God Save the Queen To Be

This is an absolutely gorgeous shot of her dress.  I still think the dress is a bit plain considering it's from the Alexander McQueen design house. This photo captures the storybook style the dress resonates.  She is absolutely stunning.  Too bad she'll be ancient by the time everyone ahead of her has died off so that she can take the throne. 

As for all the people who have said, "Why should I care about the wedding of 2 rich foreign aristocrats?" Well, the answer is multi-fold.  The first is that this is an historical event.  It's not every day that royalty of any nation get married.  The last was princess Victoria of Sweden in 2010, but other than that, there has only been one other royal wedding I can think of.  That one was a bit of a scandal when the only daughter of the  Japanese emperor married a commoner, this giving up her title as princess. With so few monarchies left in the world, figurehead or not, it's a big deal when there is a royal wedding.  In some ways, it's like a little piece of the Victorian era holding on to our modern societies.

The second is one Americans don't like to think about or admit, but the British monarchy is a part of our heritage.  Although we aren't part of the British commonwealth anymore like Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, and about 20 others countries, we do owe our place in the world to the British. If the British hadn't so successfully colonized our continent, even if through barbarism and brute force, we wouldn't be here today.

Thirdly, it's a wedding. Why shouldn't we be happy for 2 young people who have (hopefully) found true love?  A gorgeous woman to a previously handsome man, it's nice to see a modern couple get married and bring a largely archaic institution into the 21st century.

Oh! And who doesn't like to see all the crazy hats the British wear to events like a wedding?

LGBTQIALOLWTFBBQ

As a kid, I thought boys liked girls and girls liked boys.  By the time I was 7, I knew that some men were evil and liked other men and that some women were confused and thought they loved other women.  By 12, I was questioning the evil and confused parts and also knew that some people were really off their rockers and wanted to date both men and women.  Obviously, the musings of a child are a bit simplified. But there's a part of me that longs to return to those days.

I first came out to my best friend at 18 and began learning everything I could about gay people...through the internet, of course, as I was too scared to actually talk to other gay people. I thought I was done learning new terms after drag queen and trangender, but I've recently learned several new labels from the world-o-homos.  The first was:

"Asexuality: (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction and/or the lack of interest in and desire for sex."

I'm an open-minded, science-y guy; I can put 2 & 2 together.  I guess I find the idea of no sexual attraction to anyone a bit weird, but it's not for me to judge other people.  If you feel no sexual attraction, I guess that's no more "abnormal" than my own attractions to other men.

Not too long after that, I started hearing other words like:

"Pansexuality: (also referred to as omnisexuality, gender-blind) a term referring to the feeling that one has the potential for sexual attractions, sexual desire, or romantic love, towards people of all gender identities and biological sexes; Gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others. The concept of pansexuality deliberately rejects the idea that there are only two genders, as pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women."

I can get behind that.  It's not for me, as I like my men to be men, but again with the open-minded thing.  There is something interesting about gender-bending and androgyny, even if I don't find it sexually appealing.

But then I heard:

 
     "Cisgenered: an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex."

The first time I heard it, I had to look it up.  I read the definition and was a bit confused.  I finally realized that it means "a man who is identifies as a man." Alrighty...that's pretty normal...so, why do we need a label for that?  But, whatever.  If it makes people happy. 

But the more I thought about it, the more it bugged me.  I understand the reason that LGBT was originally lumped together: strength in numbers.  When there were so few people willing to be vocal and stand up for equal rights, every voice was desperately needed to get anything accomplished.  As far as that is concerned, I don't see any reason to break that up, even if the "T" was a later addition.  It's been around for quite a while now. I've heard people argue against this, saying that gay, lesbian, and trans culture are all so different, they can't possibly be lumped into the same category.  I understand this reasoning for certain topics, but when it comes to things like equal rights, banding together is the best thing for everyone. I can even get behind the addition for the "Q," as a way of including all the other groups of people, but that's where I draw the line.


Why are people starting to write themselves into boxes by creating new labels? Isn't that something that the gay community has fought against for decades? I don't know why people feel the need to label themselves as a "cisgender pansexual" or an "androgynous panromantic lesbian." It just feels like it's reaching. 

A quick google search of "LGBTQ," with the google-suggested addition of "IA," brought me to a link that had 51 Queer terms, only 7 of which I found even remotely informative.  And that might be reaching.  The rest of them sounded like regurgitations of the same term over and over and over.  It just doesn't make any sense.  You're never going to be able to label every single personality quirk or niche sexual interest of every single person in the world.  Just stop.   

I know it's not PC to not give every wittle special snowfwake their own very special wittle trophy, but come on.  Grow up.  I, for one, don't want or need to fit every aspect of a label.  If I had to break it down, I guess it could be said that I'm a cisgender homosexual  with asexual heterosexual attractions...except it makes me sound like a pretentious jackass.  I'm a gay man.  I don't feel the need to explain every intimate detail of my sexual likes and dislikes to someone the moment I meet them, nor so I need a label to do so. 

Skins

I've been watching the UK Series, Skins for quite a while now. It's a great show. It can be a bit racy, but it's about teenagers, what do you expect? Last week, a US version premiered on MTV, much to the chagrin of the political Right, apparently. I think it's ridiculous. Now, I haven't seen the 2nd episode yet, but the pilot was very good. It reminds me a lot of my time in high school...which is what I think the problem is. People act they were complete angels in high school. They don't like to be reminded that acted a fool, made some bad choices, partied too much. And, even worse, they don't want to think of their own children doing the same thing.

A co-worker of mine, who typically falls on the left side of the aisle, Is appalled by the show...though I seriously doubt he's ever seen an episode. He had a similar reaction when Katy Perry was to appear on Sesame Street. I'm sorry, but when's the last time a toddler saw some cleavage and thought about sex? But I'm getting off track.

The biggest problem people espouse to have is that they're using real teenagers to play the characters, as opposed to the 20-somethings that normally fill those roles. I like it. I think there's something raw about it. And real. These kids aren't remembering what high school was like: they're living it.

This isn't the 1950's. Even then, people were having sex in high school and smoking pot. But the show isn't "condoning it" as I've been told it is. It's simply stating a fact. I think my boss and co-worker were a bit surprised when I told them that t reminded me so much of my time in high school. People having sex, popping pills, smoking pot, partying, sneaking home the next morning, suicide, overdoses; those were just facts of life. I didn't go to some white-bread suburban school. I experienced the real world at a young age. Were mistakes made? Of course. But you live and you learn.

Now, apparently, the producers are being charged with child porn? Other than a few kisses and some oh-so-scandalous shoulders, there was nothing remotely porn like about the first episode. The 2nd episode might prove a bit different, but I'm just not sure.

Another reason I think people are having so many problems is our cultural climate. I mean, come on, our country was founded by a bunch of prudes who thought Europe was having too much fun to make God happy. But things change. I'm hesitant to call anything on MTV art anymore, but this show has potential if it lives up to its UK counterpart. Hell, I've seen British TV movies that showed rape and what would be considered softcore porn in this country.

This whole thing has gotten way out of control, as far as I'm concerned. I'll watch the seond episode once it's online and may have more to say, but so far, my thoughts are that if you don't like it, change the damn channel.

Moe's v. Chipotle, Pt. 2

I went to Moe's Southwest Grill today to complete my comparison of the new Chipotle Mexican Grill that opened across the street. I tried to get as close to the same item as possible. I decided that Moe's "Home Wrecker" was the closest thing to the burrito I tried at Chipotle.

When you walk into Moe's, you're greeted with a resounding "Welcome to Moe's" from the staff. I think that's one of the first differences I notice. Moe's is very mush an "at home" kinda place as opposed to Chipotle's somewhat stuffy, industrial feel. And the staff is friendly. I started thinking about yesterday at Chipotle and I stood around, as did others, trying to figure out where to start. Not only was it not clearly marked, the staff didn't seem too concerned about helping the customer figure it out. And Moe's seems to value individuality. Most of the staff seem to be tattoo'd, pierced, or have some form of body modification and they are so chill and laid back. It truly makes for a very pleasant environment.

On to the food. Typically at Moe's, I'd go with a wheat tortilla and tofu. I decided to go with a flour tortilla with chicken today to keep a level playing field. Moe's also starts with a bed or rice and choice of black or pinto beans. Like I said, I got the chicken so that I could directly compare. I also added the fresh grilled vegetables. They add pico de gallo sour cream, and guacamole. Moe's has a choice of a ton of other toppings, though. I decided that adding these things was part of the comparison; it could enhance the flavor in a way that isn't available at Chipotle. So I added fresh onion, fresh jalapeno, black olives, fresh cilanro, and fresh spinach leaves.

But let me back up a step. The chips. Unlike Chipotle, Moe's makes their chips fresh. You can watch them deep fry them as you're having your food made. And the flavor couldn't be better. They're so good. And they have several salsas to choose from. A couple of them are variations on traditional tomato salsa, but my personal favorite is the green salsa that has green tomato, onion, fresh cilantro, and a few other things. It's so cool and fresh; it's just great.

As for the burrito, it's pretty good. Not gonna lie, I think the flavors of the meat and rice at Chipotle is better. Not that Moe's is bad; I love Moe's. But the flavors are just not as strong. But Moe's does have all of the additional fresh toppings and they don't cost anything extra. Those additional toppings really add something special.

Even though I think Chopitle's flavors are better, I see myself eating at Moe's more often. The atmosphere, the staff, and the way I can customize my food really go somewhere with me. I would definitely recommend both places though. Try them and see what your favorite might be.

Moe's v. Chipotle

A Chipotle Mexican Grill just opened up today on The Strip here in Knoxville...right across from Moe's Southwest Grill. I had never eaten at a Chipotle before as we don't have one in Memphis that I'm aware of, but people I've known from Nashville have raved about the place So, I decided to stop in today and try it out. Upon first glance, it reminds me a lot of Swanky's Taco Shop, a favorite of a close friend of mine from home. It has a very industrial feel and that generic international music to match. The menus are done in a very minimalist way that fits the environment, but somehow still look a bit odd.

I decided I'd get a burrito, something I'm very familiar with from Moe's. They started with some white rice, with what I think was some cilantro and then my choice of pinto or black beans; I went with black. But, unlike Moe's, tofu didn't seem to be an option, so I got the chicken. There were also some freshly grilled veggies, so I got some of those. They added pico de gallo, sour cream, and cheese, and from there I asked for some guacamole. It was a bit expensive, but I could see them making it fresh in the back, so I thought I'd go for it.

I started eating the tortilla chips and was left wanting. They're plain, out-of-a-bag tortilla chips. And the salsa that came with them was bland to say the least. But I'm not here for the chips. On to the burrito.

I took my first bite and it was amazing. The chicken had the best flavor and wasn't the least bit dry. The guacamole was so creamy, I couldn't have asked for more. And the fresh grilled vegetables did nothing but enhance. Overall, it was truly delicious. But it was a good $4+ more than Moe's. I've decided that I'm going to go to Moe's tomorrow and compare the two while it's fresh in my mind. More details tomorrow!

FCKH8

I thought this was pretty funny and appropriately inappropriate.

BFF's...For a While

     It's always hard to realize you don't mean as much to someone as they mean or meant to you.  I thought I had dealt with these issues, but apparently there's still some raw nerves there.  I've known for a long time that I have attachment issues.  I latch on to people and have a hard time letting go.  I'm fiercely loyal, probably to the point of fault.  It's just part of being a Gemini. 

     I had a friend when I was little named Emily.  She was my closest girl friend.  She came to school one day and told everyone that she was going to be moving to Arkansas because her parents were getting a divorce.  I was stunned.  I had never had a friend move before.  I went home and cried.  I cried off and on for days.  She was going to be moving over winter break and I knew that would probably be the last time I would ever see her.  She got her dad to write down their new address and gave it to me so that we could write letters to each other.  And write I did.  I wrote her at least once a week for over 6 months.  Never once did I get a letter back.  I always wondered if the address had been written wrong or if they had moved to a different house than they had originally thought they would.  Eventually, I came to terms with it and moved on.  I even went to a different school the next year. 

     Years went by and I started college.  This little website called Facebook popped up and I joined.  Pretty soon, most college students and one and it was great.  So, I decided to look up old friends.  I found Jessie, a mutual friend, looked for a few other people, and then I found Emily.  I was so excited.  I sent her a friend request and a message.  Before long, we were exchanging messages and it was great.  I mentioned in passing after a couple days that I had written her a leeter every week for 6 months, somewhat as a joke and a "look how cute kids are" kinda moment.  But that's where things fell apart.  I don't know if she thought that was weird or creepy, but after that, I pretty much got nothing but a cold shoulder.  The couple sentences I did get had a completely different tone. And in going back and reading the messages later, most of the responses were generic.  All of the memories were supplied by me. 
I thought I was over it until I decided to see what she was up to on Facebook and she's not even on my friends list anymore.  That hurt.  Stupid, I know.  It's Facebook.  It's not like we talked much, but why delete someone like that?

     I just don't get it.  I don't understand how 2 people can be such good friends as kids and then have no feelings for the other as adults.  I understand people grow up, they change, they move.  What I don't get is why I seem to be the only one who feels this way.  This isn't the only example of this, but it's the one that hurts the most.

     Part of me feels like I'm being a 3 year old, but my feelings hurt and that is real.  Sometimes I wish I could just turn them off like others seem to be able to do...but I guess that little trick just isn't in my repertoire.