Danger! She smashed the homies!

Some friends of mine were having a conversation on Google’s version of Twitter, Google Buzz, about homieloverfriends and smashing. The question was asked, “What’s the difference between a friend and a homegirl?” It boiled down to two opposing opinions: men want to sleep with their friend, but hang out with their homegirl vs. men smash their homegirl, cause she’s always around, but that they want to smash the friend. It seemed as if we were beating around the bush, or putting it lightly when it came to homieloverfriends, when a friend took it upon herself to sum everything up. “No matter what the moniker used, you're probably getting/have gotten/or likely to get smashed...cause at the end of the day, isn't smashing what it’s all about?”

When I read those words, coming from a female friend of mine, I had to stare at the screen for awhile, and honestly chuckle a little. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. A male friend once told me that he has thought of every female friend in his life that way, like once he meets a woman, he thinks in essence, “is she smashable?” Because if smashing is indeed what it is all about, have we not missed the mark? I guess maybe I’m an old romantic, but my thoughts are, isn’t love what it’s all about? Since when did smashing replace genuinely liking and getting to know someone? We have substituted mental and emotional intimacy for expressions of sexuality and physicality. I am not saying that these two entities are mutually exclusive, because they clearly are not, but when did the order get reversed? I guess the question in the “yes,” “no,” “maybe” box note was not what I had imagined it to be.

So if smashing is what it’s all about, dinner, movie, and sexting are your foreplay.