"Fault Lines"

Devin Joseph Metz

We as people are defined by more than we may know, care to realize or want to admit; and that does not mean that every definition will be accurate or even appropriate. There's this novel concept called opinion that each and every individual will find his/herself privy to and subject to; sometimes with both of these occurrences taking place simultaneously. It goes without stating that one's opinion is most times accompanied by judgement. This judgement can and will be viewed as legitimate or unfounded; but the catch here is that the one being judged is the only one that will feel this way; leading that person to believe that he/she has some measure of influence over how one will judge them.

You know what? That person isn't completely wrong, either.

Of course, regardless of whether or not we believe that we have a certain amount of control over how we will be judged, there is still a considerably larger portion of that perception that we have absolutely no control over.

So where am I going with all of this?

My overall point is that although we may have extremely limited control(and in some cases none at all) over how others perceive us, we still have a responsibility to ourselves regarding any initial perception that is shaped in response to our actions and behavior. Now for all of you headstrong readers out there full of pride and whatnot, I know what you must be thinking right now...

I couldn't agree more. 

We are not at all responsible for what another person understands. As a matter of opinion, I've always considered understanding to be relative to the individual; even if the collective appear inclined to the same understanding across the board. We may all share a similar understanding for something; but there will no doubt be slight differences in how one arrived to that point of understanding or how something is understood. You and I may both understand that people love to drink lemonade; but the reasoning that we couple with that understanding can and most times is different. I may fancy it a preferred beverage because it appeals to me as refreshing and light on the palate. You may feel that it is a preferred beverage because of the sweet taste, rather. What is understood is different from how it is understood.

Simple enough.

So let's put away the pitcher and look at this on a grander scale of thinking.

As much as I tried my best to avoid even talking about it altogether, even someone as reserved as myself couldn't pass by the large elephant in America's room for the sake of making a general point. 

On July 13th shortly before 9:00 PM central time, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of a second degree murder charge he received April 11th, 2012; less than a month after he shot and killed seventeen year old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. For sake of stating what George was up against with this charge, in Florida, a conviction for second degree murder constitutes a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. If a firearm was used in the murder, the mandatory minimum sentence would be twenty-five years in state prison.

*I have already voiced my reservations relative to the verdict rendered and I will not elaborate on those views. They are my own and they are hardly even relevant to what will be divulged in this entry.*

As was to be expected, the public response to the verdict in majority was highly negative; citing outrage, disappointment, sadness and extreme anger among many. There were reports alleging that riots were set to occur along with many other various protests and demonstrations in communities worldwide had Zimmerman been found innocent. People expressed their disdain in grand fashion via social mediums as well; some going as far as to threaten George, his supporters, and anyone who didn't share similar views regarding their disapproval of the jury's verdict.

Only a few of these events as far as rioting and increased violence have come to pass, fortunately(at least not on as large of a scale as I had initially anticipated); but it did open my mind; causing me to recall other court decisions in history that yielded a result that was not quite as fortunate.

Those of you who have viewed my earlier posts will recall my mentioning of the White Night Riots in San Francisco, California. In lieu of a rather lenient sentencing of Dan White in response to his assassinating openly gay San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk, members of the gay community took to the streets in violent fashion; laying waste to anything and anyone in their path and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage overall. The riots took place on the night of May 21st, 1979; the night before what would have been Harvey Milk's 49th birthday.

In elaboration, The gay community in San Francisco had an everlasting conflict with their police department; and White's position as a former police officer did very little to quell that anger and tension.

When the night concluded, 140 protesters, 61 police officers and 100 members of the public were injured and hospitalized. What made matters worse was when hours after the riot was ended by local police, they raided a gay bar in San Francisco's Castro District; arresting over a dozen patrons after beating many of them while still in their riot gear. This of course led to several people suing the San Francisco Police Department later on.

Gay leaders refused to apologize for the events of that night; forging a substantial spike in political influence for the gay community. This led to an eventual election of Mayor Dianne Feinstein in November of that year. Mayor Feinstein then hired the first Pro-Gay Chief of Police; which increased the recruitment of gay people in police departments and other affiliated positions.

This is viewed as a widely successful ending to something otherwise viewed as disparaging and volatile in that community; but I think that the White Night Riots serve as a control to this experiment. Many other riots were more costly than positively effective....

Whether or not you were born during this time, I'm sure most if not all of my readers from California can recall the more devastating riots from that region, be it the Watts Riots, the 1992 Rodney King Riots and more recently the riots that happened in response to  the verdict rendered for the police officer involved in the 2009 New Year's Day shooting of Oscar Grant by the BART Police in West Oakland, California.

The Watts Riots although incited by people that were tired of the oppression in the region still proved to be far more volatile of an event than anyone involved could've ever imagined. It took place in Los Angeles from August 11th through August 17th in 1965. The riot lasted six grueling days; resulting in 34 deaths, 1,032 injuries, 3,438 arrests and over forty million dollars in property damage altogether.
\

The 1992 Rodney King Riots were the direct result of the acquittal of the police officers that were video taped beating Rodney King. At the time, the riots that occurred here were considered to be the most detrimental with the highest death toll of any riot that took place in the United states up to this point. These riots also occurred over a six day span; covering most of South Central Los Angeles before spreading to other parts of the city. The riots occurred in late April and covered everything from widespread looting and arson to assault and murder; urging the California National Guard to get involved to get things in order eventually.

Although there was still a great deal of oppression reminiscent of the Watts Riots, the Rodney King riots were purely if not exclusively racially charged; drawing Hispanics and Korean business owners into the fray as well. What suffered more was the community and the economy overall with over 3000 buildings destroyed; resulting in over one billion dollars in property damage.

The riots that took place in lieu of the verdict rendered in favor of the police officer that killed Oscar Grant III on New Years Day in 2009 marked a violent response to a form of oppression that very much mirrors what happened to Trayvon Martin in the opinions of some. Although not nearly as substantial in comparison to any of the aforementioned, the riot brought to the forefront the undeniable rift that the incident placed between races, nationalities and factions; not to mention the rift between community and law enforcement.

Although some would argue that these riots took place for good reasons and the retaliatory efforts of the oppressed were necessary hardships, I stand to disagree.

Many of us who consider ourselves among the oppressed surely won't rise to the occasion individually or collectively to examine and discover how much of that oppression is implemented by our oppressors and how much of our own oppression we have lent to them; inadvertently oppressing ourselves in the process.

We who hate to be racially profiled and typecast, we who abhor stereotypical slander with unfounded sensitivity, we who preach and proclaim unity across the board are often the ones imploring that such unsavory treatment continues. This is not a general indictment of any variance. There are those of us who legitimately make a concerted effort to attain the unity only some truly favor; but the vast majority can lay no claim to the pursuit of peace, camaraderie and understanding of another culture's race or belief.

Before social media really thrust itself into our everyday lives, the often shameless, aggressive views of this majority were vented through news media and those of political status; regardless of whether or not their statements were justified, rational or even appropriate. Some forty plus years later, technology gives way to a brave new world where what one states on a social medium can lead to things that are further from the monitor and closer to the porch. Various social networks have become platforms where cyber bullies and internet thugs run roughshod; denouncing each other with their own opinions and jocking for position among those higher in exposure for their lack of social credibility. This is never more apparent than when something takes place in our country that leaves an everlasting impact on society as a whole.

I know what you're thinking: "Cyber Bullies? I'm no bully."

Of course you aren't......until you are. Be it online, in the news, or on the streets throughout the day, anyone willing to resort to despicable acts such as the issuing of death threats, harsh criticisms of another race or belief in lieu of any occurrence, and the ever embarrassing bandwagoning from those who only take part in this banter for the sake of choosing a side are all forms of bullying; and in my scope of reasoning, it is much more redundant and ridiculous than threatening.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I honestly never had much patience for any of them; but it wouldn't be too far fetched to assume that maybe our government would prefer that we continue to cling to the redundant acts aforementioned. It wouldn't seem like too much of a reach to consider that maybe the government uses media outlets and other means as a deterrent; keeping us considerably distant from what we should be paying attention to. Maybe that would've had something to with this piece of commemorative property:

Pretty snazzy, huh? That's actually something else that I've had an issue with as far as things that do nothing to dispel the negative stigma that is attached to us as black people is concerned: Overt, unnecessary exposure and promotion. I don't mind the posters, paintings and maybe even a graphic tee here or there; but when I look on Facebook and find that someone made a Trayvon Martin chain 1/4 of the size of T-Pain's "Big Ass Chain"(Google it. It really is a chain that says "Big Ass Chain"), I honestly wonder how one would expect not to be profiled or even find room to be appalled if someone does profile them? Whether you care or not about the opinions that one may shape about you, one thing remains true in the social aspect of our livelihood:

Perception Is Everything.

It definitely is everything; and that includes adjectives such as skewed, flawed, costly, counterproductive, and everything else that seemingly has something to do with how our government has chosen to "handle" our most pressing issues. For years on end, the need for debate was viewed as a key component to the implementation of positive change. With the handling of the war on terror, the Iraq war and most recently discussions over gun control, that need has slowly but undeniably morphed into a stage set for redundant opinion slinging and unproductive argumentative banter.

Our very own government presumably entrusted with the tools essential to our progression and societal development as a nation appear just as useless in my opinion as most of us taking part in hollow arguments and debates on various social networks. It takes entirely too long for parties or branches of government to come to a unanimous agreement when it comes to things that should be more paramount to them than it may actually appear to be; and the people are beginning to mirror the government so much now that the lines have definitely started to blur substantially.

If you observe a large group more concerned with preserving or improving their stance in stalwart fashion than actually putting their collective knowledge and abilities together to promote advancement and prosperity, who do you think you'd be looking at? 

The People or The Government?

If you observe this large group spending more time threatening and arguing with one another in a manner that makes them appear more adolescent than accountable rather than actually trying to find some common ground to stand on for the sake of their very livelihood overall, who do you think this brings down in the long run?

The People or The Government?

If you observe this large group exhausting vital energy on the opposition of another person or group's ideals or point of view instead of finding a way to coexist while respectfully disagreeing for the sake of actually creating solutions instead of preserving negativity, who can we say are truly at fault?

The People or The Government?

Nothing better than a good rhetorical question to get the blood boiling.

To be completely honest, we are all at fault. We are all guilty of this; be it those who issue threats, those who cyber bully, those of us who condemn others for shaping their own opinion while we uphold ours as sovereign, and especially those of us who keep this vicious cycle of redundancy in frequent rotation.

I would love to believe that it is merely speculation and more theory than actual conspiracy; but one can never really be sure nowadays. The cycle is far too prevalent:

 An issue arises that affects us all one way or another, the smaller percentage of our population joins together and holds our government accountable for finding a solution to said issue while the vast majority of us argue, chew out the opinions of each other and act as ridiculous as we possibly can in the process; which only adds to the typecasts and amplifies the perception we have predetermined about each other. 

While this is taking place, that gathering of people in higher public ranking of importance is busy doing the same; only falling short of the incensed threats that we are issuing to each other. All the while, people are losing hope, politicians are lining their pockets and the problems that we all still find ourselves struggling to deal with linger on instead of being addressed and effectively handled accordingly.

None of us have earned the right to point our fingers at anyone else; especially when we would discover after a bit of self examination that we have contributed more to some of the problems than we ever did to any of the solutions. The difference, however is that we as people have nothing to hide. We can't hide; no matter how much we would like to believe that we can.

Our government, however.......

..........they have a great deal of control over what we can and cannot see; at least until they are smoked out partially if not wholly due to a scandal of some sort. What would the government have to hide? Why would they feel the need to? What motive would they have for keeping us preoccupied with glimmers in the dark rather than revealing to us what only the light shows? Why these new proposals and bills? Why sanction what was supposed to be protected under constitutional rights?

Why give the people a greater portion of what doesn't matter in the form of social networking updates and advancements, video applications for our phones, ridiculous television shows and music that can't even hold a torch to seven or eight years ago to argue over; then when the issues come about, amplify the distractions even more so for the purpose of making us feel like we are actually engaging in real life issues?

What are they distracting us from anyways...........

..........................this? 

 It may behoove us to focus less on each other's faults and more on what is beginning to slowly shift beneath our feet before it surfaces.

"At Home With Temptation"

Devin Joseph Metz

As Poets, we all have our own methods, practices, rituals, routines, etc. that we engage in to extend our focus while we write. One of mine involves listening to music. Doesn't really matter what kind of music it is. I usually key in on my Poetry no matter what I'm listening to. I do, however prefer Neo-Soul and lots of underground Hip-Hop. 

Anyways, I'm listening to Phonte's album "Charity Starts At Home" while writing a piece for my Poetry blog(you should check it out when you get a chance, by the by: http://thirstforinspiration.blogspot.com/) when I came across one of my favorite album skits:

“The thing about relationships that all men need to realize ’cause I’ve had the problem too…of feeling guilty about this. The reality is: Men, we are always gonna wanna f**k other women; and a lotta times when you find a woman that is the woman of your dreams and you love her and she’s, she’s all you EVER wanted in a woman, you’re afraid to go forward with committing to her, and marrying her because you really feel BAD about wanting to smash other women. It don’t mean anything’s wrong with your girl; she’s still your great, find. But n***a, you ALWAYS gon’ wanna smash somebody else.”

-Comedian Affion Crockett From His Phone Skit At The End Of Phonte’s song “Eternally.”

There are evidently opinions rendered on multiple sides when it comes to how this quote may be interpreted and perceived; but I tend to agree with Affion to some degree. We recite in The Lord's Prayer "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil;" but one should not be so sure as to believe that this is solely the responsibility of God himself. Any true believer will tell you that it is not God's intent to undertake our tasks but rather to support us in our own undertakings as long as we are putting forth the effort required for our success in said undertakings.

*steps down from pulpit*

As I was saying, I am inclined to agree with Affion. Temptation will not yield to any choice, decision, lifestyle, change or anything else that one would think is set in place to stifle it. That doesn't mean that we as people are destined to fail as a result. It merely helps us understand that temptation is something that doesn't automatically vanish in two blinks. I am in no way sexist(my demeanor isn't extreme enough for that sort of stuff); so I won't attack women with a barrage of "They're just as bad as we are" or "Why are men always singled out" quotes because unless good ol' science has proven us wrong, temptation doesn't adhere exclusively to one gender, either.

There have been studies conducted and ratios recorded regarding the percentage of men to women who have engaged in infidelity. These studies were loosely based on a number of variances including if it was premarital infidelity, after being wed, whether or not infidelity influenced the decision to get married or not, so on and so forth.

A search conducted in early June of last year by Lisa Penn of yourtango.com yielded the following statistics:

*Roughly 17% of divorces are caused by infidelity.*

*70% of married men have admitted that they have cheated on their wives. Similar data alongside this finding revealed that roughly 2/3 of these women were unaware of their husband's affairs. Lisa placed herself among this portion of women; stating that she was unaware for an extensive amount of time until she decided to check her husband's phone.*

So what of women?

*Lisa's search uncovered statistics claiming that roughly 50% to 60% of women have admitted having an affair as well. She admitted that she was thoroughly shocked by this statistic in particular.*

Courtesy of Fox News Magazine. Link Below:

http://magazine.foxnews.com/love/cheating-statistics-do-men-cheat-more-women

If my opinion is to be considered, I generally don't buy into statistics and ratios very much if even at all when it comes to things like temptation and infidelity. There is a laundry list of possible motives that can be attached to why men and women engage in infidelity(whether or not some of these motives can be considered plausible or not is contingent solely upon subjective opinion, of course); but cheating is just one facet of temptation. Conversely, not all people cheat on their spouse, girlfriend/boyfriend, etc. because of temptation. A myriad of factors that have absolutely nothing to do with temptation - as shocking as the that may be to some - may contribute to one's decision to practice infidelity.

  The honest(or in any other case: frustrating, awkward, unshakable, undeniable, unwavering or any other adjective that you'd like to include) truth is that attraction(especially in the physical sense) does not cease with "I do." Lust won't begin to backpedal when two people decide to establish a relationship. Those stirring urges and stints of daydreaming won't cringe in the presence of a promise ring. Temptation is ominous and omnipresent above most other things in life. A lot of it is a product of our human impulse. A good portion of it is actually mulled over and premeditated, however. What I find fascinating about those that mull over the possibility of yielding to temptation is what goes through their mind during these periods of intensive thinking.

Be it man or woman, there may be a number of different things taken under consideration during this thought process contingent upon the individual him/herself, of course. What Affion alludes to is something that I can definitely relate to from both my observation and experiences regarding the matter:

There are people(not just women in this case) who believe that when a person engages in temptation, the person they are involved with isn't considered. This assumed lapse in consideration includes one's feelings, the amount of time they were together, what ramifications the decision may incur, etc. If Affion's testimony serves no other purpose outright, it proves that there is definitely a back and forth bout with one's conscience that takes place when temptation looms; be it angering, spiteful, awkward, somber or contrite.

What makes it awkward is when we(yes; I am including myself in this. I am among the many that have had this internal conflict) yield to our temptation initially - something I would consider to be only in the mental aspect this early into things -, one never really knows what will be the first thing considered. 

Some of us think about how far along or how extreme our lust is for someone other than the person we are with. That may not necessarily be for the sole manifest of it being someone "not in a relationship with you;" of course. When one scopes in on lust, whether or not we are single isn't even on our emotional ledger of sorts. Honestly, the same applies to the person or people that we choose to lust over. Lust does not care about who is available by moral or societal standards of fidelity because as far as lust is concerned, everyone is available.

What is also possibly pondered during this mental and emotional war of attrition is why we may lust after someone else. This is almost always based upon who we find ourselves attracted to. An obscenely large amount of lust-driven attraction involves what we find physically enticing about the person involved; but there are times where one's lust may be heightened by other contributing factors such as a person's attitude, decorum, style of doing things, how the person interacts with us, and to a much more severe extreme: things that person may do or be in to that we wish the person we are currently with would or could do. This stage of the thought process becomes increasingly volatile, emotionally taxing and just plain awkward should one yield fully to their temptation; especially if your mate inquires about your motives for cheating. 

In correlation with the tone of Affion's reflection, one may experience shame to a varying degree; especially if the person knows just how badly they are lusting after another. The shame may even in some cases be directly proportional to the amount of meticulous thinking one lends to different facets of their lust. This may include how the person would go about a planned rendezvous with their object of ill-founded desire if given the chance, things the person would do with that person and how he/she would go about making sure that his/her mate never found out about what happened afterwards. The amount of attention placed upon one's adverse desire can directly effect how guilty one may feel for even finding the time to think about doing something that would be damaging to their relationship.

What I would attach to Affion's message is another thought most of us ponder: "Is it wrong for me to find someone else physically attractive?" "It's not his/her fault nor is it mine that I find him/her physically appealing." "I'm not touching; so should I really feel this bad for saying to myself what I would do if given the chance? I am just looking, after all." "Can't I eat this orange and still want that slice of pizza?"

Okay. I doubt anybody is really lusting after food in the same manner that they are after other people; so we can eliminate that one.

The overall point is that it is healthy to find other people outside of your relationship attractive. I wouldn't go as far as to say you should endeavor to notify your mate or spouse every time you find someone attractive. That's just weird and it can quickly become annoying. One shouldn't feel so pressured about finding another person attractive that they find ways to make them unattractive, either. That involves too much work for one thing; and it forces the person to unnecessarily lie to him/herself.

I do not stand to agree that wanting to sleep with another person is a healthy thought, of course. I'm not one of those "as long as I don't actually do it" sort of people; per se. I do understand slightly how those kinds of people think, however; even if I don't condone it.

What I also thought held some poignancy is how Crockett took the time to offer some reassurance that one's inclination to lust for another doesn't mean that there is something wrong with the person that he/she is involved with. Even those lucky enough to find the love of their life stand as great of a chance of being tempted as those who absolutely hate their current relationship; and everyone in between falls into the exact same bracket.

I could dedicate an entire blog entry to what involves one succumbing to temptation(and might just end up doing so at some point), but that is neither here nor there right now. Although I believe that there have always been multiple outlets for temptation, that truth has definitely found a way to expand substantially with the ever present expansion of technology and communication that we find ourselves privy to now. We all know what the usual advances consist of:

- "The Late Night Text" 

or as my Twitter folk like to call it:

"You up 'o clock"

As I'm sure many of my female readers will agree, anyone trying to contact you this late just for sake of doing so(instead of for important business or an issue with a severed limb) will rarely have anything wholesome and innocent in mind; and this person will likely do so with no regard to whether or not you are in a relationship, married, spending the night, etc.It's hard to consider someone just randomly sending a text message to someone in a committed relationship or someone's wife or husband at 3:00 AM "just to say hi."

 -"The Direct Message Flirt"

This person will endeavor to contact you via the social medium of their choosing over the most private of platforms(at least as far as he/she is concerned) available: The Direct Message. Much of the flirting that takes place here stems from their observation of what you may have posted in public or that campy "Numbers Game" that people started playing a few years ago. The ill intent attached to this interaction actually works both ways, though; evidenced by the fact that most of us will place things in a public setting with the intention of having people respond to it in this manner.

- "The Random Lewd Photo" 

This one gets very dicey; and(awkward enough) is initiated by people from all "walks of life;" whether the initiator be married, single, in a relationship, lusty, daring or just plain creepy. What really gets the ball rolling here is determined by one's response to one of these seldom welcome surprises.

Oh! Let's not forget everyone's favorite term that I am absolutely tired of hearing altogether:

"The Thirst Trap" 

Ah yes: That intricate web of desire spun by one with the manifest of capturing the ire of multitudes. Posts in the form of racy photographs, suggestive requests in tweets or status updates, daring proclamations in public forums and anything else that one can attach to this common practice all apply. The purveyor of such ridiculousness will usually make some misconstrued attempt to save face by stating that they abhor or don't look for the attention garnered in response to their postings although the frequency in their actions implies otherwise.

Something else I've found very interesting is the often unnoticed fact that the excuses we give to our loved ones when we are caught in our infidelity rarely ever match our initial reasons for engaging it in the first place.Take these fun little tidbits for example:

 

"I just wanted to see if I still got it."

*collective palms meet faces*

This excuse usually comes up in relationships that have no realistic longevity as of yet; although I have been told of instances where this occurs well into marriage. What infuriates me about this excuse is the timing: If it was that important to find out if you "still got it," it shouldn't be as high of a priority to be in a relationship in the first place. You got "It" when you found someone willing to commit to you. That should be more than sufficient enough of an answer to that pedantic stint of curiosity.

"I'm going through some things right now and needed a different outlet."

This is a bit more of a predetermined if not completely strung together excuse reserved for those who want to hold onto some semblance of nobility by owning up to the fact that his/her mate busted them; either through a phone message or by some other means. This excuse is nullified by one's recollection of the manifest of a relationship:

You Must Relate. 

Those who use this excuse haven't even thought things out clearly; even if he/she is legitimately going though something. This is evidenced by their failure to employ one of the most fruitful advantages of being in a relationship: Relating. This is why a line of communication is established therein. Talking about what is vexing you to your mate eliminates the need to do something stupid; which in turn eliminates the need to come up with an excuse this pathetic.

 Among countless others, this next one is by far the most lazy and indifferent of them all:

"I was bored."

Yep. You read that in proper context. For those not quite as astute at the first excuse and not quite as quick-witted and desperate enough to come up with the second that I expounded upon, this is where their buck stops, apparently. In this case, if that person has made it to the point where they are in a committed relationship - or dare I say even marriage - with someone that they claim to enjoy fully, there isn't much more that can be said in response outside of this:

"Let me just take it on...take it on to the house.

C'mon, c'mon Tigallo, be strong.

Be strong Tigallo! Be strong. Just take it home.

I know she get on your nerves sometimes

but man, you got a good woman at home, man.

Just go home. It-it-it's like 4:30.

Ain't nothing open this time of night but legs and hospitals.

Just go home. Just take it on home.

Martin Luther King did not die for n****s to be trickin off on H**s, n***a.

Just, just take it home.

You're an upstanding family man. You got a good thing, man.

C'mon, Tigallo. C'mon Tigallo, be strong.

Be, be real strong.

I-I mean n***a, be REAL strong.

N-N***a, be STRONG..."

- Phonte's skit at the end of his song "Sendin' My Love"

We know, Tigallo. The struggle is real. 

Like I've outlined beforehand, it is not my intention to condemn anyone for their encounter with temptation. If that were the case, I would definitely be as guilty as anyone else if not more than. It serves well to remind ourselves every now and again that it is okay to have the attraction. That is as natural as the air in our lungs. As far as the other side.......those unspeakable.......unsavory........what some would say are disgustingly awesome thoughts that swirl about.....well that's why it's called a process, right? Like all processes, it takes time, focus, dedication and lots of work to maintain what you and your loved one have built. I've always believed that true perfectionists must acknowledge the same truth that he/she finds themselves frustrated by: Nothing perfect will always be perceived as such; and that which isn't perfect in perception may be closer to perfect than we are able to perceive. Few relationships have existed without stints of lust, guilt, questionable behavior and a list of other things that pose as a threat; but where there is something to defend, there is sure to be something to cherish.

""Do As I Say; Not As I Do." ..............What?!?!"

Devin Joseph Metz

"If you must hold yourself up to your children as an object lesson, hold yourself up as a warning and not as an example." -  George Bernard Shaw

Yeah. Okay. 

If you were anything like I was in my childhood, you spent a great deal of your time scratching your head during this situation:

Parent: "You can't do/say that."

Kid: "But you do it all the time."

Parent: "You've got to learn to do as I say; not as I do. See and don't see. Hear and don't hear. Besides, you're a child. There are things I can do/say that you won't be able to for a very long time."

Kid: "("o.0)"

As a child, I often wondered if my folk knew just how mind-numbingly conflicted and confusing that was for me; not to mention just unfair altogether. If one takes time to examine it from a child's perspective, one would likely deduce that there is something about what their parents do or say that they are trying to hide; be it some semblance of fun that they are selfishly withholding, a secret that they refuse to let the child in on for some perceived ridiculous reason, or just another way to expound upon the obvious notion of "I'm an adult and you are not."

What the parent often fails to realize is that when a child considers one of these not-completely-off-kilter possibilities, the child may elect to just abstain from taking any action contrary to what was outlined to them in what they would consider very vague, shrouded detail...........................................................or the child may decide to take matters into his/her own hands and see what all the buzz is really about; regardless of what ramifications they will likely incur as a direct result. That's when things get dicey........

"I distinctly told you not to! I will not tolerate your willingness to misbehave!"

As is evident, even teens aren't immune to the age old "talking to." Contingent upon a variety of upbringings, backgrounds, customs, traditions, personalities, etc., there can be a number of extremities either way that may range from other forms of punishment for contrary behavior. Most of us can recall spanking; which to this day my Mother swears she has never had to do. 

Yeah okay, Mom.

Others may recall much more meticulous, calculated or just plain mean and seemingly unnecessary punishments. Some choose to merely resort to taking away things that their child may covet or placing certain restrictions on the child's privileges. I can recall my grandmother making my little brother and I kneel on rice for half an hour whenever we would fight. I still cringe every now and then just thinking about that.....

.....anyways, I've taken time to consider the child's stance on this issue; and I believe that the child would have somewhat of a valid argument; even if it is just for the sake of examination.

When a parent tells a child to do as they say but not as they do(confusion already considered to be established at this point), they may in some manner skew that child's decision making later on in life. One may never have considered that if the child's mother is an alcoholic, the child may stay abstain from drinking for a great deal of their young life until he/she reaches the legal drinking age. Does this mean that the child will not become a binge drinker as well? 

Likewise, if a child observes an abusive father that gives his child the exact same directive, aside from the resentment that child may harbor(and in more prevalent cases, outright fear) for him, that is hardly a foolproof method for making sure that child won't grow up to be exactly like him.


Telling a child that he/she should "See and Not See" is just as flawed of a method of parenting. Barring some future development where a parent's sense of awareness is increased exponentially, there will undoubtedly be things that a child will observe, uncover, stumble upon and walk in to that a parent would consider unfavorable for the child to have to witness. 

*Take this time to scroll back to that memory you've managed to lock away in your deeper recesses of your parents having an "affectionate wrestling match."*

There ya go.

There is little doubt that the child will have an inquiry or twelve reserved for the parent; contingent upon what he/she observed. Having them "not have seen" something that they obviously saw is like sitting them in front of the television and telling them to watch Duck Tales without focusing on it.

I want to meet the kid that was able to pull off that feat.


Requesting that your child "Hear and not hear" is woefully disparaging for a number of reasons; but most notably for the one truth that every parent must accept as such:


Kids. Are. Sponges. 


 Say enough of your routine phrases(they don't have to necessarily be derogatory) and you'll see how much your child hasn't heard eventually. They'll acknowledge your request while in your presence; but once you aren't around, their penchant for practicing what their parents preach will slowly(and quite selectively) fade into brief yet considerable obscurity. Your daughter might find it amusing to call her Ken doll what she heard her mother call her father whenever they lock themselves in their bedroom for a long time. 

Your son may key in on a style of language one would deem more suited for someone substantially older than he is; using it in arguments with his friends or while completely competitively engrossed in those contact sports that all the other parents bring their kids to as well. Imagine being the parent having to explain why their kid is using words learned from your kid; especially considering you weren't presently aware beforehand.

What is surely the most frustrating(and often repetitive) speech that most if not all children have to endure is the "I'm an adult and you're a child" performance. I'd hazard a guess that there may have been instances where a child that is told this by his/her parent usually responds with a monumentally confused look [(O.o)]. 

After having their parents repeat it to them incessantly, I'm more than sure that children know that they won't be able to say things that their parents say. Most of the time, the syllables sound like another language altogether anyways; and teenagers tend to find loopholes and/or alternative means of expressing similar terms reserved for their parents; be it their penchant for developing their own style of slang, physical expressions, etc. 

Children understand as well after enough brow-beating that they will not be able to do everything that their parents can do. No doubt the frustration for them peaked initially when they had to look up to the same counter top that they witness their parents looking down towards repeatedly; and nervous teens can't stand impatiently nervous parents due to their uncanny ability to conjure restrictions before, during, after and in anticipation of a conversing.

There isn't a mother or father that exists that isn't to some degree exuberant and excited about their child's potential to emulate their best habits and traits. Honestly, many of these emulations are more copyright infringement on the part of the child rather than hereditary; contrary to what the proud parent may choose to believe, of course. There is a bevy of inherent traits that a child is bound to have passed onto them from their parents genetically; but I am convinced extensively that a great deal of what a child exudes from their parents is merely emulated after enough exposure and display from the parent his/herself.

In lieu of this possibility, parents should take under advisement the potential for a child to harbor their negative habits and traits in similar fashion. This is why I believe that it is paramount that the parent offer a more distinct, detailed answer(within adequate reasoning, obviously) to accompany their restrictions and denouncements when questioned by their children regarding issues that may be outside the parameters of their current age bracket. Detail begets understanding; no matter the age differential. There must be an appropriate(albeit not necessarily predetermined) amount of exposure to the topic or issue that will be discussed between parent and child. It is the sole responsibility of the parent to decide when to remove and replace the lid on the content rendered, of course.

The parent must also keep in mind that understanding is a two way street: A mother or father should abstain from taking offense to their child's honest inquiry. Confusion should be viewed as an opportunity for calibration; not chastisement. One's decision to chastise a child for employing an unsavory habit or using derogatory or inappropriate terminology should also be examined per the situation before deciding whether or not to issue punishment. This makes light of a misunderstanding between the two while creating an opportunity for constructive and informative discussion. It would be rather harsh of a parent to chastise a child in one of these situations without first investigating to the fullest extent what may have influenced the child to engage in such behavior; especially if in all likelihood he/she may have garnered this from the parent his/herself.

Communication will serve as the bridge between the young, inquisitive, curious child and the cesspool of knowledge and experience he/she views their mother/father as. Failure to establish this communication may incur unfortunate experiences for both parties involved later on in life, however; regardless of whether the parent employs aversion or chastisement in response to their child's actions.

It's worth a shot. 

I for the record am not a parent as of yet. I've some time before my wife and I decide to embark on that journey together. 

For the parents thinking "You know, he has a valid point here;" thank you for being subjective enough to give me an audience and give yourself and your children a chance.

 For those parents thinking "How the hell can a newlywed give me advice on parenting? He hasn't even experienced this yet;" you are absolutely correct. 

How dare I drop in my two shekels? 

How dare I tell you how to address your children? 

How dare I criticize your motives when it comes to chastisement? 







How dare you read this entire entry and not ask beforehand? Shame on you. ;)