Dear MTV,
We’ve always had an extra special bond. On Tuesday, though, you blew me away. Writing an ending of a reality dating show JUST FOR ME?!? It’s too much, MTV, it’s too much. I can’t tell you what this means to me. Thank you.
Love, HFTrash
For those of you who missed it, Tuesday’s season II finale of “A Shot at Love With Tila Tequila” was explosive! With easily half an hour left of the episode, Kristy and Bo boarded their respective limos which would take them to Tila’s unyielding fate. Nostalgia montage consists mainly of Bo’s face getting beaten in and Kristy’s booty. Both muse to the camera about the hopes, fears, dreams, etc, when Kristy drops the bisexual bomb. She doesn’t know what she wants. Did I say what? Sorry, I meant who. Does she like girls of boys? Sure, she’s “hooked up with tons of girls” but she’s never been in a relationship with one! Oh no! She might not be ready for this.
Cry me a river, Kristy.
The moral of the story is: Tila gets eliminated from her OWN SHOW! She eliminates Bo, then chooses Kristy, then is REJECTED by Kristy. She does the walk of shame though HER OWN HOUSE. Seriously, I can’t make this shit up. MTV *must* have written it for me, and me alone. Its the only explanation I can find.
So lets break this down:
1. Bisexuals are seriously confused. Probably, they will only bring turmoil and leave heartache in their wake. Definitely NOT to be trusted.
2. There is DEF going to be a third season. Sweet!
3. Tila’ acting classes totally “paid off.” I almost believed she was, a. shocked, b. upset, and c. not thinking about all the money she just raked in. Android technology has come a long way.
4. Poor Britney!
Lets talk about the “sorority complex,” as a friend once coined it a few years back. There is a trend of female folks desiring (for a variety of reasons) sex with other female folks, but not wanting any form of a relationship. I understand that lots of people want to have non-committal sex, I’m all for it! But why is it that some women want to sleep with other women while never considering them to be potential romantic partners? Is it for the benefit of onlooking men/voyeurs? Is it solely to satisfy a sexual desire? Are the constructs of heteronormativity so overwhelmingly binding that although a woman seeks out same sex hook-ups, she can’t consider this to be a legitimate attraction/desire?
How is this different from the “down low” men who sleep with men?
I think it’s different for a few reason, one being that men on the DL never disclose that they sleep with other men. Women who sleep with women, however, don’t seem to be as guarded about their same sex interactions. It seems to have become something of a “status symbol.” (I’m not sure what status its symbolizing, but you drift my catch.) I’d even say its chic, or trendy.
If babys are the new handbags, then girl on girl action is the new black minidress. Never leave home without it.
Feelings, comments, concern, questions? This is an interesting topic for me, and I’d like to explore it more. Can we start a dialogue about this?
Also, how is race functioning within this phenomenon? Are women of color adhering to this same ideology? Isn’t my use of “down low” men problematic in trying to discuss a larger phenomenon of clandestine same sex interactions?
Give me your thoughts, friends. After all, you are the inspiration for all of this.
xx
