I should have just said, "Naw dude, Naw!"

On one of the many nights when I keep myself up by thinking of regrets, mistakes, funny shit and your mother, I remembered a funny freshmen memory. A kind of memory that you fantasize that you acted differently in the way you actually behaved. Kind of like not dropping that game winning pass in a high school football game, or not breaking up with someone that was well worth your time. Only this kind of memory was one that I let someone get away with not being safe.

Those who know what I mean by safe should skip ahead: Safeness is the state of imperfection. When one is not safe it means that one is liable to being insulted or teased. For example, Susie had to pass gas, so she thought she would lean to make sure no one hear it. However, unbeknownst to Susie, Michael saw and realized what she was doing. Michael then exclaimed, "Susie! I saw that shit! You ain't safe! Tryna lean fart and stuff!" Susie was ashamed. 

It was my first upper division English professor. The course was an introduction to Victorian Literature. The professor's name will be changed for the sake of privacy (and the fact that my friends have Googled my name and it has turned up on the bottom of the first page of Google images. The worlds getting smaller!) 

Dr. Blaine was teaching the class about the different forms of criticism that we would have to choose from when writing about Dracula. I remember wanting to complain about analyzing boringness that is Dracula for the second time within the same 3 semester, but I was trying to get my grown man on and resisted being a childish dick. Dr. Blaine gave us a quick example of each form of criticism. He started with Marxist criticism, which was looking at the novel from a economic perspective. He discussed Historical criticism, which was, I shit you not, viewing the book from a historical point of view. He went over Feminist criticism, but told us that it wasn't an option. Sad face. Then he said Freudian criticism and boy oh boy from that point on, he became very very unsafe.

First of all, he explained it for about 20 minutes longer than he should have. Now, I have done some research on Freud (and by "research," I mean I had some psychology major friends and asked them about him). Apparently, Freud's studies, although beneficial, were very flawed. And yes, I knew that the Dr. Blaine was not talking about Freudian criticism as a complete representation of his studies, but he was just talking about how looking at characters from a sexual perspective. However, instead of being sexual, he got horny.

Or dare I say....Thirsty

For those who know what I mean by Thirst, skip ahead.  Thirst is another word for horny but a more desperate  form of horniness. It means that you desire sexy so much that you are thirsty for it. Some people even say "Thirsting" or "Thirstin.'" If you see someone on Facebook that has a habit of commenting on the same people's photos, perhaps the photo has someone dressed scantly clad, then you would use some variation of thirst. For example, your best friend keeps writing "Damn, you fine" on the same chicks picture, it would be your responsibility as a friend (or a douchebag) to inform him and all Facebook users that he is indeed thirsty. Maybe by saying "Man, the thirst," or " The thirst is real out here today." If you want to get really clever you'd say something like "There's a drought in this comment section."

Dr. Blaine than began the thirsties, sexual observation of Dracula, nuns and even Jesus Christ. He informed us on the butt sex analogies in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Oedipus complexes in Dracula and even the sexualization of Jesus Christ. This, this is the moment where things just went off sanity graph.

Dr. Blaine started to explain how much of a sexual symbol Jesus is.. Sidenote: I am not at all religious. In fact, I am all about some Jesus jokes but Dr. Blaine was totally serious. And just not safe. He stated:

"Well, sex is all we think about. Just think about religion. Religion is very sexual. Jesus is always depicted on" the cross sexually. Look at his abs. He has a six pack. Jesus is never depicted fat or even slightly anything beyond skinny."

I thought that one was interesting, but kind of silly. I think its interesting that he is always depicted skinny (and I'll go a step further and say he usually is only one race.). I think it may be shallowness, but sexy? Moans and growns followed suit. Nevertheless he continued:

"And nuns! They are very sexual. They are 'the brides of Jesus' they don't have sex because they are saving themselves for Jesus. And, let's be honest. Nuns are sexy. I mean, when I see a nun, I gotta say, it kinda turns me on. You know?"

Oh shit! I know he didn't! Everyone had a light chuckle after that. Then, he moved on to Oedipus complexes. This is when it reaches the maximum level of unsafeness. He states:

"The Oedipus complex is a very realistic phenomenon. I mean, we've all had those dreams about our mothers. You know?"

At this point I'm trying to be openminded. I am like, 'well, perhaps thats normal. I have never had sexual dreams about my mother, but maybe everyone else has." So, I looked around the room to see some hands a' rising. To my surprise, everyone else was doing the exact thing. They thought " Shit, homie, he ain't talkin' 'bout me!" So, we all reached the conclusion that it was only him who was having silly dreams about nailing his mother.

And so, as I fall asleep I think, "I should have just said 'naw dude, naw. You the only one nailin' ya momz in deep sleep homie. YOU AIN'T SAFE! You thirsty as hell, fam!'"

And that is how you spell Villainy, folks.

G'night.