He Liked It, Put a Ring on It and She Dumped him...Beyonce, What Happens Next?

I'm a winner. Or at least I'd like to think so. Of all the things that bring me joy in life, the euphoria of winning sits at the top of the list. That's why when everyone else was poking fun at Charlie Sheen in that interview I was thinking, "That Charlie Sheen is on to something."

As much as I like winning, however,  it is impossible to win at everything. And that is why one must learn to move on when they've lost. After all there is nothing more pathetic than a loser who doesn't know when they've lost. Case in point, Mario Williams. You may (or may not) know him as the defensive end for the Buffalo Bills. He's recently making headlines for wanting his ring back after he and his fiancé broke off their engagement. Under Texas law, an engagement ring is a conditional gift and the court determines if the circumstances require his now ex, to return the ring. He contends she never really wanted to be in a relationship with him, but rather, used the relationship to secure gifts and money.

Newsflash Mario... most if not all of those girls who go into these relationships do so for money, notoriety and gifts. Likewise, most of the men enter these relationships to have a trophy wife or to fit a certain image. Please oh please don't tell me you did it for love. Don't tell me you intended to be faithful. Don't tell me you're really all that hurt(other than possibly your pride.) You need to man up, cut your losses and leave the ring, along with the ex, in the dust. You've lost. You've been embarrassed enough. Don't add to the spectacle by whining like a little wimp and begging the court to give you your ring back. Yes, legally you may (under Texas law anyway) be entitled to the ring. It doesn't really mean you should actually do it.

I mean, you're the superstar, right? Don't lose your street/swag cred by begging for the ring back. It's just so...pathetic. That being said, if he didn't cheat on her or dog out then ex probably should give it back. This is especially true  if she never really wanted the relationship to work out in the first place. She may have your ring my friend, but at the end of the day she will disappear into the shadows of irrelevancy and you will go on to live your charmed, famous athlete life.Don't continue to give her exactly what she wants-fifteen seconds of fame by dragging her into court. Unless you cheated. Cheaters never win and if you cheat you should probably not expect your ring back-legally entitled or not. 

Yes, I am being hard on him and making a lot of assumptions about who he is based on stereotypes and generalizations about football players. Eh. Save it. We all know why stereotypes exist and unlike race/gender-football players have not been subject to historical or systematic discrimination and thus do not have a protected class. So, I don't feel bad about stereotyping footballers. Put the violins and the picket signs away. It will be interesting to see if he will get the ring back. It may be even more juicy to see the details surrounding the alleged breakup. After all, everyone loves a good Scandal (Just ask Shonda Rhimes).

Sorry for the long hiatus my friends. It's good to be back!

Until next time,

The Maven

Sound off: What do you think? When the engagement is over, who should get the ring?

Chicken and Controversy: Why the Masters of Chicken are Ruffling Feathers (and why that may be Okay)

This blogpost is difficult for me to write. That may be one of the most honest statements I have ever written.  But it's true. I understand the arguments on both sides. I understand why LGBT Americans and their supporters/allies are in opposition to Chick-Fil-A's stance on the Gay Marriage issues. I also understand why Chick-Fil-A has the stance it does and why people are defending it.  In my opinion it stems in large part from the tension I feel between my allegiance to the Christian faith and my support of Gay Marriage, love and rights. I have always wondered even as a child what the big deal was about homosexuality in the bible. I am aware of the biblical passages cited to support homosexuality as a sin and It's never been clear to me that this was what the bible actually said.  I never found the words "homosexuality is an abomination" in the bible. I know it could be interpreted that way, but I have never found it to be a clear cut case of God's hatred for Gay people.  Even assuming that it was sinful, I never understood why this sin was paramount to any other sin-to the extent that we would take away rights or prohibit that activity but not make it unlawful to : lie, fornicate ect...although I am well aware that it was at one time unlawful to fornicate (still on the books in some states e.g. Georgia). Still, if homosexuality is a sin (and I am not entirely convinced that it is), I don't get why pedophiles who obviously hurt children and can themselves procreate with and then marry the mother/father of this child to have legal rights and easy access to this child are given the right to marry. Yet, gay individuals cannot. The shit just doesn't make sense. Most importantly, beyond ambiguous biblical references to homosexuality, one thing the bible makes clear that we are to operate in a spirit of love and tolerance for each other---and he says that this is the greatest commandment of all. So that says to me that hatred is ungodly. Period.
And God gives us all free will, so let people be happy. The end. That is my personal opinion.

I know that spiritually some people are uncomfortable with homosexuality. As a member of the Southern Baptist Church (very conservative) I get that. It's not surprising to me that people who identify with Christian Faith are in opposition to Gay marriage. I also understand it's their constitutional right to be in opposition to that-however awful it makes you feel. And that's why I feel like Chick-Fil-A President did nothing wrong in stating his position on Gay Marriage. I may not agree with that position (and I don't) but I don't think there is anything wrong with his statement.

Now...it's my understanding that the company also donates money to "anti-Gay" organizations. Now that's a horse of a whole different color. Actively donating money to organizations that are against Gay individuals or hate individuals ot me is not Christian. And does not warrant support.  If these organizations don't spew hatred but are in opposition to Gay Marriage-then in my opinion, that's a little more gray. But again it's only my personal opinion. If you want to boycott this, then fine. If your want to support Chick-Fil-A-fine.  But the petty rubbing your chicken sandwich in people's faces just to be spiteful isn't Christian or humane. Likewise kissing in a christian establishment (regardless of sexual orientation) seems a little inopposite to me as well. And at this point, both sides' message is getting lost in "war".  The focus should be on legalizing Gay Marriage...hopefully the social acceptance of it will come after it's legal (nationwide).

Some people may criticize me as operating in some sort of heterosexual privilege. I am self-aware and socially critical enough to admit that....to an extent. But if we're honest., we all operate under some sort of privilege. I mean Tommy Hilfiger made comments about his clothes not being for black people and I'm sure plenty of gay people continued to buy from him. Not because they hate black people, but because they (unless they are both gay and black) operated under other privileges (racial/socio-economic). This is how oppression wins...it interlocks with the other oppressions to keep people from working to end overall oppression. This is successful b/c most people may be oppressed in one way but may be privileged in another. Often people don't fight as hard for the rights of others as they do for their own. Sad, but true.

Now, another pet peeve of mine are the Gay Rights movement vs. Civil Rights movement. They are not comparable. They are separate and they are born out of separate circumstances. Being a descendant of "property" is different from being born gay. Not more or less important but different. The struggle for gay acceptance and equality has it's own legitimacy anyway, it doesn't need to borrow legitimacy from the African American struggle. Gay individuals should be allowed to be themselves, find love and get married, simply because they are humans. It has nothing to do with the American Black Civil Rights Comparison and it's got everything to do with what is right.

However you feel about gay relationships or marriage, we have to operate in a  spirit of tolerance and love. You have a right to live your life the way you choose to live it as long as you don't hurt others. I honestly don't see what the harm is. Is it really that big of a deal anymore? Hell, if people want to be in committed monogamous relationships with each other-regardless of orientation- then I am all for it. Maybe that makes me a bad Christian. Maybe that makes me an excellent Christian. I guess I'll let God be the judge of that. I'm not going to make people feel less than, simply because they're gay and if that offends you -I'll live. Why? I don't know any other way to be, but to be me.

Until next time,

~The Maven

A Girl With Great Chaste...

I'm here to discuss a topic I took a lot of flack for writing about last time, chastity. If you haven't read the old post , I suggest you take a peek at it before reading the post I am writing today. I wanted to take a moment a few years later to discuss and clarify my perpectiv eon chastity. First, sompe people I know were offneded because they have supposedly had these carefree flings and they were perfectly happy and alright with haveing several sexual partners. I have also been criticized for being close minded and judgemental.

I find it funny that when sex is being shoved down our throats on a consistent basis by society and celibate individuals are made fun of no one interprets that as judgmental. However, if someone brings up chastity and celibacy people are automatically offended. It's not my goal to name call or make people feel bad, but I do have a right to my perspective. Just like others have a right to theirs.

I'm writing about chasity because it's rarely  discussed in an open forum. It's as if it's some sort of dirty secret to be kept from the masses or something to be made fun of. Being chaste doesn't make you a prude. It doesn't amke you simple or naive.  It's also not about deprivation. It's a personal choice. It's a journey about self reflection. It's about being true to who you are and about making sure you engage in sexual conduct when the conditions are right-right person, timing, reasons ect.  Now there is no such thing as a "perfect" way to go about things and I certainly am not the most experienced when it comes to matters of the loins, but I am only human. I understand urges, desires and lust just as everyone else does. I just make a decison not to allow those urges, desires and lust to control my life. Maybe they do. If they do, I'm not aware of it.

It isn't worth it to succumb to those desires for a variety of reasons.  Some of these reasons stem from comfort, other are based in  moral/religious logic.  I believe at the forefront, it comes from my belief that sex is special. In my opinon if something is special it is not easily shared or diven away. But then again, that's just me.People may feel that because I believe in celibacy, chasity and abstinance that I am in some way closeminded. Just the oppoisite. I am exposed to quite a bit and open to quite a bit...again , on the right set of terms.  This is a modern day chastity -not one of old complete  with padlocked chastity belts and a tight grip on female sexuality. This chastity is voluntary and in my opinon, quite empowering.

I'm very in touch with my sexual pulse. Very in touch with my desires and what I want out of a partner. It is my belief I wouldn't be if I had engaged without being ready...without it being on my own terms. Without waiting. It's not that I think casual sex is harmfull per se, but I do think it can be dangerous. I've seen many a friend have her self-esteem or worth diminished by casual sex because deep down they wanted more than they were getting. They felt shortchanged. They regretted it. I don't think I've met anyone who regretted waiting. Doesn't mean they don't exist, I'm just saying I haven't met them. Of course there are days of frustration and temptation-afterall sex is a natural thing. Still, I feel that sex has been unecessarily elevated in importance in society and rarely do we take the opportunity to explore the other side of things. I'm just fighting for it to be a viable option. An option that is not ridiculed or ignored.

I applaud Ms. Eden, author of Thrill of the Chaste for her honesty. Her expereinces and feelings may not be yours but I can guarantee you hers mirror many girls who have these casual relationships only to ask "will you love me tomorrow?"The answer is almost always a resounding "No".  In my humble opinion, it sends the message that you are good enough for carnal pleasure, but not a deep and loving relationship. That is a hard pill to swallow. At least from my perspective it is.

Have sex. Don't have sex. I guess it just comes down to what  your reasons for particpating or not particpating are. If they are for any reason other than what is right for you and your well being then you aren't helping yourself. Chastity or being sexually active for the sake of it, is probably the biggest waste of all.  I want it to be clear that I am not anti-sex.  I'm just saying it's not the end all be all and the decison to engage shouldn't be taken so lightly.  If it's not for you, then its just not for you. But at least consider it.

~Till next time,

The Maven