Last Thursday I was standing outside of Starbucks with the intent of smoking a cigarette when I realized that I had left my lighter at home.  I walked over to a guy named Rodney (who coincidentally looks a lot like Rodney Bingenheimer) and kindly asked him if I could use his lighter.  He said, “Jesus Fucking Christ,” and grudgingly handed me his miniature Bic™ flame thrower.  After using it I thanked him and handed it back, but that didn't stop him from snarling at me as he walked away.  Normally, rudeness like this would have irritated me, but this interaction didn’t bother me at all.  I expected this type of behavior from Rodney because this simple episode has occurred at least once a week for the last eleven months.  Like me, Rodney is considered a “regular” at Starbucks, but he’s not your typical loyal customer.  Rodney is at Starbucks every hour that they’re open of every day.  He and his wacky behavior are perceived to be part of the furniture:  Taking an insult from him seriously would be like being offended by a messy couch.  Everyone would agree that Rodney’s commitment to this store has definitely been beneficial to him.  His committed loyalty to Starbucks has essentially granted him a pass to being a complete dick.

Commitment is generally perceived as a good thing, particularly because it fosters dedication and loyalty.  These are certainly desirable attributes, particularly in terms of relationships.  When a couple has been dating for a considerable amount of time, it’s often expected that at some point their relationship will become exclusive.  Friends and family will start to chatter about when the couple will move in together, get married, and have children.  However, many times the relationship doesn’t reach this point.  One person balks at the notion of becoming exclusive and declines to commit.  This person is then accused of having “commitment issues,” and this kind of bothers me, particularly because the accused person is usually the guy.

Men and women are both accused of having “commitment issues,” but, generally speaking, this term is more often (and unfairly) applied to men.  In reality, men don’t suffer from this alleged syndrome because there is no such thing as “commitment issues.”  Let’s consider the following scenario that everyone, male and female, has experienced at some point in their lives:  A guy meets a girl and they get to know each other.  The girl thinks that she made a new friend, but the guy secretly harbors feelings for her.  After some time the guy starts to drop hints to her that he wants to be more than friends.  He starts calling her more often, he starts taking her out, and he starts buying her things.  The girl begins to suspect that something is afoot, but she doesn’t say anything because she doesn’t want to jeopardize their friendship.  The guy presses on, eventually making her a mix-tape CD of R&B songs (particularly Usher) and asking her to be his girlfriend.  While flattered (read: creeped out), she denies his request.  The guy insists that there are no hard feelings and, as a friendly gesture, he takes her to watch a Dane Cook movie in the theaters.  Afterwards, they go to their respective homes and they both cry (but for very different reasons).

The point is that men don’t have “commitment issues;" they're just perceived to have them.  A woman (generally speaking) won’t commit to a guy unless she feels really comfortable about him (on average this takes about six dates).  But when she does decide that she wants to be committed to him, she will usually expect him to feel the same way.  When this doesn't happen, the guy is accused of being afraid of commitment.  But, that's not really what's going on.  If a man wants to be in a committed relationship, then he’ll say it.  He won’t wait for the woman to express the same sentiment, and he won’t play any mind games regarding his feelings for the girl.  A guy won’t beat around the bush.

The truth is that if a guy hasn’t expressed that he wants to be committed, then he doesn’t want to be committed and he’s probably not that interested.  For example, I might not like Red Lobster, but that doesn’t mean that I have issues with seafood restaurants.  It just means that I have issues with Red Lobster.  If a guy doesn’t express interest in committing to a girl, that doesn’t mean that he has issues with commitment.  It just means that he has issues committing to that girl.  “Commitment issues” is a cop out.  It’s not like people who want to be in relationships are ever accused of having “being-single issues.”  The term “commitment issues” was probably coined by someone who was in a relationship that wasn’t going anywhere but didn’t want to blame themselves.

Commitment is beneficial in any aspect of life because it’s a conscious decision.  It’s good to commit yourself to something if you want to, but you shouldn’t fault someone for not committing to something that you want them to.  Commitment might make you feel better about your relationship, it might give your life focus, and it might give you a pass to being a jerk, but it’s never, ever an “issue.”

I have a photographic memory.  I have an uncanny ability to not forget things.  This “talent” has been, for the most part, beneficial to me.  This single quality of mine is the only reason why I was able to successfully navigate my way through eight years of college tests and not forget songs by Glenn Lewis.  Unfortunately, this has also made me retain minute details about people I meet.  Just yesterday I was ordering a Caramel Frappuccino at Starbucks and I casually asked Audrey the barista if she was looking forward to Weezer’s new album, Raditude, which was coming out next week.  She gave me a look that was both of puzzlement and fear.  Before this point, the extent of our relationship was an exchange we had more than a year ago when I walked into Starbucks wearing a Weezer t-shirt and she remarked, “Weezer is my favorite band.”   My photographic memory has made me both a great test taker and a creeper.  I don’t know what to make of this dichotomy.  I have no redeeming qualities.

Anyway, I said I have a photographic memory, but let me rephrase that.  I have a photographic memory for things that I want to remember.  I have subconsciously expelled (seemingly) random memories of people, places, and events from my past.  Most of my memories as a kid are vague and faint, and there’s a four-year gap between third and sixth grade where I don’t remember anything at all.  There are random gaps in my memories of college, most notably regarding girls I allegedly dated.  Recently I was reminded by a friend that I dated a girl named “Cheryl” for almost two years in the late 1990s (a time that, sadly, strikes me as the era of the rise of Limp Bizkit).  Two years is seemingly more than enough time to get to know someone, yet I can only recall random details about her:  1. She was short, 2. She was loud, and 3. She liked to say, “What’s really going on?” as a way of saying, “Hello,” “How are you?”, or “How come no one is talking?”  I suppose she liked to make up her own lingo.  This makes sense, because I was told she was from the San Francisco Bay Area.

I suppose I can lethargically assume that these forgotten incidents have nothing to do with shaping who I currently am.  If they did, I would never know (because they’re forgotten!).  This makes me neither happy nor sad.  Coffee shop philosophers and history majors like to say that our reality is a product of our own history, but what happens when our memory is skewed?  Does our perception significantly diverge from reality?  If perception is different from reality, why would I want to know what is real?  What are the merits of living in reality, and what defines reality?  Is reality really important?

Or, as my supposed ex-girlfriend would say, “What’s really going on?”

In this day and age, the line between perception and reality isn’t clearly defined.  For example, I have a girlfriend who is under the perception that I’m good-looking and smart, mostly because I say lots of things she’s never heard before.  The reality is that I look like a foot (even when I smile) and I’m just very, very bored.

What’s really going on?

Because we are bombarded with so much information in this day and age, we are more politically and socially aware than we were in, say, 1985.  We are more apt to have opinions about things we probably shouldn’t have opinions about.  For example, the perception is that the Republican party is experiencing a resurgence, mainly because of newfound leadership in media personalities like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh.  The reality is that since 2004 when their popularities began to rise, the Republican party lost the majority of public office seats on a state and federal level, including the Presidency.  The Republican Party’s popularity is inversely proportional to the popularities of their supposed media leaders.

What’s really going on?

The perception is that Barack Obama is a left-wing extremist and socialism zealot.  The reality is that he’s a moderate.  He’s the most moderate guy I’ve ever known!  His support for a government-sponsored “public option” in healthcare isn’t as liberal as proposing a single-payer system and isn’t as conservative as doing nothing.   

What’s really going on?

The perception is that the Republican Party is the party of the Christian right.  The reality is that the Republican Party has historically been the party of fiscal conservatism and small government.  It was only within the last ten years that the Republican Party was infiltrated by Jesus enthusiasts who made the Republican Party their own by instilling their own dogma in policies.  True Republicans don’t care about dogma or ideals.  Today’s real “Republicans” are really Libertarians.

What’s really going on?

The perception of the Teabaggers in the Teabag Movement is that they have lost their country to an illegitimate President and a radical Congress that will turn the country into the United Socialist States of America.  The reality is that they didn’t lose their country.  The country is still here.  I’m standing on American soil right now.  The only thing they lost was a bunch of elections on November 4, 2008.  They’ve forgotten the fact that when you participate in a democratic election, there’s a chance that your side might lose.  They’re just being sore losers.

What’s really going on?

There is a perception that gay marriage is an immoral.  The reality is that marriage itself is neither moral nor immoral.  It’s amoral.  It’s as amoral as eating an apple.  Anyone should be able to marry anyone, even Lady Gaga.  Someone should be able to marry their pet donkey if they wanted to.  You might think that’s wrong, but that's your problem, not theirs (nor the donkey's).

What’s really going on? 

Reality is a void that is filled with myriad perceptions.

What's really going on?

I don’t know.  I’ve already forgotten.