Now you're sorry you're up there

I feel I often only rant about other people and it'd be hypocritical of me not to be able to rant about myself from time to time. Naturally this rant won't be as pointed ( gotta have some bias right?) and coherent (no reason to pull out the big rhetorical guns for an argument against myself), but instead more free flowing and personal. I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, but I do understand some people might take huge offense with how candidly I speak to myself about these issues. I want to stress that these are my internal thoughts, never intended to be expressed as a formulated opinion of mine.



Raymond you fucking hypocrite. Don't even dare talk about what it's like to be poor because you don't know. And don't shun the very class that you belong to. You're as rich as anyone else who can talk with long words and pretend to play the game. You're just a lazy fuck, who doesn't want to get his hands dirty to make money. But as you study for that pathetic LSAT exam, you begin to realize that perhaps you have finally caved in. Oh keep onto your fantasies of human decency. Keep telling yourself that things won't turn out that way. Tell me how many people you call a corporate sell out after giving up the forbidden fruit yourself. Then talk to me about what it's like to have integrity. You're crooked. Probably even more crooked than most of them because you're not ignorant to the plight. You know it's there because you're just a few feet from rock bottom. I think that's why you've been so aggressive. Nobody deserves this as much as you right? You self pretentious asshole, don't think that your ravenous behavior justifies you in anyway. You're just like them. Carnivorous monsters who use huge magnifying glasses to make us squirm, shrivel, shriek and die. But your time is gonna come. It'll hit ya when you're older and then all of a sudden we'll hear you spouting that neo-liberalist nonsense that you so often deplore. Yep, you'll be a phony, but what's worse is you'll be a 55 year old Holden. So stop it with the rants. Stop it with the pretentious disapproval of anything and everything that's just a little self serving because if anyone's a self serving fuck it's you. Don't pretend to be noble. Don't pretend to be poor. Don't pretend to be disadvantaged. Don't pretend you aren't just buying into the very system you criticize. Sorry there ain't no secret agents among the rich. They exist only among the poor and they come in the form of smart ass minority college students who are white washed and pretentious. Guess you fit the bill pretty well. So just shut up. Stop it with your trill and get on to studying for that test and making your money and buying your mom a house and buying Mets season tickets and donating money to your Alma Mater, which receives one of the largest endowments in the world. Don't forget to lie on your way there. Hold your tongue so the white people who aren't down won't fret. And remember to keep your eye on how the poor problem becomes a small blimp in your rear mirror. Sure back when you were nearly at risk of falling into poverty it became a huge issue. Once your safety net has been made, then we'll see you not care. Now go ahead, give me your rebuttal. Tell me you're right. Show the world that I'm wrong. It'd get you ready for your future job as the rich invisible hand that ensures that my voice is discredited and ignored.

Raymond: You're right.

Vaunted Virginity

      I just recently read a post by a woman who decided to hold off having sex before marriage. She titled the piece "wait was well worth it"and insists that she's writing the post as a beacon of support for those who are currently refraining from having sex before marriage. I was legitimately curious about how that experience might have felt and wanted some introspection into how something that seemed so unimportant to me (whether someone had sex or not) could be so important to her. Sadly, instead of introspection I only got the talk of an insecure person. I applaud her for being honest about how the sexual experience went, which she describes as "awkward and painful". However, that's about the only honesty you'll get in terms of her describing the experience. Instead she projects her own insecurities onto the experience. But before I get into why her post does very little in the way of describing the significance of "waiting til marriage", I want to make it clear that I don't think her narcissistic take on refraining from sex before marriage invalidates the significance of doing so. If you feel like the only way you can comfortably engage in sex is by waiting till the commitment of marriage is present, then I encourage you to do so. I pass no judgement on what one decides to do with their body or their sexuality. I will however pass judgement on a post that parades the significance of a particular act, without giving any reason that is intrinsic to the act itself.
      The first perk the blogger throws out there is the relative ease of having sex when both partners have refrained from sex. She begins with how comforting it is to know that she isn't going to be saddled with an STD. This completely ignores the fact that her husband could have received a disease from birth or unclean needles, that could very well be passed on to her. Even if the likelihood of that being true is really low, the comfort she is feeling can be felt by a sexually active person, if  the person in question is responsible before engaging in sexual activity. Talking with someone about their sex life and their health before engaging in sex isn't something that is only relegated to those who are sexually active, but something that anyone considering sex should do regardless if they believe both of them are virgins. While you want to trust your spouse, to assume that they wouldn't lie to you (especially after you've made virginity a vaunted trait) can lead you into engaging in risky sexual activity.
    Furthermore, she also attributes that her husbands virginity took away pressure from her to feel like she needed to have sex in the relationship. While this might have been true, such pressure could just have easily been dispelled between one person who is sexually active and one person who isn't, by having an honest conversation about expectations when the relationship starts. Just because someone has had sex before doesn't mean they assume that their new partner is ready or would ever be ready to do the same. People who do pressure their partners into sex typically aren't good relationship material to begin with. So maybe the reason it was so comfortable for the blogger to be with her husband wasn't because he was virgin, but instead was a very good and understanding boyfriend.
    Now the insecurity begins. After the blogger admits to the aforementioned description of her sexual experience as "awkward and painful", she tries to differentiate her sexual experience from the ones depicted in movies. She assumes that movie sex scenes are an accurate depiction of how sex would be before marriage (of course she is referring to sex scenes between two unmarried people), but never explains how her experience differs. She claims that she didn't feel the need to be "sexy" and that she wasn't "unsure" and implies that's how sex scenes in movies are. While, some sex scenes in movies definitely fit this bill, there are plenty of others where the two participants are willing, confident and can be completely goofy. Furthermore, actual sexual experiences differ from how it's portrayed in movies. Movies intend to capture the ideal moment and sex can sometimes be a sloppy obstacle course, especially the first time. If anything, the expectation that a movie scene would accurately capture anyone's sexual experience is ludicrous. The real reason the author is even bringing up this parallel is to try and reassure herself that what she had was "special" and someone who didn't abstain as she did could never have it. Instead of focusing on why the moment itself was special, she decides to emphasize that it was not like the sex other sexually active unmarried people have (a point she makes ignorantly, seeing that she has no way of knowing).
    She furthers her projection by claiming her sexual experience was special because her husband "...was loving [her], adoring [her], enjoying being with the whole..." This could easily be true of a sexual experience someone has outside of marriage. The only time she describes something that can only be obtained sexually, while married, is when she states,"He was giving 100% of himself to me.  Only me.  Always me.  Looking into my eyes, wanting only me forever." While to some this might seem beautiful, I personally just think it's selfish. I don't believe the power of a relationship comes from exclusivity. In fact, I think when you emphasize the exclusive nature of a relationship as its only saving grace, you degrade everything else that makes a relationship special. The same applies to an exclusive sexual relationship. I think more can be said about sex, when one is able to choose you over many others. But during marriage sexual choice is gone. Commitment replaces it.
   What she is relishing is the fact that her insecurity has finally been dispelled. She knows this sexual experience and all future sexual experiences will only be between him and her. What's left unsaid is that the thought of him sharing a sexual experience with anyone else would have completely ruined this. It isn't purely the commitment that makes her find this so special, but instead the fact that no one else has had or can have what she has. Otherwise what she just described should be true for anyone who has sex while married, regardless of them being a virgin or not. Her emphasis on giving her "whole self"implies that it isn't possible for someone who has already had sex to give "their whole self." She is implying that non-virgins have somehow degraded themselves through per-marital sex. She is projecting her own insecurities about waiting and sexuality in order to justify her decision. This produces the illusion that her sexual experience was special because she was a virgin and not special because she was having sex with someone she loved.
    Her insecurity comes full circle in her next paragraph, where she talks about how she would never have to worry about being compared to another woman. This bellows back to her obsession with exclusivity in the previous paragraph. It's not enough that he loves her, but instead he needs to not entertain any possibility that he could love anyone else. She admits that if he had sex with his previous fiance it would have made her incredibly uncomfortable. This is only the case because of insecurity and insecurity is ok. But when you project that insecurity as affirmation for a decision, then you're engaging in denial.
   One might wonder why I have decided to come out and shame this woman, which is essentially what I did. That's because while she claims she had no intention of shaming those who aren't virgins, her post only serves to differentiate between sex before marriage and sex after. It doesn't expound on the significance of sex and how that was amplified by marriage, but instead focuses on how one type of sex is inferior to the other. These claims made me upset primarily because they are based off of the selfish insecurities of the author, which she now forces onto all of her readers. Furthermore, she put a ridiculous article on the post, which had nothing to do with sex before marriage. The article is a NY Times piece that speaks of the possible downsides of cohabitation (i.e. living with your partner before marriage). The article cites a specific type of cohabitation and doesn't indict the practice, but instead indicts poor relationship planning and lack of communication. The author implies several things by posting this article on this particular post. First, that people have sex when they live together, which may be the prevailing truth, but can be false. Second, that the underlying reason behind the dysfunctional marriages in the article were because of the mere practice of cohabitation and in part sex before marriage. Both of these assumptions are simply not true. People choose to have sex. And marriages don't fail because of not waiting. Again the author leaves the reader with the mantra "I dodged a bullet" when she had sex, instead of emphasizing how gorgeous her experience was. I want to reiterate one more time that I am not advocating for a particular stance on sexual activity. What I'm fighting against is the implicit shaming of those who have engaged in sex before marriage, specifically when that shaming is coming from a narcissistic insecure source. 
     But her clearly deluded and insecure state might not be her fault. Abstinence education is often taught with a message of insecurity and fear mongering. Perhaps this woman was simply passing on insecurities that were forced upon her due to the incredibly sexually repressive policy of the church. Maybe she went to a high school that preached abstinence. The point is I simply don't feel right throwing all the blame on her. I feel this the product of a patriarchal society that forces women to judge their self worth based on their own sexuality and how exclusive it has been is pervasive and unfair. She tries to make this logic work both ways by applying the same standard to her husband, but something tells me that if he had written this post it would have been completely different.

Original post: http://learningtobeanewlywed.blogspot.com/2012/05/wait-was-well-worth-it.html
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

You can't be a corporate sell out and then claim soul

              I'm sorry. I heard the soundtrack in Great Gatsby and I hated it. Not all of it, but bits an pieces from really famous pop culture hip-hop that used to make me cringe every single time I'd listen to them on the radio. To make matters worse, self proclaimed king of the world Jay-Z was the executive producer of the soundtrack. One wonders why Jay-Z didn't decide to just forgo Leonardo DiCaprio and cast himself as Gatsby (which would have been scarily appropriate given Jay-Z's history). But my real issue isn't with Jay-Z, but really the music. When it came to depicting shallow materialistic party scenes, the music was spot on. That's exactly what most of the music was. Beyonce, Jay-Z, Fergie are all sell outs and make music that's safe and appeals to large audiences. I have no issue with this, but you can't have it both ways. You can't make popular shallow music and then expect people to be moved by it. So when I heard "Crazy in love" playing in the background of the scene where Gatsby's true obsessive nature was finally coming out, I felt conflicted and confused. This was a powerful scene because as an audience member I'm feeling with Gatsby on many of these things. His anxiety is my anxiety. Or at least I can sympathize with it. But when I hear "Crazy in Love" I just think this is one huge joke. "Crazy in love" uses the trope of love sickness to be popular. It doesn't add any depth or insight to what it might feel like to be "Crazy in love". Instead it repeats it over and over again, as if by turning it into a mantra, the cheap trick of repetition will transform into obsession.
             Furthermore, I'm fucking tired of New York being associated with Jay-Z. I don't want to hear "Empire State of mind" playing in the background of an extended shot of the city skyline. That song only serves to reinforce popular romanticized notions of New York City. It doesn't speak any truth about the city. It's just a chronicle of NYC according to Jay-Z, then it goes into that ridiculous chorus, where Alicia Keys claims that New York City has some intrinsic ability to transform people. New York State of Mind by Bill Joel is a far better representation because it's honest and doesn't do much representing. It literally encompasses the nostalgia those who have visited the city feel when they leave. It invites the listener to project their nostalgia for the city into the song. The song is definitely New York according to Billy Joel, but it's main message is that we all miss the city when we leave and sometimes we have the urge to come back. Look at Empire State of mind, which just objectifies the city, leaving it to be possessed by Jay-Z and eventually you the listener. In New York State of mind, the city possesses you.

The choice of using modern music, regardless of the adaptation, was a risky one. Every time a popular song went on I was immediately reminded we weren't in the 20s. This is a fine trade-off when the pay off from the parallel is worth it. And for the party scenes, the pay off was perfect. Everything else sounded out of place and cheesy. 

I am not a person of color: how color is used to mask the implicit model minority

           For awhile, I've been struggling to see where I stand in what is still a Patriarchal White America. The term minority is definitely accurate, but that doesn't fully express the extent to which my own identity is oppressed. While I believe all minorities are oppressed, I don't believe all minorities are oppressed equally. And this is a talking point that people simply don't want to talk about. The reason why is because it has the potential for causing a rift between identities within the minority community. Soon we'll find ourselves lumping into camps and blame will be thrown from one community to the other, arguing  over "who has it worse". Such a debacle would be self defeating for minorities everywhere and hurt the movement for greater equality for all minority groups. However, this doesn't excuse us from addressing the issue and within minority groups a dichotomy has been created to mask this potential sticking point. We have masked this issue by denoting people as "people of color" and leaving a silence for those who are not.
          The term "people of color" has a long history and I have no doubt that it probably existed just as long as the term "minority", but the question of who "is a person of color" (and subsequently who is a minority) is one that changes according to modern conceptualizations of race. I do not intend to argue the historical construction of the term. Instead I'm merely forwarding that the word in its current use has become ambiguous to the point that many people won't agree with who has a legitimate claim to the identity.
           I often find that the way the term is employed usually has very little to do with a "lexicon" sense of the term. For example, people have accepted me as a person of color, yet my skin can be lighter than many of my Asian friends. I have heard the term used to circumvent what people really want to say, latinos and blacks. The reason Latinos and blacks fit so perfectly together is because they often are the ones doing economically and educationally the worst. There are definitely some smaller minority groups that join Latinos and Blacks (South Pacific Asians, Native Americans, etc), however Latinos and Blacks make up a majority of the demographic. Naturally the big minority group being left out are Asian. One might argue that Asians aren't people of color, however this simply isn't true. And not only because South Asians tend to have dark skin. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and other "Asian" groups that aren't typically identified as South Asian have noticeably different skin tones from Whites. These skin tones have led to racial designations such as "the yellow man", which are clearly based on the physical appearance of Asians. Are they not people of color? The use of color was done specifically to distinguish between those who are white and those who aren't. It's clear that Asians typically don't have White skin. Yet they find themselves consistently lumped with White people when it comes to whether they are a "person of color".
     One might think that this is using a darker is color approach. For example, one could argue that some Asians (typically not South Asian, though some South Asians are very light skin, so don't take this as a sweeping generalization) have very light skin tones, thus making them free from the stigma that comes from the "darker is bad" perception in this country. However, I've had people who have referred to me as a person of color. The issue with this is my skin is far lighter and paler than most Asians. If you asked me to describe my skin tone without any racial bearing in mind I'd call my skin tone white (or light peach). Yet I'm afforded membership to color, while those who can actually be racially discriminated against based on color are excluded.
      It's clear that color isn't being used as an actual physical designation, but instead is embodying many of the racial stigmas of our current system.  The term "person of color" is a way of masking the concept of the "model minority" that has existed for a very long time. The "model minority" is the belief that certain minorities are the good minorities who contribute to America, since they are docile and subservient to normative American culture (i.e. white male patriarchy). The "model minority" was also employed to fuel further racism towards blacks. The point is that we use people of color often to make this distinction, without acknowledging who we're leaving out and without justifying why we're leaving them out. And while some Asians can care less (just as some blacks, latinos, and pretty much any kind of person could care less about race, which is sad because it truly has pervasive effects on your life), many of them take notice to this kind of exclusionary behavior.
         Now, I'm not going to argue whether the model minority distinction is deserving. I'm not going to even claim that African Americans and Latino's "have it worse". Instead I want to open up the floor for people to discuss this. I know sometimes my opinions can be strong and dismissing. I want to avoid this kind of dismissal. Instead I just want people to know that I don't consider myself a person of color. I am not discriminated against based on my skin tone, but instead based on my last name. I write this as an attempt to point out the ambiguous nature of the term "person of color" and instead suggest that the minority community needs to address the issue of a perceived "model minority" before the distinction divides us from our goal of achieving equality.