"She eat pork?"

"No," I said to my sister.

"You stop eating pork?"


My sister shook her head. "Don't know how you will make it work."


During my birthday dinner, my friends and I were talking about what makes two people compatible. Someone mentioned having things in common.

I shook my head.

"Don't you think we have a lot of things in common?" my girlfriend asked.

I raised an eyebrow like Spock contemplating air coming out of a person's ass as humor. "What do you think we have in common?"

"We like books..." She thought for a moment. And that moment was met with quiet as our friends stared at us.

"See. We don't have nuthin' in common."

She frowned and leaned close to me. "I thought we had a lot in common."

"No. But that doesn't matter. We have fun together."

What else does any couple need?

I'm not sure if love is enough to keep a relationship alive. I've loved all my past girlfriends. And we're not together anymore.

A lot of people make a big deal about having things in common. And others say, "That's like dating yourself."

So who's right?

The group of people that believe commonality is the key to a lasting relationship touts that things like cultural differences can wedge a couple apart. And delving into common interests can pull a couple together.

Others say having more differences allows the couple to share in each other's interests, open up deep conversations, strengthening their connection.

It seems to me, the focus is on the prescription of how to make an everlasting relationship, rather than taking a step back and describing what a great relationship looks like.

For me the one thing that ended all my relationships was when fun had stopped, or the joy of being with that person ended. That often happened a year or so before the actual break up. Sigh. Old habits.

There are three truths:

  1. Men are idiots.
  2. Women are crazy.
  3. But if you both are having fun, do crazy idiots matter? Hint: no.

The first two truths are really just one in that we're all human. We make mistakes. We fail. Shit happens. And that's fine because those things can guide us in life. We also have moments of greatness, success, and when we remember to just be, we'll experience joy. Welcome to being human.

When we see a couple having a lot of fun, we automatically think their relationship is going well, despite knowing if they have anything in common or not.

The vice versa is also true. When we see a couple in a heated argument, I think, how long before I can hit on that chick after her break up?

The key here is fun. People can come from two different worlds and have fun.

My girlfriend is a devout Muslim. I'm a devout heathen. Do we get into arguments? Hell yeah. But do we have fun together? Hell yeah.

However, I think there are basic core values that are important, and they vary from person to person.

I went to a comedy show couple weeks ago and this comedian asked, "Do you need money to have sex with a woman?"

This Asian chick yelled, "Yes!"

If the man in a relationship is a saver, and his wife has $100,000 in credit card debt, then they're going to run into issues. Can they work it out? Sure. It'll be difficult. But money seems to be at the core of many arguments. Nothing's impossible. Breathing in space with no space suit? Good luck.

Point is, any limitation placed is done by the individual. But then, I'd rather not date that Asian chick from the show. Sounds like a fucking bitch.

Masks That We Wear

Who loves dating? Who hates it? I remember one of my former friends saying to her husband as we walked by a North Beach bar in San Francisco, "God, I'm so glad I have you."

I smile as I think about that moment. Not because I hate dating, nor do I love it. I embrace it as I would a dentist appointment. I's gots ta gets my teef cleaned. Or suffer some severe bad breath and painful cavities.

Now, I smiled because she's a bitch and she causes all the conflict in her relationship. She had asked me before she committed to her wedding vows if I could teach her husband how to be more outspoken. I laughed and said no. Because her husband was naturally effeminate, and as a result not loud. I guess I'm loud.

Dating various women for about a year, I've thought about why one out of two marriages fail. And it has a lot to do with the images in our heads. Just like my friend, the bitch, she had an image in her mind as to what her husband should act like. And believe me. She had a massive list of improvements for her husband and how their marriage should look like. It all came down to what other people perceived of them. He needed a college degree. He should have a good, proper job. They should have a house, not a condo. They should have children because the societal norm is to have children. They needed a minivan because that was how you cart around your children. Sedans just ain't cuttin' it no more. They should do family things.

Lawd help mah soul.

Within my circle of friends, one of the women had complained about my humor and subject of conversation. Apparently, when I was talking to a friend of mine, we had made some lewd jokes. That's how guys talk to each other. Women, too, when men aren't around, right? She complained to one of the guys, and he came up to us and asked if we could be more considerate.

Here's tha thang: the conversation was between me and another guy (grammar!). If she overheard us, that ain't my problem. I can't control what she listens to. And if she took offense, then that is 100% her issue because I can't control her delicate sensitivity. Then she put her foot down and said she would never hang out with the group if I was there. In my mind, I as like:

So how does this relate to the divorce rate in the good old You Ess of Hay? I wanted to use 'aye' but that sounds like 'eye'.

Our friend said that if this girl tells people that we're rude or lewd or crude or nude or that we like food, then our chances with some of those women will die. Die. End! Forever go away! Like never come back!

Oh. Mah. Gawd!

For me, if a girl can't keep up with me—humor, spontaneity, physically, honest conversation—or at least makes an attempt at some level, then she and I should not be in a relationship. Can that change in the future? Depends if she can keep up with me in the future. On the flip side, there are women that I can't keep up with, and we should not be together. This isn't a black and white rule that I live by. But it's a good guideline.

Why is it a good guideline?

Yeah, I would so love to see more of your family photos

Yeah, I would so love to see more of your family photos

Let's think about a first date. The guy picks up the girl, opens doors, pulls out chairs, suggests things on the menu, has vanilla conversation, avoiding sensitive subjects like politics and religion, and pays for dinner. What a guy. Aw.

The girl smiles, laughs at every joke, orders a salad and a light entree, holds her farts, excuses herself to fart, sits with good posture, and has vanilla conversation, avoiding sensitive questions like what's your FICO score, how steady is your job, do you have STDs, do you live with your mother? So nice.

The date ends and both have had a pleasant evening and decide a second outing should be on tap. Yay...

I'm itchy

I'm itchy

One month in...

"I love you."

"I love you more."

"You hang up."

"No, you hang up."

Three months later...

He loves sports and spends his Sundays with his buddies yelling at the boob tube. She'd rather have him spend time with her.

She loves shopping, but he never goes with her.

Both see these things as speed bumps and continue on.

A year later...

They're living together. He doesn't make the bed, clean the sink after every use, leaves his clothes all over the floor, and he doesn't like talking about anything of depth.

She has more and more girls' nights out, seems anal about cleanliness and prettiness, and gets pissed off that he won't go to church with her on Sundays.

But they've invested so much in their relationship that they get married.

Five years later...

"I hate you!"

"I hate you more!"

"Hang up!"

"No, you hang up!"

Why is one arm longer than the other?

Why is one arm longer than the other?

Had they been more real with each other, they may have avoided a long relationship that ended in divorce. If church is important to the girl, then she better freakin' tell the dude. If sports and spending time with his best buds is important, he better not hide that shit.

So back to me, if a woman hates my humor, then we ain't meant to be. I don't believe in the church, so a religious girl ain't for me unless she's cool with letting me have my own beliefs. This shit needs to be out in the open. But on first dates and in social gatherings, we're so concerned with how people will see us if we're real, drying up our dating pool, that we wear masks and settle on the next best thing, which isn't best at all. Not even good.

However, if you are in a relationship that you want to save, and there's issues between the two of you, then one simple way of solving those issues is look at the images of what you think your relationship should look like and throw them out.

Like my bitch friend, she had a mountain of ideas of what her man should be, what her marriage should be, what her life should be, and she hated it all. I know she hated it all because all she did was complain, yell, and get really pissed off, like if she was on a continuous period.


Once you get rid of these societal norm images and allow your relationship to blossom on its own, then you can decide if your partner's quirks are something that you can live with. If you can't, then you've got to make a decision.

So where does this leave me? I'm still single. Not that that's a bad thing. It's good in a way because I can continue to explore other women and watch myself play the game, but I can't help but feel alone. So many people either want a relationship or enter one expecting it or the other person to make them happy. From that standpoint, I am alone. Because as I explain that happiness cannot come from another person, it can only come from within, I receive discerning looks as if to say, of course happiness comes when we connect with another person. If it doesn't, then why do humans want to connect? Simply put, it is our nature, just as it is the nature of water droplets to merge when they touch.

Pyramid Scheme of Writing: God's Not Dead


Ever been brought into a room where a presenter greets you and welcomes you and thanks you and invites you to open your mind? The presenter says, "I will show you how to make more money than you need, how to help your family financially, how you'll never have to work a day in your life again, and how to have all the ladies you want. This will change your life forever."

And then you think deeply to yourself, "What the fuck did I get myself into? Cuz Death can change my life forever, too, but I ain't goin' around wishin' for it."

I'd written my take on God's Not Dead, and how Harold Cronk, the director, had forced his hand on the movie by vilifying characters who weren't Christian to the tenth degree. His hand was so heavy he might as well have been masturbating. This is my example of being heavy handed, which of course sounds stupid. See Cronk?

And Rotten Tomatoes' rating at 17% reflects his efforts.

I'd heard many established writers talk about manipulative writing, and I don't completely understand what that is. But like anything else, I knew it when I saw Cronk's movie.

The premise of the film begins when a philosophy professor states God's dead. A Christian student disagrees, and the professor challenges him to convince the class otherwise. The student has three 20-minute sessions to do this over the course of the semester.

In my initial post, I had spared you the details of how the student manipulates scientific evidence to serve his purpose in his second session. I'm here to show what the student, ultimately Cronk, did.


The student uses evolution to help support the existence of God (imagine my slanty eyes wide open like the size of half dollars, round-eye. Didn't think science and religion mixed.). In class, the student introduces us to Darwin (the antichrist) and explains that Darwin's theory of evolution detailed what happens with life, but not where it came from. The student goes on to say that Darwin surmised that lightning struck a pool of chemicals, and, shabam, life. Astutely, the student smirks and states it's not that simple.

Now my round-eyes are the size of silver dollars. For you youngens, that's twice as much as a half dollar and it ain't made of silver.

The student explains that Darwin claimed all life came from a simple celled organism. The padowan then quotes one of Darwin's famous statements, "Nature does not jump", meaning it takes a long time for evolution to happen.


The wise student shows an analog clock, for you youngens that's a non-digital clock with needles that point to numbers, and asks the class to imagine 3.8 billion years, the time life existed on Earth, condensed down to a 24-hour period. He illustrates life as we know it had exploded onto the scene within the last ninety seconds and concludes that Nature does make a giant leap, in essence life was created instantly. This supports that God created all life in an instant.

Very clever. Or is it?

Now, let's look at the facts that the student presented, ignoring further facts that religions like Christianity put little faith in evolution, which was the first thought that came to mind when I watched this scene.

Life be on dis Earf for hella days: 3,800,000,000 years

24-hour day = 86,400 seconds

1 second = 43,981.48 years

90 seconds = 3,958,333.33 years

Don't worry. I'm Asian. I know how to do maf, I mean math. Sometimes my ghettoness comes out.

According to the student, all life as we know it came to be four million years ago, henceforth, here thereto, ala kazam, abracadabra, life came to be instantly. He didn't use the word abracadabra, but he did use the word instantly. In other words, evolution doesn't exist, Darwin is wrong, God does exist because he created life in an instant, (wave the magic wand) Nature makes a giant leap. I don't know, but 3.9 million years doesn't sound too instant to me. But, Jimmy, in the span of God, it is an instant. Geezus Kryst (facepalm). 


This is all very manipulative. First, Cronk uses Darwin and his theory of evolution as a base to start with. It makes sense at first. Back in the 1850's Darwin was highly credited and known for the idea of evolution. I'm not sure Cronk knows this, but we as a people have learned a few things since then. Maybe that's why he's so stuck on a book that was supposedly written several thousand years ago.

I'd watched a documentary series by famed American astrophysicist, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Inexplicable Universe. He explains basic concepts of physics and the evolution of our understanding of the universe that includes Sir Isaac Newton's discoveries. Newton had given us a lot knowledge in regards to the forces at work in our universe, but even his work had to be revisited and revised to compensate for the new findings that physicists have since discovered. It's the natural order of knowledge and wisdom. Tyson even states that evolution does make jumps, scientist have discovered, eschewing the old idea that Nature does not.


Just look at the number of breeds of dogs that exist today. Due to artificial selection, the dog's ancestor, the wolf, had been bred to Chihuahua through the Great Dane.

Then, Cronk has us imagine the existence of life's timeline on Earth in a 24-hour period, shows that complex life forms came to be within the last 90 seconds, implying instantaneous life. The problem with this is he ignores the 23 hours, 58 minutes and 30 seconds that life could have taken to evolve into what they've become in the last 90 seconds. Miss something there, pal?

All this masturbatory manipulation coats every single line, scene, and actor in the movie. And that's what I meant when I said Cronk's hand was heavy in this piece of shit, I mean work. He either didn't trust the audience to come to the conclusion that he wanted (tsk,tsk), or he made the film specifically for the converted; sorta like saying, "Hey, Jimmy. You're Asian because..."

"Ah soh, dat why my eye rook rike dat."