a cup of talk

a response to your comments on the interview with Tony Molina. thanks! :) Btw, the new site is coming soon, which is why there has been some lag time on videos recently, apologies!

Tony speaks on the wisdom gained through mistakes, what he takes to be a privilege in the experience of heartbreak; and, incidentally, how he gets by now. And then he breaks it off into beats. A real treat.

Some are like drawn-out terminal cancer. Others, like an out of nowhere ton of bricks. Breakups happen. And more often than not, "cordial" is not exactly the descriptive fit. But what of the things of things-past that you may now possess? - A simple question then:

Do have any of your ex's stuff? If so, why do you think you still have them?

If you've been in a relationship before, then you've made mistakes in a relationship before. This is, of human nature, common law. Tony speaks of his mistakes, the fortune of experiencing heartbreak, towards the path of "wising up" to a relationship that lasts. But is this a necessary feature of achieving such a goal? So we pose the question to you:

Do you think people unavoidably make mistakes before they can settle into a good relationship?

acupoftalk notes: don't ever restrain a person. it's not only illegal, it's awful.
Drop a line, we appreciate you! :)

Andrew Utter speaks on the importance of understanding the origins of love in a relationship in the possibility of sustaining a lasting relationship before 'losing the loving feeling' leaves love lost at a point of no return. Andrew is a recent Ph.D. from Stanford University in German Studies, and works professionally as an actor and a director.

People commonly differentiate between loving someone and being in love with someone. And for the latter, 'being in love with' someone is frequently identified by the presence of some 'loving feeling'. But is this correct? We pose it you:

Does the loss of the 'loving feeling' necessarily mean that a person has fallen out of love with someone?

Okay, now. Say a person genuinely falls out of love with someone after an amount of time. Another issue which people seem divided on is whether 'being in love with' a particular person is one shot gig. That is:

Does genuinely falling out of love with a person make it impossible to be in love with that same person again some time in the future?

Drop a comment, tell your friends to chime in, acupoftalk.com needs any input from you! thank you :)

Lisa speaks on her tendency to unwittingly date men that are similar to her father...and no, this is not a good thing. Lisa is currently going to school and works for Land Rover.

Let's face it, whether you're compelled to believe in the Oedipus complex or not, we've compared our (prospective) partners against our mom and/or dad. In Lisa's case, she is frequently attracted to men who turn out to share certain 'negative traits' that her father holds, much to her chagrin. So what of you,

Do you tend to be attracted to, or find yourself dating, people that share significant features with your mom/dad? And do you prefer this or not?

Let's throw in a curveball here for the next question. Some people don't seem to be attracted to the similar features their mom/dad hold, but rather bare a similarity with their mom/dad in how they are in relationships. For instance, a female who has a father that is, say, a narcissist and (unwittingly) preys on good-natured people may herself take after her father in this way. Or a son whose mother is nurturing may be nurturing in relationships too. So, we wonder, of you,

What force feels stronger to you? - Your attraction to people who share significant features with your mom/dad, or your tendency to be similar to your mom/dad in relationships?

Drop a quick comment please, and tell your friends to help us with our research, thanks!

a response to your comments on the interview with Todd Neece. thanks! :)

Todd Neece speaks on his experiences of breakups, and the reasons given, that have left him without a chance to understand and develop from them. Todd is a grant writer for a non-profit.

real talk

Most of us have been on both sides of this equation. You know, whatever the reasons, it's simply going to equal to a breakup. But when it comes to the real reasons why promises of togetherness come to an end, people seem split on what they want to hear on why they're being broken up with. What would you choose, when you know the relationship is done, on their 'reasons why'.

To hear the brutal truth that's likely to be very painful to you, or something your partner-no-longer 'tells' you as a conciliatory and easing rejection of you?

Through the relationships, years of changes in your life, you usually have a rough idea of a person you want to have a relationship with. It's funny how, often times, your friend will describe this idea of a person to you, and to find that they've never been with a person anything like that. And chances are, the next person you are in a relationship with, may not fit that idea either. So, for the sake of science, do tell:

Do you find the people you have had relationships with are similar or dissimilar to the idea of a person you want to be with?

Alicia speaks on 9 years of a long-distance relationship with a man she is married to, and how they have achieved love naturally despite the odds. Alicia is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Psychology in the Department of Neurology at Washington University, St. Louis.

real talk

Many of us have come across the situation before. - You love somebody, or at least you think you do. One of you must move for one reason or another. People drop a lot of cliche statements at this point, as to why it can or cannot work. Alicia, rather remarkably, has not even posed the question of whether to end things due to distance. So what of you?

Would you choose to try to have a long-distance relationship with a person you love, and do you think you can maintain a loving exclusive relationship as Alicia has?

Weekend visits, regular vacations, and a ton of webcam conversations cannot account for the dynamics of living together. After all, not even seeing each other everyday all day, and spending nights at each others' place consistently, can amount to the experience of sharing a space to live together in permanence. Many of us know, the drastic differences between the two, and all that is forced upon the relationship due to your partner being your roomie too. So what do you think?

Do you think Alicia is underestimating the possible issues that may arise when they are finally able to live together?

Chime in, click below to comment, we'd love to hear from you.

Michael Grant rather candidly runs the gamut on the possible reasons why he's a quintessential commitment probe, to then find that they belie perhaps the actual underlying reason why. Michael is the founding editor of Synergyzine www.issuu.com/synergyzine

real talk

Alright, readers. We need your input! The first question posed to you is multiple-choice.

Which of the things that Michael bought up offers the best possible explanation of his commitment phobia? - (alphabetical order) 1. "Astrology" 2. "Childhood fears" 3. "Infantile needs" 4. Lack of fit with "pace/speed" 5. "Yin-yang"

The second question concerns the oft discrepancy in the use and implicatures that come with the idea of "work". I pose to you...

Can 'work' within a relationship be enjoyable or is it a burdensome aspect of it?


Drop those comments, and join the conversation! And we'll respond to you on Thursday.

Amelia Sandy speaks on her previous 'semi-open' relationship with a bi-sexual man, where sexual expression reigned free, yet the heart was theirs alone to keep. Amelia is 23, completing a double degree in psychology and art, and plans to enter the field of art therapy.

real talk:

You're in a relationship with a person you love. Insofar as you love him/her, you have a vested interest and concern for the things that matters to this person. You know, even though you wouldn't care about those things otherwise. You are fulfilled by the fulfillment of your loved one. - So you support your partner's artistry, career, hobbies, etc., even when it requires our partner to engage in activities with other relevant people. After all, you suck at bowling and can't stand it otherwise.

Your partner wants dick. You either don't have one, or yours offers a domain of sexual satisfaction that doesn't meet all that your partner desires. Or your partner simply wants more dick. You are faced with the following proposition from the person you love: that each of your sexual expressions be open such that you are "free to go through with it," but "real heart feelings you would only share with each other." The question, 'yes or no', I pose to you:

Would you accept this proposition given that this matters to your partner?

Many of you don't even like to hear your partner say, "oh yes, I'd do him/her." In fact, many fights are caused by the mere suggestion of such things. The issue, many times, comes down to a matter of trust. As such, an agreement to openly acknowledge (to your partner) your attraction for other people presents a possible approach to work through issues of mutual trust.

You agree to this. You trade lines, "I want to ram-fuck that girl on the bus right now." "Well, I want to ride that guy's dick bulging from his skinny pants." You may even bond over this exchange. You might even "like it." (Stay with me now, read on). Your partner wants to act on these desires. In each moment that these instance occur, you may be "okay with it." After all, "at the base of your relationship you're connected, that's all you need." But the question, another 'yes or no', I pose to you:

Do you think it is possible for you and your partner to trust each other while you both are having sex with others?

Click that comment button, we want to hear from you on this!

Geno Valle speaks on his 'unintended' penchant for straight guys, and a long-standing love for a man he admits is "out of my hands." Geno is the owner of Hair of the Gods, and is also a skilled masseuse, musician, and visual artist. (thanks for the haircut, Geno!)

real talk:


You've had the thought, and some of you firmly believe, that there is such a thing as a 'Gaydar'. Whether gay or lesbian, the idea is that a person has a homosexually-innate sense to pick out 'another' as one within the set of the Queer community, to then be, or not be, attracted to any particular person within the matching kind.

The issue gets trickier (doesn't it?) when you consider those who are attracted to both genders, or consider the platitudinal case where straight men are attracted to lesbians. Still, many are adamant that being gay 'comes with a Gaydar', which suggests that gays and lesbians might hold a special kind of ability that those of other sexual orientations do not. Most of my queer friends swear by this. But Geno presents a quirky case, with his taste for the intended gender yet unintended sexual orientation. So I ask you, (a simple 'yes' or 'no'),

Do you think there's such a thing that as a Gaydar that comes with being attracted to those of the same gender?


You have also had obsessions. Sometimes when you obsess, you accept it or deny it, you love it or leave it. And when...wait, leave it?! Seven years to the day they met. - Geno's love for a man (yes, a gay man) that is a promise of yet nothing more than a love only his own. He, of classic twisted fate, takes solace in the very lyrics written and sung by the very man--the love of his life. - "And if you never want me, the way that I want you...well, it's out of my hands, it's out of my hands, there's nothing that I can do." This kind of irony, if I were wearing Geno's pants, would kinda make me want to shit in it and sit with the song on repeat. Oh what is Geno to do. Is it really out of his hands? So the following 'yes or no' question, I pose to you.

Do you think Geno should try to move on from loving someone (that has been 7 years dry in a love of the same kind)?


for fuck's sake, oops, I mean for the sake of science, click-y to comment, and share a 'yes or no' to either or both, or whatever you want to say :) [I'll respond to your comments on this Thursdays's 2&2!!]

Jaclyn Gitlin speaks on her not-too-distant breakup, and what lingers from, as she remains single.

'real talk' (video; click "HQ" for high quality):


Jaclyn states: "Am I single by choice? No." The breakup, she says, as due to a lack of 'fit'--unpacked as, "I wanted something different than what he wanted or was willing to do."

Now, I'm gonna have to expose Jaclyn a bit with some psychoanalysis-unpacking (sorry, J), in order to get to some philosophical juice.

She pauses. She sighs. - When I ask her: "Are you not dating somebody new because you're still on the mend?" And when I give her an 'out' that maybe it's just because she hasn't found a new interest yet, she says "kinda both. I don't know." Back then, to a deeper sigh. She is subtly and unwittingly pointing into a direction of why...she remains single.

"Every minute I had, I wanted to spend with him...all of a sudden you cut that out, cold-turkey. It's hard to deal with; it's hard to make new patterns." I need to groan sympathetically with J here. Because it's 'hard to make new patterns' only if...you're still attached to the old ones. And clearly, the attachment, here, is emotive.

You may think I am jumping the gun, since in response to the joke about the ring, Jaclyn says, "that was never gonna happen." But when she says she'd "probably" give him another chance, it strikes me as more of an "obviously." Peek into her mind with me. - Jaclyn effectively tips her hand, to reveal a heart still on the mend.

If they got back together, would it be a good thing or a bad thing? - To this she says, "Bad, terribly bad...because it's not gonna happen." Now, pause. Take a close look at this with me. That, actually, was no answer to my question. Rather, it was an important answer to another. - the question of why she's still single.

The earlier "that was never gonna happen," and this "because it's not gonna happen," are representatives of what makes it easier to say, "that's why I thank god I have mono." Because how do you say that you still have feelings for someone. How do you say you're not on to next one in virtue of feelings for a former. - The mono in her body belies, if I may, a 'mono' of a heart and mind--that doesn't quite know what to do when the "every minute of the day" gets ripped out, to be lost in finding patterns anew. This is why, why it is so hard, while others simply glide into another's arms. This is why those of us are 'nervous to flirt', find it 'nerve-racking' in searching for interest, of soul to bare, in an entirely new set of eyes.

Hence, the self-addressed question and answer: "Am I single by choice? No."

The 'big phat thing' I have for Jaclyn is not really my joking show of ass (and slap). What it is, is deep love and respect. The integrity in, in not giving in, to the otherwise everyday fuck-and-run; or you know, today's 'fuck the pain anyway'. Because fuck that--if you still love somebody, honor it and the fact that you actually have it for someone, even if that someone does nothing as it slowly dies. After all, J didn't have mono during the whole time of the breakup; in fact, it's only been a fraction of the time. Of this, I understand. And time is waning for the former's chance. To be again and make it right, or to be permanently past.


Jaclyn is pretty much a local rockstar, a soon-to-be graduate with a degree in fashion, and maker of killer smoothies. She also thinks getting mono is a great way to knock off some pounds. She drives an old-school hooptie, which bares a rear-mirror ornament that reads: "you say 'tomato', I say 'Fuck you'." Don't you wish you were friends with her too?

(thank you, Beth, for letting us use your room to randomly film during the Halloween madness, and say hello to Rowdy for me. Props to Lindsey and Chrissy for the hair and makeup)

George Sylvain speaks on the simultaneously advantageous but distracting quirks that come with being a British man in America on the dating scene.

'real talk' (video):


"Everyone denies it. People don't want to be thought of as people who would fall for someone immediate based on an accent... Nobody wants to be classified like that."

Yeah, it sounds bad. But if we're honest about what made us initially fall, say through deep introspection (or hypnosis), we indeed usually fall for someone for the most ridiculous reasons. -- Oh what a gentlemen, he opened the door. Damn, if he can dance like that he must be fucking awesome in bed. Her mom is so hot, I forecast an excellent future ahead. The way the sun was setting that day we met, her eyes looked amazing.

So for those of you, who became interested/intrigued with George in virtue of his accent; don't deny it. You may fool yourself, but it is what it is. But look. Accept it, because, really, it's not all that bad. Because it's not what (normally) constitutes you loving a person. And, presumably, that's what really matters. Whatever the point of entry of a loving relationship (for some of you it's even based on a base sexual point of entry), after you're engaged in interest with someone, try "to see what I'm going to be like in a couple of weeks," as George says. Let the accent be the accepted point of entry, let it become one of the things you love about a person. But....to love a person in virtue of an accent?! Surely, that shit never really actually happens; I'm just being silly in considering it now, right?

Not so silly. Slow think this part with me. Many people love in a particular kind of way--they love a person qua some feature (or resources). As accents go, accents stop at just being accents. But a shit ton of cash is this world's gateway to provide the many things that people seem to find so fucking valuable. (Can I get an 'Amen' from all you self-rationalizing gold-diggers out there?). But the essential difference here is merely pragmatic. The kind of love, may be the same here.

Think about replaceability. When love of this kind is constituted, people can replace 'their beloved' in a step; just another British accent to find (or another hot girl, etc). But the more one needs are being met (say, by hella cash), the costs of breaking up become higher, and the prospects of finding a replacement are daunting. There is a single kind of love in play here, which varies only in the 'worth' attached to the features and resources provided, on a sliding scale from accents to bank accounts. It is a love intrinsically constituted with a price.

Beyoncé's hit is quintessentially representative of this. But it comes with a dark irony. We've all sang along with it---"You must not know 'bout me, you must not know 'bout me. I can have another 'you' in a minute, matter of fact he'll be here in a minute. Baby." What Beyoncé doesn't realize in making this statement is that we just found out a whole lot about her, not the person she dumped. She is unwittingly outing herself. We find out, precisely, the way in which she loved a person. Insofar as you love a person qua features or resources, you love them replaceably.

So dig it, that some of you out there love a person in virtue of 'accent-like' (pragmatically-amped) things, you are essentially offering and constituting a love no better than loving a person in virtue of an accent. Not so silly then. That kind of shit happens...all the time. My bad.

Still don't believe me? Well try telling Mary who loves 'rather ordinary' Tim. Try telling her that she can replace Tim so easily. She'll think you're crazy. You'll think she's crazy. But you two are talking passed each other. Because her love for Tim fixes on his bare identity; the "i love you because you're you," that so many of you find sooo dissatisfying. She loves Tim, pricelessly. And you cannot simply decide to love in this way.


George is a co-founder of Hacksaw entertainment, and is a constant front-runner at throwing events featuring new promising bands and DJ's. Check out his stuff! And see you there!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hacksaw-En...
http://www.hacksawent.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/georgio/

(See David Velleman and Harry Frankfurt's academic work on 'love' for more on the issues raised in this post).

Jackie Ross speaks on the travails of her Divorce, the scorn for one, and the love for the two 'blessings' that make it all worthwhile.

real talk: (don't miss Jackie dancing it off at the end!)


"I have to make levity off the situation because it was painful." Making light of some dark realities in life. That's how some of us cope, in order to strive, to maintain. I get it. We laugh hard, from and to soothe the heart, even while we bleed. Better than, diving into that tub of ice cream, chunky monkey; that line cocaine, giving up to the streets.

But not merely to maintain. Jackie wrote that letter in that fight for custody, she tells me, on the kitchen table with fresh tears from her eyes. Straight pen to the paper, to Diane Feinstein. From a love to boot, wished a widow instead of a divorcee, she bore the two loves she speaks of near everyday I see her, evidence of her considered true blessings. On the other side, no calls for birthdays, no christmas time. - Thank the heavens the court system got it right...despite the gold and red Niners starter jacket over a hot pink jumpsuit (though, to be honest, i do think that's actually pretty tight).

Can it be, to rather be in a penitentiary, than to be friends with a person with whom, surely, there must have been at some point at a least a sliver of real intimacy? And if a redo, not a divorce but a widow, she would be, really? Hear this out, let me grind with this for second.

Sometimes scorn (Jackie, if I may) is actually backwards evidence of love; yes, love for person who is the object of even hate and all those things mentioned by Jackie in the video above. Stay with me on this, hold up. Because sometimes when you hate a person, it's in virtue of an underlying love, the source of which the really fucked up things a person does bares the conative attitudes that makes you want to fuck them over in return; like you know, making yourself a widow. To then, if and ever when, the hatred ceases, then twice over it's time for the slow singing and flower bringing, because along with hate, love is then dead too.

But other times, the evidence points to something else. Jackie's scorn, if that's what it is, shouldn't be mistaken. Let me say it again, it's important to not mistake Jackie's humor, and real scorn, as any kind of sign of the depraved. Because in Jackie's case, I think the case is plain. Not plain in what her and her daughters had to go through, but plainly a case of scorn for him, as a reflection of a deep steadfast love for them--the blessings. Yes - The scorn for one, in virtue of a love for two. So tell it, Jackie.

If anybody were to cross my babies (to be, in a future tune), I think I'd do anything to protect them too. "One love," Jackie always says. But a love she spreads to a very many.


Jackie Ross is a native of San Francisco, and a Hayes Valley neighborhood original of many generations. She is a daughter, a mother, and a grandmother. Oh, her age? - 48 :) And she slaps a mean bass guitar. Word. And oh, Johnathan Logan for city council in Vallejo!


Til again, it drops on Sunday at Midnight (from here on out EST, 9pm PST). Again, no 'melt to write' to share. But peace, much love.

* real talk:


Looking for love in all the wrong places then? -- Surely, Jay is not saying that the places we look for love are 'wrong' because there is nothing to be found. Indeed, there is usually aplenty to find. For instance, even in the 'business-like," of which Jay dislikes, in the reciprocal demands for each to get their needs met--even Jay glibly proclaims that "this works for many people, that "this is a very functional relationship." Plenty here, folks. But of what?
Slow-think it, if you will, with me. Yo, I get it--the human psyche is rife in perception, of then seeing into, then as it were an 'access' to that which is 'beyond' mere perception; this makes us special, we think. - For instance, there's a famous side-by-side big ass couple of rocks that are collectively dubbed "a reclining nude"; and the matter turns to, whether you have 'some it' by which you can perceive, two rocks a nude.

But what the fuck? Because we're not talking about making a dollar out of fifteen cents, where the 'mode of currency' here is simply currency. Nor even something like turning water into wine, where liquid into liquid still calls for chemical impossibility. Nah. We, yes we, make two physical rocks into an abstract artistic entity; two seeming incommensurables--like saying heat makes blue. Okay, now let's carry the analogy through.

Sometimes when we have two rocks, all we really have are just two fucking rocks. But sometimes, somehow, two rocks, a reclining nude. So then, what of when the complex needs of a partnered two are met, does this make 'a love connection'? Functionality, sure. Compatibility, no doubt. But love, if you will, 'a reclining nude'? - We might, here, be trying to see the face Jesus on a slice of bread. Seems to me, there's just two rocks here, folks. A pair of rather functional, compatible, practical, fucking (pun-intended) rocks, mind you.

So what of Jay's talk of the "spirit of," something that is patently ambiguous. And this less ambiguous but still not quite satisfying talk of "getting someone's back." What, really, in the hell is that? Jay says, "it's the support, and the love which is beyond the checklist of 'you did this, you did that; therefore i love you'." A checklist, that is, of needs - the "therefore I love you," of met-functionality. Okay, sure, we 'think' love is 'beyond' that. But who's not to say we are not asking heat to be blue?

The problem is, as I see it, is that when we probe a place looking to find, with already in mind a conception of what it looks like, we tend to not allow ourselves to be aware of what we actually find. I'm serious. This is why humankind is capable of mind-numbingly ridiculous shit like seeing an imprint of the face of Jesus on a slice of bread.
So, perhaps, a cautionary; and then onwards to the juice. - Jay says, "love is within yourself." Careful then, when you 'look' for love, in the difference between merely projecting (what what you have in mind as) love onto things that just turn out to be rocks. For the 'love beyond', it's not like a matter of the 'right kind' of rocks to find. And here's where the analogy runs dry. There are no rocks out there that you need to find to constitute love, folks. It is something you suddenly find within, after the fact. Yes, like cancer. Yes, like psychosis. And this is why you find yourself changed, suddenly behaving in different ways, caring and supporting *not merely for a need to fulfill--all that of which, you getting your beloved's back, is evidence of. These things don't make you love somebody; they are rather reflections of the fact that you do. At least, insofar as we are talking about the 'love beyond'.

the difference, then, between the "therefore i love you" of met-functionality; and the "i love you, thus..." of Bobby's striving, Judah's looking out together, Jay's getting your back.


Ladies, Jay Harley is an awesome guy and single! His phone number is 415.336...ah, just email me and I'll give you his digits. Word. See you next Sunday; drops at midnight!


the melt to write: (this one was too personal to publish; maybe next time)

Judah Dwyer speaks on various kinds of 'romantic' relationships; and the implications within each, of the 'magic' we seek and the 'foundation' in need.

* real talk:



To apply the import in that '30 years' where, of "my best friend, pal, buddy and partner" digs in, consider what Judah 'asks' of those that don't work out--"did it have more expectations than it had actualizations?" I take it that her point to be not so much one of balance, but of substantive and fundamental difference between. 'The friendship in partnership' as opposed to 'the moment sparked by' -- "It's a looking out together, not looking into each others' eyes."

The actualized, she describes, as the 'everyday' sense, "you need that everyday concept because that's what you're going to be doing in the everyday." It's everything together--the romantic, the intellectual, and actual. Judah says, "you gotta have a foundation, a solid friendship, it's the shared principles has got to be the stuff to see you through." But before you dismiss this kind of 'romance' you might find dry, take a second to see the analogy through, before off again to seek and clutch to that 'moment sparked by'.

I've been there, as have you, to gaze into another's eyes, in the smitten stare to hold each others' hands. But the question, then, is what happens when, the each of you turn to look at the world with your own set of eyes? I've been there, where my eyes wander in the wonders, and my feet take me to place to place. To find then, without realizing exactly when I had loosened and let it slip--the hands of whose eyes I used to gaze into so lovingly; turns out, a grip that held only when fixed into each others eyes. For years and years, I would reply, to the question of who i'm now with, with a "same girl, different face."

But why, Judah, I asked, why can't we have both? She gets it, you can see it in her eyes. "So we want the magic and the best friends, right?-together; why not, I know, I'm hip, man...it does happen. ...I saw that in my parents." Well, the way I see it you really do have to be pretty fucking 'hip' to see this. And something quite charmed to achieve. Because we have the tendency to, to bificurate 'magic' and 'partnership'; as if there be, only an all-or-nothing choice between the two. So to the analogy again, to tell it again as a combination or blend of the two.

The "looking out together," without 'magic' to sacrifice, I suppose I see it happening in this sorta way. -- Where times comes when the two must do their own respective world-gazing, and when there is some wonder seen, that there is a squeeze of the hand, and a hand that squeezes back; and a simultaneous skip of a beat for two; wherever the gaze, two hearts in hand.

The 'magic' and the 'best friends', that storybook pajama tandem; i want it, don't you?


Check out Judah at: theafricanoutlet.com

Bobby is 32 years of age, and hails from San Francisco. One of the truest cats who knows nothing but to tell it from the heart. I had the pleasure to grow up with Bobby since our earliest childhood years. He 'resonates' on the subject of what his baby brother, JP, called him about just the other day.

* real talk: (the "two minutes two seconds" video interview, with a minute "outro" on the back end)



"If my parents can do it, I can do it. It can be done." What the newer generations by and large perceive, from what I take his point to be, is a widespread misunderstanding on what exactly he means - on the "it" to be "done." He speaks of as 'fortunate', in how we grew up; but of what, is this 'fortunate' made of. yo, listen up.

Because Bobby didn't grow up with the current technological advance, with which some of you post every week on your Facebook. The pics of 'I'm just a chill bro, I don't really care but yet I'm so cool' - Oh and of course, that slightly better angle of your tits, lips, and ass. Nah. I remember he wasted nothing of each click of exposure, with those disposables or a point-and-shoot 35. To then make that drop at Longs or Walgreens, and wait a week's time, for them to process and print the roll. We never even thought to expose ourselves in photos on 35s, certainly not in this current flavor, this 'advanced' kind. Sure, sure, I know, of the silly fixation in the antiquated. So fine. Let's pit it up then, let's grind. -- what of, the slow-cook versus the instant gratification of current times.

Think. Those of you who, who let this West fool, act without a modicum of class each time. Oh no, not you? Oh that's right, I just haven't seen your Tweets; it's not YOU who endorse people of this kind. Yeah, my bad, but maybe I'd believe you, if you aren't so damn self-deceived; you who, say one thing, then straight off to TMZ. You just want (read: need) to know what Perez says. But look, dig it. -- You are what you read. If you disagree, then you clearly needed to hear that; if you don't feel me on this, then you may already be too far gone indeed. You who saturate, with instant gratification bullshit, your mind. Yeah, yeah, but you Tweeted!!! Right...right. Surely, that makes you a person who's got it right. With what you fill your mind, you constitute a glorification of the "jackass" West kind.

You might learn a thing or two, from Bobby, even though, no: he hasn't even heard of your favorite band of all time (who just came out just two months ago). And no, it's not just about some tired-ass phrase like "true old school". What he has heard, learned from and embodied true, is of a love that traverses the purely accidental state of your birth and time. And that's why. That's he strives, that's why I grind. His Babyface and New Edition; your Lady Gaga and Sublime. Are you for real?-You must be out of your mind. The collective 'advance', in fact, has produced not only a regress in class, but a cloudiness in sight of a relationship of love worth having; no no, it's not found in your pants. So go, keep your 'open relationships', keep handing out your 'heart' and pussy pass; let your dick swing for that threesome, S, T, and D. Go ahead, find nothing worth having that lasts.

Or take the time, the time needed to. - to see the richness in color of that relationship melted into a story of a photostrip. Experience the value beyond the kicks of the contemporary point-and-clicking through, those mere one-off glances, a skim of glaze off the real thing, nothing more than mere timeslices, never a chance for imbuing in a kind that's true. Listen beyond those thinly sliced within, take the time to let the colors sink in, those of you.

What then, of the spoken "fortunate" then. What of, that "it" to be "done." It is the value understood, achieved through, and embraced in; the raw beauty in the love worth "to strive." No not the "to strive for" but the "to strive within"; the difference between the words within your 'love letters'. - The words of 'coo', of mystery, of love's fool; and the words Bobby's mom wrote to get his dad's job back. Which love letters mean more to you?

Because to strive within, it really is, "from the lows, to the highs, through the folds, we shine," and yes, "just continue to be my sunshine." I beckon the new, those of you, the few and very far between, to keep the real deal true, for together again "just the tribe that has been separated."


Marinate on that with which Bobby resonates, until again it drops next Sunday at Midnight.

(naturally, feel free to comment)

let's bring back the good ol' days! want to, just don't do it.