Don't know if y'all have been keeping up with the latest news in the rap music industry, but there's a buzz around this particular story. Akon, an artist whose recent hit "Sweet Escape" with Gwen Stefani has earned him much popularity, gained a lot of negative attention when he pulled a 14-year-old girl onstage in a Trinidad nightclub and began "grinding," i.e., dirty dancing, in a more-than suggestive way. (Read the full story here. Disclaimer: explicit content.)
The teenager involved (who according to CNN is the daughter of a minister) was very provocatively dressed on the night of the incident. I have to admit, having seen video footage, I would not believe at first glance that she be any less than 18. That, I admit, ties into how quickly adolescent girls are maturing (uh, physically not mentally).
So, where does blame lie?..
...On the musician/performer? He was unaware of her being a minor at the time. Regardless of his dance "partner's" age, is the style appropriate?
...On the 14-year-old? First, her attire has the effect of attracting sexual attention - likely what she was going for while she was composing an ensemble from her bedroom closet earlier in the evening. Second, there is question as to her participation in dancing with Akon. Some (including her family) claim she was trying to break away from the man; others insist she looked awfully comfortable complying.
...On her parents? To my understanding, they were extremely upset by the entire debacle, asking for an apology from Akon. Are parents in total charge of what their teenagers wear when leaving the house? If so, at what age is there a cut-off from such authority? And for those of you making the argument that "the problem started a long time ago, years before this young woman even had a choice of dress," what IS the root of that problem? And what can we as "society at large" do about it?
...On "society at large?" There are pressures on young men and women to (a) dress certain ways, (b) listen to certain music, (c) react to social situations in certain ways. How can we positively influence these habits, and at what point is it out of our hands?
And a final note: how should Akon be reprimanded, if at all, and by whom?
Well, a LONG overdue HELLO! :) For those of you longtime readers of this blog, you might remember me having left at the beginning of last summer for a 4,000-mile bike ride. And - unbelievably, miraculously - I made it! For ten weeks I and forty other students took a cycling tour from Austin, TX, to Anchorage, Alaska, in order to raise hope and awareness on behalf of the American Cancer Society. A HUGE success! Everyone made it from start to finish, and we raised a little under $300,000! Not bad for a rowdy band of college kids. (For more information & photos of the journey, go to www.texas4000.org. The 2007 team is about to hit the road.)
For the past year, it's been textbooks & lecture halls for me, but now I want to get back to blogging and I look forward to offering my two cents - and then some - over the next few weeks/months.
To begin: How do you feel about the pro-age Dove ad campaign? I am still developing my own opinion. On the one hand, I understand why some women (and men) are concerned that it promotes immodest exposure. On the other, I understand why it's important we celebrate all body types - and that in this era of such high competition for attention in advertising, it takes a dramatic, unexpected display (of skin?) to make people listen. What do you think? Sway me!
Well, my big ride is less than two weeks away! I and forty-four of my friends leave on June 3 from Austin, Texas, to Anchorage, Alaska, on Trek road bicycles: 4,500 miles across this gorgeous continent. Woo hoo! From the road I will be able to correspond, as we will have laptops with us and, pending our locations, net access. I'll try to keep up with Modesty Zone, and you can keep up with me (and my teammates) on texas4000.org. We blog as we ride (though obviously not AS we ride, haha).
I really appreciate y'all's comments on my last entry. I've figured out where my 'line' is, and I've found it truly to be a subjective matter. One's choice is her OWN; there isn't a universal. A couple weeks ago I discussed the issue with my pastor and my best Austin friend Shelley, and here's the best advice I've heard regarding physical relationships, an insightful word from Reverend Bill: Assume that the person you're with right now is NOT the person you will end up marrying. Assume that the person you WILL end up marrying is somewhere 'out there', in his own romantic relationship. What are you comfortable with knowing your future husband is doing with another woman? Take your answer and apply it to your own behavior. So your sexual activities relate not only to the respect you have for yourself but also to that which you have for your spouse-to-be. Pretty perfect way to look at it.
The man I'm seeing right now - who may or may not ever read this; he is aware of my Modestly Yours site writings, after all - so far embodies the general characteristics I desire/require in a partner: he's compassionate, selfless, intelligent, modest, athletic, secure and confident, thoughtful and kind, family-oriented, handsome, responsible, easygoing, funny, attentive, a hard worker, religious, honest, trustworthy, adventurous... the list goes on, of course. (Call me smitten.) And there is one trait - rather, choice he's made - that makes him all the more attractive in my eyes: abstinence.
It's really early - maybe too early to guarantee anything based purely on this one 'specimen' I mention above, but... girls: There are GOOD, FINE, SINGLE MEN still walking around the streets of our cities who exhibit all of the aforementioned qualities, who treat women the way they deserve to be, who are worth WAITING FOR. Resist the temptation to give over a most precious jewel of yours out of frustration or impatience. Wait for a prince. Can I get an AMEN? :-)
Please share with me your thoughts and feelings regarding physical relationships (ie, where to draw 'the line'). I'm struggling with this right now, in part because the Bible -- as far as I know -- does not directly address the topic. I abide by the law of abstinence. But there's a significant gap between holding hands and having sex. Where do YOU draw the line? How did you determine it? Is there a universal rule for all of us? How does modesty factor in?
Shane*, the gentleman of whom I spoke in my last entry, came forward with his intentions. I certainly appreciate his honesty, and I'm proud of myself for sticking to my principles. (*Names changed.)
On AOL Instant Messaging, after some banter and light chit-chat, I'd told Shane that he "was growing on me." His response: "Well, we should probably talk about that." We both agreed that in-person would be best. I couldn't tell what his tone was. Would this tete-a-tete be really good? Or very bad?
Our mutual friend Janice* had just dropped Shane and I off at a restaurant, and she'd gone to park the car, giving the two of us a few minutes to talk. "So? What's up?" I asked.
"I mean, I don't know," he said. "I guess I just have some concerns about our religious differences, and our sexual ideology is pretty different too. I can't make an emotional investment. I like you. I really like you."
After the initial stun I managed a disheartened "Yeah, I like you too..."
I examined his words. Religious differences. Yeah, that would be a problem down the road. Tolerance of each other's most basic values is not a good foundation for two people seeking commitment. Sexual ideology? I understood completely, though I'd never heard those terms paired together. I know that he has slept with more than one girl. And he knows that I am a virgin. Fine. Alright. So it's me with the 'hangups', in other words...
Janice approached the table and took a seat, oblivious to the ongoing drama. For the next half-hour I tried to verbally engage but mostly kept to myself, rolling over my thoughts. The three of us ordered, chatted, joked, ate and paid the bill, then Janice got up to retrieve the car. Shane and I had to then quickly sweep up whatever mess of a conversation we'd left at, before our chariot would pull up at the door.
"So what does this mean? Is it that you want something casual?" I asked seriously.
"Yeah, I mean, I can do that. I just want to let you know that there's a 95% chance my feelings about this won't change. We could try something, if you're alright with the 'no commitment' thing. But I just can't commit. At the end of the summer, that's pretty much it."
And I really, really, really did think before answering. I considered to myself, Am I capable of a 'casual' dating relationship? What does that mean, anyway? 'Casual dating'? If I grow attached to this guy - which I probably will, because I'm a loyal and romantic person - will it kill me when he leaves me in the dust? And know all the while that he "95%" probably will walk away? Can my heart handle that?
Concluding my inner monologue, I gave him my decision. "Then I think it's gonna have to be... a no. I know myself and that I'm not 'capable' of a detached physical relationship. It's a shame, because I think you're a wonderful person. But I can't compromise. I deserve more than that. I deserve the whole package, not just a piece of it."
He accepted my response with dignity, and we agreed we'd of course remain friends. And that was that. No big deal to him. Not a significant loss, I gather, because there are other young ladies in Austin who may very well take him up on a no-strings-attached agreement.
On one hand, I felt embarrassed and ashamed. He'd rejected me. Not the physical me. Not the intellectual me. He'd rejected the chance to know my heart. But on the other hand, it was liberating to resist temptation, to respond appropriately, to listen to my conscience, and to ignore a green light leading to inevitably temporary satisfaction.
I look forward to the day and hour when I meet the love of my life, the man who will want ALL of me: body, mind and (especially) soul.
I'm sort of stuck somewhere. That place between knowing what you want and having no idea. My convictions and values are the same, but there's a fork in the road, and there are no metal signs that point to Safety or to Danger.
I should clarify what the dilemma is, of course. It is the confusion that every looking-for-love single faces: Am I dating for fun - as an extracurricular? Or am I dating to find The One? I thought for awhile that they can both be done at once, but now I deeply question that fusion.
Field V, my very excellent friend, told us about the phrase "deal breaker." It means what it sounds like, used as dating terminology. For example, I've always told myself that any man in whom I develop remote interest should have faith in God and a strong affinity for church fellowship. Were I to meet a man seemingly 'perfect' in every other respect but who had no design to ever set foot in a sanctuary, it'd be a deal breaker: a no-go.
Figuring out what your deal breakers are is more difficult than it seems. Depends on how much of a romantic you are, I say, and whether or not you believe in a soulmate: a perfect fit for you. What are your deal breakers? Would you be opposed to a first date with someone who hates cats even though you adore them? An individual with less education than yourself? Much more education? A member of the political party opposite your own? A smoker, though you despise cigarettes? Is it a waste of your time (and his/hers) by going out even once, if you have a negative premonition?
At 21 years old, should I be dating for fun? or with long-term intentions? Am I too young to adopt a deal breaker policy? If pursued by a suitor in whom I note one or more traits or habits that I had in the past always considered deal breakers, do I flat out refuse invites? Or accept them, and give the dude a chance? I've been counseled by friends both ways.
What, dear blog reader, is your advice? As a junior in college, how do I regard the dating scene? Lightly? Or long-term? Am I waiting for marriage material only? Or is that too heavy for my current situation/place in life?
Heard on a top-20-hits radio station tonight that the "theme for tonight's songs" would be a follow-up to Mardi Gras: "Ass Wednesday." That's right, folks. Not ASH. ASS. Not only is this crass, it's blasphemous as far as I'm concerned.
I'd just gotten into my car after a church service to observe this holy day. Turn the ignition, and an obnoxious DJ with a nauseating voice announces: "Happy Ass Wednesday, peoples! Woo hoo. We're gonna play all them sexy-ass artists y'all know you like to hear - and want to DO!"
Gross.
Then girls were calling in describing how wonderful their own derriers in fact were.
Ladies, every time you call into a station and playfully tease or flirt with these type of disc jockeys, you encourage the continuation of these blockhead shows and antics.
One woman who phoned in, in whom I had high hopes from the initial content of her comment, told the DJ that "God was looking down and shaking his head," and that he was being profane. Thing is, she was giggling when she said it; she wasn't even taking herself seriously. Cruz just bantered back, and they ended their on-air conversation with an intro to a Shakira tune.
I'm fairly liberal and good-humored. (When we burned the palm leaves this evening in the service to make the ashes, for instance, it smelled distinctly like marijuana, which my friends and I thought was pretty funny. I've never smoked pot but do recognize its odor; comes with the territory of living in Austin.) There is, however, a line. And renaming a millenia-old religious holiday something so crass--and really not at all clever--certainly crosses it.
What do you think? I would really like to hear particularly from people like me who identify as liberal.
There are two exercise facilities at the University of Texas, and each has its own personality. Gregory Gym, the one I frequent because it's closer to my apartment, is a little bit 'hipper'. I've come to realize this means less clothing for ladies. I think I see more cleavage in the weightroom than I do at discos downtown...
How do you feel about popular, often skimpy workout apparel? Is it okay for the gym atmosphere, since sighting yourself in the full-length mirror might motivate you to push harder? Or is it unnecessary?
Perhaps the very foundation of a strong sense of modesty is strong self-esteem. To stand up against the media, the majority, the norm? To say to a superficial society "I really don't care whether or not you think I'm 'pretty' based on your standards"? To treasure your virginity, treat your body as a temple? Now THAT takes a high level of self-esteem.
That's why I've decided to support the Campaign for Real Beauty. Click on the link to watch the commercial. It nearly brings me to tears. Maybe it makes me a sap, but I don't care. I look at the adorable, extraordinary girls in the ad and read the overlaid text about their individual body image issues, and I want to hold them close, tell them they ARE beautiful, they ARE everything, they DO mean the world, and all the other things I wish I'd let register in me when I was their age.
Not to sound trite, but we have to start with the young ones. Do you know a 9-year-old with freckles, a long braid, and low self-esteem? Then tell her that she's wonderful. That she's lovely and amazing. You can't say it enough. She can't hear it enough.
Sorry for the stall, y’all. It’s been a very busy weekend! Went to a party at my friend Blake’s house here in West Campus late Saturday night. Curious events. It started out as an animal roast; which is funny because I am, and the friends who joined me are, vegetarian; we went solely for the company. And how disappointed we were!
A cluster of the boys – and I use the term ‘boys’ not ‘men’ purposefully – were guessing women’s bra sizes, as if it were like guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar. What upset me was the women’s compliance in the game. In fact, they’d even take off their jackets or button-down sweaters (shirts still on, thankfully) so the dudes (all in their mid-20s) could make a better assessment. After evaluating the goods for at least a full 30 seconds, the guys would shout out their respective hypotheses. Then the owner of the chest in question would supply the true answer (or at least according to her; there was no verifying – thank heavens).
So both sexes are at fault here: the men for asking, and the women for responding in an all too common I-have-no-brains-but-I-do-have-big-boobs way. In your opinion is one more at fault than the other?
