I probably don’t need to recap, but just in case you hadn’t heard for some reason, audio recordings of NBA Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling going on a racist tangent leaked in late April. The league took near-immediate action, placing an indefinite, broad-reaching ban on Sterling from NBA-affiliated activities, in addition to a 2.5 million-dollar fine. League Commissioner Adam Silver declared he’d insist that the Board of Governors force a sale of the Clippers. The general public was appalled by Sterling’s statements, but then, a funny thing happened on the way to the game. The media had a peculiar fascination with V. Stiviano, the woman in which Sterling was having his salacious conversation with. He was chastising her for making it apparent that she associates with black people by taking pictures with sports legend Magic Johnson (she herself is black and Mexican). Just as surprising as Sterling’s remarks was Stiviano’s fairly composed-and almost apologetic-tone on the tape. I personally was taken aback by this and found it sad and self-disrespecting that a person of color would surround themselves with someone so racist for any reason, but that wasn’t the primary reaction to her demeanor by the press, nor was there sympathy or concern that Sterling may be verbally abusing or controlling someone in his circle. The interpretation of her composure was instead that she was the one who leaked the tape. I never wondered who released the recording or why, because, who cared? The bigotry of a person in power in an organization full of African-Americans was exposed. Shouldn’t we be applauding the individual(s) who let the proverbial cat out of the bag (or at least be glad that they did it)? Apparently not.

Without any confirmation that Stiviano was behind the tape’s disclosure (not that it actually mattered), she was stalked by the paparazzi and vilified. Dug-up information on her background revealed that she had plastic surgery, a criminal record (which included arrests for petty theft and driving under the influence), several aliases and that Sterling’s wife, Rochelle, was suing Stiviano for the return of property and expensive vehicles purchased for her by Donald. The court documents also detailed that Rochelle was accusing her of being a seducer of wealthy older men (there is almost a 50-year age difference between Stiviano and Donald). From this it was deduced that Stiviano was a scorned snake of a mistress who sought out to record Sterling and sell the damning audio for a quick buck and maybe 15 minutes of fame. Even if this assumption is true to any or all extent, again, who cares? Does it change the fact that Sterling made those comments and is a bigot? I saw one news panel where the entire broadcast of the story was just about Stiviano and the hosts angrily theorized about her “motives.” Aren’t we mad at the racist or nah? Isn’t he the true villain here?

Stiviano began to take interviews and tell her side of the story. One would think the primary questions would be to establish if Sterling had a pattern of discrimination and hate speech, the details of the conversation in mind and what Stiviano may have endured while around him, but it was all about the nature of her relationship with the embattled team-owner. A relationship that, despite Sterling frequently appearing with her at events and games, no one examined, detected or inquired about. No one seemed to notice or care that he possibly had a mistress before. In one of the more disgusting and poor instances of journalism I’ve ever seen, “Entertainment Tonight” correspondent Brooke Anderson repeatedly asked Stiviano if she had sexual relations with Sterling (episode airing on 5/21/14), making sarcastic facial expressions, comments and groans each time Stiviano denied, even saying she didn’t believe Stiviano. When Stiviano became (understandably) perturbed, Anderson accused her of being “combative” and “defensive.” Afterwards, while at the ET panel table, Anderson and the other hosts dissected paparazzi footage of Stiviano, labeling her as attention-seeking for wearing a visor to cover her face from cameras and flaunting herself when she wasn’t wearing head gear. When she asserts herself under Anderson’s berating and aggressive interviewing, she’s “combative,” but her polite greeting and compliments pre-interview were to “butter [Anderson] up.” I directly tweeted Anderson: “How dare you call V. combative when you berated her and continued to repeat questions because you didn’t get the answer you wanted. I thought interviews were to get a person’s perspective, not convince a journalist of their truth.”

Somehow, it’s been more important to discern whether or not V. Stiviano is a “slut” that outed a man for gain, versus the bigger story from whence she came. We claim that Sterling’s mindset is deplorable, yet, we’ve sought to punish and scrutinize the person we believe to have brought it to light. A sin is a sin and a wrong is a wrong, but the media’s irrelevant and unbalanced focus on Stiviano would imply that possibly being a mistress and possibly outing a man is worse than being a racist. Why is this happening? It’s because of sexism. 1) Regardless of gender, infidelity is frowned upon. However, because promiscuity is a more acceptable and expected behavior for men than women, “the other woman” or a woman who cheats is often more heavily ostracized (and for a longer period) than a male in the same position. Indicia of this is how the masculine forms of the word “mistress” (ex. lover, paramour, kept man) are either lesser-known or don’t withhold the same level of insult. Furthermore, there are multiple slurs to call promiscuous women (ex. slut, skank, whore, hoe, tramp, etc.), but hardly any for men. In effect, these words are so closely tied to women, that “man” is used as a pre-fix to apply it to a male (ex. man-whore). 2) Women who challenge or disrupt the gender-hierarchy of control (women are to be in a subordinate role when amongst men) are generally viewed as an enemy of values and/or men. Stiviano recording an incriminating conversation that ultimately took a man out of his station of power makes her deserving of retribution.

Even after giving a far from humble and remorseful interview with Anderson Cooper, Donald Sterling will likely spend the last of his years rather comfortable and manage to get back into business-life. Meanwhile, V. Stiviano will probably struggle to evade her now destroyed image for at least a decade because of a sexist witch-hunt to shield a xenophobe. Sexism at its best. 

“I don't want normal, and easy, and simple. I want…I want painful, difficult, devastating, life-changing, extraordinary love. Don't you want that too?”

Fans of the ABC political drama, Scandal, seemed to collectively swoon and re-quote on Twitter when lead character Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) delivered that line, breaking up with her current boyfriend to continue her convoluted, adulterous affair with President Fitzgerald Grant III (Tony Goldwyn). I shook my head and thought, “I’m going to make a blog post out of this one day,” and here we are. So many people, including myself, to a degree, have fallen into that trap of believing that it isn’t “real love” unless it drives you nearly insane. People figure that if any one person can drive and control their feelings so easily or make them want to “risk it all,” they must be their soul-mate, but the passionate arguments and extreme emotional highs and lows (often accentuated by satisfying, lustful sex) are just a smoke screen that could damage your being and keep you from experiencing a healthier (and equally sexy) relationship.

There are many reasons why a toxic relationship is like a hard-to-kick habit for some, but a main cause is that the adrenaline that comes with it is addictive; it’s like romantic Red Bull. It is sheer energy, having intense love and hate for someone and having to fight every second for you and your love to survive. Like a burn or a bungee jump, it makes people feel and know they’re alive. The drama is stressful, but it keeps life from being monotonous, and for those struggling with emptiness, it can give a sense of purpose or something to focus on. No matter how strenuous or breaking, test after test and trauma after trauma are tolerated because it’s thrilling to see if you’ll come out on the other side; people get swept off of their feet at the idea of “overcoming all odds.” Chasing this is part of the reason why people take up with “bad boys,” “bad girls” or “wounded puppies;” they come with conflict or a challenge.

There are so many other psychological and emotional stimulants that keep people attached to their James Dean or Amy Winehouse. Some do it simply because they’re bored or like the rebellion of it all; they get off on doing something people advise against, find gossip-worthy or consider “unusual for them.” For others, it’s an (sometimes subconscious) exercise in stroking and rewarding their own ego. When you’re dating a troubled person, you feel needed, useful. You feel special because you get the impression that you’re the exception to their rule; you’re the only person that can “get through” to them and they’re different around you. You pat yourself on the back if they appear to be making “progress” or “cleaning up.” You love it when they (or others) tell you how “good” you are for them. You gradually build this savior complex and think that the universe, God, destiny or some omnipotent, powerful force put you in this person’s life and chose you to be the one to help patch them up. When A) the toxicity reaches all time high, B) the codependence gets to be too much, and/or C) wisdom kicks in and you realize you can’t fix anyone or make them whole (their wounds are bigger than you; their growth and healing starts from within), you decide you want to leave, but you don’t because you now have consequential savior guilt. You don’t want to be another person that left or abandoned them. Maybe you’re worried they won’t handle the breakup well and will delve further into the abyss. In the unhealthiest of dynamics, a person will guilt you for trying to leave or they will  go to extremes, like harming themselves or faking a pregnancy, to make you stay.

“Is this just a silly game…forces you to scream my name, then pretend that you can't stay…when I try to walk away, you'd hurt yourself to make me stay, this is crazy…this is crazy…”--Lauryn Hill (Ex-Factor)

If your savior complex goes uninterrupted by guilt, you’re likely suffering from “potential-itis.” So many people haven’t said “adios” because they’re concentrating on what could be instead of what is. Getting or staying with someone because of their potential is unwise because there are no guarantees you’ll get what you’re hoping for and get a return on your time and emotional and physical investment. It could end up going well, by why play Russian roulette with your heart and happiness instead of choosing someone with better odds?

“Potential-itis” is a sub-symptom of another condition I like to call “I’m Not Going” Syndrome. “And I Am Telling You, I’m Not Going” is a song from the Broadway play and film adaptation Dreamgirls, where the character Effie demands “you’re going to love me” to her already-gone boyfriend, Curtis, and insists they’re experiencing just a rough patch and not a conclusion. Curtis was far done with the relationship, but Effie was taking her precious time seeing it…alone. ING Syndrome tends to occur when a union has gone well for a period (even if it’s brief) and starts to go south. “Potential-itis” is high in this scenario because you’ve seen great days with your mate. It wasn’t always this way, so you’re convinced the turbulence is an isolated situation, but there were red flags you ignored or a pattern forming that you know in your gut isn’t going away soon. You’ve turned off of “Honeymoon Avenue” (good Ariana Grande song), down “Point of No Return” road. Like Effie, you think if your mate “would just act right,” or if you could cut out all the crap and external issues (like the craziness or instability going on in your lover’s life), your romance could be great, but the circumstances are now beyond your control. You only have power over yourself; you can’t make anyone think, feel, say or do anything and you can only manipulate your environment so much. If your partner isn’t actively making changes or cooperating with you to improve the atmosphere, *Mariah Carey voice* it’s probably a wrap. 

“In another place or another time, we would’ve been beautiful, but we weren’t in another place or another time. In the here and now, we were disastrous for and to each other, even though we had a special and strong connection. I had to accept the writing on the wall. I didn’t have the power to make another place and time. There would be nothing left of me now if I continued to deny that truth.”--A friend of mine said of their experience with “crazy love”