow end up kicking the shit out of your bully. You're now no better than he or she is. Perhaps you were just defending yourself. But when does the violence escalate to the point where you're no longer defending yourself, he or she is.
No one wants to be picked on. No one wants to be seen as weak. But fighting back aggressively doesn't make you strong. If a bully is nonphysical means to harass you, using those same means to harass him or her doesn't make you better. It makes you no different.
I laugh when people who are angry with Perez Hilton for being a bully, use the same bullying tactics to insult him. An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind, they say. Two wrongs don't make a right, they say.
How about this one: to ere is human, to forgive is divine. It takes a big person to say, "I know you've been picking on me, know you've made my life miserable, but I don't hate you. I forgive you." Pope John Paul II went to the jail where the man who attempted to murder him was being kept and forgave him.
Maybe the next time you get picked on, you ask the bully, "Why ya gotta be so mean?"
Monday, October 25, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Stigma
There is a stigma attached to being a Britney Spears fan. Those who like her are stereotyped: girls are dumb and boys are gay. Very simplistic.
Many people are embarrassed to admit they like her. And if her name is brought up in conversation, they will rarely speak their true feelings about her. It may not seem like much (it's only Britney), but it shows how so many people are afraid to be themselves.
Thanks to silly generalizations, we've made it difficult for people who don't follow social norms to be open about who they are and what they believe in. It's easy to like something that everyone else likes. It's easy to be someone who everyone else already is. There are no funny looks if you're a heterosexual male who finds Heidi Klum attractive. People don't give sideways glances to girls who gush over Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp.
But life isn't that simple. Not everyone fits into a neat, little box. For every heterosexual guy who listens to Lil Wayne or Green Day, there's one guy blasting "If You Seek Amy." For every girl listening to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga, there's one girl with a weird haircut listening to David Bowie.
So, when faced with the dilemma of handling these "weird, out of the box" people, we have two choices: except them for who they are or shame them back into the box. It's no surprise that most people choose the latter option. It's much easier to ridicule someone than it is to accept their differences.
Kids in school are bullied for this very reason: their classmates can't/won't accept them for who they are, so they resort to teasing. It takes patience and understanding to fully comprehend why people are the way they are. Why does the heterosexual male listen to Britney Spears? Why does the homosexual male like extreme fighting/boxing? Why does a girl shave half her head and listen to Depeche Mode? Why ask these questions when you can just make jokes?
Many people claim to live in the box marked "normal," yet what is normal exactly? The person teasing you about your Britney obsession might go home every afternoon and watch Hannah Montana. The person who calls you a queer and a homo, might spend his/her nights having homosexual fantasies.
There's a stigma attached to being a Britney Spears fan. There's a stigma attached to a lot of things. You either ignore it or you let it dictate your life. You can be ashamed, you can hide in the corner, you can listen to her music on your headphones alone in your room, or you can be proud, proud enough to blast her music like the guy down the halls blasts his Kanye West.
There are always two choices in every situation. You have every right to follow societal norms. Blend in. Go unnoticed. Be timid.
There's a stigma attached to being a Britney Spears fan. But who said you had to give a fuck.
Many people are embarrassed to admit they like her. And if her name is brought up in conversation, they will rarely speak their true feelings about her. It may not seem like much (it's only Britney), but it shows how so many people are afraid to be themselves.
Thanks to silly generalizations, we've made it difficult for people who don't follow social norms to be open about who they are and what they believe in. It's easy to like something that everyone else likes. It's easy to be someone who everyone else already is. There are no funny looks if you're a heterosexual male who finds Heidi Klum attractive. People don't give sideways glances to girls who gush over Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp.
But life isn't that simple. Not everyone fits into a neat, little box. For every heterosexual guy who listens to Lil Wayne or Green Day, there's one guy blasting "If You Seek Amy." For every girl listening to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga, there's one girl with a weird haircut listening to David Bowie.
So, when faced with the dilemma of handling these "weird, out of the box" people, we have two choices: except them for who they are or shame them back into the box. It's no surprise that most people choose the latter option. It's much easier to ridicule someone than it is to accept their differences.
Kids in school are bullied for this very reason: their classmates can't/won't accept them for who they are, so they resort to teasing. It takes patience and understanding to fully comprehend why people are the way they are. Why does the heterosexual male listen to Britney Spears? Why does the homosexual male like extreme fighting/boxing? Why does a girl shave half her head and listen to Depeche Mode? Why ask these questions when you can just make jokes?
Many people claim to live in the box marked "normal," yet what is normal exactly? The person teasing you about your Britney obsession might go home every afternoon and watch Hannah Montana. The person who calls you a queer and a homo, might spend his/her nights having homosexual fantasies.
There's a stigma attached to being a Britney Spears fan. There's a stigma attached to a lot of things. You either ignore it or you let it dictate your life. You can be ashamed, you can hide in the corner, you can listen to her music on your headphones alone in your room, or you can be proud, proud enough to blast her music like the guy down the halls blasts his Kanye West.
There are always two choices in every situation. You have every right to follow societal norms. Blend in. Go unnoticed. Be timid.
There's a stigma attached to being a Britney Spears fan. But who said you had to give a fuck.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Amnesia
It appears Lindsay Lohan gets amnesia whenever she's in a courtroom. That's the only explanation for how could have been (allegedly) shocked when Judge Elden Fox sentenced her to 30 days in jail with no bail. Although she was dressed to impress, it appears the judge was not moved. Britney Spears once sang, "6-inch heels make a boy wanna bite his lip." Unfortunately, the judge either doesn't listen to Britney or prefers a smaller heel.
In all seriousness, Lindsay has a legitimate problem. I believe that doing drugs should not be considered a crime. Selling drugs, definitely, but not doing them. Of course, Lindsay won't stay very long in jail (overcrowding and all that). Still, this seems to be a woman who needs medical help. Truthfully, she needs a parental figure who cares more about her than about being on TV or in the papers.
It seems her father, Michael, speaks to X17online every day. Her mom, Dina, loves to talk to Extra, the Today Show, or any other entertainment show that will have her. While it may be true that Lindsay is an adult and should be able to take care of herself, we all need strong, supportive parents to guide us. Lindsay only has weak, unsupportive parents. Sure, perhaps even in a loving household Lindsay would have still become a drug addict, but it's less likely.
Yes, Lindsay has to take responsibility for her actions. And, yes, her drug problem is her fault. But the State of California has to get her some help (not put her in the slammer for a few hours). And, truthfully, she's a work in progress (as is any person with an addiction), so it's unfair to expect her to get clean overnight. If she keeps at it, and there's no reason to think she won't, over time she'll become less dependent on the drugs. She just needs the chance (and the guidance).
We should all root for someone like Lindsay, because she could be any of us. Sure, she's been to rehab four times. However, just because she hasn't taken to it yet, doesn't mean she doesn't continue to deserve the opportunities.
We all deserve the chance to live a clean, healthy life.
In all seriousness, Lindsay has a legitimate problem. I believe that doing drugs should not be considered a crime. Selling drugs, definitely, but not doing them. Of course, Lindsay won't stay very long in jail (overcrowding and all that). Still, this seems to be a woman who needs medical help. Truthfully, she needs a parental figure who cares more about her than about being on TV or in the papers.
It seems her father, Michael, speaks to X17online every day. Her mom, Dina, loves to talk to Extra, the Today Show, or any other entertainment show that will have her. While it may be true that Lindsay is an adult and should be able to take care of herself, we all need strong, supportive parents to guide us. Lindsay only has weak, unsupportive parents. Sure, perhaps even in a loving household Lindsay would have still become a drug addict, but it's less likely.
Yes, Lindsay has to take responsibility for her actions. And, yes, her drug problem is her fault. But the State of California has to get her some help (not put her in the slammer for a few hours). And, truthfully, she's a work in progress (as is any person with an addiction), so it's unfair to expect her to get clean overnight. If she keeps at it, and there's no reason to think she won't, over time she'll become less dependent on the drugs. She just needs the chance (and the guidance).
We should all root for someone like Lindsay, because she could be any of us. Sure, she's been to rehab four times. However, just because she hasn't taken to it yet, doesn't mean she doesn't continue to deserve the opportunities.
We all deserve the chance to live a clean, healthy life.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Covering Up a Possible Cover up
There's so much information out there, it's really hard to know who or what to believe. He says this, she says that, and someone else says this, that and the other. But which one can you trust?
When Adam Leber calls bullshit on a report that Jason Trawick proposed to Britney Spears is he more believable than the magazine(s) that reported the story? Technically, he's supposed to call bullshit on something like that. If Britney and Jason get engaged, she's going to want to make the announcement, not let some magazine beat her to the punch. If the magazine(s) beat her to the punch, what other choice is there but to call those reports lies?
On the other hand, can you really believe magazines that constantly post either knowingly or unknowingly false information? They're really not reliable. These stories are posted, not for their accuracy, but to entice people to buy the magazines. A cover story about Britney and Jason getting married could be very enticing.
So, both sides have reasons to lie: either for personal gain or protection. How, then, do you know who to believe?
You may come to the conclusion that magazines lie all the time and managers/publicists don't. That's a misinformed conclusion, because magazines don't lie all the time and managers/publicists do, in fact, lie sometimes. Concluding that magazines lie more than managers/publicists, etc, so always believe the manger/publicist over the magazine is another misinformed conclusion. While technically true, if you subscribe to that theory, you ignore those times when the magazine got the story right and the manager/publicist lied to cover it up.
The only way to truly go about it is to simply believe no one. Look at the facts and come up with your own conclusion. If there are no facts, necessarily, then go by what you know. Use history as a guideline. Don't just assume that person a is right and person b is wrong. Blindly following that which you're not sure of only gets you lost.
In the grand scheme of things, it's probably no ones business, anyway. Magazines will continue to publish stories (real or imaged) that will entice buyers, and managers/publicists will continue to say whatever it takes to make their client look good.
When Adam Leber calls bullshit on a report that Jason Trawick proposed to Britney Spears is he more believable than the magazine(s) that reported the story? Technically, he's supposed to call bullshit on something like that. If Britney and Jason get engaged, she's going to want to make the announcement, not let some magazine beat her to the punch. If the magazine(s) beat her to the punch, what other choice is there but to call those reports lies?
On the other hand, can you really believe magazines that constantly post either knowingly or unknowingly false information? They're really not reliable. These stories are posted, not for their accuracy, but to entice people to buy the magazines. A cover story about Britney and Jason getting married could be very enticing.
So, both sides have reasons to lie: either for personal gain or protection. How, then, do you know who to believe?
You may come to the conclusion that magazines lie all the time and managers/publicists don't. That's a misinformed conclusion, because magazines don't lie all the time and managers/publicists do, in fact, lie sometimes. Concluding that magazines lie more than managers/publicists, etc, so always believe the manger/publicist over the magazine is another misinformed conclusion. While technically true, if you subscribe to that theory, you ignore those times when the magazine got the story right and the manager/publicist lied to cover it up.
The only way to truly go about it is to simply believe no one. Look at the facts and come up with your own conclusion. If there are no facts, necessarily, then go by what you know. Use history as a guideline. Don't just assume that person a is right and person b is wrong. Blindly following that which you're not sure of only gets you lost.
In the grand scheme of things, it's probably no ones business, anyway. Magazines will continue to publish stories (real or imaged) that will entice buyers, and managers/publicists will continue to say whatever it takes to make their client look good.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Burn, Bitch, Burn!
We're obsessed with weight. Not a news flash, I grant you. But our obsessive behavior has led to the invention of two disorders inconceivable to the ration mind: anorexia and bulimia (or starving yourself and puking). How did these disorders come about? Who was the first person to decided that puking up food was a good idea?
Can you imagine any other being behaving this way? Imagine dogs and cats puking up their food intentionally or fish regurgitating their fish food. Why did we decide this would be a good way to live? Or, forget puking it up, just don't eat it. Save yourself the money and trouble of cooking and just don't eat. These are the genius ideas we've come up with as human beings to deal with weight gain.
It's not just weight we're obsessed with. It's our general appearance. Not our health or well-being, just our outward appearance, how we look. No one cares about the inside, just the outside.
We've invented so many products to "cure" the outside: botox to stop the aging process, implants to give you boobs, liposuction to take away the fat, rhinoplasty to fix the big honker, and so much more. There's a problem, though: you can't actually stop the aging process. And fake tits won't make you more of a woman. And liposuction may suck the fat away, but it won't make you healthier. And a smaller nose won't lead to less blowing or sickness.
When Kim Kardashian says she wants botox because she has lines on her face and is embarrassed, someone needs to remind her that she's nearly 30. Botox may stop her from looking 30, but it won't stop her from being 30. And when she dies, I don't think God will give her preferential treatment because she has no lines on her face.
Women seem to fight these battles more than men do. Unfortunately, men seem to be the reason the battles exist. Women binge and purge or refuse to eat, because their last boyfriend called them fat. Women inject chemicals into their faces, because their husbands don't pay attention to them. In that regard, I have to call out the men for their insensitive and hurtful behavior.
Being a fan of Britney Spears, I read a lot of negative things about her. Most of the negativity concerns her appearance. She's been "too big" in a lot of people's eyes for a while now. I've read a lot of comments about how she looks good, but still needs to lose a few more pounds. When you call these people out for being jerks, their response is typically, "I'm just being honest" or they give you a state of pop music address and rattle off names of those who are hotter than Britney. Well, good for those ladies. No woman should have to look like anyone else to be accepted.
There may be women out there with better bodies than Britney depending on your point of view and taste. So what? I remember a few years ago when people gave Jennifer Love Hewitt shit for having a big ass. Yes, she was on the beach in a bikini and her ass was big. Again, so what?
It is the unjustified criticisms that lead women to become anorexic or bulimic. If JLH hears she has a big ass, maybe she can deflect that and not let it get to her. If Britney hears she needs to lose weight, maybe she can deflect that, too. But what about other women, ones who look up to people like Britney and JLH, can they deflect the criticism when they look in the mirror and realize they're bigger than both these girls?
Why do men put women down? Why do women put women down? Jealousy? No. It's the insecurities we have about our own bodies. If someone convinces Kim Kardashian that she looks old, it's because that person feels old, and he or she doesn't want to feel alone. If you can convince someone he or she looks like shit, you can have a companion in misery.
Just recently, Catt Sadler (of the Daily 10 on the E! network) tweeted she needed to tighten and tone. All I could think about was what could she possibly tone and tighten. If she's bigger than a size 2 I'll eat my keyboard. Now, I'm sure she didn't say this because she feels fat. It was probably more of a reminder to herself to stay fit. However, it's also a reminder some people are never satisfied. They can never be too tone or too fit. Their boobs can never be too big. Their stomach too flat. Their skin too porcelain.
It seems even the best looking of us have insecurities. While that may seem "cute" on the surface, it's a sad reminder of how some people just don't get it.
To some women, Kim Kardashian is the ultimate beauty. But is that good enough for her? Britney Spears has a body many would die for. But is that good enough for her fans? Catt Sadler could put women half her age to shame. But is she toned and tight enough?
I guess the moral is no matter how hard you strive for perfection, you'll always be one-step away. It's best, therefore, to look, not with your eyes, but with your mind. Sometimes the blind can get from point A to point B quicker than the sighted.
Can you imagine any other being behaving this way? Imagine dogs and cats puking up their food intentionally or fish regurgitating their fish food. Why did we decide this would be a good way to live? Or, forget puking it up, just don't eat it. Save yourself the money and trouble of cooking and just don't eat. These are the genius ideas we've come up with as human beings to deal with weight gain.
It's not just weight we're obsessed with. It's our general appearance. Not our health or well-being, just our outward appearance, how we look. No one cares about the inside, just the outside.
We've invented so many products to "cure" the outside: botox to stop the aging process, implants to give you boobs, liposuction to take away the fat, rhinoplasty to fix the big honker, and so much more. There's a problem, though: you can't actually stop the aging process. And fake tits won't make you more of a woman. And liposuction may suck the fat away, but it won't make you healthier. And a smaller nose won't lead to less blowing or sickness.
When Kim Kardashian says she wants botox because she has lines on her face and is embarrassed, someone needs to remind her that she's nearly 30. Botox may stop her from looking 30, but it won't stop her from being 30. And when she dies, I don't think God will give her preferential treatment because she has no lines on her face.
Women seem to fight these battles more than men do. Unfortunately, men seem to be the reason the battles exist. Women binge and purge or refuse to eat, because their last boyfriend called them fat. Women inject chemicals into their faces, because their husbands don't pay attention to them. In that regard, I have to call out the men for their insensitive and hurtful behavior.
Being a fan of Britney Spears, I read a lot of negative things about her. Most of the negativity concerns her appearance. She's been "too big" in a lot of people's eyes for a while now. I've read a lot of comments about how she looks good, but still needs to lose a few more pounds. When you call these people out for being jerks, their response is typically, "I'm just being honest" or they give you a state of pop music address and rattle off names of those who are hotter than Britney. Well, good for those ladies. No woman should have to look like anyone else to be accepted.
There may be women out there with better bodies than Britney depending on your point of view and taste. So what? I remember a few years ago when people gave Jennifer Love Hewitt shit for having a big ass. Yes, she was on the beach in a bikini and her ass was big. Again, so what?
It is the unjustified criticisms that lead women to become anorexic or bulimic. If JLH hears she has a big ass, maybe she can deflect that and not let it get to her. If Britney hears she needs to lose weight, maybe she can deflect that, too. But what about other women, ones who look up to people like Britney and JLH, can they deflect the criticism when they look in the mirror and realize they're bigger than both these girls?
Why do men put women down? Why do women put women down? Jealousy? No. It's the insecurities we have about our own bodies. If someone convinces Kim Kardashian that she looks old, it's because that person feels old, and he or she doesn't want to feel alone. If you can convince someone he or she looks like shit, you can have a companion in misery.
Just recently, Catt Sadler (of the Daily 10 on the E! network) tweeted she needed to tighten and tone. All I could think about was what could she possibly tone and tighten. If she's bigger than a size 2 I'll eat my keyboard. Now, I'm sure she didn't say this because she feels fat. It was probably more of a reminder to herself to stay fit. However, it's also a reminder some people are never satisfied. They can never be too tone or too fit. Their boobs can never be too big. Their stomach too flat. Their skin too porcelain.
It seems even the best looking of us have insecurities. While that may seem "cute" on the surface, it's a sad reminder of how some people just don't get it.
To some women, Kim Kardashian is the ultimate beauty. But is that good enough for her? Britney Spears has a body many would die for. But is that good enough for her fans? Catt Sadler could put women half her age to shame. But is she toned and tight enough?
I guess the moral is no matter how hard you strive for perfection, you'll always be one-step away. It's best, therefore, to look, not with your eyes, but with your mind. Sometimes the blind can get from point A to point B quicker than the sighted.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Mommy, the Fish Makes My Tummy Hurt
I'm a Britney Spears fan. You don't even have to know me long to figure it out. I'm not ashamed of it. I will defend her on most things, i.e. dressing crazy, having crazy hair, wearing no panties, and whatever else. It's her life, she can live it how she chooses.
But I don't wear rose-colored glasses. I've been around for her entire career. I've seen the lows, and God knows some were lower than low. I cannot, with good conscience, dismiss every rumor or get upset when people question Britney or her motives. When her ex-husband Kevin Federline calls the Department of Child Services because he's heard such-and-such may have happened and wants it investigated, I can't blame him. By calling, he's not pointing fingers at Britney, saying she's a bad mother. He's checking to make sure his children are all right. He has every right to do that.
I'm not a Kevin apologist, but what has the man done to deserve hatred? Let's look at the facts: Britney approached Kevin, made the first move, invited him to Europe, proposed to him, and got knocked up twice. All Kevin did was come along for the ride. Since they divorced what has he done: gained custody of his children when Britney went off the rails, kept his mouth shut about Britney, and basically went about his life. He did one reality show, which the point of was to lose weight. He barely mentioned Britney. In fact, he talked more about Shar Jackson, his other ex, who was on the show with him.
No, Kevin didn't run to Britney's rescue back in 2007 when she went off the deep end. He stayed out of her life, except when the kids were involved. Britney divorced Kevin, so that's obviously what she wanted.
I love Britney in the sense that I care about her well-being. But I'm not blind to her faults. I can see those faults and still love her. Jesus did. If you believe in Him, then you believe He loves us even though we're all flawed.
I'm not agreeing with the bodyguard who is suing Britney. I think everything he's claiming is a lie. I believe Britney would never intentionally harm her children. I believe she loves those children. But mothers have been convicted of murdering their children, the same ones they cried about on the stand during trial, the same ones they kissed goodbye before they drowned or stabbed or otherwise ended their lives. Just loving your children doesn't make you a good parent.
In 2008, Britney holed herself up in her bathroom with one of her sons, refusing to turn him over to Kevin's bodyguards when it was his turn with the kids. She was placed on a 5150 hold and basically declared insane. I understand that was over two years ago. I know she's been better since then. But imagine if that was your kid. Wouldn't you take all precautions from that point forward to ensure your child's safety? I hope so.
While I agree that Britney is a good mother who loves her children, I believe Kevin has every right to take every claim seriously and have it investigated. For it is the blind and ignorant whom are the first to miss that which is right in front of their face.
But I don't wear rose-colored glasses. I've been around for her entire career. I've seen the lows, and God knows some were lower than low. I cannot, with good conscience, dismiss every rumor or get upset when people question Britney or her motives. When her ex-husband Kevin Federline calls the Department of Child Services because he's heard such-and-such may have happened and wants it investigated, I can't blame him. By calling, he's not pointing fingers at Britney, saying she's a bad mother. He's checking to make sure his children are all right. He has every right to do that.
I'm not a Kevin apologist, but what has the man done to deserve hatred? Let's look at the facts: Britney approached Kevin, made the first move, invited him to Europe, proposed to him, and got knocked up twice. All Kevin did was come along for the ride. Since they divorced what has he done: gained custody of his children when Britney went off the rails, kept his mouth shut about Britney, and basically went about his life. He did one reality show, which the point of was to lose weight. He barely mentioned Britney. In fact, he talked more about Shar Jackson, his other ex, who was on the show with him.
No, Kevin didn't run to Britney's rescue back in 2007 when she went off the deep end. He stayed out of her life, except when the kids were involved. Britney divorced Kevin, so that's obviously what she wanted.
I love Britney in the sense that I care about her well-being. But I'm not blind to her faults. I can see those faults and still love her. Jesus did. If you believe in Him, then you believe He loves us even though we're all flawed.
I'm not agreeing with the bodyguard who is suing Britney. I think everything he's claiming is a lie. I believe Britney would never intentionally harm her children. I believe she loves those children. But mothers have been convicted of murdering their children, the same ones they cried about on the stand during trial, the same ones they kissed goodbye before they drowned or stabbed or otherwise ended their lives. Just loving your children doesn't make you a good parent.
In 2008, Britney holed herself up in her bathroom with one of her sons, refusing to turn him over to Kevin's bodyguards when it was his turn with the kids. She was placed on a 5150 hold and basically declared insane. I understand that was over two years ago. I know she's been better since then. But imagine if that was your kid. Wouldn't you take all precautions from that point forward to ensure your child's safety? I hope so.
While I agree that Britney is a good mother who loves her children, I believe Kevin has every right to take every claim seriously and have it investigated. For it is the blind and ignorant whom are the first to miss that which is right in front of their face.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Sexy is Raunchy
Beautiful, cute and sexy: three words to describe someone that do not mean the same thing. You can be one or all three, but being only one doesn't make you less desirable. The problem arises when you are one and think you have to be another.
Many girls are cute. Some are beautiful. A few are sexy. Being cute does not mean you're sexy or that you have to try and be sexy. There is nothing wrong with being just cute. The word gets a dirty rap because it gets used to describe everything from dogs to wallpaper to babies. But it's very applicable to some women. For instance, I would say that Natalie Portman is very cute. She's not someone I'd necessarily want to see naked, so I wouldn't classify her as sexy, but she's far from unattractive. She's cute. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Sexy is not cute. Sexy is raunchy and dirty; it's expletives and dirty talk. It's nasty thoughts you would never tell anyone else (except maybe when you whisper them into your lover's ear). Sexy is not classy. It's not supposed to be. Sexy is half-naked, fully naked, soaking wet, on your knees, smeared lipstick, and tattered clothing.
Megan Fox is sexy. You don't want to cuddle with Megan, you don't want to hold her underneath the moonlight, talk about your feelings, and weep softly together. You want to rip her clothes off, throw her down, get on top, put her on top, sweat, scream, push and pull. Sexy is having to have someone, a need to take them then and there.
Some women do have the ability to be all three. Britney Spears, to me, is all three. When she's laughing and smiling and let's herself go, she's cute. When she's with her children, holding them, kissing them and mothering them, she's beautiful. But when she's at the beach in a little bikini, or on stage in some skin tight outfit, she's sexy.
Another woman I would say fits into all three categories is Rihanna. With her ridiculous hairdos and outfits, she's cute. When she puts on a fancy dress, she's beautiful. And when she strips down to barely anything, she's very sexy.
Who fits into what category may vary based on taste, but the point remains: don't confuse sexy, beautiful and cute. If you want classy, elegant, then you want beautiful. Think Christina Hendricks at an awards show. But don't mistake that for sexy. There's nothing raunchy in there, nothing dirty. When you see someone like Miley Cyrus in tight, little shorts shaking her ass on stage that's an attempt at being sexy (it may not necessarily work for you, of course).
Some people would argue that girls are acting too sexy too young. That's quite possible. But sexy gets you the bacon. Guys aren't trying to get into cute's pants. And they're not buying beautiful drinks to take her home. Honestly, sexy gets you places cute and beautiful never will. But not everyone can be sexy. Cute and beautiful will serve most girls well. Of course, the dirty girls want more. If you don't want that, why fake it?
It seems as though many girls want to be thought of as sexy. Here's a tip: you don't have to be. What those sexy girls are getting you probably don't want (and that's not even counting the STDs).
It's time women started taking cute back. Be proud of cute. Be proud of beautiful. Sexy is raunchy. If you're not raunchy, why are you trying so hard to be sexy?
Many girls are cute. Some are beautiful. A few are sexy. Being cute does not mean you're sexy or that you have to try and be sexy. There is nothing wrong with being just cute. The word gets a dirty rap because it gets used to describe everything from dogs to wallpaper to babies. But it's very applicable to some women. For instance, I would say that Natalie Portman is very cute. She's not someone I'd necessarily want to see naked, so I wouldn't classify her as sexy, but she's far from unattractive. She's cute. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Sexy is not cute. Sexy is raunchy and dirty; it's expletives and dirty talk. It's nasty thoughts you would never tell anyone else (except maybe when you whisper them into your lover's ear). Sexy is not classy. It's not supposed to be. Sexy is half-naked, fully naked, soaking wet, on your knees, smeared lipstick, and tattered clothing.
Megan Fox is sexy. You don't want to cuddle with Megan, you don't want to hold her underneath the moonlight, talk about your feelings, and weep softly together. You want to rip her clothes off, throw her down, get on top, put her on top, sweat, scream, push and pull. Sexy is having to have someone, a need to take them then and there.
Some women do have the ability to be all three. Britney Spears, to me, is all three. When she's laughing and smiling and let's herself go, she's cute. When she's with her children, holding them, kissing them and mothering them, she's beautiful. But when she's at the beach in a little bikini, or on stage in some skin tight outfit, she's sexy.
Another woman I would say fits into all three categories is Rihanna. With her ridiculous hairdos and outfits, she's cute. When she puts on a fancy dress, she's beautiful. And when she strips down to barely anything, she's very sexy.
Who fits into what category may vary based on taste, but the point remains: don't confuse sexy, beautiful and cute. If you want classy, elegant, then you want beautiful. Think Christina Hendricks at an awards show. But don't mistake that for sexy. There's nothing raunchy in there, nothing dirty. When you see someone like Miley Cyrus in tight, little shorts shaking her ass on stage that's an attempt at being sexy (it may not necessarily work for you, of course).
Some people would argue that girls are acting too sexy too young. That's quite possible. But sexy gets you the bacon. Guys aren't trying to get into cute's pants. And they're not buying beautiful drinks to take her home. Honestly, sexy gets you places cute and beautiful never will. But not everyone can be sexy. Cute and beautiful will serve most girls well. Of course, the dirty girls want more. If you don't want that, why fake it?
It seems as though many girls want to be thought of as sexy. Here's a tip: you don't have to be. What those sexy girls are getting you probably don't want (and that's not even counting the STDs).
It's time women started taking cute back. Be proud of cute. Be proud of beautiful. Sexy is raunchy. If you're not raunchy, why are you trying so hard to be sexy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)