I have a theory that most people would have a healthier level of self-esteem and self-confidence if not for the remarks of others. Even the most secure people with the strongest sense of self can fall prey if it’s the right person speaking to them. After hanging out with a few pals (some single, some not), I noticed how antagonized, patronized and stigmatized single individuals are. They hear rude and intrusive comments on a regular basis.

In our society, especially if you’re of a certain age, it’s expected for you to either be in a relationship or actively seeking one. Emphasis on dating starts early; 1st graders are often asked “do you have a girlfriend/boyfriend?” That being said, forbid you’re completely single (or not sexually active) and maybe feel alright with that, it raises questions and eyebrows. It’s assumed that something is off with you-you’re socially awkward, a workaholic, afraid of commitment, jaded and have trust issues, promiscuous, purposely single or secretly gay. If you discuss relationships or someone’s relationship specifically and you say something seemingly unsupportive, you’re just jealous. For example, I have never been a fan of P.D.A. (public displays of affection). I think it’s inappropriate and a little impolite to suck face or fondle your mate in public. I don’t do it now, and I’m in a relationship. Nonetheless, when I was single and complained about a couple at a pool, I was told “Oh, you’re just mad because you don’t have someone to do that with.” I thought “Why do they think I’m jealous? Oh, yeah, I’m so jealous of all the frustration and crying fits you go through with your partner…” If not jealous, it’s presumed your quietly lonely, sad and want to be set-up. One friend told me people think they’re doing her a favor by constantly trying to set her up and don’t believe that she’s ok with her current single status.

I think all these stereotypes and attitudes cause a fear or insecurity of singlehood and/or sexual abstinence (I mention abstinence because single men are often expected to be at least sleeping around). That fear sometimes leads people into romantic desperation; picking up relationships with whoever meets a bare minimum requirement instead of a solid, healthy match. Some of my girlfriends talk about singlehood like it’s a disease and they’ll die if they don’t find someone. I tell them all the time that if they relax a little and take the time to try and enjoy being single, there’s a lot to gain. You’d be surprised at the amount of emotional and personal growth one can experience, and how much singlehood can strengthen identity. These elements can actually help with dating as the root of many break-ups is individual emotional issues. So, if you’re in a relationship, don’t accuse your single friends of being dysfunctional, gay, jealous or lonely and if you’re single, don’t let the stereotypes get to you or affect your dating choices.

As most likely know, highly decorated and revered military general and CIA director David Petraeus resigned in early November after his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, was exposed. Petraeus joins the lengthy list of American government officials caught in extramarital scandal, but this time, the response of the media and public was a little different. Usually angry, unforgiving, critical and demanding a resignation from a position of power, crowds seemed to feel sorry for the officer and wished he hadn’t stepped down. Does this mean our morality is deteriorating as a culture or have we become more benevolent and merciful? I think we’re just starting to better evaluate relevancy.

In the years after President Bill Clinton’s 2001 impeachment in which he lied under oath about the details of his own affair, many in media began to question whether the punishment fit the crime. Yes, he broke the law, but media and political analysts were looking at a bigger picture. Some made the argument that our cultural reactions to the transgressions of public figures is so harsh, that it could’ve pushed Clinton to lie to cover it up and we ended up losing a president who stabilized the economy over an issue that only affected his home life. Taking it a step further, imagine the reduction on smear campaigns if we only responded to scandals that correlate with the duty of public office. Politicians might have to actually rely on only politics to get ahead of their opponents, but that’s another issue for another day, I suppose.

All of these events have us talking about fairness and when a personal indiscretion should cause you to lose your job, consider resignation or be denied a position (by the way, as of this time, it hasn’t been concluded that Petraeus’ affair lead to confidential information being compromised). It’s been widely reported that employers and college admission counselors are now taking advantage of social media and browsing what they can of candidate profiles before making a decision. This is absolute crap to me. I have so many issues with this practice. First, let me say I find a lot of things about the traditional interview process discriminatory and unfair (for example, the over-emphasis on appearance. Not everyone can afford nice dress-wear, but they might be able to do a job well). Assessing a candidate based on their Facebook or Twitter page opens all kinds of doors for discrimination, not to mention it’s an infringement of privacy (are they going to ask for personal diaries or talk to our priests next?). If job-seekers are regularly discriminated against in the traditional process with laws in place, imagine the rate of prejudice when social media is factored in. Who’s to say that an employer won’t disqualify a job-seeker simply because they have opposite political views or over something petty like being a fan of Britney Spears? It might be over an unsavory status or suggestive picture, but how do we formally and fairly define “unsavory” and “suggestive” and how it correlates to the job position? Formal background checks, job references, resumes and interviews should tell you all you need to know about a candidate’s ability to perform a task well. Whether they hit the gay bar last week has nothing to do with it. 

The reality of it is if everyone was denied a job for personal gaffes, no one would have work. My stance is that if one’s missteps or personal choices doesn’t harm anyone or literally damage an establishment or company, they should be able to get and keep a job. Thoughts?

According to statistics, most sexual assaults go unreported for a bevy of reasons (including feelings of shame, fear and intimidation). For victims who indeed report the crimes against them, many experience what is often described in media and research articles as “re-victimization” by their social world (ex. judgment, disrespect) and the legal system (ex. police mistreatment, perpetrators being given short sentences, defense lawyers using sexual history to imply consensual sex); as if the physical and emotional trauma of the event weren’t enough. Adding on to the offenses and failures of the legal system is the mishandling of “rape kits.” A routine part of assault investigation, a rape kit is an intrusive, but necessary, physical examination of the victim to collect DNA. One examination can take up to 6 hours to complete. Analyzation of the rape kit can help identify the perpetrator; identification is particularly easy if the assailant has other documented crimes. Across the country, however, many kits go untested. The city of Detroit made news for its high rate of backlogs when prosecutor Kym Worthy launched the 400 Project to help raise testing funds. Testing costs can range from $1200 to $1500; many crime labs and law enforcement entities purport that they don’t have the resources or access to advanced technology to run the tests in a timely, efficient manner. Some sociological studies imply that gender politics and a nonchalant attitude about sexual violence influence a passive response from law enforcement. 

There are complicated consequences when kits are neglected. If a kit is analyzed beyond the “statute of limitations” (the time frame in which you can prosecute someone for a crime) the assailant cannot be charged, regardless of the fact that the victim had nothing to do with the testing delay. In some cases, perpetrators go on to attack countless other victims undetected. According to EndTheBacklog.org, rape has the low arrest rate of just 24%. Visit EndTheBacklog.org to learn more about this issue and what you can do as a citizen to combat it. Also available on the site is resource information for victims. To read more about Detroit’s fight and other advocacy/fund programs, click here.

Or at least some of the reasons, anyway.

Pop-star Jordin Sparks (American Idol 6, “Sparkle”) made it public that she was taking a vow of chastity and waiting until marriage to have sex, but in an interview earlier this year, the singer seemed to have a change of heart, saying:  "I don't wear it [purity ring] exactly everyday anymore, but I always have something there. When I was 13, my mom spoke to me about purity and waiting for marriage…at the time I was like, 'Sure that's great,' but I can't say what's gonna happen a couple of months from now. People grow." It looks like Sparks may be joining the club of starlets (ex. Britney Spears) who took a pledge of abstinence in youth and later made a different choice. There are a number of different reasons why abstinence pledges are reneged on, but 2 factors are age and motivation for the pledge.

Across the country, religious (many faiths discourage pre-marital sex; it’s viewed as a sin) and some school-based organizations have abstinence programs in which pre-teens and teenagers take formal oaths to remain chaste until marriage and/or don a symbolic ‘purity ring.’ It’s my personal theory that teenagers, especially in this day and age, are too young and immature to take such a vow. 1st, teenagers, individuals who are completely supported by others and viewed as children by the law, should not be having sex either way, but that’s a different conversation. 2nd, you set a young person up for failure when you ask them to make a decision that’s going to affect their adult life. At 13, 14 or 15, you’re being asked to make a decision that will affect you when you’re 23, 24 or 25? That’s unreasonable.  That’s partially why so many college students have difficulty choosing or sticking with an academic major. At 18, you’re making a career decision for the REST OF YOUR LIFE? Considering that most high school students don’t have any in-depth preliminary help discovering what career fields might be of interest to them and what’s required to successfully attain employment, making that choice at 18 seems particularly ridiculous.  There’s nothing wrong with explaining the benefits of abstinence to young people or promoting the concept, but encouraging them to make a public declaration that they may be shamed internally or externally for breaking later may be the wrong approach.

One’s motive for chastity is a strong predictor of whether or not that person succeeds in keeping their pants on. Growing up in a fairly conservative Christian environment, I noticed the people who had additional reasons besides religion for waiting until marriage to have sex were the most successful in abstaining. In anything, most people need a strong interest or personal motivation to succeed. Motives affect effort and focus. Not doing something simply because an authority (in this case, God) told you not to is simply not good enough, principally when it doesn’t appear that there’s immediate consequences for disobeying the authority. For me, I don’t like the idea of multiple people being able to say they’ve had sex with me and they know what it looks like, smells like and tastes like. You can’t get any more intimate with a person than sex; I’m sharing and revealing a very personal side of myself. It isn’t just a way to a great orgasm; it’s a spiritual bonding act. Therefore, I’m keeping my cookies in the cookie jar until I get married. If you’re not good enough to marry, you’re not good enough to have my body. God could send me a burning bush (a reference from the story of Moses in the old testament of the bible) saying I could have pre-marital sex tomorrow and I would still wait. That’s just me.

While I’m on the subject of youth, Christianity and chastity, in some communities of faith, teens are almost taught to not even think about or discuss sex until marriage. You can’t effectively curb or control your sexual desires if you don’t understand what your triggers and weaknesses are. If one is sexually suppressed, they’ll likely struggle to handle being confronted with sex or a tempting situation. There are healthy, productive and safe ways to explore, discuss and learn about your sexual energy WITHOUT having sex. Youth ministers need to create an atmosphere for honest and open dialogue if they expect their horny teen parishioners to keep their “V-cards.”

As for Jordin Sparks…it’s always disappointing when a public figure decides (or in this case, contemplates) to renounce a chastity vow because I feel it feeds the notion and stereotype that abstinence promises are ones to be broken or are impossible to keep. When she mentioned her initial reaction to chastity at 13 and compared it to now with “people grow,” it implied that abstinence is like Trix cereal: it’s for kids and when you mature and “grow,” you don’t do it. This is going to sound harsh, but let’s be real- unless you have a new set of religious views or found your reasons for choosing abstinence shallow, deciding to have sex in your 20’s after being ‘pro-purity’ for 10 years (so pro-purity she brought attention to herself by saying on national television at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards: “It's not bad to wear a promise ring…because not everybody –guy or girl– wants to be a slut.") is not the result of “growth” or a philosophical epiphany, it’s because you want to have sex. Assuming Sparks’ new “revelation” comes as she’s been dating singer Jason Derulo since late last year, I shake my head at the thought that all it took was for her to be sprung on a guy to dump a long-held belief.

The plot of the E.L. James bestseller book '50 Shades of Grey' reinforces harmful stereotypes to men and women.

Everyone complains about their dating life and their lack of viable options, but the people that have it the hardest, I believe, are bisexual men. Some gay men turn them down because of the stereotype that bisexual people cannot be monogamous. Heterosexual women reject them for a bevy a reasons that all go back to sexual orientation bias and gender paradigms. It angers me how prejudiced people are towards these men, especially considering the root of their conceptions. Here are the most common reasons I’ve read (and heard) from straight women as to why they won’t date a bisexual man.

"The fact that the man has been with another man at any point is gross." 
This statement clearly points to sexual orientation bias. The usual precursor to this sentence is “I don’t have a problem with gay people but…” or “That’s fine for them, but for me…” Why else would you find it “gross” if you honestly don’t have a problem with homosexuality?  What’s “gross” about same-sex interaction? Is it the anal sex aspect? For those women who say "yes," I highly doubt they ask every man they date if he has ever had anal sex with another woman. The cooties they’re so afraid of double for the men who have anal and vaginal intercourse with a female partner, which many have. Some come out of one cave, go in another, and back again. I find the “gross” argument especially irritating if it’s coming from a woman who’s engaged in casual sex, has had multiple sexual partners, or dates a man who’s had multiple sexual partners. It’s not gross that the man you’re dating has stuck his gun in multiple holsters, or that you’ve been stuck a couple of thousand times yourself, but a bisexual man is gross simply because he’s been with another man? Oh, ok. That’s not contradictory at all.

"I like a ‘manly man.’ A guy is a less of a man to me if he’s been with another dude."
Cue traditional gender ideals and more orientation bias. It’s been a long held-belief that all gay and bisexual men are effeminate (which isn’t true) and that same-sex interaction is somehow less masculine. Gender ideals come into play as masculinity is partially defined by a commanding presence and sexual prowess/domination. In heterosexual relationships, the man is expected to have a dominant role, while the woman is subordinate. In heterosexual sex, women are automatically in a submissive position as they biologically cannot penetrate and can only be penetrated. Considering those factors, if a man is ever penetrated or allows himself to be, the attitude is that he has taken on a submissive, lesser position and is more like a woman. This attitude is part of the reason why male sexual abuse victims rarely report incidents, particularly if the perpetrator is also male. These victims are made to feel that they are now weak, less-than and automatically homosexual, which is undesirable. Orientation bias is in play as a man’s value is reduced just because of same-sex relations.

""It’s bad enough to have to watch other women; I don’t want to have to watch men too. There’s too much competition when dating a bisexual man."
Your competition rate is the same. Logically, you’re thinking if you date a straight man, you only have to watch half the room, but imagine if most of the room was female. It’s just like if your man worked at an office with mostly women. Whether your man is straight or bisexual, anyone at anytime can vie for him. It doesn’t matter how many men or women are attracted to him. What matters is if he gives into them or not. If he wants to cheat, he’s going to cheat, no matter who you think you’re watching. The likelihood of someone being unfaithful does not increase or decrease based on sexual orientation. Furthermore, you shouldn’t have to “compete” to keep your man’s loyalty in general.

"I’m afraid I’ll get HIV or AIDS."
No matter who you have sex with, you need to be using protection and getting tested regularly. You can contract HIV, AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease (STD) from ANYONE. Bisexual men are NOT more likely to carry the illness than heterosexual men. That is a MYTH.

"I’m afraid I won’t be able to satisfy a bisexual man in the bedroom."
Bisexual men enjoy sex with women; that’s why they’re bisexual. No need to worry about those who prefer sex with men, because they’re not going to date you. If you’re concerned about his itch for dick, there’s always dildos, strap-ons and other sexual toys. There’s also dating bisexual men who primarily prefer women sexually. In any case, it’s important to have an open and honest conversation with your partner about desires and concerns. You might find that you won’t have any problems at all. On another, semi-related note, it seems that straight men are a lot less concerned about satisfying their bisexual female mates, than women are about bisexual male mates. That’s likely because of gender politics too. Women are born and raised in a culture that fosters insecurity and low confidence, but that’s a different topic for another day.

The PLUSES of dating a bisexual man.
Believe it or not, there are some.

Sexual flexibility.
For the women who like a balance of control in the bedroom or little adventure, a bisexual man might be up their alley. Because of their varied sexual preference with gender, bisexual men have an easier time sharing control and are more open to trying to new things.
Equality.
Due to the amount of gender politics and issues that affect a bisexual man’s dating life, these men are sometimes more sensitive to and understanding of the plight of women and gender-based double standards. Those who seek out a more egalitarian dating or home life might benefit from having a bisexual man as a partner.

Think twice before you turn down a man who offers everything you’re looking for just because he’s bisexual. Analyze why you are reluctant to date a bisexual man. Are those reasons inherently and unfairly prejudiced? The mistreatment and dismissal of bisexual men has led some to conceal their orientation from female partners. Not to condone the dishonesty, because I don’t, but I understand why they would consider it.