

Goodness, y'all. We're only on the second episode and my head is already spinning! Ambitions may technically be categorized as a ''nighttime soap" but back in my The Young and the Restless watchin' days (RIP Kristoff St. John), I was able to go weeks, months even, without watching it and still be able to keep up.This? I'm darn near scared to go to the bathroom during commercial breaks; that's how fast it moves.
OK, so let's do a recap of last night, shall we?
Evan & Bella
Erica Page as Bella
OWN
It picks up with Rondell, her (and Evan's) father, Senior and Bella's mom, Inez telling the police what happened when a goon broke into the restaurant with a bat and threatened Rondell by saying, "You know what time it is, bitch!" (That stood out to me because Rondell kept bringing it up.) Senior's shotgun is what ran dude off. Senior was still holding it in the police's presence. Who sent the goon? Sit on that for a sec. I'll be back.
While Senior and Rondell were semi-freaking out, Evan was in bed with Bella. Hmph. A guy I know once told me, "If you're gonna cheat, cheat with someone who has more to lose than you do." Yeah well, if that memo was on Evan's desk, he overlooked it because while he was sleeping, Bella was taking all kinds of pics of him and his, well, you know. She even used her phone to videotape them gettin' it in. Clearly, she doesn't have more to lose than Mr. Mayor does if—which really means when—he gets exposed. SMDH.
Titus & Amara
Meanwhile, over at Titus and Amara's house, Titus tried to convince his wife that he no longer has feelings for Stephanie. If you watched the first episode, you know that couldn't be further from the truth. Sidebar—Am I the only one who is trying to figure out how two married lawyers—Evan and Stephanie and Titus and Amara—can fully trust each other? They convince people to think how they want them to for a living.
Anyway, cutting back to Evan and Bella and here he goes having the nerve to be jealous about her having a relationship with Roderick. As he was letting the green-eyed monster rears its ugly head, I think what stood out to me most was, "The thought of you together makes me almost not want to touch you." Uh-huh. Almost but not quite. Less than a minute later, he's taking his clothes off again when he should be heading home…to his wife.
Stephanie & Evan
Robin Givens as Stephanie Carlisle and Brian J. White as Evan Lancaster
Ambitions/OWN
And what is Stephanie doing while all of this is going on? She runs by her mom—and dad's—house real quick to vent about not feeling appreciated by her father. Her mom basically co-signs by admitting that she wishes there had been "less Stephen and more Irene" in the marriage.
What does Stephanie get out of her mom's pearls of wisdom? Apparently to be reckless because she texts Titus. And who ends up reading it (how come no one seems to wake up when their partner uses their finger to unlock their phone?!)? You already know. Stephanie's ex-bestie and soror sister, Amara.
After what seems like a pretty long night for everyone, Evan and Stephanie begin a new day at their dining room table. It's weird because although they don't seem to be in love, they do seem to be genuine friends; at least up to a certain point. For most of the meal, things seem cordial, endearing even at times, until Evan gets up to leave and Stephanie says, "You've been putting in a lot of late nights lately. I'm not the only one who's been noticing" to which Evan replies, "You mean Saturday night? The same night you put a gun to my head?" (Checkmate.) Stephanie ignores his question and simply warns him not to disrespect her. Umm, I guess she means, anymore.
Evan, Stephanie & Amara
Essence Atkins as Amara
OWN
With political power comes enemies and Evan's got plenty of them. One is a man by the name of Councilman Kent Hamilton. As a prosecutor for the Department of Justice, Amara goes to meet with the councilman to see what he knows about certain shady dealings involving the mayor. He tells her that if she wants the dirt on Evan, she should—and I quote—"Talk to his mistress." Evan's mistress, that is. Messy, messy. No wonder Inez (Bella's mom) keeps trying to get her daughter to end her affair.
Back at Evan's office, he's just receiving the news about what happened at Thelma's Place. In between flirting with a blonde there (how many mistresses does he have? Hmm…) and planning his day, he finds the time to head off to see how he can help. Or further mess things up. It all depends on how you look at it, I guess. Once Evan arrives and he hears what went down, although Rondell is convinced that Greg Peters was behind the attack, Evan doesn't agree. He's right to think that. We'll come back to this in just a moment.
Lawd, lawd. Stephanie and Amara. Is it a shocker that, as Stephanie is hoping to meet up with Titus for lunch, Amara is who shows up? Oh, how I adore the subtle nuances of Black television shows. As Amara reminds Stephanie who Titus belongs to ("Who's fighting? Titus is mine.") Stephanie calmly claps back with "What is this? The old Brandy and Monica song?" (#cute) They go back and forth about who betrayed whom, then Amara lays down the law about Stephanie needing to keep her text fingers—and everything else—to herself. Good luck with that, sis.
Bella, Rondell & Evan
It's the middle of the day by now and, of course, Bella's out doing something for Bella. This time, it's a photo shoot for her fashion line Bella True. Problem is, she's in the park without a learning permit, so a cop is giving her a hard time about it. She calls Evan to handle it but—surprise, surprise—as the mayor of Atlanta and not her husband, he's tied up. She does the next best thing and uses Roderick's clout to help her out.
At the restaurant, Rondell is flirting with Councilman Hamilton who happens to just "drop by". Yep, the same guy who told Amara that Evan is cheating on Stephanie is who's winking at Evan's sister. Since he's over Rondell's mama's restaurant (district-wise), he works with her to come up with a plan to keep gentrification at bay. It doesn't seem like anyone on this show has pure intentions, though so, we'll see what he really wants. Other than to get underneath Evan's skin and a piece of Rondell's pie. (Take that how you will.)
The anger that Evan has towards Bella, he takes out on his in-laws. He believes that his father-in-law, Stephen, is the one who sent the goon to the restaurant but—gasp!—it is actually his mother-in-law, Irene. Her motive? To pressure Rondell to sell. Ugly.
I'm not sure when Stephanie actually does her job because after lunch, a man by the name of Nick comes into her office to let her know that he's got some dirt on Mr. and Mrs. Hughes. Actually, only Amara. Now Stephanie knows that Amara had an affair with her co-worker Damien Collins in the midst of getting a raise and promotion back when she was living in Birmingham. Ammo. BIG TIME.
Back to Bella. While she's thanking Roderick for helping her spoiled and entitled behind (I'm sorry. Did I say that out loud?), who shows up? Evan. Who's pissed to see her with Roderick? Evan. Who gets super-duper petty and invites Roderick to be a part of a city-wide campaign while not inviting Bella because she's not popular enough (yet)? Evan. Evan, Evan, Evan. Y'all know that Evan and Bella are not gonna end well…right?
I don't care if it's this season or five seasons from now, there's more passion than love between those two and too much passion without enough caring can get somebody humiliated or killed. Time will reveal.
After a long day's work (and dishing out vile threats), Amara comes home to Titus cooking. She lets him know that she met with Stephanie. Titus is still trying to convince the both of them that Stephanie won't be a problem. Denial is dangerous.
This episode closes out with Rondell asking the community to come together to join N.A.G—Neighbors Against Gentrification. Oh, and Evan bringing Bella's son—who calls him "Mr. Evan"—a toy. Only—dun, dun, dun, dun—the little boy is his son too. Chile, chile, chile.
Can I finally go to the bathroom now?
Catch up on all the intrigue of Ambitions every Tuesday night on OWN.
Adrian Marcel On Purpose, Sacrifice, And The 'Signs Of Life'
In this week's episode of xoMAN, host Kiara Walker talked with R&B artist Adrian Marcel, who opened up, full of heart and authenticity, about his personal evolution. He discussed his days transitioning from a young Bay Area singer on the come-up to becoming a grounded husband and father of four.
With honesty and introspection, Marcel reflected on how life, love, and loss have shaped the man he is today.
On ‘Life’s Subtle Signals’
Much of the conversation centered around purpose, sacrifice, and listening to life’s subtle signals. “I think that you really have to pay attention to the signs of life,” Marcel said. “Because as much as we need to make money, we are not necessarily on this Earth for that sole purpose, you know what I mean?” While he acknowledged his ambitions, adding, “that is not me saying at all I’m not trying to ball out,” he emphasized that fulfillment goes deeper.
“We are here to be happy. We are here [to] fulfill a purpose that we are put on here for.”
On Passion vs. Survival
Adrian spoke candidly about the tension between passion and survival, describing how hardship can sometimes point us away from misaligned paths. “If you find it’s constantly hurting you… that’s telling you something. That’s telling you that you’re going outside of your purpose.”
Marcel’s path hasn’t been without detours. A promising athlete in his youth, he recalled, “Early on in my career, I was still doing sports… I was good… I had a scholarship.” An injury changed everything. “My femur broke. Hence why I always say, you know, I’m gonna keep you hip like a femur.” After the injury, he pivoted to explore other careers, including teaching and corporate jobs.
“It just did not get me—even with any success that happened in anything—those times, back then, I was so unhappy. And you know, to a different degree. Like not just like, ‘I really want to be a singer so that’s why I’m unhappy.’ Nah, it was like, it was not fulfilling me in any form or fashion.”
On Connection Between Pursuing Music & Fatherhood
He recalled performing old-school songs at age 12 to impress girls, then his father challenged him: “You can lie to these girls all you want, but you're really just lying to yourself. You ain't growing.” That push led him to the piano—and eventually, to his truth. “Music is my love,” Marcel affirmed. “I wouldn’t be a happy husband if I was here trying to do anything else just to appease her [his wife].”
Want more real talk from xoMAN? Catch the full audio episodes every Tuesday on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, and don’t miss the full video drops every Wednesday on YouTube. Hit follow, subscribe, and stay tapped in.
Featured image by xoNecole/YouTube
Sometimes I get asked the same question, often enough, that I’m like, “It’s time to address this on a larger platform,” — and for, whatever the reason, as of late, folks have been asking me what different sex acts mean.
No, not from the perspective of positions or techniques. What they’ve basically wanted to know is if making love, having sex, and f-cking are simply different words to describe the same thing or if there truly is something deeper with each one.
Let me start this off by saying that of course, to a certain extent, the answer is subjective because it’s mostly opinion-rather-than-fact driven. However, I personally think that sex is hella impactful, which is why I hope that my personal breakdown will at least cause you to want to think about what you do, who you do it with, and why, more than you may have in the past.
Because although, at the end of the day, the physical aspects of making love, having sex, and f-cking are very similar, you’d be amazed by how drastically different they are in other ways…at the very same time.
Making Love
Back when I wrote my first book, I wasn’t even 30 at the time and still, one of the things that I said in it is, I pretty much can’t stand the term “make love.” Way back then, I stated that sex between two people who truly love each other and are committed for the long haul, when it comes to what they do in the bedroom, it’s so much more about CELEBRATING love than MAKING it. To make means “to produce” or “to bring into existence;” to celebrate means “to commemorate,” “to perform” or “to have or participate in a party, drinking spree, or uninhibited good time.”
The act of sex, standing alone? It can’t make love happen and honestly, believing otherwise is how a lot of people find themselves getting…got.
What do I mean? Tell me how in the world, you meet a guy, talk to him for a few weeks, don’t even know his middle name or where he was born and yet somehow, you choose to call the first time you have sex with him (under those conditions) “making love.” You don’t love him. You don’t know him well enough to love him. He doesn’t love you either (for the same reason). And yet you’re making love? How sway? Oh, but let that sex be bomb and those oxytocin highs might have you tempted to think that’s what’s happening — and that is emotionally dangerous. And yes, I mean, literally.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times before, that one of the reasons why I like that the Bible defines sex between a husband and his wife is by using the word “know” (Genesis 4:1) is because, well, I think that is what celebrating love is all about — we know each other well enough to know that we love each other, we know each other well enough to know that we aren’t going anywhere, and that knowing is what makes us want to celebrate that union by getting as close to one another and bringing as much physical pleasure to each other as we possibly can…as often as absolutely possible.
To me, that is what the peak of physical intimacy is all about — and the people who choose to use the term “make love,” it should be seen through this type of lens. When this type of mental and emotional bond comes together via each other’s bodies, they are amplifying love, enjoying love, embracing love.
Making it, though? Chile, the love has already been made. Sex is just the icing on the cake.
Having Sex
A few nights ago, I found myself rewatching this movie called Four of Hearts (which you can currently view on yep, you guessed it: Tubi). It’s about two married couples — one that is in an open marriage and another that isn’t although they somehow thought that sharing a night with the other couple would be a good idea (chile). Anyway, as one of the partners found themselves getting low-key sprung, the one they fell for said in one of the scenes, “It wasn’t a connection. It was just sex.” JUST. SEX.
Listen, when you decide to let a man put an entire part of his body inside of you at the risk of potentially getting an STI/STD or pregnant (because no form of birth control is 100 percent except for abstinence), it can never be “just sex” (somebody really needed to hear that too). At the same time, though, I got the character’s point because, if one or both people do not love each other or even deeply care for one another and/or sex is treated as an activity more than an act to establish a worthwhile connection and/or you and the person you are sleeping with have not really discussed what you are expecting from sex besides the act itself — you’re definitely not making/celebrating love.
Not by a long shot. What can make things get a bit complicated, though, is you’re doing the same act that “love makers” do without the same mental and emotional ties…or (sometimes) expectations.
You know, back when I decided to put all of my business out there via the piece “14 Lessons I've Learned From 14 Sex Partners,” now more than ever, I am quite clear that most of those guys fell into the “having sex” category. I wasn’t in the type of relationship with them where “making love” even made sense; however, because I was friends with most of them, we weren’t exactly f-cking (which I will get to in just a moment) either. We had a connection of some sort for the bedroom yet not enough to be together in the other rooms of the house.
We were really attracted and curious, so we decided to act on that. Oftentimes, the sex was good and so we rationalized that “having sex” was enough because if the friendship was, eh, “sound enough”, that we could justify the physical pleasure.
And y’all, that’s kind of what having sex is — it’s the limbo (or purgatory, depending on your situation) between making love and f-cking. The thing about limbo ish is it’s a lot like something being lukewarm: it’s not really one thing or another which means that it can completely blindside you, if you’re not careful (and totally honest with yourself as well as your partner(s)).
So, if you are contemplating having sex, I really — REALLY — recommend that you figure out how you feel, what you want (outside of the act itself) and if you are prepared for what “not quites” can bring. My mother used to say that the consequences of sex don’t change just because the circumstances do — and there is some solid “wow” to that, if you really stop to think about it.
And finally, f-ck. Although most experts on the word (and yes, there are some) agree that its origin is rooted somewhere within the German language (although some say that it might’ve come from Middle English words like fyke or fike which mean “to move about restlessly” or the Norwegian word fukka which means “to copulate”), you might have also heard that it is an acronym that once stood for “Fornication Under Consent of the King”; and there is actually some data that is connected to that as well.
Legend has it that way back in the day, in order to keep reproduction rates where a particular king wanted them to be, he would instruct his residents to have sex with each other — whether they were married or not (hence, the word “fornication” being in the acronym). However, because sex outside of marriage was taken far more seriously at the time, residents had to apply for a permit to participate so that the king could determine if things like their occupation and lineage would prove to be beneficial for the kingdom overall. F-ck: no love; just necessity. And although some believe this to be more myth than fact, what is certain is it was only over time that f-ck was seen as a profane/swear/cuss word — a word that was perceived to be so offensive, in fact, that between the years 1795-1965, it didn’t even appear in dictionaries.
Personally, when I think of this four-letter word, the first thing that actually comes to my mind is animals. Take a dog being in heat, for instance. That’s basically when a female dog is ovulating and wants to have sex the most. It’s not because they are “in love” with another dog; they are simply doing what instinctively comes to them — and since animals do not reason or feel at the same capacity that humans do, although they science says that many of them do experience pleasure when they engage in their version of sexual activity, it’s not nearly as layered or even profound as what we experience.
Let’s keep going. Another reason why f-cking makes me think of animals is due to the doggy style position. Hear me out. Ain’t it wild how, most of us pretty much know that the term comes from how dogs have sex, even though most animals have sex that same way — and think about it: Doggy style doesn’t consist of making eye contact or kissing while having intercourse. It’s “hitting from behind” without much emotional energy or effort at all. Just how animals do it. And so, yeah, f-cking does seem to be more about pure animal — or in our case, mammal — instinct. I don’t need to feel anything for someone, so long as the sexual desire is there. Hmph.
Something else that I find to be interesting about f-cking is how dictionaries choose to define it. Many of them are going to provide you with two definitions: “to have sexual intercourse with” and “to treat unfairly or harshly (usually followed by over)” and that definitely makes me think of another term — casual sex and words that define casual like apathetic, careless and without serious or definite intention. So, the dictionary says that while f-cking is about having sexual intercourse — just like making love and having sex is — it goes a step further and says that it can include being treated unfairly or harshly.
And although that can make you think of assault on the surface, for sure — sometimes being treated unfairly or harshly is simply feeling like someone had sex AT you and not really WITH you; instinct (i.e., getting off) and that’s about it. Yeah, the way this puzzle is coming together, f-cking seems to be more about lust and self and not much else.
Now That You Know the Difference, What to Keep in Mind
Y’all, this is definitely the kind of topic that I could expound on until each and every cow comes home. That said, here’s hoping that I provided enough perspective on each act to close this out by encouraging you to keep the following three things to keep in mind:
1. Before you engage in copulation, be honest with yourself about what you’re ACTUALLY doing — and that your partner agrees with you. You know, they say that our brain is our biggest sex organ and honestly, breaking down the differences between making love, having sex and f-cking helps to prove that fact. I say that because, although the sex act itself is pretty much the same across the board, you and your partner’s mindset can make the experience completely different. That said, if you think that you are making love and they think y’all are just having sex — stuff can get pretty dicey. Bottom line: communicate in the bedroom before attempting to connect outside of it. It’s always worth it when you do.
2. Yes, you can feel one way and do something else. I can just about guess what some of y’all are on: Shellie, we can love our partner and still just want to f-ck. If what you are saying is you can emotionally love someone and physically lust them and want to act sometimes on the lust without really factoring in the love — yes, I agree. Doggy style continues to be a favorite sex position for people, in general, and I’m more than confident that many of the participants polled are in a serious relationship. However, having lust-filled sex with someone who you know loves you is vastly different than doing it with someone who you have no clue what they think about you or you barely know at all. Y’all, please just make sure that you know…what you should know. Sex is too amazing to have a lot of regret after it.
3. Have realistic expectations about sex. Listen, so much of my life consists of writing and talking about sex that I will be the first one to say that it deserves a ton of props for what it is able to do, in a wonderful way, for people mentally, emotionally and physically. Yet again, I’m not a fan of “make love” because something that feels really good doesn’t always mean that it is good for you. Meaning, you’ve got to be real about what sex with someone will do to your mind and spirit — not just what it will do for your body. An author by the name of Gabriel García Márquez once said, “Sex is the consolation you have when you can't have love.” For no one, should this be a constant norm. Feel me? I hope you do.
____
One act. Three very different experiences.
It’s kind of wild that sex has the ability to create that — and yet, clearly, it does.
Please just make sure that you know which experience you’re signing up for.
So that you’re having sex (you know, in general) instead of sex having you. Real talk.
Let’s make things inbox official! Sign up for the xoNecole newsletter for love, wellness, career, and exclusive content delivered straight to your inbox.
Featured image by Giphy