Men At Work

Like it or not, the way you look has an effect on your life. Some people choose not to accept this fact, but that doesn't make it less of a reality. We all interact with other people, and particularly the first time you interact with someone, they make assumptions and judgments about you based on what you look like. Sometimes these assumptions work in your favor. And as Ines Sainz recently found out, sometimes these assumptions work against you. Or do they?

If you haven't heard, recently Ines Sainz, a Mexican reporter with TV Azteca claimed to be sexually harassed in the New York Jets locker room as she waited to interview Jets QB Mark Sanchez. Sainz was reportedly harassed by players AND coaches, as players intentionally threw footballs in her direction so that they may get a closer look, and perhaps flirt, as they retrieved the ball. She also claimed that they cat-called at her in the locker room. Now, while I don't doubt the validity of her claims, and I don't want to minimize her feelings about it all, I think this deserves a look from both sides.

Here's the thing…and this is going to sound really basic: A men's locker room is NO PLACE for a woman. Especially a woman dressed like this:



I played sports growing up. Even in high school, the climate in the locker room was very masculine and very macho. Guys talk sh*t about each other, girlfriends, coaches…and no one and nothing is off limits. Everyone is a target of some form of ridicule or another. And such a climate is NOT very gal friendly. I'm not saying that it's an anti-women climate, but I am saying that most of the guys aren't going to change their behavior to suite a lady that just so happens to be present on THEIR turf (pun). I can only imagine how much that sentiment is extrapolated in the men's locker room of a professional sport where the players are bigger, bolder, well paid and have their pick of groupies.

I know what you're thinking: "But how is that fair, Goodnight? If women aren't allowed in the locker room, the only male reporters would get the immediate interviews." Well, then maybe that's how it needs to be. Maybe non-staff members shouldn't be allowed in the locker room. OR….OR…maybe if you're a woman and you'll be interviewing players in an NFL locker room, you shouldn't be dressed like this…



…if you don't want the players to react like a video vixen is on the scene.

I mean c'mon…even some of you girls reading this right now want to squeeze that ass. Admit it.

Anyway, the bigger issue I want to address has more to do with women in less extreme scenarios. As any attractive woman will tell you (if she's willing to be honest, that is), there are ways to allow your physical beauty to work for you. Whether it's a fitting blouse or a skirt that shows just enough leg, it probably gets a woman some consideration that she otherwise would not have gotten. And I'm ok with that. There are many double standards out there, and a lot of them work against women. So if there is an opportunity for a woman to take advantage of a double standard that DOES work in her favor, by all means, she should take advantage.

But I gotta say…If you're willing to benefit from your looks, are you a hypocrite if you can't accept it when your looks work against you? Can you, on one hand, justify accepting the fact the combination of your sexy-ass dress and your curvy body gets you in the club free AND men buying you drinks all night, but on the other hand, reject the idea that a man can whistles at you and make a few comments about how good he thinks you look? If you accept the fact that certain attire will get you attention in some venues, shouldn't you also accept that the same attire will cause some to not take you seriously? And again, I'm saying "accept", not to be confused with "like".

This issue is a tough one because it's gridlocked in the old question of when my right to say infringes on your right to not have to hear what I say. I certainly don't believe that a woman should have to dress conservatively. Besides, that wouldn't stop men from "noticing" her. I also don't think that a man should be able to say any old sh*t to a woman. But there does have to be balance, and both sides have to be aware of one another…especially in certain venues.

So let me ask you: What do you think of this whole Ines Sainz situation? What do you think about women reporters being in the locker room period? And most importantly, what do you think about finding a balance between the positives and negatives of physical attraction?...whether someone is using their looks for good or naughty naughty evil?

What's YOUR Market Value?

What would you say the market value is these days for a blow job? No, really? Among the sexually active populous (whether you are single and dating, or boo'd up), what do you think the proper rate of exchange is for giving or expecting to receive some head? I'm oversimplifying here (maybe), but isn't that what sex, or the traditional pursuit of sex rather, really boils down to?

Guys want sex. Women want sex. So you would think that obtaining said sex would be a simple matter of a guy walking up to a girl (or vice versa) and saying, "Hey. Want to have sex with me?" But it's not that simple. Why? What complicates the situation? Respect. Throw any possible desires to be in a relationship out the door for a moment. Try not to think about this in terms of relationships. The need to be respected complicates the situation…and I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

Women (most of them at least) want to be respected, or they want a man to give the impression that he respects her so that she at least feels respected. Or maybe this is just what men think (ah ha!). I won't presume to know exactly what women think. But I do know that the reality (or the perception…whichever it is) of this scenario makes for the exchange rate I asked about earlier. The social dynamic of our culture is such that, for women, their bodies are paramount. For better or for worse, their bodies "are their temples", right? And so, when it comes to the social dynamic of sex, a woman giving of her body is typically a big deal. And men know that. So in a nutshell, a man must also give of that which he values the most. And there's the rub.

A hypothetical woman is looking to be respected before she gives her body to a man, which means she looks for signs that a man is giving or sacrificing a reasonable amount (according to her scale) to deserve her body. The complication (aside from how long that last sentence was) is that she has to understand what a man values as much as she values her own body. And that's tricky, because contrary to popular opinion, all men think differently. And…all women perceive what men value differently. For some it's money, for some it's their time, for some it's their car. Anyway, this is turning into the longest tangent ever.

Here's what I'm getting at. Sex is sex…it's a mutual exchange. Sure, the perception we've been taught in our society is that when it comes to sex, the woman is sacrificing her body, and the man is getting more out of the deal than the woman. But f*ck that…and if you believe that, pretend that's not true for a moment.

Head, however, is not a mutual exchange. You don't mutually exchange head (unless it's a 69). Even if it's a 'you do me and then I'll do you' scenario, somedamnbody has to go first. Somebody has to "submit" to the other person first, and thus take the "risk" losing respect…which is utter bullsh!t IMO. Even if you LOVE giving head (God bless you, btw), you're still aware of that dynamic.

So again, I ask you: Ladies, what does a man have to do over a reasonable period of dating (whatever that is for you…2 dates, 2 months etc) before you say to yourself, "You know what? I'mma give this brutha some head." And don't lie and say that he has to eat you out first. And fellas, how much do you give of your most valued thing (your time, money, creativity etc.) before you start expecting some head? What do you value most, anyways? I know I value my time the most. That's the biggest thing I can give to a woman…my time and attention.

Don't be shy. Tell 'em how you feel.

Lessons Learned X.0

Every now and then, I look back on the last year or whatever and write out a list of lessons learned. It's not usually too specific. Sometimes these are lessons I've learned recently. Sometimes they're lessons that I learned long ago, and something happened recently that reminded me of the lesson. Anyway, here's what I got this time.

In no particular order of importance:

1. When it comes to relationships, sometimes you have to choose between being happy and being right. You see, "right" is a fluid concept. And in a relationship, on issues where it's possible for two people to see things differently, both people think they're "right". And so…both people are right…and wrong. Each person has their way of doing things. If each person insists on being right and holding on to "their way", nobody is going to be happy. Let me tell you, people…THIS is the definition….the very precipice of compromise. So…be "right" or be happy. Sometimes you can't have both.

The more you know…

2. Modern contraception and medicine are good for your sexual health. Condoms are good. Birth control is as well. And condoms and birth control together will hopefully keep you from needing modern medicine. But absolutely NOTHING beats discretion…and I'm not talkin' about creepin' (no T-Boz). Sure condoms make it possible for one to f*ck (or get f*cked by) those who have the most unsavory of moral standards, yet the most appetizing physique. And sure, chances are, you'll enjoy the ride of your life without suffering the sting of an STD or an unwanted pregnancy. Probably. But then again…condoms break, don't they. And whore's are nasty. And unwanted baby's mamas can be nastier. So…choose wisely, yeah?

3. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right and doing BIG. The older I get, the more I see why my parents got annoyed when I would half-ass things as a kid. Don't get me wrong…there's an appropriate time for half-assedness. Like if you're doing something that you don't really want to do, that also won't benefit you. Yes, in that case, by all means, half-ass that sh*t. No need to put too much effort into rinsing out the garbage can or some nonsense like that. But if you're going on vacation, GO on vacation. Don't go to Hawaii and book a room at a Best Western. Don't give half-assed head. And for God sakes, season/marinate your meats the night before you BBQ.

4. Keeping score only satisfies (read: dissatisfies) YOU. This is especially the case in a relationship. I have a homegirl that keeps track of how many times her boyfriend washes dishes vs the amount of times she washes them. She makes sure they split meals evenly throughout the week. And if she sees things aren't "even", she bitches about it. It annoys the hell out of him…I know because he's told me. And he resents her. And resentful people retaliate. At the end of the day, he's not happy…and neither is she. F*ck the score. Do you.

5. Honey is sticky…no matter where you put it on your body. And it takes days to find it all (don't ask). But you know who finds it immediately? Bees. Trust me.

6. You no longer have to be talented to be successful. You also don't have to be lucky. You only have to be willing to exploit yourself. Don't believe me? Ask Kim Kardashian, The Situation (of Jersey shore), and anyone who has been on Real World/Road Rules or any other reality show in the last 5 or 10 years. They've made more money than most of us will make in 1- years. And while money doesn't equal success, money does make success matter a lot less. So I ask you…why bother being good at anything? Dignity? Pride? Prestige?

7. Marriage is not the destination, it's the journey (just like sex). It's some people's goal to get married. Like, that's THE goal of a relationships in their opinion. I beg to differ. Sure, marriage is a goal…a milestone. But it should not be THE goal. The trip isn't over just because you got married. Getting married just means you're driving insured now. And you can do a lot more sh*t when you're insured. There's still plenty of traveling to do and enjoy. Like any journey, there are straight stretches, hills, beautiful scenery, unexpected curves and turbulence, rain, and some down-right scary towns in central Pennsylvania and West Virginia that you end up driving through, praying that the car doesn't break down. Don't sell yourself short on enjoying the journey of marriage by having a "well…this is it" attitude about it as if it's something terminal. So where are YOU going?

8. As some of y'all know, I like to cook. I think I've figured out why (besides the obvious desire to unleash my inner fat-boy on occasion). Cooking helps me deal with life, man. Dead serious. Cooking boils down to two things…patience and preparation. The perfect grilled chicken breast, for example, can't be forced. It's got to be seasoned/marinated early enough to have time to take the flavoring. When you cook it, you can't crank up the heat to speed up the process without burning the outside while the inside is still raw. You can't cook it for too long or it will dry out. It takes however long it takes. And ain't sh*t you can do about it. Just like in the kitchen, a lot of things in life are like that. They are what they are…they require what they require. And it's out of your control.

9. You have to believe in something…something that's real to you. I don't like to get entangled in the rubber-band ball that is our world's collective religious diversity. But I'll say this much: you have to operate under some code of beliefs. Maybe it's God for you, or Allah, Buddha, cause-and-effect, Vishnu, money, the golden rule, nature…I don't know…anything. But you better believe in something. Otherwise, what are you loyal to? What shapes your decision making?

10. And finally (for now, at least), dept is a bitch. I think I'm going to personally see to it that my kids finish college with zero debt. Admittedly, I've not yet figured out how I'm going to do this, seeing as how tuition will be at least twice what it is now and Advil will cost $20/per pill AND a pint of blood. But I swear, the deck is stacked against you when you have debt. I have a homegirl (28 years old) who lives in an apartment not far from Uptown Charlotte. Like, she can walk to a Panthers game…not that anyone would want to this year. It's only a one bedroom, but I'd bet money this place costs at least $1200/month. Oh, and when I say apartment, I don't mean 3 story wood building with brick and vinyl façade and outdoor entrance stairs. I'm talking about a concierge service, elevator man, door man, and parking garage. The sh*t looks like a hotel. In addition to that, she bought a jeep last year…outright. She went to a car dealership, test-drove a new vehicle, and wrote them a check for it. She went to college and grad-school out of state, and has no student loan debt. What this means, for you slow people, is that (assuming all salaries equal) she probably has about $1000/month more money in available funds than most people. Do you know how dangerous I would be if I had $1000/month to stack?...or invest? Do you know how much more house you could afford?...how much nicer of a neighborhood that could put you in? Do you know how much more traveling you could do? I don't know who financed her college years or what they had to do to finance it, but I do know that she's better positioned (financially) now than a lot of college grads will be 10 years from now. I should slap her. Bitch. Lol

Aight, that's it for me today. What have you learned recently, or what's something that you've been reminded of recently that you already knew?

Sonuvabitch, they rapin' errrbody out here!

Alicia Keys vs Fantasia Barrino

Let me start this piece by saying that this is NOT an assault or judgment on Fantasia Barrino or Alicia Keys, nor is it an assault on Nsenga K. Burton, editor-at-large at TheRoot.com. But this IS a shot at the media, in general, and those who insist on falsely playing up any situation available to create drama.


This is a topic that has annoyed me for at least a year now, but it really came to a head in the wake of the alleged Fantasia Barrino affair with a married man whom shall remain nameless.

There are some (Nsenga Burton obviously is one of them, judging by this article) who think Fantasia Barrino has unfairly been on the receiving end of media scrutiny as of late. This began with Fantasia's supposed attempted suicide, which apparently was motivated by said media scrutiny, resulting from details of her "private life" being exposed. Now, notice the term "unfairly". In order for something to be unfair (and transversely, fair), there must be a measuring stick…a means of comparing said situation with one that has been deemed "fair" or moderate. Get it? For an extreme to exist, a normal must also exist…and an opposite must exist as well. Well, the Alicia Keys and Swizz Beatz saga has provided such a measuring stick in the media's eyes.

You see, those who believe Fantasia is being treated unfairly seem to also want to see Alicia Keys on the receiving end of an equal amount of scrutiny. After all, they both did commit the same crime in the court of public opinion. That is, they both were involved with a married man. Right? Many bloggers and columnists have implied that Alicia Keys has been "let off the hook" because she is a larger public figure, she's light skinned, she fits a more universal definition of beauty, she's more polished in that she went to and graduated from a prestigious performing arts school, thus she took a more traditional path to achieving showbiz stardom. And Fantasia is apparently the anti-Keys in every way. She's dark-skinned, has struggled with abuse, illiteracy, she's from a small town in a "small state", she's not the classic beauty that Alicia Keys apparently is, and she happened upon her stardom and fame as oppose to earning it. Thus making Ms. Barrino an easier target. Right?

But they both got involved with married men, right? Their situations are exactly the same. Right?

It has even been stated that, in the court of public opinion, Alicia Keys has done far worse than Fantasia in the steal-a-man department. She "stole" Swizz from Moshanda. She got pregnant by him, and married him. All Fantasia did was make some sex tapes with her married guy and get his name tattooed on her.
Same situations, right?

Wrong.

In my opinion, it's clear and obvious why the media dived on Fantasia in a different way than Alicia.

Alicia Keys didn't get the level of public scrutiny that Fantasia got because, up until recently, Alicia Keys kept her private life just that…private. Hell, up until about 3 years ago, half of y'all suspected the broad was gay! She'd never been photographed in a romantic or intimate setting with a man (nor woman, for that matter). She'd never spoken openly about her relationship(s) (if there were any). And she'd never done a reality TV show or tell-all biography, exposing the gritty details that we all (read: you all) love so much. And that combined with the messages in her music (no matter whether she lives those messages or not) allowed the media to create a squeaky clean image for her (be it deserved or not). So at the end of the day, when this Swizz-Mashonda-Alica-Beatz scandal emerged, many weren't sure what to believe.

Fantasia, on the other hand, rose to fame with the media in her personal life…before she dropped one single album. She played herself (no pun intended) in the Lifetime Movie Network biographical film about her life. She had a Keisha Cole-style reality show. And she openly and publically has discussed her troubles. Some may think this is admirable. And maybe it is. But unfortunately, when you give the media that kind of access to you…that kind of insight into your personal life, people (and the media) feel they have a certain right to your privacy. And so yes, the media felt perfectly fine with sinking their teeth into the juicy Fantasia scandal

But even bigger than that is the fact that we don't know what the f*ck was really happening. I know I haven't been married that long, but I can tell you this about marriage: If you're on the outside looking in, you don't know half of what's going on in that marriage. I don't care if you're getting daily updates from one of them, you don't know half. For anyone to hear second-hand (or hell, even third-hand) rumors about a marriage…one that involves 2 people that they don't even personally know, and then think that based on those rumors you can form a relevant opinion, is ridiculous. Marriages end far far far before the divorce. And to two people that want to be rid of each other, the divorce is only paperwork…just as a marriage license is only paperwork for two people who are really committed to one another. But that's another blog. Separation is real.

When a couple decides they no longer want to be together, THAT is the end of the marriage. Not some government documents. Some people like to wait until the divorce is final. Some move on as soon as the couple comes to an agreement that the relationship is in fact done. And we don't know where on the scale Swizz, Alicia, Fantasia (or her guy and his wife) fell. We only know what we hear. Of course Mashonda publicly and verbally lambasted Alicia Keys after she found out Swizz was dating her. Wouldn't YOU do the same if you found out your soon-to-be ex-husband was climbing Mt. Alicia?! I'm just saying.

So with all due respect, media personalities and bloggers, if you don't know any of the parties involved personally, please, shut the f*ck up. And stop trying to turn the situation into a light-skinned vs dark-skinned issue. Y'all wear me out.

It's Only Sex

You know what…let me say this: There are several reasons to have sex with someone. You're in love. You're just horny. You think he's sexy in that suit. You like the electric blue, patent leather heels she wore to work. You're desperate. You're drunk. You have a "plug" and she has a "socket". It feels good and you just want to feel good right now. Your neighbor needs a ride to work and ain't NOTHIN' free in this world. Or maybe you found yourself cash-poor at a very inconvenient time, and you gotta do what you gotta do. These are all perfectly acceptable reasons to have sex with someone. But here's the thing. Be able to distinguish between each situation, or else you are going to end up hurt.


You know how in the game Tic Tac Toe, you're trying to get three X's or three O's in a row?...horizontally, vertically, or diagonally? Well that has nothing to do with this…I mean, nothing at all.

I talked to a homegirl yesterday who had recently given up the twat (I love the word "twat"…it sounds SO dirty) to a fellow she was dating. Now, her young mister has decided that he doesn't have to call her as frequently. And naturally, this has upset her. So she asked me if she should be upset about the situation, and she is feeling like maybe she shouldn't have had sex with him yet. My response to this was simple: Don't have sex of any kind with a guy who isn't YOUR man unless you're ok with the idea that he's not committed to you…which means he's not obligated to visit, call, take you out on dates etc at any particular frequency. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a bad thing. At all. It doesn't mean don't have casual sex. Casual sex is good. It just means that you have to keep your expectations in check. Her situation is/was only a problem because she expected it to become more than it is/was. Aside from that, there is nothing wrong with dude just being a friend that she sees (read: has sex with) on occasion. Everyone you have sex with doesn't have to be your future boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse. And everyone you're initially attracted to doesn't have to end up being more than easy access sex.
Brothas, we're not exempt from this issue, btw. It's not just a woman's problem. We have hang-ups with this shit too…it just plays out differently. While we don't usually find ourselves regretting having sex with a woman "too soon" (whatever that means), we DO attach expectations to women that we're sleeping with just like women attach expectations to men. But that's another blog.

Anyway, the root of this issue, IMO, is twofold. The first is what I mentioned earlier about knowing the difference between the various reasons there are for a person to have sex, and understanding which category you're falling into that night. The second is a matter of perspective. If you've been reading my blogs these past few years, you know that I think it is a HUGE mistake for a woman to view the act of sex as her "giving up" something or giving something to the guy…something that she should otherwise be trying to withhold. Why? Because that makes her expect something in return…even if that is only an expectation of his behavior. Instead a woman (men too) should look at sex as a mutual exchange. Two people (or 3 if you're lucky) having a physical exchange for that moment. And I'm referring to the most basic sense. Of course it can be more complicated. Of course it can be an emotional and spiritual exchange as well. The same rules still apply though…it's a mutual exchange. You should expect nothing more. AND IF YOU DO EXPECT MORE, then there should be NO sex UNLESS dude KNOWS you expect more, and he is all-in on that idea with you (meaning, he's down to meet those expectation).

So what's the point? The point is we let sex complicate things. If you want a commitment of some sort from someone, don't make sex the operating factor in the equation. It shouldn't be the main objective, and it should not be the indicator of whether or not someone loves you or is committed exclusively to you. Again, I'm not saying don't have sex. I'm saying that it shouldn't determine the outcome of the situation….in either direction.

Aight, I think that's all I wanted to say. What do y'all think? Am I downplaying sex? Do y'all think it's more/less important to a relationship-ish situation? Do y'all understand what I mean when I say that this isn't just a woman's problem?

Scream at me!

Date Deez

I was talking to one of my homegirls the other day, whom is also married. We hadn't spoken in a while so we caught up a bit. After I asked her about her husband and whatnot, I decided to ask about a couple of her friends. I'm familiar with some of them, as she's spoken about them throughout our tenure as pals. It went a little something like this:

Goodnight: How's Keri doing these days?
Bee: Oh, her and her guy broke up a while ago. So she's been complaining to me about having to date again (please notice the wording of that phrase, people).
Goodnight: *Cringe* Woo! Can you imagine!? Ugh!
Bee: I know, right! God. Having to get to know somebody again…and go through all of that…again.
Goodnight: And that's best case scenario! You're probably going to just run into a bunch of mu-f*ckas that burn through your patience. I hate people.
Bee: The thing that's annoying is all of that time it takes to find out if y'all are actually compatible.

There was more, but I'll stop here.

Aside from the melodrama that you get when two married-ass-ninjas air their fears of having to be NOT-married again, we began thinking about why the concept seems so haunting. If you talk to most late 20-somethings and early 30-somethings, you'll probably find that they absolutely detest the idea of having to date again. And I guess the operative word here is "again". Dating is fun…when you're 21 and everything is new. But once it has become old-hat, repetitive, emotionally draining, and painful, you kinda just want to skip the intro and get right to the song, so to speak. And that's how you probably feel if you're married, have been boo'd up for any significant amount of time, or if you've become kinda 'done' with dating in general, and thus have gone on strike.

Really, it's a testament to how much hard work goes into making a relationship work, if you think about it. But I digress.

The very thought of actually having to go through the process just makes you nauseous. For some reason, I feel like 28 to 32 year-olds dislike the idea more than oh say someone in their early 40's would. Why? Because if you have to 'get back out there' at 40 after being boo'd up or flat out on strike for the past 10 years, at least there's the possibility of some newness. At least you have had time to get bored with not-dating. And the game has probably had time to change (I guess), and that also is enough time for there to be some new folks on the market. I'm not saying a 40 year old would love the idea of having to date again, but I feel like there's room for more excitement in that case. If you're 29, you probably haven't been fed up with dating for too long (2 to 4 years, tops). Dating again would be the equivalent of getting back in the shower 3 minutes after you've gotten out and already toweled yourself down. Now you gotta get wet again. The first shower felt great, but damn, you gotta take another one?! You're ready to get in the bed, already. It ain't gonna kill you - - but WTF, you know?

Anyways, what makes the idea of dating again so scary (read: annoying)? Is it the fear of getting hurt if you open yourself up? Is it that you can't imagine having the patience to meet someone, get to know them, and find out if you're compatible? Or is it more so about having to convince someone else to accept your ass and all of you quirks (read: flaws)? Or does the concept not annoy you at all?

Holla at me!

Objectification of My Affection

(Repost)

I used to be (and still am, for the most part) very cautious of what I say to women. Actually, maybe "aware" is a better word for it than "cautious". Honestly, I think most men are. The line is very thin between showing appreciation, affection, or simple flirting vs saying or doing something that will be taken offense to. And that line seems to be drawn differently for each woman.

This dynamic between us came to mind the other day as I had a conversation with some friends. A female in the group, who we all agree is a very attractive woman (she kinda looks like Res…the singer), expressed that she feels like a lot of men just aren't drawn to her….like men don't approach her. She interprets this interaction (or lack thereof) as men not diggin' her look. Basically, she thinks a lot of guys just don't find her that attractive, physically. She goes on to say something along the lines of, "…I'm a cute girl…I know this…and I'm confident. I'm just saying that it's possible that I don't have 'that thing' (physically) that makes a guy feel like he has to speak to me…" Another girl in the group (who also is attractive) could relate to her. And after a while, they asked us (guys) what we thought they were missing, physically, that keeps men from approaching them or at least paying them compliments.

Now, I know these women. As I said, they're attractive girls, and they're personalities are not off-putting to me. They don't usually have a demeanor that says "Don't talk to me!" And we (the guys) told them that. Surely, men find them attractive. Surely, men notice them. They aren't missing anything, physically. And while there are many possible reasons as to why men aren't acknowledging their physical beauty as often as they think men should be, there's really only one reason I'm focusing on for this blog. And that reason is that a lot of men just don't think complimenting a random woman (or hell, even a woman they know) is worth the possible fallout. In other words, sometimes we're just not sure how a gal is going to take it if we say something nice about their bodies.

Imagine this scenario, ladies. You're at the grocery store in the produce section, trying to find…a ripe zucchini or something, I don't know…whatever. It's after work and you have on a pair of very nicely fitting pants and blouse. As you're going about your business, leaning over to reach a zucchini that is further away from the ledge, some guy approaches you and says something along the lines of, "Excuse me. I saw you over here and I just wanted to tell you that you have one of the loveliest bodies I've ever seen." Tell the truth, are you appreciative of his comment or are you a bit thrown…freaked out even? Chances are, you're a bit thrown. Chances are, you're thinking something like, "Jesus Christ, do men just have to try to holla ALL the time?!" Maybe the location is different. Maybe the circumstances are a bit different. And maybe dude's compliment is a bit more subtle. But my point is that the chances of a woman responding to such a compliment with true, unguarded gratitude are slim. And for a guy who isn't necessarily looking to gain any ground with said woman, there isn't much incentive to make that compliment.

Post-Women's Rights + 90's girl + girl power-era, guys seem to have a complex when it comes to objectifying vs. appreciating women. And women seem to have a complex when it comes to making sure they are appreciated and not allowing themselves to be objectified. I believe that dynamic to be the source of conflict in every guy's mind as he's trying to find "the right" words to express his appreciation of a woman's anatomy. And it's the source of conflict in every woman's mind as she's trying to decide if she should thank a man for his expression of appreciation for her body or slap his face for verbally or physically crossing the line. At some point in history, it seems to have become taboo to appreciate a woman for her physical beauty. Looking is fine, but don't say anything and DEFINITELY don't touch. That's the "rule". And that's why, ladies, most guys who think you are attractive will never do more than just look at you. That is unless they have something to gain by taking a chance and actually telling you what he thinks (i.e. he's looking for a partner…maybe for just that night or maybe for life).

To me, it's no wonder that this group of women (and many others that I know) feel somewhat undervalued, physically. It's no surprise that so many women (and men too, but that's another chapter) feel self-conscious about their bodies. That acknowledgment of physical beauty is either not given or not accepted.

Personally, I compliment my female friends when I feel it is appropriate. Sometimes it's about their personalities or something they did or said. But a lot of times it's purely physical. And to me, that's ok…it's necessary even…for them and for me. We all need to be appreciated, and we all need to be appreciated on all levels. It is not enough to only be appreciated for your mind OR your body, for example. And I need to be able to express my appreciation. I should not be expected to have to withhold that expression because someone might take offense to it. It shouldn't be a big deal for me to tell a friend that she looks great in a certain outfit, or that she has a beautiful smile, or alluring lips, or that her ass looks stunning in a certain pair of jeans. That shouldn't be unacceptable…not if it IS acceptable for me to tell her that she's smart, or that her personality is so inviting, or that her recent financial decisions have been remarkable. Right? It should be equally as insulting to ONLY be appreciated for your mind as it is to ONLY be appreciated for your looks.

When did we, as a society, become so cold…so closed off and unapproachable (or fearful of approaching people)? There's so much concern about our individual spaces being invaded, verbally or physically. You end up having to decide whether you're going to be an 'approacher' or a 'bystander', and suffering the consequences. Sometimes I smile at a random, attractive woman in the mall (because I tend to smile at cute girls…What?!…don't judge me) and she smiles back. I smile at the next woman and she shoots me a look that says "BACK OFF!" I affectionately hug or kiss a female friend and she's receptive and reciprocal…accepting of the love I'm showing her…the physical compliment that I'm paying her. I do the same thing with the next homegirl and maybe she feels awkward and invaded. What gives?

Think about it. Ladies, how do you generally feel when a man compliments you solely on how you look? Be honest. Do you wish more men would compliment you and/or approach you? And guys, do you find it difficult to compliment women, whether they be your friends or strangers? And when you do, what kind of response do you expect? Do you wish it was more acceptable to be more forward with women about their bodies? Scream at me!