Real Reality TV

Reality TV sucks, especially the more recent trend that particular brand of television entertainment has taken. I despise it. I think it's the worst thing that has happened to television in the past 20 years, bar none. It's become so absurd and self-fulfilling that it eats…well, itself. Think about VH1's Surreal Life of Strange Flava of I Love New York's Real Chance at Charm School Academy…Rock. You get my point. It's smut. And that's just one TV network. I haven't even mentioned the Real Housewives of wherever-the-f*ck, and all of those God-awful "competition" based shows such as America's Next Top Bulimic Coke-head Model, The Biggest Loser, and American Idol. Although I'll admit that I respect those shows a bit more than the outright smut that VH1 airs. And lest we not forget the latest monstrosity that MTV has produced: The Jersey Shore.

This brand of TV will be the death of well-written shows that actually require a plot. More written shows are going off of the air, and timeslots are filled with reality TV. Really, I don't blame the networks (from a business perspective, at least). There's a demand for crap-TV. Why wouldn't they provide it and profit? I do blame the audiences to some degree. My reasoning for this is that the same people that watch this trash will also complain about the overall stupidity of our society, a stupidity that some of these shows surely contribute to, if only by glamorizing it. Think about it. What did you learn from watching written TV shows (be it an hour long drama, or a 30 minute sitcom) when you were growing up? How much did you learn about law, medicine, forensics, psychology, life etc. from watching The Practice, Law & Order, ER, New York Undercover, The Cosby Show, Family Ties, A Different World, Facts of Life, and even Martin etc?

One might read this and say that my opinion is a matter of taste. But I believe it more to be a matter of quality. I'm more disappointed than anything. And I'm particular disappointed in the show that fathered this genre: The Real World®.

MTV blew a golden opportunity to serve society and bridge many-a-gap between cultures, in my opinion. The Real World started out in 1992, in New York City, a city known for its cultural diversity, and heralded as the melting pot of the U.S. It was a social experiment…a study. The objective was to observe and analyze what happens when you put 7 strangers (from different backgrounds, cities, and cultures) in the same living quarters and force them to not only live together, but to also work together. And the experiment was filmed for the viewer to see. It was a brilliant concept…not only for its premise, but also from a business and marketing perspective. You could not watch just one episode of the show without getting hooked. You were sucked in as the cast struggled to overcome obstacles such as religion, addiction, sexuality, politics, love, and prejudice to name a few. They all had to compromise with at least one other cast member, as each of them had ideals that they rigidly supported. And as the viewer, you learned from that dynamic. You learned about the cast, people in general, and yourself.

Obviously, it was a hit.

MTV continued this trend for the next few seasons, selecting interesting combinations of cast members from diverse backgrounds and displaying more personal issues (abortion, rape etc). Eventually and unfortunately, MTV abandoned the social study aspect of the show for the more dramatic happenings (such as Tami Roman's skank ass overreacted to David playfully pulling a blanket off of her on The Real World: Los Angeles). They started choosing essentially the same type of cast members for each city/season: a homosexual/bisexual, a slut, a virgin, a bigot, a jock, a drunk/addict, a victim of abuse, and an eccentric (or some combination thereof). And in my opinion, throughout the years, these types have only gotten more extreme. It is here where I think MTV squandered an opportunity.

Think of the good MTV could have done for race/culture/gender communications with The Real World if they had continued to cast diverse groups, exploring cultural niches that had yet to be tapped. From the show's birth in 1992 to present 2010, this country has become more and more diverse. The Real World could have explored African American culture beyond the typical people that are generally cast. They could have cast a 1st generation U.S.-born Indian or Asian, people with true passion for particular careers such as journalism, photography, or teaching (as opposed to music). They could have cast someone with strong blood-line political ties…a Kennedy or a Bush, perhaps. And yes, they did attempt some of these…but it was very sporadic. And I also noticed that there was rarely more than 1 college student or college graduate per season.

What's my point here? I guess my point is that there should be more to a TV show than how much drama (false or real) can be generated by the cast. TV networks are quick to sell their credibility for ratings. And we (the viewers) are quick to buy in. MTV (aka MUSIC Television) hardly shows any music videos now. The bulk of their programming consists of reality TV. And while some of it is…well-intentioned, the bulk of it is simply feeding trash to anyone who will eat it. Many of us constantly gripe about the lack of social sophistication we encounter daily. We are amazed and disappointed by the oblivious, zombie-like state that most of our youths seem to be in today. But we need only look at our TVs to find the starting point of this mindlessness.

Should all TV be "challenging" and mentally stimulating? Of course not. But damn, 'The Situation' (of Jersey Shore fame) is slated to make more than $5 Million this year, yet they're closing a gang of schools in the city I live in (and probably yours too). Where's the f*ckin' balance?



What do y'all think about reality TV in general? How do you feel about The Real World® 1992 vs the show now?

Thoughts?

That's Gay

For what it's worth, I seriously considered not posting this one. It's one of those subjects that you can't breach without offending someone. You can't really express your opinions about it without appearing homophobic or some sh*t. But I want to talk about it so…Oh well…f*ck it.

Is it just me, or do gay brothas seem to be getting…well, gayer?...and more plentiful, now that I think about it. I swear there are more flamboyant, gay, black men now than I can ever recall. And while I know it's not fair to search for a "reason why" to any and everything, I can't help but to wonder what's behind the surge. And I've come up with a few possible answers.

But before I get into that, let me make the obligatory statement: I'm not a homophobe. I have gay friends AND family, and I love them as much as my straight friends and family. I don't want to change them. I don't think they're abnormal. This is NOT a display of bigotry or heteronormativity. I'm just trying to understand.

If you know me, you've probably heard me say this before, but I can absolutely understand how a woman can be attracted to other women. It makes sense to me because women can see and acknowledge another woman's attractiveness and still be considered feminine. A woman can be turned on by another woman's sex appeal and still be considered feminine. And so it only makes sense that a woman can be attracted enough to another woman to engage in that other woman, physically, and still be considered feminine...by other women AND men. And even if that doesn't make her gay/lesbian (only curious, if not bisexual), it is more socially acceptable for a woman to have and express such desires physically. Thus is NOT the case for a male because if a male is attracted to other men, men don't consider him masculine. And I'd bet that women don't consider them masculine either. Which brings me to my first point:

1) Social acceptance: There used to be a certain degree of shame associated with being homosexual. That's a terrible thing, IMO, but that was the case. And so a homosexual male had more incentive to stay "in the closet" and less incentive to be "out". And those same men had even less incentive to be flamboyantly gay…particularly in the black community. Today, it is significantly more acceptable to be gay, even though there is still a bit of a stigma associated with the lifestyle. There are entire cities where it is visibly obvious that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle (Atlanta, I'm lookin' at YOU). I don't know that I've ever seen more flamboyantly gay black men in one place than I did the last time I was in Lenox Mall in Atlanta.

In addition to that, mainstream media has popularized (if not glamorized) homosexuality through television shows, movies and music. The publicly accessible homosexual male has come a long way, even from the early 90's and Pedro Zamora's "character" on The Real World San Francisco. The funniest sitcom on television in 2010 (Modern Family) features a gay male couple as two of the main characters, one of whom is played by an actual gay man. Before that, there was Will & Grace. And before that, there was Michael Boatman's character on Spin City…and so on.

2) We live in a "try-it" culture now that rivals the "free love" counterculture of the 1960's and 70's. Particularly when it comes to sex, it is stranger to NOT be willing to try different things than it is to be liberal (a complete turnabout from some previous generations). It appears that it's more conservative to be sexually liberal. This phenomenon does not limit itself to heterosexuality…or labels in general. For example, I know probably as many women who have at least made out with another woman as I do women who have only experimented with men. It only makes sense that this more acceptable brand of experimentation would sometimes result in a dude finding out that he likes taking dong up the ass (graphic, yeah?).

3) Again, particularly in the black community, there is a lack of male mentors in the home. How can I put this?...there are certain personality traits, mannerisms, dispositions common in children in general that we as a society define as or associate with femininity. There are several examples of this that I'll get into if asked, but the point is, when a male child exhibits these traits, an adult male (his father, traditionally) will likely attempt to "break him" from those habits. Call it a fear if you'd like, but the reason for this "breaking" is that the elder male assumes that by allowing this behavior to continue, the young male may end up viewed as less masculine than his peers. Mind you, "less masculine" does not necessarily equal "gay". But…it's further down the gay path, so to speak. The elder male (in his mind) is trying to embed his own understanding of male social acceptance into the child's mind, and thus (presumably) steering him towards a more masculine existence. In general, this steering works, IMO. Why? Because man make men, and thus men define manhood.

Today, a significant number of young men that we see between the ages of 15 and 30 were raised without that steering. In fact, there are a significant number of men in that age range who had the exact opposite of that steering. The "opposite" was likely in the form of the young males contracting a more feminine steering from mother, aunties, and sisters who may have inadvertently nurtured the "less masculine" behaviors I spoke about in the previous paragraph. The results: More (or at least more visible) effeminate males.

(Aside: I've noticed on the re-read that I can't even describe these guys as "men" in my writing…I've referred to them as "males"…evident of my own acceptance of a certain degree of the heteronormative construct.)

Anyway, those are a few of my initial thoughts. Obviously there's more to it than that. Again, this is not me saying (flamboyant) homosexuality among males (particularly black males) is right or wrong. I'm just presenting the topic. What do you guys think? Do you think there are more gay brothas out there than there used to be, or am I just imagining things? Do gay guys seem a bit gayer these days? Do you think the 3 reasons presented make sense?

Out of Your League

I saw a romantic comedy (more comedy than romance, actually) recently called "She's Out of My League." Maybe you've heard of it or seen it. If you haven't (SPOILER ALERT), the synopsis is that an awkward, "average Joe" who is an airport security guard meets a woman at his security checkpoint who is "a perfect 10". To his surprise, she asks him out after witnessing him perform a kind act. Later we discover that she also asked him out because he is in fact the exact opposite of the type of guys she's used to dating. He reluctantly agrees to go on the date, and on said date, she gets to know him better. She eventually takes a more genuine interest in him. The protagonist absolutely cannot believe what is happening (and neither can his friends). In short, he almost ruins his chances with her because he's obsessed with the hotness disparity between them - her being a 10 and him being a 6…as per the plot of the film.

Aside from the comedy, I found the plot to be very entertaining. If you can forgive the obviously and intentional exaggerations of the movie, the situation wasn't much unlike real life. See, we all see people and group them based on some kind of rating scale…at least subconsciously. And we all see ourselves somewhere on that scale. So we all have the tendency to approach people who we think are in our reach. And unfortunately, this scale also leads some of us to think that others are out of our reach, whether we think they're beneath us or above us. What's worse is that we make this leap based solely on physical appearance. The reality, however, is that nobody is really out of anybody's league. Or at least you can't tell immediately…just from looking at someone.

Oh, you don't agree? Well how else does this happen?



Yes, I know they aren't together anymore…but still…

Kevin Bisch (the writer of the film "Hitch") took the thought right out of my head when he based the movie on the concept that ANY guy can have (date…start a successful relationship with) ANY woman. It's absolutely true…and it works both ways. I've never understood why a guy immediately assumes that a woman is out of his reach. I swear it’s the quickest way to miss out on an opportunity. If you see an attractive woman and immediately think to yourself, "Wow, she's gorgeous. She wouldn’t want to be with a schmo like me." Well of course she's out of your league then. You're all awkward and downtrodden, and your body language probably screams "I have no confidence and I'm insecure. I won't be man enough for you in the bedroom because I'll never see myself as the Mandingo you need me to be." Who wants that? But if a fly-azz honey catches your eye and you want to make a move, do yourself a favor and approach the situation like that woman should have absolutely no reason NOT to like you. In fact, you should be focusing on all of the reasons she SHOULD dig you. Because that's how winners are born, son. If you ain't first, you're last.

The more you know.

Anyways, if you have the wrong attitude, you'll find a million reasons NOT to date someone…especially when you have the mindset that you are somehow above them, physically. I can't count the number of times I've heard a woman say she wasn't interested in a guy because he was too short, or too hefty, or not sexy enough. I can't count how many men I know that have not approached a woman because her hair wasn't the right color/length, or her ass and breasts weren't big enough, or because she was too tall. And this movie focused on the inverse scenario - a guy reluctant to go out with a girl because she has too many positive qualities.

My point is, as humans, we (I include myself) play ourselves out of the game. We do it early, and we do it often. And it's all a factor of one character trait: Confidence. You either have it or you don't. And yes, you can be drunk with it. As a man, you (internally) have to have the attitude that you are the most interesting, well-read, entertaining, attractive, biggest-dick-swingin'est, pipe-layin'est cat out there. And as a woman, you have to have the mindset that you are the sexiest, most clever, nurturing, stylish, loving woman with the absolute sweetest p*ssy there is. Again, internally. Externally, that translates into confidence as long as you don't take it too far. And of course, all of that has to at least partially be true or else SOMEBODY is gonna be mad at you later on.

Maybe it's just me, but in my entire dating career, I've never seen a woman and thought to myself, "Damn, Goodnight…you can't holla at that one. She's just too fly for you." F*ck that. I would have made a move on Halle Berry back when I was single. Because hey, why wouldn't she be into me? She's dated pro-athletes, models, crooners, and actors and that sh!t didn't work. Why NOT date a writer/blogger, renaissance-ass cat like myself?

Anyway good people, I'm looking for some honesty here. Have you ever thought somebody was out of your league just because they were too attractive or popular? Why? And have you ever turned someone down because you thought you were out of their league? Don't get me wrong, I know sometimes you're just not attracted to someone. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about turning someone down that you thought was attractive…just not attractive enough. Like you think you're an 8 and they were only a 6.5. Also, what do you rate yourself on the scale of physical beauty (1 thru 10…10 being the highest, of course).

Don't be shy, but be honest. Sharing is caring.