#writinghustle

How do we decide who's attractive? 

The first boy I ever thought was attractive had green eyes, curly brown hair, and olive brown skin. We were in middle school and he bought me a lollipop. He looked into my eyes and smiled, and from that moment on I had a crush.

The traits we find attractive are heavily influenced by our early influences. An ex told me he had a attraction to blondes ever since he was a young boy from watching Vanna White on the “Wheel of Fortune.”

Since then, I’ve found the people I fall for the most have 2 out of 3 of the following: Short curly hair, light eyes, and skin that is at least brown/olive in tone, all traits found in my first crush and in the guy I was with the longest.

Despite all this, I still claimed I did not have a type. After dating the third aspiring standup comedian I realized that I do have a few standard types that I go for. I have two physical “types” and one main personality type – outgoing & extroverted leaders – I’d probably have a great relationship with someone more reserved but we would never end up together as we would both be to shy to get things going. The personality is 85% of what attracts me to a person, but the physical traits definitely have to be there as well (the physical's a necessary but not sufficient condition, some might say) 

Physically I’m either into skinny musicians or football player build roustabouts. That first crush fit in the skinny category. The attraction for the football player type came from being literally picked up by a guy in high school and enjoying it way more than expected.  It’s been about an even split in the guys I’ve ended up with. Bonus points for wearing glasses and/or looking really nice in a suit.

I sometimes feel conflicted about the physical traits I find most attractive because they are (save for the brown/olive skin) Eurocentric. Mainly the light eyes. When I say “curly” I really mean “not straight” so fros and locs are included in that preference, but there’s no getting around the fact that I think hazel eyes are fascinating, and very few non whites have that trait. My hair’s natural, I abhor color contacts, I think black is beautiful and actively push non-eurocentric standards of beauty in my own life…. But all I really want is a light skinned dude with “good hair” and “pretty eyes”? How did this happen? Have I been bamboozled, right along with the girls with color contacts and blond weaves? Right there with the guys who think dark skinned girls are ugly and tell their daughters to stay out of the sun?  I hope not… and the fact that I find many other guys who don’t fit this type attractive as well relieves me somewhat... but that preference came from somewhere. 

I still gotta check myself. I called out my blonde-loving friend on being brainwashed by images holding white blond women as the holy grail of attractiveness in the media. “No,” he said, “I do prefer black women… but there was just something about Vanna…” I thought he was in denial and sounded ridiculous. But by saying, "I like everyone, but there's just something about blue eyes?" aren't I saying the same thing? 

Unexpected. Sweet. Soft. Confident. Intensity underneath the newness. Natural. Designed for each other.

Inevitable. Gorillaz. Whirlwind. Hands all over. Impassioned. Drinking deep. It had been a while. Relief, release, thank God.

Public. “Find a place”. Uncomfortable. Finally. Not enough. Too short. Distractions. Guilt.

Practiced. Taken. Meaningless. Giddy. Drunk. Necessary.

Really? Chemistry. Risky. Couldn’t wait till the end of dinner, apparently. Swagger. Funny.

Take a look at these incidents from the past couple years.

 A group of men fly planes into a building in protest of a government.

 Another man walks into a public area in his workplace and shoots into a group of people.

 A man is caught stockpiling weapons and explosives.

A man flies a plane into a building in protest of a government

A man walks into a public area and shoots into a group of people.

A man is caught stockpiling weapons and explosives.

What do these events sound like to you? What first comes to mind?

The first three events are, according to the mainstream media, terrorist attacks.

The last three events are, according to the mainstream media, a suicide attack, assassination attempt, and barely worth reporting.

They seem pretty similar to me? What’s the difference?

Well… The first 3 events where done by Muslim men.

The last three were done by white men.*

*Yes, there are white Muslims, but it seems that if you're white, your religion isn't ever questioned. You're acting alone, instead of representing your race/religion*

This is one clear example of the bias of the mainstream media, and why we have to look critically at the media we consume. No wonder people conflate terrorists and Muslims so easily – Since 9/11, it seems that the mainstream media refuses to call anyone white and non-Muslim a terrorist – even if they are doing the exact same actions of others who are called terrorists!

But wait, you may say. The first three events were called terrorist attacks because they were by non-Americans, not because they were Muslim!

Actually no. Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), and Mohamed Osman Mohamud (Oregon Weapon Stockpliling) are both U.S. citizens. The accused in the second stockpiling incident was not.

Another commonly used excuse is that true “terrorists” are associated with terrorist organizations, and none of the white attackers were. That excuse also rings false. Hasan was found by the FBI not to be associated with any terrorist groups, and pre-9/11, we fine with calling solo actors terrorists as long as they caused well, terror. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

The disparity between the reporting on the Fort Hood incident and the most recent attack on Rep. Griffords (#5) is disturbing, because the incidents are almost exactly the same, and both people seemed to have mental health problems. It’s still early, but the word terrorist has not been uttered once in the reporting.

I’m not saying that the first three incidents should not have been called terrorist attacks, but only to highlight that what we hear repeated over and over again in the media, even if technically true, still can skew reality. What’s shown on the news is never the whole picture or the purest picture. Someone is choosing what to show and how to show it, and rarely do they have the best interests of the minority in mind. What we hear is further complicated by editorials both in the paper and especially on TV, that aren’t clearly marked as such and have no obligations to objectivity like the regular news does.

Critical thinking is the key. Whether you’re reading info from CNN or Twitter, you have to think about the information being presented to you, the context, the possible biases of the person presenting the information, and whether what you’re being told makes basic sense. I know I boosted up traditional media much in the previous post, but with such a clear bias on reporting based on religion and race demonstrated in the area of violent attacks, who knows what else is being skewed and twisted?

There are few phrases more potentially damaging to the future of journalism.

Old Media (newspapers, television stations, radio) and New Media (YouTube, Twitter, blogs) are rapidly merging together, and for the most part this a great development. No longer are few white men behind a camera or editors desk the sole gatekeepers of information, but now there are plethora of perspectives on any issue, easy to examine with simply a mouse click. New Media gives you what you want (anything) when you want it (instantly) whether it’s true or not. Old Media isn’t instant and is limited in scope but I’m ok with that, personally, because I don’t rely on twitter for political news and on CNN to find out how Lauryn Hill’s latest concert was. There’s nothing wrong with multiple sources of information to exist and New Media serves a powerful purpose. I thought Twitter was stupid until Twitter became a supplementary source for information during a hostage situation in Maryland in summer 2010. A hostage tweeted what was going on inside, eyewitnesses tweeted the situation from the outside, and Old Media gathered these tweets, along with interviews with the police and people on the scene. New Media helped Old Media create a richer picture, a better sense of what was happening.  

Without being combined with Old Media, the alternative viewpoints published by New Media  very rarely receive the same scrutiny that 'traditional' media faces before being published. The folks on the evening news are professionals and risk getting disciplined demoted or fired if they get their facts wrong. Some guy on Twitter blathering about whatever is not putting his real reputation on the line or his job in danger.  There's a reason why traditional news outlets have more credibility. Traditional news has procedures and policies in place to ensure the information they publish is as accurate as possible.  They are not perfect. They make mistakes, and on every traditional media outlet certain viewpoints are suppressed. What they do report is accurate the majority of the time.

However, old media is slow. Slower than new media. All that fact checking and source verifying takes time, and for the most part, people aren’t interested in the details that the newspaper has… not interested enough to wait the next day for it, at least. We’ve heard over and over again that Old Media is dying, so using New Media technique to be more relevant is a reasonable move. What’s much less acceptable is when, in an attempt to catch up with the speed of New Media, Old Media throws away journalistic conventions.

 As the horrific Tucson Safeway Shooting took place, I followed the story on both TV (CNN) and Twitter. Details were still pouring in, but both Twitter and CNN had the basics down – A man began shooting during a outdoor meeting held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, shooting the representative in the head also shooting many others on the scene. A few minutes later I saw a few sources on Twitter stating the Rep. Giffords had died.  Soon, NPR reported that Rep. Giffords had died. A few minutes after that, I looked up and saw the CNN reporter say “a reliable source has reported that Giffords has died.” CNN (and later Fox News) began speaking of her in the past tense, and other networks and news sources reported on the death. Not long after that people on twitter began tweeting that Giffords’ representatives said that she wasn’t dead but was actually in surgery. A few minutes after that, CNN said that there are “conflicting reports” on the status of the representative’s life. (for the record, as of this posting, she has survived the surgery and doctors are cautiously optimistic about her recovery)

All this back and forth took place within an hour.

It’s completely unacceptable that CNN would report on the DEATH of a PUBLIC OFFICIAL during a situation IN PROGRESS without a SINGLE eyewitness reporter or corroborating sources. Twitterfolk making claims is nothing new. CNN saying a House Representative has been murdered when they don’t actually know if it’s true, while weakly attempting to cover their asses by saying “a source said” is simply irresponsible. I can cut them a little slack, in that she was shot in the head, and people rarely survive such injuries. They thought reporting she died was a safe bet, but in this case they were wrong, and had to correct themselves later.

I expect this kind of crappy information from Twitter. A celebrity “dies” on Twitter once a week, and when Teena Marie died a couple weeks ago even “reliable” Twitter accounts (other celebrities, news outlets, friends of the artist) went back and forth before the truth came out. Blogger/Social Media Expert/Awesome chick Luvvie breaks it down they cycle of twitter grief quite nicely, and in a medium not designed for news but for brief, hastily formulated thoughts, false information is to be expected.

What’s ridiculous is when another news outlet writes a news story entirely sourced by a tweet (HuffPo, who has since updated the story). In this case, it didn’t matter too much as it was celebrity news, and it was the Huffington Post (No disrespect to Teena Marie & to people who miss her. Think what you will about the Huffington Post.) But with today’s case, with CNN (who many during the Teena Marie confusion said “wait till CNN says so”) also misreporting in haste & pressured by New Media, on an issue of political and national importance; literally a life or death question…  that is a serious problem! One of the few things that makes slow traditional media more valuable than quick social media is credibility and accuracy. Once traditional media loses that, it ceases to be valuable. That’s bad for those who own stock in or work for these media outlets, but it’s also bad for the public as a whole. I don’t want to say “if you can’t trust CNN, who can you trust?” No, that simplifies the problem.

How do we keep our representatives accountable when the only way we know about their missteps is through rumors and hearsay?

How can we vote based on the performance of our public figures when we can’t trust the news to accurately let us know what they’re doing?

I’m not going to fault New Media for reporting prematurely, for non double checking the facts. I will fault CNN and Old Media. They know better.

Listen to Dear God 2.0 by the Roots,

then Lord I Don't Know by Newsboys,

go back and forth between those two,

then listen to Stars by David Crowder Band.

and you'll have a sense of my views on religion.

There are some things I will never be able to unbelieve,

but I think the box that nearly every religion stuffs God in is much to small to hold Him.

--

less esoterically, I'm a non-denominational liberal Christian.

I like thinking about why we believe what we believe.

When I was younger, I could never get the appeal of alcohol. It was in the house. My parents rarely if ever drank it, and didn’t make a big deal of it. No lectures not to, but no wine tastings at the dinner table either. “It’s something to do when you’re older.”

In high school and early college, I saw alcohol as a thing that made people act stupid and make bad decisions. “There’s no reason to have that in my life.”

After my freshman year I briefly worked in catering. I was the only one old enough on staff to serve alcohol but yet wasn’t old enough to drink it. Bartending lite. I didn’t know how to tap a keg so one of the guests did it for me. My first day bartending I made the most money I ever had in my life in tips.

As I counted my singles and fives, alcohol began to have some appeal.

Today, I like alcohol, but I like money, my brain cells, and my taste buds more. I don't drink anything I wouldn’t like if it didn’t have alcohol in it.  I don’t drink to get wasted. I’m a bit of a alcohol snob and won’t drink certain beers or lower shelf stuff. I’m also cheap. Add a relatively high tolerance level and you get a girl that barely gets a buzz when she goes out.

I will say that all my bad decisions with alcohol have happened after college.

Still, I’ve never had a hangover.

--

Right now, as the holidays come to an end I am single and thanks to the constant questioning of family members and long lost friends, I've begun to feel bad about it. Personally, I’m in a time of transition and would like to hold off on a formal relationship until I’m able to bring back some stability to my life, but I wouldn't mind meeting new people and dating. I thought I’d meet folks at the office but we have NO men in our office. Not “no eligible men” but no men at all. My introverted self will have to meet people out in the world.

Single life has its perks. When going out I can flirt freely, and spend time with my male friends without causing anyone a lot of stress. There is something beautiful in the feelings of possibility and openness that occur when chatting up a potential beau/lover/significant other. But as I get older being unattached is associated with a kind immaturity, which is annoying. I can have a full time job and several years out of college, but if I’m not married or with a long-time mate I’m still considered a child? That doesn’t make any sense to me but seems to be the logic of my extended family.

Just like there is something beautiful in the new and potential, there is something beautiful in the stability and depth of a long-term relationship.