Nmaginate,

I wonder if they realize how consistently they convey nothing but disdain for black people?..it makes you wonder if they ever been around anybody worth a f-k that is black in their own personal lives......because even if I had their f-ked up view of black people, my family, close friends and the many examples of black excellence in this society would cause me to reconsider such a hateful, narrow-minded consistent general bias towards my own.....man that kind of behavior is a direct result of slavery and jim crow....their damaged psyche alone is a case for reparations......they really have been convinced that they are inferior to whites......wow......
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

A guy can't get mad when he dresses up like a fireman and stands by a firetruck, and someone asks him for help, can he?

You can interpret it how you want. It all makes perfect sense to me. If I seem to be standing more on the male side, I guess that's just the way it is.


There is a difference between a woman who sleeps with one or more men that she has more than a sexual relationship with, and, a woman who sleeps around ONLY for money, trophy-hunting, lack of self-esteem or other 'favours' - certainly, that does qualify as whorish behaviour. The same should apply equally to men.

UNLESS there is a double standard which suggests that it doesn't matter WHY a guy sleeps around any excuse is all fine, fabulous, never questioned, never criticized etc. That is being unequal and sexist.

BOTH men and women have the ability to make an individual, conscious choice how to behave.

I was not trying to be 'trick' with your fireman analogy, I just didn't understand it. I asked so I wouldn't misinterpret it.

I take it you are saying that people who act promiscuously deserve to be treated that way, as somehow inferior and less worthy. Unless, they are men.

I am not advocating promiscuity as a way of life, and I agree that they are putting themselves at personal risk.

But the next step with that is to say that women who dress provocatively (and isn't that open for interpretation) deserve to get raped. (I am NOT SAYING you believe that). Sorry but I don't buy into either argument or line of thinking.

I expect to treat people how they are when I meet them and in that context and not make assumptions. I prefer to make up my own mind. People should never be judged, period. But more importantly, people should never be judged for their actions purely from: gossip, assumption; based only on past behaviour not current; because it's likely they have evolved or grown.

Why have a prison system or rehabilitation if everyone supposedly never changes or evolves or gains insight or self-evaluates? Some people don't change but lots of people do.

The issue I have with dialog that contains words such as 'should' and 'judging' and what's considered 'right' or 'wrong' is that no there is no absolute one-size-fits-all same 'right and wrong solution' guaranteed to be relevant for every person, in every situation, in every culture, to suit every stage of people's lives.

In other words, my philosophy is to give everybody the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
My problem is this:

When someone typically calls a woman a whore/ho/slut, it is NOT because they have seen 10 men approach her and know that she slept with 5 of them or whatever other scenario. They usually have no idea of the "whore"'s sexual history or motivations. They are not in her bedroom to know who exactly she is sleeping with and they are not in her head to know what her motivations are. It's not based on any scientific or even remotely accurate and uniform method of observation and determination. It's a plain old misogynist diss used to put women in their place that is so prevalant that women have taken to using it against each other. It's a loaded word who's modern day usage has very little to do with any dictionary definition.

Men are not out there shagging everything that moves in some sort of primal effort to reproduce. They like sex and it's socially acceptable for them to express that and pursue that without having strangers sit in judgement of their moral fiber. Furthermore, men being called studs (usually by other men) is just another way for males to find a bullshit reason to pat each other on the back. Women know that there are plenty of "studs" who's "game" is weak and who's skills are wack, but since he's attractive, women will always want to sleep with him. It's got nothing to do with any sort of skill or achievement on his part. Men generally have no idea why women choose to sleep with them. They just assume that they are so irresistably smooth. Puhleaze! Half the time we decide that before you even open your mouth. cool



DING! WE HAVE A WINNER! I agree with you on your quote, Frenchy. Yes, women decide to sleep with men before the men knows. I know you and plenty of other women are going to hate me for saying this, but...men don't care. We don't care. A win is a win. A "W" is a "W". If sex was the Super Bowl, you don't care if you lead at the end of the game by 12 touchdowns or a single field goal. As long as you win (i.e. "score"), it doesn't matter.

Having said that, this is one reason why this double standard exists. Why a woman knows or decides to sleep with a man before he knows he's going to get some? Because women are taught when they are little girls (either by parents/relatives or society) to say NO to sex...unless you're in love.

Men on the other hand are taught as boys to always say YES to sex. Unless the woman is a relative, underage or has a terminal STD, NEVER ever turn it down.

Therefore, when a person whose taught to say YES to sex (i.e. man) sleeps with a person whose taught to say NO to sex (i.e. woman), it's an accomplishment. It's a "bullshit reason to pat each other on the back", but a reason nonetheless. Whether she picked him or he picked her is irrelavant. If he got some...Mission Accomplished. If he didn't...work on your dismount, buddy.

Now vice versa, if one who says NO gets with one who says YES...unless the guy is a multi-millionaire/billionaire pro athlete, entertainer or the President, what is there for her to brag about, outside of clairvoyance? Confused

What's so weird about this thread is that no one has ever talked about the flip side of the double standard of sex---celibacy.

Although a woman with multiple partners is called a "ho", but if she's a virgin or celibate, she's called a "virtuous woman" or a woman with good morals. HOWEVER, for men it's different: A man with multiple sex partners is a "stud", but if a man is a virgin or celibate...is he called a "virtuous man?" No way! Unless that celibate/virginal man is super-religious, he's called an idiot by both sexes. So much for that moral fiber.

In other words, that social acceptance for men to explore and sow their wild sexual oats is immediately a punch in the gut if he's not sexually active enough by society's standards.

The #1 movie in America this week is "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," about a guy who's well...the title's self-explanatory. If that 40 year old virgin was a woman instead of a man, would it still be considered funny?
quote:
Well, maybe she is "good"... but I can hardly think of anyone else (besides Jessie Lee, Armstrong, etc.) who are the biggest BUFFOONS and proud (insert your favorite "sell-out" term here) if there ever were any.

I mean, damn... I only know only some of the dumbest White people who would feel okay referencing Star Parker. Star Parker???



NMAGINATE:

You have the biggest case of "I hate my enemy more than I love myself/my people" that I have ever witnessed.

It appears that the main point of discredit to Star Parker is the fact that White folks reference her?

I wonder if the real reason that you don't like her, and I DOUBT THAT YOU HAVE EVER HEARD HER VIEWS IN DETAIL, is that she attempts to keep the FOCUS ON BLACK PEOPLE AND OUR BEHAVIOR, HOPING THAT IF WE CHANGE THIS BEHAVIOR BETTER OUTCOMES WILL BE HAD.

It is funny how this ENTIRE THREAD is what Star Parker has been talking about for the longest but in your UNCLE TOM ways you seek to take the legs from under the highly credible message that she puts forth.

But I know that if Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton talked about "promiscuity" that you would suck it up, despite they BOTH supposedly being Preachers of the word of God and both having problems with marital infidelity, a violation of the contract that they took with respect to the convenants of GOD who they were charged to represent in their calling.

That's OK NMAGINATE I am begging to see clearly where your limitations limit you.

*******

You ever notice how some political hacks have you to take a person's message in whole with how they have attempted to paint a person?

Rather than respecting YOUR INTELLIGENCE and giving you credit that you will be able to listen to someone you disagree with, accepting what you believe is in accord with your beliefs and rejecting what you disagree with - THEY instead seek to paint a chracterization of this person and desire for you to reject anything that this person says in whole.

This is nothing more than GROUP THINK and it is enforced by the ATTACK SHEEP DOGS who wish punish the wayward sheep who dare to think for themselves and thus are wavering.
quote:
You have the biggest case of "I hate my enemy more than I love myself/my people" that I have ever witnessed.

It appears that the main point of discredit to Star Parker is the fact that White folks reference her?
Damn dude... I'm glad I don't have time to respond to this.

First you say some UNFOUNDED bullshit... (something you haven't even demonstrated by your own logic/reasoning)...

Then you say some more of that "IT SEEMS", "IT APPEARS" bullshit. NO! Dumbass! The "main" point of discredit is Star Parker's obvious fake ass posture in the company of the Whites THAT SUPPORT HER and PROP HER UP.

The fact that I said that (about her support and White PROPPING) and you ran with the silly White posters (I was referencing) who reference her just proves that you have no concept of what a "main" point is or really think you can get away with STRAW MAN arguments.

CF... When you say stupid stuff like that, you would be better serve by STFU!!

Sorry, but when it comes to people who are real and those who are FAKE... I'm gonna call the FAKE ones out everyday. And Star Parker is the most blantantly FAKE mf out there. Again, look at who I compared here to: JESSE LEE PETERSON "The BUFFOON In Chief".

Now there are plenty other Black Republicans/Black CONservatives I can respect as people who honestly hold the positions they do and do so from a principled position.

Right here on this forum I have more or less defended Wayne Perryman... So you can chill with all that canned bullshit talking about GROUP THINK... And please...

quote:
But I know that if Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton talked about "promiscuity" that you would suck it up, despite they BOTH supposedly being Preachers of the word of God and both having problems with marital infidelity...
CF, this forum has a very good search function. SEEK and Ye Shall FIND...

I've already told you Jesse and Al are not within my ideological camp. Please, TRY DUMB AGAIN.

There have been recent threads on Al and you have not seen me do anything of the such. Don't presume I'd do or say anything. REFERENCE where I actually have. If it's true, what you say, then it shouldn't be that hard. But since you haven't and you CAN'T then...

Here is a thread on Al and somehow I didn't show up at all. How could I ever do that to Al:
http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/7561022313
CF....you specialize in saying things you cannot substantiate and then retreat like a little weasel when asked to justify your stance along logical lines.....like when you tried to call out Nmaginate on the basis of INTENTIONS versus RESULTS in the other thread.....I used that comparison of YOURS to frame a question about you blkCON anti-AA types and you could not even answer....you did not even try to respond and just ran from the questions all together? And you wonder why you get NO respect for your selective aggressiveness? Because it is just that...selective and only assertive when you THINK you have a point of contention.......that is a sorry azzed style of communicating indeed........it really is....
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
Unless the woman is a relative, underage or has a terminal STD, NEVER ever turn it down.

Big Grin yup, male philosophy

quote:
if she's a virgin or celibate, she's called a "virtuous woman" or a woman with good morals. HOWEVER, for men it's different: A man with multiple sex partners is a "stud", but if a man is a virgin or celibate...is he called a "virtuous man?" No way! Unless that celibate/virginal man is super-religious, he's called an idiot by both sexes. So much for that moral fiber.

yep, you are spot on there. Don't ya just hate double standards?

quote:
The #1 movie in America this week is "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," about a guy who's well...the title's self-explanatory.

is anyone really going to see this? Eek
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
Unless the woman is a relative, underage or has a terminal STD, NEVER ever turn it down.

Big Grin yup, male philosophy

I also should've added "so ugly that she makes your eyes burn" Razz

quote:
if she's a virgin or celibate, she's called a "virtuous woman" or a woman with good morals. HOWEVER, for men it's different: A man with multiple sex partners is a "stud", but if a man is a virgin or celibate...is he called a "virtuous man?" No way! Unless that celibate/virginal man is super-religious, he's called an idiot by both sexes. So much for that moral fiber.

yep, you are spot on there. Don't ya just hate double standards?
art_gurl, save your sarcasm. You know full well double standards work just like racial profiling...as long as the people being profiled don't look like you, everything is okay.

quote:
The #1 movie in America this week is "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," about a guy who's well...the title's self-explanatory.

is anyone really going to see this? Eek


Somebody had to see it, in order for it to make $21 million this weekend.
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

Have you lost your damn mind?

I guess difference of opinion just up jumped the boogie on this one.



Dear SistahSouljah,

Please forgive me for the personal comments I made towards you in an earlier post on this topic. It was just a difference of opinion as you said and I should not have worded my reply in a personal way.

The whole response, directed at you the way I did was thoughtless of me. It is a problem I have in taking some of these topics personally when all they are is just a difference of opinion.

I apologize sincerely for any hurt I may have caused you and again ask for your forgiveness.

PC
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
Unless the woman is a relative, underage or has a terminal STD, NEVER ever turn it down.

Big Grin yup, male philosophy

quote:
if she's a virgin or celibate, she's called a "virtuous woman" or a woman with good morals. HOWEVER, for men it's different: A man with multiple sex partners is a "stud", but if a man is a virgin or celibate...is he called a "virtuous man?" No way! Unless that celibate/virginal man is super-religious, he's called an idiot by both sexes. So much for that moral fiber.

yep, you are spot on there. Don't ya just hate double standards?

quote:
The #1 movie in America this week is "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," about a guy who's well...the title's self-explanatory.

is anyone really going to see this? Eek

I think that these are still gross generalizations. I never had the experience of being labeled an idiot by anyone for being a virgin well into my twenties. The only really bizarre incident was when I was working on my masters and got a rash. I went to the clinic and the attending physician asked me about my sexual activity. I told him I was not sexually active. He said, "well, I meant over the last several months." I responded, "well, I meant never." It took him a while to recover. Wink. Now, it is true that I do come from a conservative Christian background, as well as not being particularly susceptible to a lot of peer pressure. Yet even now that I have outgrown those roots, I still don't understand the all but "relative, underage, has a terminal STD, or 'so ugly that she makes your eyes burn'" mentality.
"It's been two weeks since Figueroa went missing, yet her story hasn't garnered nearly half of the national spotlight captured by Holloway, Peterson, Lori Hacking or Jennifer Milbanks in the days following their respective disappearances. A story about Figueroa, a 24-year-old mother from Philadelphia, appeared on CNN for the first time nearly 10 days after she was reported missing. A recent check of transcripts of the cable network's "Larry King Live" talk show found at least 10 episodes in which Holloway was the primary story, an average of one night a week since the girl's May 30 disappearance."

"It's not yet known what exactly has happened to Figueroa, a single mother of a seven-year-old girl. On the day she went missing, Figueroa had an appointment with her obstetrician to check the health of her five-month-old fetus. Stephen Pouche, the unborn child's father and Figueroa's reported boyfriend, accompanied her to the doctor's office. While not identified as a suspect, Pouche is considered by Philadelphia police to be the last person to see Figueroa."

*******************************

"Although this case has been bullied onto the national news to prove a point about race and media by political opportunists like Richard Cranium, it never was a case about a missing woman and is not national news. There is nothing particularly unusual about this case. She is an inner-city African-American/Latino woman, living a more than unconventional lifestyle in a high crime area, and now she's missing--big surprise. Furthermore, this story is hurtful to minorities because it has done nothing other than to reinfornce negative stereotypes: (1) LaToyia's father and other relatives are barely literate; (2) LaToyia's best friend said: "She coulda been snatched up by anybody, or one of her baby's fathas, or some guy she's messin wit" (rolling eyes); and (3) rather than save up more money, LaToyia and Baby Fatha No. 2 took their money and bought fried seafood rather than pay the $35 co-pay for prenatal care.

The Natalee Holloway case is national news. She is a beautiful young woman, with a full scholarship to the University of Alabama, who disappears on what would otherwise be a dream vacation to an island resort with the lowest crime rate in the world. Big, big difference, in every respect. I hope LaToyia returns home safely, although I doubt it. In the end, however, we should not have to have our national news littered with this story. I assure you the end result will only cause more embarassment and humiliation, and it's clear that national news anchors are annoyed by having to cover this story because they too, of course, realize it's not national news. Wise up Cranium, this isn't about you and your outdated political agenda".......

........."Now, I will repeat the salient points. The majority of America is interested in the Natalee Holloway story for several reasons. First, Aruba happens to be a favorite vacation resort for tens of thousands of Americans, every year, and one of the reasons is that it historically has a very low crime rate. Second, Natalee is a beautiful young girl with her entire life ahead of her--one filled with promise as evidenced by her full scholarship to college.

By contrast, LaToyia's life was already in ruin. She was working on her second illegitimate kid. She was irresponsible with her money, as evidenced by the fact that her and Baby Fatha No. 2 didn't even have $35 between them to satisfy the insurance co-pay for prenatal care. And, what did they do with the money they did have on them that day?--they went out and bought some greasy seafood lunch. This is pure savagery. This is also the reason why 80% of the American public consider her life to be anathema to proper living and are annoyed that their news is interrupted and littered by the LaToyia case. You can see the obvious backlash, as LaToyia is barely covered now, if at all, while Natalee continues to receive the coverage she deserves. Finally, LaToyia would not have received any coverage at all if her cousin was not a city council member, and if her uncle were not a city detective. This is what makes the LaToyia case an even bigger hypocrisy since all of the whining bloggers were using her as a martyr to make statements about favoritism in the media.

In the end, this was yet another tactical error, not unlike the recent NARAL ad that was pulled, by minorities and liberal bedwetters who can't get acceptance of their unpopular positions and causes through any other means than whining."



************************************

"Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second "out of wedlock" child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

"It is very possible that her own promiscuity may have contributed to her present situation."


******************************

....and as surmised her boyfriend killed her!

The Same Story from the Black Perspective!
So Michael, are you saying that because Latoiya Figueroa was born a black Latina, lived in a poor neighborhood, had two children OOW, and had a mother who died violently and taken away from her, DESERVED to be killed under those circumstances?
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
So Michael, are you saying that because Latoiya Figueroa was born a black Latina, lived in a poor neighborhood, had two children OOW, and had a mother who died violently and taken away from her, DESERVED to be killed under those circumstances?
by Huey

********************************************
Well Huey, and/or anyone else of similar expression.

......These must be your sentiments, because I have yet to say that she deserved to be murdered.

Her life style on the other hand, of not setting higher standards for her self, being promiscuous, etc., etc., contributed to her situation.

Had she lived, having two illegitimate children out of wedlock, without a responsible father to provide for the children increases the chance of the mother being on social welfare, remaining in poverty, etc., etc.

In addition, she would not be considered equal to other women who marry, have children after being married, and/or who set moral standards for themselves.

***********

"Although this case has been bullied onto the national news to prove a point about race and media by political opportunists like Richard Cranium, it never was a case about a missing woman and is not national news. There is nothing particularly unusual about this case. She is an inner-city African-American/Latino woman, living a more than unconventional lifestyle in a high crime area, and now she's missing--big surprise. Furthermore, this story is hurtful to minorities because it has done nothing other than to reinfornce negative stereotypes: (1) LaToyia's father and other relatives are barely literate; (2) LaToyia's best friend said: "She coulda been snatched up by anybody, or one of her baby's fathas, or some guy she's messin wit" (rolling eyes); and (3) rather than save up more money, LaToyia and Baby Fatha No. 2 took their money and bought fried seafood rather than pay the $35 co-pay for prenatal care.

The Natalee Holloway case is national news. She is a beautiful young woman, with a full scholarship to the University of Alabama, who disappears on what would otherwise be a dream vacation to an island resort with the lowest crime rate in the world. Big, big difference, in every respect. I hope LaToyia returns home safely, although I doubt it. In the end, however, we should not have to have our national news littered with this story. I assure you the end result will only cause more embarassment and humiliation, and it's clear that national news anchors are annoyed by having to cover this story because they too, of course, realize it's not national news. Wise up Cranium, this isn't about you and your outdated political agenda".......

........."Now, I will repeat the salient points. The majority of America is interested in the Natalee Holloway story for several reasons. First, Aruba happens to be a favorite vacation resort for tens of thousands of Americans, every year, and one of the reasons is that it historically has a very low crime rate. Second, Natalee is a beautiful young girl with her entire life ahead of her--one filled with promise as evidenced by her full scholarship to college.

By contrast, LaToyia's life was already in ruin. She was working on her second illegitimate kid. She was irresponsible with her money, as evidenced by the fact that her and Baby Fatha No. 2 didn't even have $35 between them to satisfy the insurance co-pay for prenatal care. And, what did they do with the money they did have on them that day?--they went out and bought some greasy seafood lunch. This is pure savagery. This is also the reason why 80% of the American public consider her life to be anathema to proper living and are annoyed that their news is interrupted and littered by the LaToyia case. You can see the obvious backlash, as LaToyia is barely covered now, if at all, while Natalee continues to receive the coverage she deserves. Finally, LaToyia would not have received any coverage at all if her cousin was not a city council member, and if her uncle were not a city detective. This is what makes the LaToyia case an even bigger hypocrisy since all of the whining bloggers were using her as a martyr to make statements about favoritism in the media.

In the end, this was yet another tactical error, not unlike the recent NARAL ad that was pulled, by minorities and liberal bedwetters who can't get acceptance of their unpopular positions and causes through any other means than whining."
Nevertheless, because the late Latoyia Figueroa lived in a much more harsh environment than the missing Natalee Holloway, you believe (according to your highlighted "quotes") that Latoyia isn't worthy of the amount of airtime of someone finding her, compared to Natalee, which a shame. Yes, Natalee is young and has a huge future, but also does Latoyia and even moreso, her unborn child. sad
First let me start off by saying that I am and have been a monogamous brother before and after marriage and do believe that socially there is a double standard. Secondly, that having been said, biologically, the double stand makes mathematical sense, if, and only if, one assume the primary purpose of life is perpetuation of the bloodline.

Mathematically speaking, a promiscuous man can create more offspring in a year's time than can a promiscuous woman. Women are much more valuable in nature than are men. If you want to kill off a people, you will gain more success by killing off the women, than by killing off the men, because men are expendable because of their ability to fertilize many eggs in a short period of time.

Say there are two villages, A and B, of 200 people each, evenly divided between females and males. Now suppose that calamity struck the two villages leaving village "A" with 100 women and one man and village "B" with 100 men and one woman. In 100 years, which village will have multiplied faster? The village with 1 woman, "B", is likely decimated, no matter how promiscuous the lady. Most of the men have died off, as well as the one lady, leaving the village composed of only her children and grand children. However, based upon the virility and promiscuity of the 1 man left in the village "A" with 100 women, the population would have fully recovered is losses and likely have many more than before, with many families.

I believe that biologically, men are predisposed to promiscuity as a species survival mechanism. It does not seem to make sense unless a population is under stress or extinction threat, but it is still our biological programming to ensure or species survival if and when such stress manifest. Strength is the ability to manifest control and male promiscuity today is born from our inability to control our biological instincts, as well as, the behavior being rewarded by females.

I believe that the majority of women are attracted to the "ladies man". If a man got a reputation of being "good in bed", born from promiscuity, many women will covet such a man, whether she acts on it or not. That is not to say that a man is not attracted to a women who is "good in bed", its simply that most men will not want to marry a women who done got good via promiscuity, while many women will [marry] such a man, thinking she can reform him and keep him to herself. In short, women reward promiscuous behavior in men, because if they did not, men would be much less promiscuous. For every buyer there is a seller. If one wants to cut down on the number of sellers of promiscuity, you would need to first cut down the number of buyers of it.

Biologically speaking, there are differences between man and women that should translate to different standards and expectation socially. Men and women are inherently biologically unequal, not intellectually but physically, and attempts to force a social equality will only disrupt nature's intentions and disturb equilibrium. Women are the most valuable and most high in nature. If women simply realized this....and used the power born from that fact for their collective unity and interest, things would be much better for women. However, when women try to use the less valuable and more expendable male behavior as the benchmark that women should strive for equality with, it lowers humanity and causes confusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:

In the end, however, we should not have to have our national news littered with this story. I assure you the end result will only cause more embarassment and humiliation, and it's clear that national news anchors are annoyed by having to cover this story because they too, of course, realize it's not national news.



Michael,

I am personally outraged that you would have the nerve, that you would dare to post anything on this topic. And you post it to promote the same old sanctimonious song you've been singing since you learned to talk. You use this topic to malign the lives of African Americans. Have you no shame, none whatsoever?

You are the author of the two quotes used to start this topic, the two quotes that you have highlighted here.

Exactly four minutes after this topic was posted, Faheem asked,

"Where did you pull these quotes from?"

You read Faheem's question and the original post repeatedly.

Where were you then??????????????????????????????


You didn't have the courage, did not have an ounce of courage to identify yourself as the author of the quotes. Even after the question was asked, someone else had to identify you.

And a day later, after SistahSouljah identified you, still you said nothing. A week later, still nothing. Now, when you believe it is opportune, you have the nerve to use the death of a young women to advance your same old tired disquisition.

But even now in your two recent posts you don't identify yourself as the author of the quotes. Instead, you link the quotes to the original article posted on another topic.

And you speak of hypocrisy in the media and whining bloggers! Your only interest in Latoyia Figueroa is the advancement of your own sick agenda. You haven't a single ounce of compassion, not a single tear for Latoyia Figueroa or her family.

You are a hypocritical, despicable coward! A despicable coward who uses the tragic death of a young mother and her unborn baby to profane the lives of Black Americans.

Any dialogue I have had with you... if you can call it that, is done, finished, over! Now and forever.


AfricanAmerica.org – Issues & Politics Pregnant Black Woman Missing; Where's the Laci Peterson-Like Coverage?

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/4531033213/p/1
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

Have you lost your damn mind?

I guess difference of opinion just up jumped the boogie on this one.



Dear SistahSouljah,

Please forgive me for the personal comments I made towards you in an earlier post on this topic. It was just a difference of opinion as you said and I should not have worded my reply in a personal way.

The whole response, directed at you the way I did was thoughtless of me. It is a problem I have in taking some of these topics personally when all they are is just a difference of opinion.

I apologize sincerely for any hurt I may have caused you and again ask for your forgiveness.

PC
.
.


You are very forgiven Popcorn, don't worry about it Sista, we're good. kiss
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

A guy can't get mad when he dresses up like a fireman and stands by a firetruck, and someone asks him for help, can he?

You can interpret it how you want. It all makes perfect sense to me. If I seem to be standing more on the male side, I guess that's just the way it is.


There is a difference between a woman who sleeps with one or more men that she has more than a sexual relationship with, and, a woman who sleeps around ONLY for money, trophy-hunting, lack of self-esteem or other 'favours' - certainly, that does qualify as whorish behaviour. The same should apply equally to men.

UNLESS there is a double standard which suggests that it doesn't matter WHY a guy sleeps around any excuse is all fine, fabulous, never questioned, never criticized etc. That is being unequal and sexist.

BOTH men and women have the ability to make an individual, conscious choice how to behave.

I was not trying to be 'trick' with your fireman analogy, I just didn't understand it. I asked so I wouldn't misinterpret it.

I take it you are saying that people who act promiscuously deserve to be treated that way, as somehow inferior and less worthy. Unless, they are men.

I am not advocating promiscuity as a way of life, and I agree that they are putting themselves at personal risk.

But the next step with that is to say that women who dress provocatively (and isn't that open for interpretation) deserve to get raped. (I am NOT SAYING you believe that). Sorry but I don't buy into either argument or line of thinking.

I expect to treat people how they are when I meet them and in that context and not make assumptions. I prefer to make up my own mind. People should never be judged, period. But more importantly, people should never be judged for their actions purely from: gossip, assumption; based only on past behaviour not current; because it's likely they have evolved or grown.

Why have a prison system or rehabilitation if everyone supposedly never changes or evolves or gains insight or self-evaluates? Some people don't change but lots of people do.

The issue I have with dialog that contains words such as 'should' and 'judging' and what's considered 'right' or 'wrong' is that no there is no absolute one-size-fits-all same 'right and wrong solution' guaranteed to be relevant for every person, in every situation, in every culture, to suit every stage of people's lives.

In other words, my philosophy is to give everybody the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.


While this topic is getting annoyingly repetitive, let me AGAIN attempt to clarify my point. Not that it will do any good.

I am not letting men off the hook either, if that is what you think. IMO a whore is a whore is a whore and I don't care if the gender is male, female, or alien.

That said, I believe neither men nor women should complain about being called names if they are engaging in that behavior. Can a person who killed 4,000 people in cold blood really complain about getting put to death? Gimme a break.

I am not talking about people who 'might be' or 'could be' promiscuous. This isn't about looking at someone and thinking they are one way or another. I'm talking about people who ARE. Whether that is proven to me personally is besides the point. I don't just go around calling people names.

No one deserves to be raped. If a woman dresses provocatively and teases men, she should not be surprised at a negative response. That doesn't make it right, but that's just the way things go.

I believe, as my faith teaches, that some people ARE better than others. This isn't determined by gender so if you think I'm giving all men a pass, you are wrong. God judges by righteousness. The person who obeys Him and refrains from the forbidden things is more worthy than the person who doesn't. I don't make the rules, and I don't have a problem with them.

So many people expect men to be promiscuous anyway, so why are y'all acting so shocked that they are NOT being called names as frequently as women?? This isn't about equalizing name calling. It's about morality, and as I've said a million times, don't do the bad shit so you won't be mad when you get hit! It's not difficult and I'm damned tired of this topic. People are gonna do what they are gonna do, women are still gonna be called whores more than men, so what??? What are you gonna do about it? Everybody's always complaining about guys screwing up, but yeah, who's talking about the mistakes women are making? It's not equal in more ways than one, and dammit I'm sick of the automatic expection that I should be standing up for all women and fighting for the cause...fuck that! I'm not going to defend a promiscuous woman just 'cuz we both have vaginas! And as far as promiscuous men, the nasty bastards need to learn how to keep their dicks in their pants!

Am I sticking up for men more than women? No. Why not? Well for your info, I just found out that the father of my unborn child has two other kids on the way too. So I'm pissed, this shit is ridiculous, and I shouldn't be attacked for having this opinion. While y'all are worried about making things equal, I want the shit to get cut out, period. Why don't you get to the damn root instead of beating around the bush.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×