There was an unexpected issue forwarding you to "Twitter" for authentication. Please try again later.
×
.
"Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

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



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


Have you ever noticed that these two word, "promiscuity" and "promiscuous" are almost exclusively applied to women?

How come?

Do you ever remember hearing a man called "promiscuous"?

The words, an adjective and a noun, are NOT gender specific. How come they always refer to women?

I mean, an unmarried man can screw his way across the continent but these two words will never apply to him. He'll be called a "stud" or a "ladies man" and his friends and family will wink at each other and kid him about it. He may even strut around and brag to his buddies about all his "conquests" and make cruel jokes about the women he has slept with.

Oh, but for an unmarried women, the story is altogether different. If an unmarried women has even a single sexual relationship, just one and it becomes known, she's runs the risk of being called "promiscuous" or "easy" or something even worse. She is morally condemned and her condition is a "moral consequence" of her behavior.

So, I'm just wondering, what kind of double standard is this? Really, what the hell kind of double standard is this?

And as the writer of the quotations shows, people use pregnancy as evidence of a women's promiscuity. But isn't it funny that if a man could get pregnant every time he had a sexual encounter, half the men in this country would have twenty kids, at least. I wonder if men would be called "promiscuous" then.

And for women, it's the same old history, the same old double standard, the same old moral condemnation , the same old culture of exclusion. She's promiscuous and her own promiscuity has "contributed to her present situation."

I'll give the writer of the quotations a pass; he's just being thoughtless and inconsiderate. And in most cases, when these words are applied to women, it is just someone being thoughtless or inconsiderate.

But sometimes it's deliberate with the intention to hurt, and the effect can damage a women's self-esteem, her self-worth, her value as a person. They're scornful, demeaning, hurtful words.

So, if you thoughtlessly use these words to describe women, there is penance to be done. You must listen to Chaka Khan singing the words of "Beautiful" five times.

And if you intentionally use these words to diminish the value of women, try to remember all of the women who have made your life worthwhile; a mother, sister, grandmother; an aunt, cousin, or friend; a lover, wife, a daughter.
.
.
Original Post
quote:
Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

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



Where did you pull these qoutes from?
Promiscuous:

ADJECTIVE:

" 1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.
4. Consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused: "Throngs promiscuous strew the level green" (Alexander Pope).
Promiscuous"

___________________________________________

So considering that the majority of 'single mothers' are not
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.,

then, unless we know that to be a fact for a particular 'single mother,' evidently the sexist blanket label does not cover all single mothers, and maybe not even the mother mentioned in the article.
But what makes it so bad is that just like racism, it is the people that stand to suffer the most from the it (labeling) that often do the most of it; as in it is often women (usually priamrily) women that spread such labels onto other women and mold their son's minds to view women in that light, even though, the term,and the perception was surely started my men (most likely of the 'cloth') as a psychological tool to control the female populations.

The truth is, that most single mothers have known and been in a relationship with their child's father for some time before becoming pregnant (although I know that is not always the case), and there are just as many "promiscuious" women in this world that do not have children or were married before they ever gave birth to a child as there are those who happen to be single mothers. Ignorance like this contributes to the rate of teenage pregnancies more than any other thing, in that, the teenager knows that she is not promiscuious, therefore, believes that surely she will not get pregnant like those 'you know what kind' of girls/women.
Promiscuity has very little to do with getting pregant. A virgin can become preganant the first time she has sex and a street walking $10.00 whore can never become pregnant; one girl will get pregnant, while another girl will get lucky, one girl's hormones may not be balanced out yet, while another girl's may; one guy may be shooting blanks, while another guy may not; and numerous other variables. It does not merely boil down to something as neatly packaged as promiscuity. Bestowing that label onto women only and onte single mothers in particular is sheer ignorance and sexism.
This so-called writer has confused ethics and is acting as judge rather than journalist.

Sex is an irresistibly interesting topic for most of us, and stories about other people's sexual adventures, and misadventures, are interesting.

BUT

People who are so judgemental about other people's sexual behaviour, would do well look inside themeslves for an explanation of why they are so keen to 'put the boot in'.

By offering a judgement about some else's life decisions damages the reputation of the victim.

'Opinions' (slander) such as this hardly comes from a state of moral mindfulness.
td6
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
quote:
Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

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




Where did you pull these qoutes from?


Those were from AA.org's one and only Michael Lofton...he's in that group of Negroes on your avatar.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:

Promiscuous



I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the idea of the post altogether. It was not about pregnant mothers or single mothers, although pregnancy was used as supportive material. Forgive the double meaning.

It was about a double standard that exists in our society and is used almost exclusively to demean women. I used the words "promiscuity" and "promiscuous" but there are many other examples and many other words I could have used to illistrate this double standard.

I don't know what gender you are but I'll guess from your name that you're a women. Regardless of that, a women is never a "whore", not in the dirty, filthy, demeaning way this word has come to be used in our culture.... no matter what the circumstances.

Have you ever heard a man called a "whore"? Of course not! It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Even though a man may behave in the same careless manner, it is another term applied exclusively, and meant to demean women. That it sounds so rediculous is a measure of the extent to which this double standard has become ingrained worldwide. And applying it to women while giving men a pass is EXACTLY what I meant. If you don't see that, you're blind and need some serious reprogramming.

Woman or not, I resent your use of the word!
.
.
Popcorn - I knew you were a woman!!!

I agree with you 100%.

For every "single woman" there is a man who is, IN MANY CASES, disconnected from his children.

First let me say that there is no way to get around the fact that the woman is the mother of all children (until technology screws this all up) and as a result she is going to have the child grow inside her regardless of what the man does.

With tht being the case the woman needs to realize the facts of nature and be careful about what she engages in with the sperm donor with slick tongue.

At the same time it is the Black Male who must be taught the concept of respect and protection of the Black woman or we collapse as a people.

You wouldn't believe the number of times that I talk about the critical need of men to not disrespect Black women by calling them out of their name or when I point to the IGNORANT lyrics of some SAMBO entertainer that young Black males will fire back that THESE PEOPLE ARE ONLY TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WOMEN THAT THEY RUN INTO (ie: Mike Jones' song).

Sadly these same people are the main ones chasing after "White Racism" for the BENEFIT of Black people YET THEY CAN'T EVEN FIND IN THEMSELVES A WAY TO SHOW RESPECT FOR A BLACK WOMAN WHO DOES NOT HAVE IT FOR HERSELF. When they have a chance to show "love" for Black people beyond their rhetoric they fail misrably.

Malcolm X in his Autobiography talked about how after he gained power women would thrown themselves at him as women are attracted to men of power. In his disciplined state he felt pitty for them in their unconscious state and suggested that they attend the local mosque to learn about themselves.

Today we have too many men seeking tactile pleasure on tip of their penis rather than living in accord to some greater cultural framework. (Kevin - how is your communalism simply an issue of money rather than other issues that represent the 'common interest'?)
I disagree with the ˜whore' statement.

IMHO, if you are disgustingly promiscuous (and I guess that's the only kind of promiscuity there is) and/or a prostitute, you are a whore. I have heard the term applied to males as well as females. I do not support usage of the term in unecessary situations, and I do realize there has been an overusage of it in music and the black community.

Yes, there is a double standard. I don't see why this is a surprise to anyone. When it boils down to it though, that's not the point. The answer is not to make the name calling equal between the sexes. NO ONE should get a pass for being promiscuous, and females should not be ˜let off the hook' or given an easier time about it. If a male, or in the more common case, a female, does not appreciate the name calling, maybe they should think twice about their behavior. No one is forcing these people (maybe with the exception of the violent pimp) to sleep with so many partners. Making choices means dealing with the consequences.

As far as there being a double standard, I don't find myself shocked or even too angry about it. How often do you hear a man being called a ˜dog', or the statement that all men think with the head down below instead of the one up top? It has become the social norm to assume that all men put sex first on their agendas. And women believe it. Whether is it completely true has yet to be determined, but it seems ridiculous to me to so blatantly admit men are sex fiends, then act surprised when they sleep around so frequently and no one says anything about it. If everyone is admitting they EXPECT promiscuity from men, what's with the shock and awe when it happens?

On the other hand, it is still imprinted in the back of many people's minds that women are the complete opposite. They are not SUPPOSED to act so inappropriately. They are SUPPOSED to be lady-like and polite. They are SUPPOSED to maintain wife and motherly duties. They are SUPPOSED to sit with their legs crossed. So when they sleep with a million men and yes, act whorish, people are bound to be disgusted. THAT'S WHY women are called names more frequently then men. IT'S NOT EXPECTED. It's a hard fact to accept because this is 2005, and you would think these preconceptions would be extinguished by now. People might not like to admit it, but I think just about all of us have our ideas about how we expect men and women to act.

We can't complain about the double standard until we learn to rid ourselves of false notions about the sexes. I believe men and women were assigned roles by God. This is what is SUPPOSED to be, but we have to realize that not everything happens like it's supposed to. By believing all men will be dogs, all women will be lady-like, etc., the double standard will remain rooted in place.

Just my humble two cents.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
Popcorn - I knew you were a woman!!!

I agree with you 100%.

For every "single woman" there is a man who is, IN MANY CASES, disconnected from his children.

First let me say that there is no way to get around the fact that the woman is the mother of all children (until technology screws this all up) and as a result she is going to have the child grow inside her regardless of what the man does.

With tht being the case the woman needs to realize the facts of nature and be careful about what she engages in with the sperm donor with slick tongue.

At the same time it is the Black Male who must be taught the concept of respect and protection of the Black woman or we collapse as a people.

You wouldn't believe the number of times that I talk about the critical need of men to not disrespect Black women by calling them out of their name or when I point to the IGNORANT lyrics of some SAMBO entertainer that young Black males will fire back that THESE PEOPLE ARE ONLY TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WOMEN THAT THEY RUN INTO (ie: Mike Jones' song).

Sadly these same people are the main ones chasing after "White Racism" for the BENEFIT of Black people YET THEY CAN'T EVEN FIND IN THEMSELVES A WAY TO SHOW RESPECT FOR A BLACK WOMAN WHO DOES NOT HAVE IT FOR HERSELF. When they have a chance to show "love" for Black people beyond their rhetoric they fail misrably.

Malcolm X in his Autobiography talked about how after he gained power women would thrown themselves at him as women are attracted to men of power. In his disciplined state he felt pitty for them in their unconscious state and suggested that they attend the local mosque to learn about themselves.

Today we have too many men seeking tactile pleasure on tip of their penis rather than living in accord to some greater cultural framework. (Kevin - how is your communalism simply an issue of money rather than other issues that represent the 'common interest'?)


I'm done CF....you cannot explain the logic of your position without game-playing and you use games to twist around the schit you are called out on as deficient the way you explain them....we are at the end of the road...since you could not be straight-up in your responses to the simple azz questions I asked....i will continue to fight the blkCon tooth and nail...on behalf of those who delivered us from jim crow and overt racism....because the blkCon is willing to roll back the clock on past gains and let all those marches, beatings and lynchings be in vain...and those kind of people I find to be a waste of time online....and someone to verbally abuse when they insult the intelligence of black people in person......which has only happened to me twice that I can remember...word gets around to them as so far as where they can espouse that shit....so I have a class start soon...which is much more productive than trying to convince a self-hating black man of anything beneficial to blacks people en masse.........
quote:
(Kevin - how is your communalism simply an issue of money rather than other issues that represent the 'common interest'?)


*Read a political science book about wealth and life's chances and you'llunderstand why the shit blkCons attribute to being black is purely socioeconomic...so if black people are doing well the pathologies that come along with poverty sometimes will not be there....why do you think middle and upper class blacks take care of and preserve their communities more than the lower economic class of blacks, whites and any others...if anything was attributed to race soley...then all comunities for blacks would suffer the same plight.....the things you are talking about are a subset or default value of educational and as a result, economic viability.....
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

I disagree with the ˜whore' statement.



If the sum total of all the misery, all the sorrow, all the pain, and despair in this world could somehow be measured at any time, at any moment, at this moment... why would anyone knowingly choose to add a single ounce, a single drop, a single tear to the total?
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

I disagree with the ˜whore' statement.



If the sum total of all the misery, all the sorrow, all the pain, and despair in this world could somehow be measured at any time, at any moment, at this moment... why would anyone knowingly choose to add a single ounce, a single drop, a single tear to the total?
.
.


I understand, but for me, when used correctly, it's simply a matter of English.

My 1951 edition of Webster's dictionary defines the word ˜whore' as:

1.a WOMAN who engages in illegal sexual intercourse, especially one who engages in promiscuous sexual activity for pay, a prostitute, harlot

2.to be a whore

3.to fornicate with whores

And that's way back in 1951!!! I don't use it specifically to refer to promiscuous women; like I said before, IMO it's anyone. And again, bad behavior begets bad consequences.
Well here's the definition via http://www.dictionary.com

pro·mis·cu·ous ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-msky-s)
adj.
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate. Casual; random.


I have highlighted where I believe the source of subjectivity or discontent or interpretation or MISinterpretation lies... Who can argue successfully that men who frequently have "pre -marital" sexual partners could describe those 'activities' as anything less than casual. As opposed to always being about love, commitment and fidelity?

And should promiscuity be 'judged'? Which is supposedly worse? The casualness of those encounters vs the quantity? Is there a scientific formula? Is frequency of partners any 'worse' morally than just ONE 'casual' encounter? And just exactly what are those indiscriminant "standards of selection"? On and on it goes.... most sexual issues work in the man's favour.

I'm CERTAINLY NOT anti-men Eek but you've got to admit there are more moral escape routes if you are male. Not fair.
It would be remiss to not mention the message coming from the popular culture today.

On the one hand you have the image of the Playa Playa. His objective is to use his material possessions, many of them which "spin" and glitter" to BED as many women as possible. Though all of this is done in the context of and HIV epidemic this is rarely mentioned. They also never mention the possible resulting impregnation that could result from this interlude.

The corresponding message is that the women who are inclined to be attracted by the jewels and spinner rims have no dignity about themselves. They judge the man by his loot and if he can pay to get their hair done.

Please note the lyrics of "Mike Jones" as he tells the tale:

quote:
MIKE JONES LYRICS

"Back Then"

[Chorus 2X: samples from "Still Tippin'"]
"Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me"
"Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me - I SAID"
"Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me"
"Back then hoes didn't want me, now I'm hot hoes all on me - I SAID"

[Mike Jones]
Mike Jones!!
Befo' I came up in the game these hoes didn't show no love
They see me in the club and used to treat me like a scrub
They wouldn't holla cause my dollars wasn't swoll enough
I bet they change they mind when them 80 4's come rollin up
They see that I'm a star, now they wanna sit in my car
Now they wanna count my cheese, smoke my weed and sip my bar now
They used to love to me diss me, now they rush to hug and kiss me now
They tellin all they friends when I leave how they miss me now
2 8 1, 3 3 0, eight zero zero 4
Hit Mike Jones up on the low cause Mike Jones about to blow
Befo' the ice was in my grill, befo' I got my major deal
These hoes wouldn't give a damn if I was here, shea
Befo' the ice was in my grill, befo' I got my major deal
These hoes wouldn't give a damn if I was here, shea
Befo' the ice was in my grill, befo' I got my major deal
These hoes wouldn't give a damn if I was here, shea - because

[Chorus]

[Mike Jones]
I remember back den, most of them hoes couldn't stand me
But now them same hoes beggin me to pull down they panties bump
A couple of 'em said I was cute but I was just too chubby
Same size a year later the same hoes wanna fuck me bump
Because they see me paid, pimpin pens, workin my jelly
And I ain't trippin cause my pockets stick out mo' than my belly
They know I'm paid, livin laid in the shade
2 slabs in the Escalade with fo' or five estates
Then know that I got it made, I'm a motherfuckin baller
She would want a nigga now but I ain't got no time to call her
I'ma stall her like she stalled me, now she tryin to call me bump
Bitch I'ma dog yo' whole ass like you dogged me
I'm Mike Jones, don't act like you don't know the name
Ain't nuttin changed but my change, I'ma stay the same
I'm Mike Jones, don't act like you don't know the name
Ain't nuttin changed but my change, I'ma stay the same

[Chorus]

[Mike Jones]
Befo' my paper came, befo' I got my fame
These hoes that's poppin on me now didn't even know my name
They said my flow was lame, they said I had no game
I told 'em all I was fin' to blow they thought I was insane
But then my name started blowin up quick, now they jumpin on my dick
Cause they see me on the rise and oh now my paper thick
But then my name started blowin up quick, now they jumpin on my dick
Because they see me on the rise and oh now my paper thick

[Chorus - 2X]


WE NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR CULTURE FROM THE SAMBOS WHO HAVE HIJACKED IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT BUT IT FOR MONEY OR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:

Promiscuous



I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the idea of the post altogether. It was not about pregnant mothers or single mothers, although pregnancy was used as supportive material. Forgive the double meaning.

It was about a double standard that exists in our society and is used almost exclusively to demean women. I used the words "promiscuity" and "promiscuous" but there are many other examples and many other words I could have used to illistrate this double standard.

I don't know what gender you are but I'll guess from your name that you're a women. Regardless of that, a women is never a "whore", not in the dirty, filthy, demeaning way this word has come to be used in our culture.... no matter what the circumstances.

Have you ever heard a man called a "whore"? Of course not! It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Even though a man may behave in the same careless manner, it is another term applied exclusively, and meant to demean women. That it sounds so rediculous is a measure of the extent to which this double standard has become ingrained worldwide. And applying it to women while giving men a pass is EXACTLY what I meant. If you don't see that, you're blind and need some serious reprogramming.

Woman or not, I resent your use of the word!
.
.

_______________________________________________

I based my response on the bolded:
""Latoyia Figueroa has been a single mother since her teens, and with this second child on the way... she has been promiscuous."

"It is very possible that her own promiscuity may have contributed to her present situation."
----------------------
The above statement implies that 'her present situation' is due to her being 'promiscuous.'
What else should I have gotten from the statement, excerpt, etc.,? You went on to address the sexist double standard in the post; I merely pointed out the sexist mythology that such double standards are based on and why.

In other words we live in a world/time where women are really judged by the 'existence' of "evidence" of imoral sexual behavior(pregnancy/child/children without marriage), evidence that is faulty at best in coming to a conclusion on a woman's character, sexual history/background, or promiscuity.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
In other words we live in a world/time where women are really judged by the 'existence' of "evidence" of imoral sexual behavior(pregnancy/child/children without marriage), evidence that is faulty at best in coming to a conclusion on a woman's character, sexual history/background, or promiscuity.

.
.

sunnubian,

You are absolutely right about this.

My post was about the double standard. Perhaps I didn't present it very well or take the time to understand your reply. Hearing things and seeing things like what CF posted makes me so mad. If I offended you, I'm sorry.
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:
It would be remiss to not mention the message coming from the popular culture today.



CF,

Thank you for posting these lyrics and for your support on this subject.

I should have never opened this door. It will take me awhile to get over the lyrics. I'm just appalled. I think I'll go for a walk.
.
.
quote:
WE NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR CULTURE FROM THE SAMBOS WHO HAVE HIJACKED IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT BUT IT FOR MONEY OR THEIR OWN SEXUAL GRATIFICATION
Speak for yourself... Ain't nobody took "my" culture but, historically speaking, Mr. YT of whom you generally don't have shit in terms of the level of disdain you have for Mike Jones, 50 Cents and the lot...

You sound like these OFF-CENTERED mf's:
http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/4351037813

Mike Jones and 50 might DEFINE "your" culture for you but they don't for me, no matter how much I may agree with your sentiment in terms of not agreeing with their lifestyles, the images they project, etc.
I agree the goal should not be to come up with an equal term for promiscuous men. But I think a better solution would be to refrain from labelling other people's sexual activities. How do I know she didn't think she was in love with every single one of the 200 men she slept with? And what need is there for me to categorize her behavior? If I, for some reason, feel the need to talk about how much sex she has, it's sufficient to say "She has a lot of sex."

I think very few people who are using the words whore/ho/slut, etc are choosing those words because their dictionary definition fits what they are trying to say. What people are saying with those words is "That woman does not live up to my moral standard and I look down on her." That is why there is no magic number of sexual partners or list of reasons for having sex that indicate when you have officially crossed over into "whore" territory. Every time I have referred to someone as a "ho," it's not because I had any in-depth knowledge of their entire sexual history. It's just another (unfortunate) way of looking down on a woman.

Those Mike Jones lyrics are atrocious, but that's hardly a sentiment that's exclusive to popular music. Since music began, unattractive men in all genres have been singing about the women that wouldn't give them the time of day before they became famous who have since had a change of heart. $$ "Ho" seems to be a synonym for "woman" in some parts. I feel fairly certain that Mike Jones would casually refer to any woman outside of his family as a "ho" (and not because he's making the usual value judgement).
quote:
Originally posted by Frenchy:
How do I know she didn't think she was in love with every single one of the 200 men she slept with?

EXACTLY

quote:
What people are saying with those words is "That woman does not live up to my moral standard and I look down on her."

EXACTLY
I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this...

While I do agree that often people shouldn't disparage someone because of their perceived sexual histories, individuals should be more responsible.

Women in particular have to realize that the "double standard" really is not a double standard. There's a reason why men are "studs" or playas for doing the same thing women do who are "sluts." The salesman who convinces larger numbers of customers to buy from him is a sales wiz because it shows he's got the skills necessary to win over the customers. But the customer who allows ANY salesman to sell him any product, cannot be considered a sales wiz. He may be gullible, or a pushover -- the "ho" in the transaction, but he's not the sales wiz. The salesman is.

In the dating world, for whatever reason, the process really is analogous to the salesman-customer dynamic. Even though in my view the woman is getting just as much out of sex as the man is (at least they are if I'm the man Big Grin ), it really is the man who has to lay out the charm, and all the other things that will win over the woman. A woman can turn off a man just like a man can turn off a woman, but for the most part, it's the man who's got most of the "convincing" duties.

Therefore, having a lot of sex partners is evidence that the man is skilled at convincing them. People who would give him props do so because they figure he's got that "certain something" that convinces women to sleep with him. On the other hand, since the woman doesn't have to go through the same effort, she can't be a "playa" or a "stud" if she sleeps with a lot of men. All the average woman has to do to get sex is to let a man know she wants him. So if she sleeps with a lot of men, she's like the easy customer in the above example. That's why she's looked at differently. That's why this really isn't a "double standard;" the comparison really isn't apple-to-apples.
Thanks for the lyrics CF.

While we shouldn't judge and generalize about who is promiscuous and who isn't (particularly in the music biz !!), equally, let's not also presume everyone who achieves fame is altruistic either.

One of the big reasons a lot of guys want to be famous in the music industry (in particular) is to attract babes and be able to 'take their pick'.
In reality money is always a magnet to certain people - women included. It would be more intelligent of Mike Jones and his ilk to learn from his 'experience' how to indentify which women AREN'T after money and value THEM, rather than presuming that ALL women are like that.

Just as ALL men aren't thugs.
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this...

While I do agree that often people shouldn't disparage someone because of their perceived sexual histories, individuals should be more responsible.

Women in particular have to realize that the "double standard" really is not a double standard. There's a reason why men are "studs" or playas for doing the same thing women do who are "sluts." The salesman who convinces larger numbers of customers to buy from him is a sales wiz because it shows he's got the skills necessary to win over the customers. But the customer who allows ANY salesman to sell him any product, cannot be considered a sales wiz. He may be gullible, or a pushover -- the "ho" in the transaction, but he's not the sales wiz. The salesman is.

In the dating world, for whatever reason, the process really is analogous to the salesman-customer dynamic. Even though in my view the woman is getting just as much out of sex as the man is (at least they are if I'm the man Big Grin ), it really is the man who has to lay out the charm, and all the other things that will win over the woman. A woman can turn off a man just like a man can turn off a woman, but for the most part, it's the man who's got most of the "convincing" duties.

Therefore, having a lot of sex partners is evidence that the man is skilled at convincing them. People who would give him props do so because they figure he's got that "certain something" that convinces women to sleep with him. On the other hand, since the woman doesn't have to go through the same effort, she can't be a "playa" or a "stud" if she sleeps with a lot of men. All the average woman has to do to get sex is to let a man know she wants him. So if she sleeps with a lot of men, she's like the easy customer in the above example. That's why she's looked at differently. That's why this really isn't a "double standard;" the comparison really isn't apple-to-apples.


Hello? Confused Oh... I SEE....

So you're saying that if a man displays all his skill and charm and darn hard work to pick up the woman, then his skill and effort is more highly valued? As opposed to a woman who - supposedly - just asks for it and gets it. Damn! Eek

Is this some sort of double pay-back envy type thang? Reward the man for all that "effort and hard work" to get someone into bed? Whereas the lazy 'ho' just gets it 'easy'. Without the "supposed" skill of a salesperson/man?

Excuse me, but are you insane? Apples-to-apples? Or should we say morals-to-morals?

quote:
People who would give him props do so because they figure he's got that "certain something" that convinces women to sleep with him.


whereas??????????????? the woman doesn't get props because???

What you are really saying that it doesn't take VERY MUCH to get a guy into bed because.....?
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:

Hello? Confused Oh... I SEE....

So you're saying that if a man displays all his skill and charm and darn hard work to pick up the woman, then his skill and effort is more highly valued? As opposed to a woman who - supposedly - just asks for it and gets it. Damn! Eek

Is this some sort of double pay-back envy type thang? Reward the man for all that "effort and hard work" to get someone into bed? Whereas the lazy 'ho' just gets it 'easy'. Without the "supposed" skill of a salesperson/man?

Excuse me, but are you insane? Apples-to-apples? Or should we say morals-to-morals?


I doubt I'm insane, but if you stop and think about it, you'll see that I'm exactly right. I think you're ruffled understandably at the thought of there being an actual basis for the difference in the way these men are seen vs. the women. But I don't think you really believe I'm incorrect.

quote:
quote:
People who would give him props do so because they figure he's got that "certain something" that convinces women to sleep with him.


whereas??????????????? the woman doesn't get props because???

What you are really saying that it doesn't take VERY MUCH to get a guy into bed because.....?


Welllllll.... if you look at it objectively, are you going to tell me I'm wrong?

Say the AVERAGE man walked up to 10 women and said, "I don't know you, but I'm horny. You'll do, so how about it?" It's a safe bet he'll get 10 solid rejections.

If the AVERAGE woman said the exact same thing to 10 men, she's not getting 10 rejections. She's just not. And since you know she's not, you also know that my last post has to be on the money. I don't make the rules; I just point them out.

Now, imagine the man who would get 5 YESes out of 10. You know you're thinking, "Wow, he sure is a disgusting freak, but I wonder what it is about him that half of the women he asked that ridiculous question to actually said yes."

The woman who gets 5 yeses (yesses? yes's??) is not going to get that same reaction, because the dynamic is different. Among those 10 men are those who would figure this as the gift horse not to look in the mouth. Or maybe they'd look it in the mouth, but they still would get with the woman... lol
Vox is right.

Even if you want to tear it down to the very basics. The innate instinct to track down and find a mate is simply stronger in men (or it should be). All males, including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects, are built with a need to reproduce. It is in the male nature. This need to reproduce is not as strong (although present) in females because technically, the guys 'make the babies.' It makes sense for a male to be more promiscuous than a female. He feels he has a job to do.

I'm not trying to give anyone an excuse because humans have taken things further than they should have gone, but we can't look at it simply. When a female acts irresponsibly and more like a man than a man, what are people supposed to think?

And still it all boils down to this, if you don't want to be called a whore, don't act like a whore. 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?
CF,

Thank you for posting these lyrics and for your support on this subject.

I should have never opened this door. It will take me awhile to get over the lyrics. I'm just appalled. I think I'll go for a walk.
.
.[/QUOTE]

Popcorn:

This is but a snow flake on the tip of the iceberg with respect to the MESSAGES that our young people are receiving today.

Their views on sex, male/female relationships and general respect for each other is both reflected within and stem from the MESSAGES that they receive from the CULTURE that is operating around them.

In my view the bigger threat to our advancement as a people is coming from WITHIN!!

How is it that a Black man is going to be in the life of a child that he has with a woman when HE DOESN'T RESPECT HER, he lives in a society THAT DOESN'T DEMAND THAT HE BE A MEANINGFUL PART OF THIS CHILD'S LIFE (and this is beyond the paycheck that the JUDGE IF FORCING HIM TO SEND EACH MONTH).

We need to flip our views around - This promiscuity and disrespect is happening in the vaccum of a DYSFUNCTIONAL CULTURE that DOES NOT ASK ANYTHING OF THESE YOUNG PEOPLE. Their peers largely influence the norms that these young people learn to accept. With young folks sex, money and popularity dominate their lives when there is no framework for them to build their character around.

The parents and the broader society has FAILED to provide this structure to these young people. As a result too many of them will operate at a level of the 7 deadly sins that are at each of our base and instinctive level:

quote:
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.


http://deadlysins.com/sins/index.htm
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
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

Vox is right.

There's a reason why men are "studs" or playas for doing the same thing women do who are "sluts."



Vox is NOT right. He may consider himself an animal, but I like to think of myself with higher standards.

He may like the implication of his argument and analogy that all women are objects to be won, bought by some slick salesman, but I don't. It's a piss-poor analogy and offensive on this site which focuses on people being bought and sold.

He may like the implication of his "salesmen" analogy" that after a women in "won" once, twice, three times by one, two, three men in his fucked-up scenario that she's a whore, slut, cunt, but I don't like it.

He may like the implication of his post and and analogy that his mother, his sister, his daughter is a whore, slut, or cunt, but I don't.

He likes the idea that his wife, lover, girlfriend is one and all of the above, "the "ho" in a transaction, but don't put that label on me.

That more of you "fellas" out there don't challenge these implications about your women just tells me how gutless you are. CF is the only man here with any courage who is willing to take a risk.

Another thoughtless vulgar post by another thoughtless vulgar man.

A "transaction", Vox? You goddamn fool.
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:


He likes the idea that his wife, lover, girlfriend is one and all of the above, "the "ho" in a transaction, but don't put that label on me.

Another thoughtless vulgar post by another thoughtless vular man supported by an equally thoughtless women.

A "transaction"? You goddamn fool.
.
.


A pretty silly tirade. The analogy is a pretty correct one, because it describes what typically goes on. If you have ever lived in any kind of a society, you know full well that typically it's the men who do most of the work to convince the woman to get with him, and the woman does most of the evaluating. This is certainly true when it comes to beginning a sexual relationship; maybe less so when it comes to the commitment level. There is absolutely no room for disagreement on this, unless you have never been outside your home. And SINCE (not 'if') you have to agree with that much, there is no tenable logical disagreement with the rest. Like Artgurl, you can EMOTIONALLY disagree; that is, you can hate the fact of what I'm saying so much that you can't bring yourself to accept that there's a valid reason for the "double standard." But you can't provide any logic that supports an honest belief that what I'm saying is not true.

I started a thread on this topic a couple of years ago, and somebody (I think it was Huey) said that Montel Williams did an experiment similar to the example I gave. he had a guy go up to different women he didn't know and ask them to sleep with him. Montel had a woman do the same thing. The woman had takers, and the man didn't. So you can debase yourself by trying to call me all kinds of stupid names for pointing this stuff out, but you can't actually debate the truth of what I'm saying, because the truth of it really is clear. And since it's so clear, you can call me whatever names you wish. I didn't invent the dating process. And I didn't invent any of the ugly implications that flow from that process.
Frenchy, your point is well taken. There is one thing I take issue with, though. Remember when I said that all a woman has to do in order to get sex from a man (ON AVERAGE) is to lt the man know she wants him? Well, let's take that same level of effort and apply it to the men. There are men who do nothing more than that as well, and have nothing especially attractive to offer (we're talking about the AVERAGE man & woman, remember). The difference, though, is that usually, these men who can't do any better than let the woman know, don't get any sex from any women. Really, then, the female who gets called a "ho," who sleeps with (or is believed to sleep with) a lot of men, is the female analog not of the "stud," but of the guy who tries but fails all the time. This kind of man is usually given all kinds of unsavory names, just like the woman who does the same thing. The man is considered a horn-dog, desperate and hard-up. But so is the woman. The only reason she also gets the "ho" tag is that she was able to get the sex. But really, the connotations implied by the names given to her are much the same as those for the man. I believe that's simply because they both do the same thing: make themselves sexually available to large numbers of people. The man who manages to actually get lots of women gets all of that erased, because his success is seen as "evidence" of all of his persuasive attributes and charms.

More directly on your point, though, I think we run into problems whenever we start talking about the use/misuse of terminiology, because there's so many different ways people use the same term. There are men who use the term "ho" to denote ANY woman. And even the men who you say are so attractive that there's no "smoothness" on their part are still seen as studs because it's their attractiveness that is the persuasive factor. I don't think I specified "game" or "smoothness." Just that he's seen as having the right level and combination of "it;" whatever "it" is.
Vox, your scenario doesn't clearly define what it is that makes the woman a whore. By sleeping with one man out of the ten who approach her? Two? Three? Does it depend on what the man says to convince her? Is she still a whore is she sleeps with a man who lies and says he loves her and wants to marry her? When exactly does she venture far enough that she can "rightfully" be called a whore?

Men have sex with any old thing, so the women who sleep with even one man who approaches them are whores who have fallen for this "genius in his own mind"'s game?? I don't disagree with you that short of having a peg leg and a hump on your back, a man will sleep with you, but what does any of that have to do with justifiably calling women whores?
So, Vox, in keeping with your analogy, if a woman walks up to 10 men and say: "I need my rent/house note paid; I need to go shopping; I need my car note paid; I need you to work everyday (maybe even two or three jobs) to support me and maybe even some children while I sit at home; etc., then if she can get at least 5 out of the 10 men to do what she wants, then, is she a 'playa' - does she have that "certain something" and is she 'skilled' at convincing men to do what she wants?
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:

A pretty silly tirade. The analogy is a pretty correct one, because it describes what typically goes on.


The analogy is not a correct one. It's vulgar and thoughtless, something you might hear from a pimp. Women are NOT part of a TRANSACTION. We haven't been since 1863!!! Are you a pimp Vox? Is that why you think of women as part of a transaction?

"Emotionally"? Another typical male sterotype of women. I can think of at least ten thoughtless sterotypes of men. Would you like me to cite them?

And don't cite any supposition by Montel. Show me! Anyone who would think of such a brainless, thoughtless analogy lacks the processes to think clearly.

No, you didn't invent any of the ugly implications that flow from the process. You just support them.
.
.
Vox, I apologize. I posted while you were responding so you've already answered some of the questions I raised again. Wink

I completely agree with you that the misuse of the term is so widespread that it is difficult to even come up with a solid definition for what a whore/slut/etc is. That is precisely why I think people should keep their traps shut before they sling out that word to tear someone down. Be direct. Just come right out and say exactly what it is you mean instead of hiding behind this all-inclusive, misogynist term. "She sleeps with a lot of men." "She falls for the oldest lines in the book." Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:


The analogy is not a correct one. It's vulgar and thougtless, something you might hear from a pimp. Women are not part of a transaction. Are you a pimp Vox? Is that why you think of women as part of a transaction?
"Emotionally"? Another typical male sterotype of women. I can think of at least ten thoughtless sterotypes of men. Would you like me to cite them?

And don't cite my supposition by Montel. Show me! Anyone who would think of such a brainless, thoughless analogy lack the processes to think clearly.

No, you didn't invent any of the ugly implications that flow from the process. You just support them.
.
.


Vulgar and thoughtless, you say, and yet not one attempt on your part to explain why it's wrong. And then, I call your clearly emotional response an emotional response, and that makes me a stereotyper. You're not particularly bright. Is that a stereotype too? In fact, you seem like a brainless idiot. Is that a stereotype also? bs
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:
So, Vox, in keeping with your analogy, if a woman walks up to 10 men and say: "I need my rent/house note paid; I need to go shopping; I need my car note paid; I need you to work everyday (maybe even two or three jobs) to support me and maybe even some children while I sit at home; etc., then if she can get at least 5 out of the 10 men to do what she wants, then, is she a 'playa' - does she have that "certain something" and is she 'skilled' at convincing men to do what she wants?


ROFL! I would have to say you're right. The same exact implications would have to apply. She must have something going for her if she managed to succeed at that! I'm partially being funny, but just like the male "stud," it's absolutely reasonable that she would be seen as a "playa," etc. Of course, we question the morality anyway, which I think may play into your point; I think sucking money like that from somebody, even if they're willing, is on a different moral tier than having sex with them. Others may disagree, though.

But of course, if she's a TRUE playa, she'll write a how-to book, and make even MORE money!
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
In fact, you seem like a brainless idiot. Is that a stereotype also?


The only brainless idiot here is you. I shouldn't have to explain the obvious.

Emotional? "I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this" and then you cry like a baby when it happens.
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:

Emotional? "I know I'm gonna take a lot of heat for this" and then you cry like a baby when it happens.
.
.


Confused Confused Confused

I really don't think we're reading the same thread. The only whiner and cryer here is you, my dear.
I may be missing the point, but why is there the need to characterize anyone else's personal behavior? It seems that this kind of thing (calling someone promiscuous) only serves to artificially prop up the name caller's inadequate sense of self esteem.
You're correct MBM....the only time one is supposed to be in judgement of another is when you are sitting with them bringing a certain aspect of their behavior to their attention.....because you are trying to help them with a problem...otherwise...one is just establishing a perception of that person relative to their ego-driven view of themselves....kinda like how the PSEUDO-blkCONS.....judge black people in a loathsome way but never have any concrete suggestions that people could follow as a blueprint for turning their lives around...as they present themselves as 8% of smart blacks dealing with the dumb azz 92% of the race.....it could be considered some warped azz form of an attempt to socially position themselves as less than white people but still more than the rest of blacks......that is how they come across as being.........
well howdy VOX... what have I missed? hasn't there been some excitement overnight, lol! Smile


Vox I enjoy reading most of your posts but this one doesn't make sense to me at all. I'm not really ruffled - this is alll no more just a playful verbal wrestle. Wink

You certainly have your own take on male female relations, but I'm finding it a bit weird. Car sales analogies? GIft horses, value judgements about who should/does get rejected sexually. nonoAhem....

The discussion wasn't about who can pull the most sexual partners... men vs women. It was what I took from your comments such as....

"On the other hand, since the woman doesn't have to go through the same effort, she can't be a "playa" or a "stud" if she sleeps with a lot of men. "

I think it's more the case that if a woman sleeps with only 1 or 2 men she is accused of being a hoe.

What concerns me is this "the same effort" statement. This casts a scary shadow. What is this effort you speak of?

"All the average woman has to do to get sex is to let a man know she wants him. So if she sleeps with a lot of men, she's like the easy customer in the above example."

Average-smaverish lol... Are you annoyed about this? Is this the issue? And is that true? And if it is, then doesn't it say that men are the indiscrimnant ones?

"..ruffled at the thought of there being an >>actual basis<< for the difference in the way these men are seen vs. the women. But I don't think you really believe I'm incorrect."

what I am supposed to agree with? ...that men are 'easier' than women? Sure, I agree on that one. Maybe it's men who should have more standards, lol.

"Now, imagine the man who would get 5 YESes out of 10. You know you're thinking, "Wow, he sure is a disgusting freak, but I wonder what it is about him that half of the women he asked that ridiculous question to actually said yes."

I'm actually a bit troubled by this statement. One reason is that you seem to presume that a woman would only turn down a guy coz he is ugly or deformed. Not true. Isn't that precisely the morality thing - she might turn him down because she doesn't like him, or BECAUSE she REALLY likes him? Or a gazillion other reasons. I guess you men just aren't in-tun to know the difference, huh? And I guess y'all would never ask either? LOL. Big Grin

I could be petty about the 'freak' remark and ask you to define that, lol. You KNOW what it means to most MEN don't you? And it's not about their looks. Smile

"The woman who gets 5 yeses (yesses? yes's??) is not going to get that same reaction, because the dynamic is different. Among those 10 men are those who would figure this as the gift horse not to look in the mouth. Or maybe they'd look it in the mouth, but they still would get with the woman... "

You're right there, if she only got 5 out of 10 she'd get lots of men proclaiming SHE wasn't good enough/pretty enough for them. NOT that she was selective. Which is what she most certainly was!
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
....kinda like how the PSEUDO-blkCONS.....judge black people in a loathsome way but never have any concrete suggestions that people could follow as a blueprint for turning their lives around...as they present themselves as 8% of smart blacks dealing with the dumb azz 92% of the race............


KEVIN41... LOL...any opportunity! you are like a Jack Russell terrior... when they bite they hang on for dear life, lol Big Grin Cool
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
Even if you want to tear it down to the very basics. The innate instinct to track down and find a mate is simply stronger in men (or it should be).

Sis let's examine this primal context of mating. Is it to procreate and stay together to protect the offspring? Or find a mate, fornicate and disappear? I'll accept your statement as relevant IF we are applying the first idea. Find a mate. Procreate. Stay together and protect and nurture the offspring.

In reality it is universally women who - consciously or unconsciously - devote more time, energy and 'effort' and have a greater desire to find a mate, procreate and stay together.


And still it all boils down to this, if you don't want to be called a whore, don't act like a whore.

Fair comment, but what does this mean... Confused

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?

I almost hear the sound of sexim... please reassure me.
Sorry, about the delay, everyone. I don't know how this degradated into this (partly my fault) but the original thread was about double standards and the stuff women have to take. Maybe I should have left off the double standard part (which I still feel is true) and just emphasized the demeaning names women are called.

Anyway, I have to take care of my daughter but I've haven't forgoten some of the things that were said making it out like this is all my fault, making it out like there's something wrong with me. I have to lisen to these words applied to women and put-up with this shit AND THERE"S SOMETHING WRONG WITH ME???? Excuse me???? EXCUSE ME?? That's so predictably male.

And you justify it "as a male mating ritual", as a "transaction", and then say you have to do all the work?

Well, that's news to me because 99% of the women I know take care of your dumb.... I won't say it...take care of you from cradle to grave.

And you call us names??? And you think it's okay to call the women who love you a bitch and whore and a slut. Women depend on you. Why aren't you doing more about this?

I have to go. We'll revist this topic later.
.
.
I'm thinking that whether or not there was a bit of a cat-fight (meow!) through this thread... it was certainly a good idea to throw around (and vent?) people's thoughts. How often would men and women sit down for a quiet drink and discuss this Popcorn? I imagine if it were a face-to-face discussion things would either go VERY QUIET or be a like a bag of siamese cats! Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin Smile

I don't think anyone is really taking this discussion too personally - I hope.
quote:
VOX: Like Artgurl, you can EMOTIONALLY disagree; that is, you can hate the fact of what I'm saying so much that you can't bring yourself to accept that there's a valid reason for the "double standard."


1. I don't hate (now that IS illogical)
2. there is NO valid reason for the double standard.
3. please don't ever put words in my mouth

I'm glad the world is full of such diverse opinions - even if they are wrong, lol.
Let's just be glad we aren't neighbours. LOL. Big Grin Big Grin Wink
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
I don't think anyone is really taking this discussion too personally - I hope.


I hope not, too, but on internet discussion forums, u'd be surprised... (BTW, I think your post where u take my comments one-by-one and comment on them is riddled with gross misunderstandings of what I'm saying. We'll have to address them later, but is there that much of a language barrier between us? For example, when I referred to the guy as a "disgusting freak," I was suggesting that a person would look at him as disgusting for sleeping with 5 total strangers. "Disgusting freak," to black Americans, can mean a number of things, but there was no reference to looks in that example (nor in the whole post), so that whole thing of yours about the guy being ugly or deformed is completely out of left field. And how is the woman who gets 5 yesses being selective, when she went to 10 total strangers and propositioned them? I luv ya & all, but you are grossly misreading my post here...)

However, MBM is right, this "issue" really shouldn't boil down to what "justifies" name-calling. I think the world keeps most of us busy enough that we don't have time for all of that. To me, it's really about what Sistah Souljah alluded to, which is about how one should comport oneself in general. What helped form my opinion on this was once when I was watching some movie or TV show (I think it was Unfaithful, but I'm not sure), when a group of women were congratulating each other about their sexual conquests. One said, "I've bagged me another one," and they high-5'ed each other, as if the woman had accomplished something. This obvious attempt at erasing the "double-standard" struck me as odd. That's when it struck me that there really is a difference. The woman didn't "bag" anything. Most likely, she'll never be in the position where she'll be able to claim a sex partner as some kind of "accomplishment," perverse as that accomplishment may be when even men "manage it."

I never saw myself as much of a prude sexually; this is a guy who doesn't even believe that "fornication" is a sin. But it's clear to me that when a woman conducts her sex life under the mistaken impression that she's combating an unfair double standard when she sleeps with a lot of men, she's operating on terribly flawed reasoning, period. And no matter what names she's called, in the end she's the one who will have to deal with the consequences, if any, from what she's doing to herself.
quote:
KEVIN41... LOL...any opportunity! you are like a Jack Russell terrior... when they bite they hang on for dear life, lol




*Well ArtGurl......since they like to play crazy and act as if a) they do not understand the consequences of their actions or b)their actions are no biggie despite adversely affecting black lives....they work to destroy the last ray of hope some people see themselves having...so since they coincidentally fail to understand these things...i just thought I would be helpful and reinforce the fact that they are self-hating damn fools...kinda like my civic duty...... tongue
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
quote:
KEVIN41... LOL...any opportunity! you are like a Jack Russell terrior... when they bite they hang on for dear life, lol


*Well ArtGurl......since they like to play crazy and act as if a) they do not understand the consequences of their actions or b)their actions are no biggie despite adversely affecting black lives....they work to destroy the last ray of hope some people see themselves having...so since they coincidentally fail to understand these things...i just thought I would be helpful and reinforce the fact that they are self-hating damn fools...kinda like my civic duty...... tongue


bye the bye... Jack Russells are quite cute. No disrespect there... it's good if people are passionate. It's when they start using right wing propaganda (yes, you Michael) as some type of deranged justification of their cause that I get a little 'concerned'.
Let's see, there's 6 billion people on this planet, give or take a couple. Perhaps 3 billion are women, give or take a couple. Whatever pompous name one calls himself/herself: senator, king, queen, pope, president, etc., the way this world's going, at least 3 billion females should have said: NOT TONITE, DEAR/HONEY/PIMP/RAPPER/THUG/, whatever, I HAVE A MIGRAINE. Not a child on this planet gives a damn how he/she got here; they're HERE creating the most dire consequences upon others imaginable.

KUDOS TO ALL MOTHERS OF THE WORLD. IF YOUR CHILD LIVES PAST THE AGE OF 30 WITHOUT CAUSING YOU TO CRY BUCKETS OR OTHERS, YOU'RE A-OK IN MY BOOK. THOSE LABOR PAINS ARE A *ITCH!! I'M STILL TRAUMATIZED, AND IT WAS MANY MOONS AGO.
quote:
Originally posted by Popcorn:
quote:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:

Vox is right.

There's a reason why men are "studs" or playas for doing the same thing women do who are "sluts."



Vox is NOT right. You may consider yourself an animal, but I like to think of myself with higher standards.

You may think of yourself and like the implication of Vox's argument and analogy that all women are objects to be won, bought by some slick salesman, but I don't. It's a piss-poor analogy and offensive on this site which focuses on people being bought and sold.

You may like the implication... THE IMPLICATION", and I'll be glad to define the word for you if you need help... of Vox's "salesmen" analogy" that after a women in "won" once, twice, three times by one, two, three men in his fucked-up scenario that she's a whore, slut, cunt, but I don't like it.

You may like the implication of his post and and analogy that your mother, his mother, your sister, his sister, your daughter, his daughter is a whore, slut, or cunt, but I don't.

He likes the idea that his wife, lover, girlfriend is one and all of the above, "the "ho" in a transaction, but don't put that label on me.

That more of you "fellas" out there don't challenge these implications about your women just tells me how gutless you are. CF is the only man here with any courage who is willing to take a risk.

Another thoughtless vulgar post by another thoughtless vular man supported by an equally thoughtless women.

A "transaction", Vox? You goddamn fool.
.
.


Have you lost your damn mind?

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

But my opinion didn't change and as far as trying to get it to do that, don't bother.

Thoughtless woman? Gimme a break. YOU are obviously the one who didn't understand what I was trying to say. I don't have time to waste anymore energy on it because honestly I see it as just something else women like to complain about.

Don't be so damn sensitive. Life ain't fair, so the fuck what. Deal.

Try to be somebody's friend and this is the thanks I get...lol fuck it.

Y'all have fun on this one, I'm done.

Popcorn next time you wanna verbally assault me, write me an email. It's more personal.
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
Originally posted by SistahSouljah:
Even if you want to tear it down to the very basics. The innate instinct to track down and find a mate is simply stronger in men (or it should be).

Sis let's examine this primal context of mating. Is it to procreate and stay together to protect the offspring? Or find a mate, fornicate and disappear? I'll accept your statement as relevant IF we are applying the first idea. Find a mate. Procreate. Stay together and protect and nurture the offspring.

In reality it is universally women who - consciously or unconsciously - devote more time, energy and 'effort' and have a greater desire to find a mate, procreate and stay together.


And still it all boils down to this, if you don't want to be called a whore, don't act like a whore.

Fair comment, but what does this mean... Confused

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?

I almost hear the sound of sexim... please reassure me.


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. I'm NOT going to defend promiscuous women just because I'm a woman, and I'm NOT going to act like they should be let off the hook. Double standard my ass. If people act right they won't have to worry about it. And they won't need a 'moral escape route', whatever that means.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
I may be missing the point, but why is there the need to characterize anyone else's personal behavior? It seems that this kind of thing (calling someone promiscuous) only serves to artificially prop up the name caller's inadequate sense of self esteem.


Seemingly - as usual - I disagree with you MBM.

It seems that many people on this board are into "community interests" and "collectivist behavior".

With all of the ailments that permeate the Black community it seems that responsible sexual relationships play an undue part in many of them. As the good sister Star Parker points out many of the pandemic problems within the Black Community are rooted in irresponsible sexual behavior - HIV, high rates of absentee fathers, prostitution.

Over time when a man who was committed to a woman found that the woman was pregnat it was time for celebration. The traditional "cigar" was passed out as he notified everyone.
Sadly and too often today the words said are "Damn that Bitch is pregnant" as the man rejects taking responsibility for what his acts of self gratification has produced.

quote:
>Q: What has been the impact of the welfare system on the black family?
>
>P: I believe the welfare system played a major role in tearing down the
>black family. I debated Rev. Jesse Jackson about this on CNN and Company a
>year or so back. He insisted that racism and poverty are the main causes of
>the breakdown of the black family. We need to be clear about what exactly
>that means. Up until 1965 illegitimacy rates in the black community were at
>22%. Today they are at 70%. There has been a breakdown in the family. I
>can't be convinced by any of our traditional civil rights leaders that
>racism and poverty are the causes of that phenomenon. We've seen more
>extreme cases of both racism and poverty in the past, and yet the black
>family remained intact until 1965. The black family survived slavery, two
>world wars, the great depression, forced segregation and aggressive racism.
>And yet, up until 1965, 78% of husbands were in the household with their
>wives and children.
>
>Q: How has welfare contributed to that?
>
>P: Because it's an easy out. I like the way George Gilder describes it. He
>says women have sexual superiority and we socialize men. The woman used to
>be the one who demanded social responsibility of the man. Marriage would
>usually come before pregnancy. Because of the safety net, women are more
>sexually irresponsible and allow men to assume no responsibility--they no
>longer have to accept any responsibility because the government steps
>in--rich Uncle Sam, who will take care of you, is there. It's now easy for
>men to walk totally away from their responsibility, and the women allow
>them to walk away. Their attitude now is, "I don't need him, I can get some
>money." I didn't even tell my first daughter's father that I was pregnant.
>I went straight to the welfare office. The other times I went straight to
>the welfare office. We've set our guard down. Men used to work very hard to
>catch a woman so she could bear his children. Today men just prowl, because
>of the welfare state.
quote:
As the good sister Star Parker points out
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???

Ummm.... Before you even think to say it... EVEN THE DEVIL KNOWS THE TRUTH. So simply saying what she says is "true" or fact has little to do with her motivation and how she and those who sponsor her and prop her ass up intend to use such "truth"...
Maybe one day self-loathing black people will learn to study behavior along socioeconomic lines and quit believing certain pathologies are particular to black people on the basis of being blacks...man I guess some of us was convinced by white people that we are an "inferior breed".....I could never have self-loathing negroes around me....they are too repulsive....now if they want to discuss problems we have as a race fostered by poverty and other external factors(social realities) that illicit the same behavior across the board.....period...then we can talk....but as long as they come from that, "that is just how we are" premise that the white man has colonized their minds into believing....count me out.....because I do not bask in so-called black inferiority with no one....and will tell them why THEY are inferior for presenting schit from THAT premise.....
quote:
now if they want to discuss problems we have as a race fostered by poverty and other external factors(social realities) that illicit the same behavior across the board.....
KEVIN, a number of "them" and others who are not them but, no less, speak from the "We Are Out Own Worst Enemy" premise have went on record saying they are not concerned about anybody else. They have not only acknowledged but are unmoved in their MYOPIA.

... Anyway, for some time now, I've wanted to relay the White Police Officer, Black Neighborhood Beat ANALOGY... I wish I could find it somewhere already laid out but suffice it to say, a person's perception of reality and who a people are, etc. is skewed by that degree and diversity of contact with those people as well as the prevailing stereotypes floating about those people. With that, there is something to be said for Black people who define who and what Black people are/aren't in the negative... like CF does all that time.

The "TAKE BACK OUR CULTURE" idea, the classicism/elitism aside, is a prime example of him saying, believing, promoting the idea that "our" culture is "negative". And it's no wonder considering the Media Consumption facts...

The Most Segregated Hour In America...

"...66 percent of African Americans rely upon the mainstream media for info. about politics and the U.S. government."
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.
First off, good to see you back Sis S. Smile

If you feel that my post was aimed as a personal attack then I unreservedly apologise coz I think you're an awesome woman and I DO respect your viewpoints and posts. tfro

Sis S: "I believe, as my faith teaches, that some people ARE better than others."

Ethically and morally I don't and can't agree with this statement. That's just my personal opinion.

I believe all people are equal, and it is our individual consciousness to choose how we BEHAVE whether sexually, in business, whatever.

For me it is the spirit and motivation of how each person CHOOSES to act at a particular moment that holds clarity and purpose and ethics. To me that IS everything. Going a step further, to me, by judging those choices is irrelevant and arrogant, unless we are more than human and/or mindreaders.

But that is art_gurl's unique perspective on life and is irrelevant to anyone but me.

Perhaps Sis S we can agree that some people's (male and female) BEHAVIOUR is better than others? But we don't have to agree on anything, that is cool, although I'm sure we both agree that life isn't about nodding and agreeing with each other. Smile

Anyhoo...

I think the depth of feeling and reaction this thread has generated shows it was a valid one to start Ms Popcorn. All discussion is good to blow away the 'cobwebs'.
This is something quick to stir things up a bit.

Promiscous women are the scum of the earth. These women are the biggest murderers, the biggest baby killers on the planet. Since they can not control themselves and do not respect themselves as women they take out their mistakes on poor defendless innocents in their wombs through abortions. Check out how much murders these monstrous women commit in a year and then try to justify female promiscuity.

There is no double standards here. It's men who label these women promiscous. Why? Simple really!! Men play and have fun with these type of women but deep down very few men want to end up with a woman that is the local town whore as the wife or the mother of his children.

Take a close look at the topic again. The defenders of female promiscuity are women and the ones who speak against it are the men, what does that tell you as a woman?
quote:
Originally posted by henry38:

This is something quick to stir things up a bit.

Promiscous women are the scum of the earth. These women are the biggest murderers, the biggest baby killers on the planet. Since they can not control themselves and do not respect themselves as women they take out their mistakes on poor defendless innocents in their wombs through abortions. Check out how much murders these monstrous women commit in a year and then try to justify female promiscuity.

There is no double standards here. It's men who label these women promiscous. Why? Simple really!! Men play and have fun with these type of women but deep down very few men want to end up with a woman that is the local town whore as the wife or the mother of his children.

Take a close look at the topic again. The defenders of female promiscuity are women and the ones who speak against it are the men, what does that tell you as a woman?


Respectfully, I think your position is completely indefensible and abhorrent. Last time I checked there has been only one immaculate conception. nono
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by henry38:

This is something quick to stir things up a bit.

Promiscous women are the scum of the earth. These women are the biggest murderers, the biggest baby killers on the planet. Since they can not control themselves and do not respect themselves as women they take out their mistakes on poor defendless innocents in their wombs through abortions. Check out how much murders these monstrous women commit in a year and then try to justify female promiscuity.

There is no double standards here. It's men who label these women promiscous. Why? Simple really!! Men play and have fun with these type of women but deep down very few men want to end up with a woman that is the local town whore as the wife or the mother of his children.

Take a close look at the topic again. The defenders of female promiscuity are women and the ones who speak against it are the men, what does that tell you as a woman?


Respectfully, I think your position is completely indefensible and abhorrent. Last time I checked there has been only one immaculate conception. nono
You have to be a little more elaborate than that that one liner MBM.

What is abhorrent to say promiscuous women commit the greatest number of abortions and therefore the biggest killers on the planet? Don't you think abortions and those who commit them are are abhorrent and abominable people? Maybe you don't. If so then the feeling of abhorrence is on the wrong foot.

Now I don't understand this thing about immaculate conception you are bringing into the discussion. We are talking about bad bad women, what has immaculate conception got to do with it? Confused Maybe you want to stirr things up as well? Big Grin
I have used the word "Promiscuious" referring to a gay man. Unfortunately a gay friend has displayed promiscuious behavior. After sometime of knowing this individual, I realized some gay men prefer a lifestyle of one sexual escapade after another and his lifestyle is like that.

I must say, I am a DEFENDER of women who are called promiscuious. I can't throw that first stone! I believe one's sexual preferences/desires is one's own business.

POPCORN writes:
quote:

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

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


And WHERE did you get that quote from?
Can you imagine a young woman in your family being missing since July 18th and not knowing what happen to her until the middle of August. It seems un-real that anyone would write such a derogatory statement about someone who is 24 years old and pregnant for the second time. I know young women the same age that have 6 children. What do you call them? And besides, I don't care what Latoyia's lifestyle was she deserves the same news coverage and search as NATALEE vacationing in ARUBA. The US is a melting pot of nationalities, ethnic groups and social-economic classes. What's good for one group is good for the others.

Now that we know the boyfriend did it, now is the time to address domestic violence issues.
"There is no double standards here. It's men who label these women promiscous. Why? Simple really!! Men play and have fun with these type of women but deep down very few men want to end up with a woman that is the local town whore as the wife or the mother of his children.

Take a close look at the topic again. The defenders of female promiscuity are women and the ones who speak against it are the men, what does that tell you as a woman?" by Henry38

......where Henry38 puts it bluntly, this is very much a part of the reality of it. There is no reward at the end of the rainbow for having low moral standards, be it male or female.

*********************************
"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." by Popcorn

Think what you will, but any woman who makes mistake number one of having a child out of wedlock, and who failed to learn from her first mistake by having a second child out of wedlock, where both fathers choose not to be responsible, means both parents morals are very bad. It would not be difficult to determine that any woman living this lifestyle is promiscuous, or has the tendency to be promiscuous.

Any biological father who is just as responsible for the care of the child is not being a responsible parent. He would also have low moral standards, which would also make him just as promiscuous. In most cases, the court system will order the biological father to provide child support, even if no more than to reimburse the government for the administrative costs, and other costs associated with providing AFDC benefits for the mother and her illegitimate children.

"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."

*****************************
...and this is from the thoughts of another individual, to share the reality that having low moral standards is not a ticket to prosperity.

Generally, anyone with high moral standards is given an edge over anyone else whose moral standards are very low.


Well, outraged or not, it is about time Black folks stop living in a dream world. The stigma that goes with having children out of wedlock, or having low moral standards is very real. I could care less how outraged you or anyone else become, because it is more important that the reality be stated, in that having low moral standards promotes failure, and does not promote prosperity.

I have a first cousin who finished medical school, and who is a licensed medical doctor. Before my cousin had a child out of wedlock, her peers had the utmost respect for my cousin. After practicing medicine for several years, my cousin had a child out of wedlock. Less respect was shown for my cousin, as a result of her having a child out of wedlock.

In my own life I have had dealings with women who have had children out of wedlock. By and large, this group of Black women, have created their own misery, to be destined for a life of poverty, the exception being the very few who already had a marketable skill, the few who made the necessary sacrifices to acquire a marketable skill, and/or the women who chose not to make the same mistake of having more illegitimate children.

The women with one or more illegitimate children, who did not have a marketable skill, or who refused to make the necessary sacrifice to acquire a marketable skill, and who also chose to have more illegitimate children out of wedlock are dependent on social welfare, some have resorted to criminal activity for survival, a few are on the verge of being homeless, and/or wish for a miracle that a "Sugar Daddy" comes to their aid, to bail them out from under the serious financial problems that each of these individuals face.

Mind you in each case the biological father deserted each of these women, both financially, and/or from a mutual parenting responsibility standpoint.

I have helped a few of them by buying them groceries, making a car payment for one or two of them, etc. I'm not about to become that "Sugar Daddy" for anyone of them. Having lived in poverty, and risen from extreme poverty, I'm not about to be driven back into poverty behind the life style of anyone whose low moral standards, and/or whose intentional desire is to remain unmarketable, in a world that requires a marketable skill for survival, that is if your goal is to make a legal living. Should your desire be to immoral, or refrain from acquiring a marketable skill, then you can be as criminal, and uncouth as you want to be, but eventually any individual who chooses this option, will pay a steep price for such a life style. Developing a relationship with anyone of these individuals will eventually contribute to my detriment also,....that is, in the event I were to jump through any hoop of financial misery, to be that "Sugar Daddy", at my own expense.

This is why it is a waste of my time, to reply to a Popcorn, a Kevin41, etc., because it is about time Black people stop dreaming, and share the reality of this situation, as opposed to living in "LA LA Land" by dreaming, that having low moral standards is some ticket to prosperity!
quote:
Originally posted by henry38:

Maybe you want to stirr things up as well? Big Grin


Of course! bsm

My only point is that it seems patently unfair to demonize women in the way that it appears you do here when every pregnancy in the history of humanity - save one - has also involved a man. Men share equal culpability in sex and childbirth as do women.
I think it was Eve who is responsible for women having the burden of bearing children, biblically speaking. Whether Biblically or through the natural selection process of nature, genders have specific roles. Nature created the double standard and the idealistic thinking of humans cannot and should not attempt to believe they are wiser than the laws of nature.

I think if women want to be promiscuous and attempt lower themselves to the behavior of men, they must be able to accept the consequences. Nature gave women the greater responsibility, which means the women should be more responsible concerning who they lay with and as a general rule, they are.

A person only has 50% control over any one-on-one relationship of equals. That 50% control is of themselves. However, a woman incubates and brings forth life through the womb, meaning that she has more than a 50% stake in a one-on-one sexual encounter. She has the stake of the child born from the gift/burden that nature affixed to her.

Women should not make a sexual decision based upon expectations of what a man [should] do. Again, she has no control over what the many [will] do, but she has total control over what she will do, assuming self-control. Given empirical evidence of the behavior of men a woman who lays with a man is taking a much greater risk than a man takes when he lays with a women.

A promiscuous man only risks a sexual transmitted disease. A promiscuous women risk, STDs, pregnancy and caring for a child because of the bond formed between mother and child in the womb. It is much easier for a man to walk away from a child when they have not bonded with them. Women have the bond formed in the womb. Consequently, should be more responsible because their risks are simply greater.
quote:

A promiscuous man only risks a sexual transmitted disease. A promiscuous women risk, STDs, pregnancy and caring for a child because of the bond formed between mother and child in the womb. It is much easier for a man to walk away from a child when they have not bonded with them. Women have the bond formed in the womb. Consequently, should be more responsible because their risks are simply greater.


I agree with this.......i also think that a promiscuous man/woman have 'mental issues'.....that will cause other problems.



Yes its funny, society accepts/encourages men to be promiscuous, but will bash a woman....if she has a child out of wedlock. (And she doesnt have to be promisuous for this to happen!)

There is nothing we can do about the way society thinks...........but we (women) can take charge of the situation.
I am as tired of this topic as anyone, but I won't let this piece of "moralising" by Michael go unchallenged...

quote:
Quote:"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".


This sounds like supremesist bullshit to me.

quote:
By contrast, LaToyia's life was already in ruin. She was working on her second illegitimate kid..." Blah blah. "...this is pure savagery...blah"


Exactly who gives you the divine right to aportion value to one human being as being better than another? OK it's just your opinion. Gasp...!

Who has a crystal ball to say beyond doubt that Natalee mightn't go on to become a lawyer and showed promise for fraudulent behaviour... and fcuked over 100s of people? So what if she was "BEAUTIFUL" or "full of promise"... she is NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. Certainly not "better" than LaToyia!

Maybe LaToyia, because of all her own experiences, might have gone on to be a social worker or mentor, who might have a profound influence of 1000's of people's lives and made a real difference. We will never know.

Michael - you are missing compassion and empathy big time. No wonder you frequent some of the sites you do without a second thought.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!
quote:
Originally posted by qty226:
There is nothing we can do about the way society thinks...........but we (women) can take charge of the situation.

Thank you qty226. Thank you. That I believe this is the crux of the matter. The SOLUTION decisions and control of the situation is in the hands of our women. We can not force you to be morally upright but it would be BEST if you are. All we ask is for you to remember you carry the responsibilty as our mothers, our sisters, our daughters and finally you are our pride and joy as black men. Unfortunately what many of you have become is not very nice and makes some of us black men downright ashamed of you.
]
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
I am as tired of this topic as anyone, but I won't let this piece of "moralising" by Michael go unchallenged...

quote:
Quote:"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".


This sounds like supremesist bullshit to me.

quote:
By contrast, LaToyia's life was already in ruin. She was working on her second illegitimate kid..." Blah blah. "...this is pure savagery...blah"


Exactly who gives you the divine right to aportion value to one human being as being better than another? OK it's just your opinion. Gasp...!

Who has a crystal ball to say beyond doubt that Natalee mightn't go on to become a lawyer and showed promise for fraudulent behaviour... and fcuked over 100s of people? So what if she was "BEAUTIFUL" or "full of promise"... she is NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. Certainly not "better" than LaToyia!

Maybe LaToyia, because of all her own experiences, might have gone on to be a social worker or mentor, who might have a profound influence of 1000's of people's lives and made a real difference. We will never know.

Michael - you are missing compassion and empathy big time. No wonder you frequent some of the sites you do without a second thought.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!

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

"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."

**************************************
Well artgurl,

Although I'm not the author of this material, it makes sense. I have chosen to distance myself from those whose moral standards are in the toilet, rather than join their ranks.

Following in their footsteps, or forming an alliance with anyone whose moral standards are in the toilet, would more so than not, keep me in poverty, lead to criminal prosecution, and/or call for increased government intervention in my life, which more so than not would severely limit my success, and/or ruin my own future.


Authorities on the subject, and proof of the connection between single parenthood, illegitimate child birth, and poverty, are definitely worth paying attention to.

The misleading lip service from an art_gurl and/or anyone else of similar expression has little value!

It is certain that an art_gurl would be ignored or put in her place by her own Caucasian community if an art_gurl encouraged low moral standards, illegitimate birth, etc., in the Caucasian community!

If I were you, Black people, I wouldn't place much credence in the misguided or misleading views of any misleading liberal Caucasian in an art_gurl..

More so than in any other community, as applied to the Black community, encouraging low moral standards, and illegitimate birth, are contributing factors to single parent families, poverty, and/or criminal activity!

Mind you, statistically, more so than the family structure of any other ethnic group, Black families:

A. are headed by a single parent.

B. have a higher illegitimate child birth rate.

C. are dependent on social welfare, and/or increased government intervention for its' survival.

These factors contribute to the increased poverty rate, welfare dependency, and/or criminal activity in our community!

....and the points or authorities are valid, neither of which come from any KKK, StormFront, or similar website.

Although it is certain that some of the same material can be found on a KKK website, as it concerns the high illegitimate birth rate of Black children, the high incidence of Black families dependent on social welfare, the high crime rate that exists in the Black community, etc.


The same information comes from many sources, and Black people who have lived in the inner-city with their eyes, ears, and minds open know this is true!

.....art_gurl, and/or anyone else of similar expression, I could care less what you think of me, because you are not an ingredient to my success.

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
"
quote:
Originally posted by http://www.neo-kem.com:
Hey I know I don't post much here, but I check this forum often. And I have learned a lot here.

I need to know something: is this guy michael supposed to be a black person?

If so why is he quoting a conservative think tank?"

If not why is he allowed to spread dissention unchecked?


If the Truth is Ever Told....

.....and having lived under this foolishness, the foolishness of having to be subjected to the treason of that Black middleclass, and/or the liberal Caucacian community who promote this disgraceful Black leadership, to unwarrantedly, and illegally, break up the law abiding Black family structure for profit, I don't have to consult the views of any conservative think tank to prove it!

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Ok Ok I get it.... you hate black people.

So why do you post here?

If you fell as strongly as you do and if you are as succesful as you claim, why not run for office or something.

This is not the place to insult degrade and or offend black people.

The people here are trying to find solutions to the problems.

If you have suggestions why not post those instead of wasting energy posting things that incite anger and discord?

http://www.saywordradio.com
quote:
Originally posted by http://www.neo-kem.com:
Ok Ok I get it.... you hate black people.

So why do you post here?

If you fell as strongly as you do and if you are as succesful as you claim, why not run for office or something.

This is not the place to insult degrade and or offend black people.

The people here are trying to find solutions to the problems.

If you have suggestions why not post those instead of wasting energy posting things that incite anger and discord?

http://www.saywordradio.com


....and reading literature, no matter what form, is not even close to being the root cause of poverty and/or death in the Black community.

Poor choices, poor decisions, disregard for property rights, and disregard for life has resulted in the unwarranted property damage and/or death of other Black people, and/or many other individuals.


...more likely Black people hate themselves, because Black people are in fact their own worst enemy!
The people who post here don't hate themselves or their people.

THey are here trying to find solutions.

If you have suggestions post them.

Cease and desist from wasting your energy insulting us.

You will find their are a number conservative and rascist forums in which you can post your views and hear nothing but handclaps in agreement. This is not the place for you you should leave.

http://www.saywordradio.com
quote:
Originally posted by http://www.neo-kem.com:
The people who post here don't hate themselves or their people.

THey are here trying to find solutions.

If you have suggestions post them.

Cease and desist from wasting your energy insulting us.

You will find their are a number conservative and rascist forums in which you can post your views and hear nothing but handclaps in agreement. This is not the place for you you should leave.

http://www.saywordradio.com


....being respectful to self, others, setting good moral standards, etc., etc., would be a big step in the right direction.

This solution would not require an intense brainstorming session, any thinktank, etc., because the solutions are easy to understand and to make use of.


...more likely Black people hate, disgrace, and/or insult themselves, because Black people are in fact their own worst enemy!

Perhaps you should take your own advice, because I'm not about to flip this script, or make tracks because you suggest that I do!
quote:
Originally posted by http://www.neo-kem.com:
you also should take your own advice in regards to being respectful to others.

Your posts here most all find disrespectful.

Your conduct here is a perfect example of a black person acting ignent. Not caring what others think and only thinkng of themselves.

http://www.saywordradio.com


....it is certain the individuals facing the music would have an entirely different view point as to where the true ignorance and disrespect lies. More likely, the finger of blame would be directed at this misfit set that surely exists in the Black community!

....as for ignorance, etc., etc., again Black people are major contributors to their own ignorance, self destruction, etc.,

.....and again, I'm not about to flip this script to please anyones eyes, ears, or thoughts!

..or give praise to that misfit and/or treasonous set of individuals, that surely exists within the Black community.
quote:
Originally posted by http://www.neo-kem.com:
Well please then, leave us in our ignorent bliss.

Your contributions will not change our minds or views .So why waste your time?

No one wants you here.

You admit you are not trying to change anything.

Get a another hobby..

http://www.saywordradio.com


....and there are other Black people around who share this viewpoint, at it pertains to personal responsibility, respect for the rights of others, less welfare dependency, hard work, and the ideals of free enterprise as solutions for uplifting the Black community!

...nor will your views mine. I work on my own terms not yours!
Qty, it is good to know that an Empress as externally beautiful as yourself is also as internally beautiful by way of grace and virtue. No doubt you are a complete half circle, who if connected with a complete male half circle would form the complete circle to bring forth matrimony and life.
quote:
Originally posted by art_gurl:
I am as tired of this topic as anyone, but I won't let this piece of "moralising" by Michael go unchallenged...

quote:
Quote:"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".


This sounds like supremesist bullshit to me.

quote:
By contrast, LaToyia's life was already in ruin. She was working on her second illegitimate kid..." Blah blah. "...this is pure savagery...blah"


Exactly who gives you the divine right to aportion value to one human being as being better than another? OK it's just your opinion. Gasp...!

Who has a crystal ball to say beyond doubt that Natalee mightn't go on to become a lawyer and showed promise for fraudulent behaviour... and fcuked over 100s of people? So what if she was "BEAUTIFUL" or "full of promise"... she is NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. Certainly not "better" than LaToyia!

Maybe LaToyia, because of all her own experiences, might have gone on to be a social worker or mentor, who might have a profound influence of 1000's of people's lives and made a real difference. We will never know.

Michael - you are missing compassion and empathy big time. No wonder you frequent some of the sites you do without a second thought.

GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!

________________________________________________

Art_Gurl,

As a alluded to in previous posts, the only thing that people who think like this about women use a a morality stick is whether or not the female has given birth. Narrow minded, sexist, lower based thinking of women in general makes certain men believe that, "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" only because Natalee does not have a child or more than one or one "out of wedlock," while the same lower based sexist mindset makes men who possess that type of mindset automatically believe,LaToyia's life was already in ruin. She was working on her second illegitimate kid...,", based only on the fact that she gave birth to a child out of wedlock, and oh, goodness gracious me, TWO out of wedlock conceptions.
Notice that there is nothing said of the father or fathers of LaToyia's children and that men who possess such contempt for women who do not fit into their religious induced virtue box for women, have not thought or contemptous phrases, post, names, etc., even for the man responsible for murdering LaToyia? In a narrow mind like that, a cold blooded murderer has more virture than a woman who has exercised her rights in a free nation as a free woman and has had sex without the benefit of marriage, and God forbid, had the nerve to even have 'evidence' of that fact for the world to see---children.

Also, men who are that narrow minded are also stupid enough to believe that Natalie, a woman away on vacation on a foreign island, hopping in and out of cars with complete or virtual strangers, for Good knows what reasons, doing God know what, is automatically more 'virtuous' than LaToyia, merely based on the fact that Natalie does not have an illegitimate child.

It's scary how many men in this world really hate women and try to rationalize and justify what really boils down to a dislike of women to whatever they can conjure up in their minds to make it the woman's fault.
quote:
Originally posted by sunnubian:

Art_Gurl,

As a alluded to in previous posts, the only thing that people who think like this about women use a a morality stick is whether or not the female has given birth. Narrow minded, sexist, lower based thinking of women in general makes certain men believe that, "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" only because Natalee does not have a child or more than one or one "out of wedlock," while the same lower based sexist mindset makes men who possess that type of mindset automatically believe,LaToyia's life was already in ruin. She was working on her second illegitimate kid...,", based only on the fact that she gave birth to a child out of wedlock, and oh, goodness gracious me, TWO out of wedlock conceptions.
Notice that there is nothing said of the father or fathers of LaToyia's children and that men who possess such contempt for women who do not fit into their religious induced virtue box for women, have not thought or contemptous phrases, post, names, etc., even for the man responsible for murdering LaToyia? In a narrow mind like that, a cold blooded murderer has more virture than a woman who has exercised her rights in a free nation as a free woman and has had sex without the benefit of marriage, and God forbid, had the nerve to even have 'evidence' of that fact for the world to see---children.

Also, men who are that narrow minded are also stupid enough to believe that Natalie, a woman away on vacation on a foreign island, hopping in and out of cars with complete or virtual strangers, for Good knows what reasons, doing God know what, is automatically more 'virtuous' than LaToyia, merely based on the fact that Natalie does not have an illegitimate child.

It's scary how many men in this world really hate women and try to rationalize and justify what really boils down to a dislike of women to whatever they can conjure up in their minds to make it the woman's fault.


Well said... and, you know something? I am going to have to agree with you on all counts. Frown
On a positive note, thankfully there are enough wonderful men on this planet who actually do like women as PEOPLE!! Smile Eek bsm
I only just saw my name in bold!

quote:
The misleading lip service from an art_gurl and/or anyone else of similar expression has little value!

It is certain that an art_gurl would be ignored or put in her place by her own Caucasian community if an art_gurl encouraged low moral standards, illegitimate birth, etc., in the Caucasian community!

If I were you, Black people, I wouldn't place much credence in the misguided or misleading views of any misleading liberal Caucasian in an art_gurl..


LOLOL!! Who said I was liberal? LOL! although I am flattered if you think I exert any influence whatsoever - LOL!! - I don't think so! So need to worry there Michael.

I'm not advocating any standards of any kind - immoral or otherwise. I am questioning the value assessment "some people" (a term I have only ever seen used in The Corporation DVD and used by Nmaginate) like to place on certain people.

However, I will say it until everyone on the internet is sick of hearing it... NO ONE PERSON HAS GREATER VALUE OR IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER PERSON.

How we each behave and how we each treat other people is the thing that varies... and it is the behaviour driven by this immoral "moralistic merit system" that I hold contempt for.
You see the divide and rule tactics going on here. This topic is about promiscuous women and some have conveniently turned it into men that hate women topic. WHERE DO YOU GUYS GET OFF.

Why can't can't you be bold and honest as Diamond was and say "I defend Promiscuous women." At least this way we can challenge you to tell us what you are defending. Don't take the cowardly way out by hiding behind the collective womanhood. What is this BS about speaking aginst promiscuous women translates into women bashing generally. Maybe it is selective reading or you would have noticed there are women on the board talking against female promiscuity in this topic as well. Would you accuse them of women hating as well? Hmmmn divide and rule eh?

MBM did this when I said PROMISCUOUS women he changed it to say I said women in general and I ignored it but as as if on cue some of you are following his lead. Well it won't get you far, I promise you. You can wriggle and wiggle as much as you want but the topic would stay on course. This topic is about PROMISCUOUS women and not about women collectively. Learn to read.

This topic deals with one of the core problems facing the black family today. The way our women behave is the fundamental foundation of what determines our future as a race. If you wish to destroy any society you target their women. What do you do exactly when you target the women? What you do is exactly what we are discussing here. Without the moral fabric of the women intact that race or society is in deep trouble. Check your history books and see how the demise of all the great civilizations started with the breakdown of the family. The first sign of trouble is when the family structure begins to crumble and according to various posts on this board this is very evident in the black American society today.

Think about it. Would you EVER buy a car if any time you want a ride you can walk up to a car showroom and drive any car of your choice free of charge and bring it back anytime you feel like? The answer to the question is obvious.

Then ask yourself what value would any man put on women of any race that any time he felt the urge, he can just stroll up and ride one like a horse until he gets bored with her and then change her for another? How much value do you think these women hold in the eyes of anyone.

I don't know but this may explain the phenomena why many black men when when they become successful ditch their black women for women of other races. What else can explain this strange behavior.

We also have the problem where black men are voting with their feet and marrying women from all other races except black women. It is obvious black men are finding these other women are more desirable than the women who look like their mothers. This is not natural behavior on the part of these black men so what is gone wrong? Another question is what is causing this phenomena. My answer is; "it is because of the perception that has gone out that black women are easy slackers and promiscuous." This is not true but this is the impression that has gone out to the rest of the world and we need to do something to stop this false impression of our women.

Do you see the problem and why it is wrong for some of you to hijack the topic and turn it into, "If YOU speak against promiscuous women means you hate women." Get real! Put up or shut up. We have a problem and we need to talk about it. If we can not get the promiscuous women among us to mend their ways at least we can start to name and shame them.

Some of you talk about being defenders of the promiscuous woman. What exactly are you defending? Spell it out cos maybe I'm missing something here. Are you defenders of the fact that these women are usually the marriage wreckers? Or are you defenders of the fact that these women are among the biggest killers of black babies or the fact that they drag the name of the entire black race in the mire. Oh let me see, you don't care about that side of their lives, do you? Yeah right! Some morals you have. Black women are our mothers and how society perceives them reflect on the entire black race. If society perceives our mothers as whores you can imagine what value they place on us as a race. The truth is there is nothing to defend about promiscuous women that is why some of you are dragging the topic off course. You should be ashamed of yourselves to say you defend promiscuous women. I have never met a man that says he defends promiscuous men because after all what is there to defend? It is ridiculous to offer support to people of our community whose actions bring misery to a great deal of innocent people within the the black community.

Also bear in mind what these promiscuous women get up to is not their own business as some would have us believe. Their actions hurt a whole lot of people. They degrade and tarnish the reputation of the entire race of black women. They are baby killers and through their recklessness and subsequent abortions have killed more black people than slavery, the KKK and racist America all put together. Who really then is my enemy eh? Promiscuous women destroy the black family on a grand scale. In short they are the scourge and a danger to the black family and should be rooted out ruthlessly by concerned black people.
"You see the divide and rule tactics going on here. This topic is about promiscuous women and some have conveniently turned it into men that hate women topic. WHERE DO YOU GUYS GET OFF.

Why can't can't you be bold and honest as Diamond was and say "I defend Promiscuous women." At least this way we can challenge you to tell us what you are defending. Don't take the cowardly way out by hiding behind the collective womanhood. What is this BS about speaking aginst promiscuous women translates into women bashing generally. Maybe it is selective reading or you would have noticed there are women on the board talking against female promiscuity in this topic as well. Would you accuse them of women hating as well? Hmmmn divide and rule eh?

MBM did this when I said PROMISCUOUS women he changed it to say I said women in general and I ignored it but as as if on cue some of you are following his lead. Well it won't get you far, I promise you. You can wriggle and wiggle as much as you want but the topic would stay on course. This topic is about PROMISCUOUS women and not about women collectively. Learn to read.

This topic deals with one of the core problems facing the black family today. The way our women behave is the fundamental foundation of what determines our future as a race. If you wish to destroy any society you target their women. What do you do exactly when you target the women? What you do is exactly what we are discussing here. Without the moral fabric of the women intact that race or society is in deep trouble. Check your history books and see how the demise of all the great civilizations started with the breakdown of the family. The first sign of trouble is when the family structure begins to crumble and according to various posts on this board this is very evident in the black American society today.

Think about it. Would you EVER buy a car if any time you want a ride you can walk up to a car showroom and drive any car of your choice free of charge and bring it back anytime you feel like? The answer to the question is obvious.

Then ask yourself what value would any man put on women of any race that any time he felt the urge, he can just stroll up and ride one like a horse until he gets bored with her and then change her for another? How much value do you think these women hold in the eyes of anyone.

I don't know but this may explain the phenomena why many black men when when they become successful ditch their black women for women of other races. What else can explain this strange behavior.

We also have the problem where black men are voting with their feet and marrying women from all other races except black women. It is obvious black men are finding these other women are more desirable than the women who look like their mothers. This is not natural behavior on the part of these black men so what is gone wrong? Another question is what is causing this phenomena. My answer is; "it is because of the perception that has gone out that black women are easy slackers and promiscuous." This is not true but this is the impression that has gone out to the rest of the world and we need to do something to stop this false impression of our women.

Do you see the problem and why it is wrong for some of you to hijack the topic and turn it into, "If YOU speak against promiscuous women means you hate women." Get real! Put up or shut up. We have a problem and we need to talk about it. If we can not get the promiscuous women among us to mend their ways at least we can start to name and shame them.

Some of you talk about being defenders of the promiscuous woman. What exactly are you defending? Spell it out cos maybe I'm missing something here. Are you defenders of the fact that these women are usually the marriage wreckers? Or are you defenders of the fact that these women are among the biggest killers of black babies or the fact that they drag the name of the entire black race in the mire. Oh let me see, you don't care about that side of their lives, do you? Yeah right! Some morals you have. Black women are our mothers and how society perceives them reflect on the entire black race. If society perceives our mothers as whores you can imagine what value they place on us as a race. The truth is there is nothing to defend about promiscuous women that is why some of you are dragging the topic off course. You should be ashamed of yourselves to say you defend promiscuous women. I have never met a man that says he defends promiscuous men because after all what is there to defend? It is ridiculous to offer support to people of our community whose actions bring misery to a great deal of innocent people within the the black community.

Also bear in mind what these promiscuous women get up to is not their own business as some would have us believe. Their actions hurt a whole lot of people. They degrade and tarnish the reputation of the entire race of black women. They are baby killers and through their recklessness and subsequent abortions have killed more black people than slavery, the KKK and racist America all put together. Who really then is my enemy eh? Promiscuous women destroy the black family on a grand scale. In short they are the scourge and a danger to the black family and should be rooted out ruthlessly by concerned black people." by Henry38


****************************
The chance of contracting HIV/Aids is directly proportional to promiscuous sexual activity! Be it within the U.S., Africa, or otherwise, HIV/AIDS is one of the biggest killers of Black people.

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

Well said Henry38. As for the art_gurls of the world, you need not reply, or if you do choose to reply, you are of no consequence to this set of circumstances, and you will be ignored, because you have absolutely no connection to the Black community!

....and any Black man or woman who defends, promotes, and/or honors promiscuous behavior or activity is truly a disgrace to themselves and a threat to the Black community! IAn inept Black elected leadership, perverted sexual activity, promiscuity, Black on Black crime, treason from within the Black community, and self-destruction are major factors, that contribute to the death of the Black community!
Sorry but I am not going away from this forum any time soon, as surely as you aren't going away either, despite being asked to by ww.neo-kem.com

Ho hum. I have never encouraged promiscuous behaviour so again you are assuming.

What I have said is do not judge a woman (or man) as being somehow more INFERIOR to another PERSON merely by their behaviour.

My posts have not been to wave a flag of promiscuousness but to fight against people's relish in making their own value judgements of others' behaviour as if making some moral stand - because I believe this behaviour in itself makes a mockery of morality.

It is this incessant judging process (itself) you are all so keen to blindly weigh into (complete with slanderous and derogatory comments about people you have never even met, just read about in the media, the media that you supposedly despise anyway for its own lack of integrity) that I am arguing against.

Whether I am part of the black community or not, I still have the right to an opinion.

It doesn't surpise me that you wish to act as self-appointed censor as well. I would point out I find it rather arrogant for you to appoint yourself as the spokesperson for the whole of the black community.

Especially as you seem to be writing the rules and continue to justify frequent visits to kkk sites as a black person - or is that in disguise? Maybe that's why I am confused about your behaviour being altruistic.

No-one has ever actually asked me what my ethics are so you are hardly in a position to judge me or them when you have no idea what they are. But hey, why ask when you have no doubt already compiled your own pre-judged list.

Yes, there are personal and social principles of morality and ethics and right and wrong. However you haven't chosen any discourse that encourages discussion or moral mindfulness of either... because you are too busy in your role of grand judge and inquisitor of everyone else's behaviour without ever evaluating your own.
I agree with most of what you said, Henry. However, we depart when you theorize that black men are leaving black women, for other races, because of their promiscuity. I don't think this is true. In fact, I believe that the black woman, as a general rule, has yet risen to the level of white female promiscuity. It has not been that long ago that one of the primary reasons that a brother wanted white women is because of the stereotype of them being more promiscuous and willing to do certain things that black women would not do. However, I will say that black women have seemingly been doing a lot of catching up in the last 20 years.

I think that the rise of black men dating other races of women is linked to the need of the male to feel dominant in the relationship and black women are not so easily dominated relative to other races. Of course, this is not an absolute rule, but the general rule of rise in inter-racial relations. Now, I do believe that it is the role of the man to be dominant in the relationship, as generally few women will respect a man she can dominate. Women like men who take charge, but that is not a license to abuse. Thus, instead of becoming stronger and sticking with the black women, many brothers simply choose to date races of women he perceives as weaker, so he can dominate without having to become stronger.

What many brother don't realize is that much of the attitude of the black women is simply a sheild for protection. That sheild can and is often lowered once a brother proves himself worthy of following and dominance.
quote:
Originally posted by henry38:

This topic is about promiscuous women and some have conveniently turned it into men that hate women topic. WHERE DO YOU GUYS GET OFF.


Because the very theme of this thread/topic is logically and morally bankrupt.

First - what is the point of characterizing someone as "promiscuous"? What purpose does it serve? How does it advance humanity in any meaningful way? How does it strengthen relationships between human beings? What's the point?

I can hear Henry38 saying - "well, they ARE promiscuous". How does that differ from someone calling you a nigger? You say, well their behavior makes them promiscuous. They say, well your skin color makes you a nigger. Does that get us anywhere? Again, what's the point?

More importantly - THERE WOULD BE NO "PROMISCUOUS" WOMEN IF MEN WEREN'T SLEEPING WITH THEM. It is the most ridiculous argument to me to malign women when the behavior you attack is wholly dependent upon their interaction with men.

No men. No "promiscuity".

Why not chide men to keep their dicks in their pants? That would immediately solve the problem!

If there is promiscuity in the world it is a HUMAN problem, not a female problem. Ignoring the male role in this issue is immoral, illogical, sexist, and downright foolish. nono
MBM, mathematically, men don't have to be promiscuous for a woman to be promiscuous. Promiscuity implies a one-to-many relationship. Thus, one women being with many men does not imply one man getting with many women. Hence, male promiscuity is not a prerequisite for female promiscuity and visa versa.

Women generally don't have a problem with male promiscuity as long as it is past tense. Many appreciate the skill sets from such exploits and in a sense, reward the behavior. On other hand, a man does not want a promiscuous women past or present tense, for as wife material, but only as their "bottom itchB". Therefore, promiscuous behaviors by women have much different consequences and risk than doe's male promiscuity. That having been said, all fornication and adultery are equally sinful.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

MBM, mathematically, men don't have to be promiscuous for a woman to be promiscuous.


Well, mathematically, it would seem like the numbers, intuitively, tell a different story. There are more females than males on this earth. In the black community, because of mortality, incarceration, and sexual preference - there are even fewer black males for each female. Therefore, the numbers suggest that each man has, on average, more than one female "to choose from". The converse of this is that each woman has, on average, less than one man to choose from. As with musical chairs, that leaves many women without men when the music stops. Hence, just from a numbers perspective, it would seem like promiscuity is probably more of a male issue than female.

Beyond that, which is the more common association: of a man being a "dog" or of a female being a "ho"? How many men do you know that ARE dogs versus how many females that are "ho's"? As you infer, society honors male promiscuity. Does that make their behavior any less promiscuous however?

quote:
Promiscuity implies a one-to-many relationship. Thus, one women being with many men does not imply one man getting with many women. Hence, male promiscuity is not a prerequisite for female promiscuity and visa versa.


I guarantee you - get a sample of 100 black men and 100 black women. Ask them how many partners they have had in their lives. Which do you think, on average, will have had MORE partners?

BTW - I have no doubt that the men will have had more partners. Who then is more promiscuous, men or women? As I said in a previous post, if promiscuity is a problem - it is a HUMAN problem.

quote:
Women generally don't have a problem with male promiscuity as long as it is past tense. Many appreciate the skill sets from such exploits and in a sense, reward the behavior.


I disagree. In this day and age who wants to be with anyone who has "been around the block"? Beyond that, that society rewards men for their promiscuity has nothing to do with the fact that they are, in fact, promiscuous. My point is that blaming women for behavior that, by definition, includes men is absolutely nonsensical.

Furthermore, if there are MORE women than men - then if you infer rampant female promiscuity - then you also, by definiton, infer male promiscuity. The women can't be having sex promiscuously if the men aren't as well.

quote:
On other hand, a man does not want a promiscuous women past or present tense, for as wife material, but only as their "bottom itchB". Therefore, promiscuous behaviors by women have much different consequences and risk than doe's male promiscuity.


Basically you are explaining away male promiscuity because of male sexism. Sexism is wrong; it is morally repugnent and logically void.
Most or your statements stand vacuously true, MBM. In other words, I cannot refute most of what you said. That having been said, your rebuttal does NOT serve as the logical contradiction of what I presented. Again, I am simply speaking of what is mathematically possible, not what manifest in practice. Mathematically, promiscuity of a male or female does NOT require promiscuity of opposite gender. If 100 men have only been with one women each, in a years time, but each shared that one women, it is not the men who are promiscuous....but rather the women. Thus, this one female's promiscuity was not predicated upon the promiscuity of the men she was involved with. Now of course, in reality, men are more promiscuous than women, but that has nothing to do with what is mathematically possible. Hence, I stand by my statement that you were incorrect in alluding that female promiscuity needs male promiscuity to manifest. This is what I gleaned from your original statements, but I could have misinterpreted them.

I cannot bare witness to collective women's though processes. I am not a woman and cannot speak as an expert of what women think. However, I have bared witness to the behavior of many women and assuming that such behavior is born from free will and not force then I can only conclude that they do indeed find favor in promiscuous behavior in men. I think women like an "experienced man" who knows how to treat and please a lady in the sheets. The more promiscuous you are, the more "experienced you are", as a general rule. I don't think that many women want a "virgin" man as a husband as compared with men who would want a "virgin" wife.

Of course I am explaining away male promiscuity. In other words, I am explaining why there is a difference. The bottom line is that if women want to break down the double standard of such behavior, then they need to stop rewarding it. The double standard is born from the male's reaction to promiscuous females vs. the female's reaction to promiscuous men. Women cannot and will not ever be able to control how males view promiscuous women. Not going to happen. However, what they can control is how they view and treat promiscuous men. Instead of trying to change how males view and treat promiscuous women, leveling the double standard can be accomplished by changing the way females view and treat promiscuous men. In other words, women do not DISRESPECT a promiscous man to the same degree that a man DISRESPECT a promicouis woman. Given that the behavior is frowned upon in all religions, it should be that women learn to disrespect and stop rewarding promiscous behavior in men rather than men learning to accept and reward promicious behavior in females. The genders will continue to bahave in the manner in which the opposite sex rewards such behavior. Hence, to change behavior is to change the behaviors that we reward.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

Instead of trying to change how males view and treat promiscuous women, leveling the double standard can be accomplished by changing the way females view and treat promiscuous men.


Since it seems that we are speaking more theoretically than not, what role do men play - in your opinion - in this issue?
I don't think that men have any role to play in regards to female promiscuity. That is women's decision and domain. Once a woman makes her decision then she should be willing to accept the consequences of that decision, which can include disease, pregnancy and being ostracized as a "Ho" by male society. She also must weigh her goals and desires as an individual against the goals and desires of collective womanhood. Often times, things that are to the benefit of the individual can and often are to the detriment of the collective or group.

It is my opinion that female promiscuity reduces the attractiveness of females as wives and relegates them to sexual friendships. If marriage is a collective goal of womanhood, then female promiscuity works against this collective goal. It also works against the concept of family and hinder the optimal condition that children are best raised under.
It's not a mutually exclusive issue. However, men simply don't face the same risk and it is therefore much harder to change the behavior of men when there is little risk involved, relative to such a pleasurable reward. The benefit/cost analysis is in the man's favor, but not in the women's favor. Besides, the greatest sphere of influence of the women is women, not men. Therefore if they have an issue with the double standard, they should exercise a solution from their greatest sphere of influence...which is to start treating promiscuous men with the disrespect men treat promiscuous women. In a hedonistic culture and society, the pull for equality is to emulate the level of acceptance for female promiscuity as opposed to reducing the level of acceptance of male promiscuity. It's like many women are made because they want the ability to be whores and respected and desired as wives and mothers at the same time, just as they respect and desire the skills born from male whores. That's backwards if the goal is a more righteous society.
quote:
Originally posted by Noah The African:

That's backwards if the goal is a more righteous society.


If that is the goal, to enhance society, then I cannot see how any solution to this problem can include only half of the parties involved in the behavior that is troublesome. **This is particularly thet case when men are the ones encouraging women into this behavior for self serving reasons.**

  • If men were more interested in commitment, society would be better.

  • If men were more faithful to their partners, then society would be better.

  • If men were more interested in commitment in general, society would be better.

  • If men didn't lie and cheat and steal and do whatever it takes to have sex with women, then society would be better.

  • If men would take responsibility for their children, then society would be better.

    Would not ALL of the issues that you have with female promiscuity be solved by positive changes in male behavior?

    Why does the responsibility for the health of scoeity, or even the family, rest solely on the woman's shoulders? How is this reflective of the role that men play in creating the problems?
  • Well, as a system analyst, when something is not working, that was working; the first thing we ask is "what changed". In dealing with what going on now, the "what changed" is certainly not the behavior of men. What has changed is the availability of women who do not withhold sex until marriage. This increases the supply and variety available for male whores who want to get with as many women as possible. The more female fornicators, the less attractive marriage becomes due to the "opportunity cost" associated with getting married. Why get married when a man can have everything, and more, while not being married that they can get while married. A man can have sex, children and a variety of women while single, which is better than marriage for many men. This plays right into male's biological nature and role as the sperm bank for humanity. Thus, what I am saying is that male behavior is controlled via what behavior of men women reward. Male behavior will not change by attempting to appeal to their minds, you have to present a case to our groin area and only women can present that case by virtue of what behaviors they will reward with sex.
    quote:

    First - what is the point of characterizing someone as "promiscuous"? What purpose does it serve? How does it advance humanity in any meaningful way? How does it strengthen relationships between human beings? What's the point?

    That is something for the topic starter to answer, don't you think? You should be directing that question to Popcorn. From the interest it has generated I would NOT be questioning the validity of the topic as the web-master if I were you.

    quote:

    I can hear Henry38 saying - "well, they ARE promiscuous". How does that differ from someone calling you a nigger? You say, well their behavior makes them promiscuous. They say, well your skin color makes you a nigger. Does that get us anywhere? Again, what's the point?

    That is a pretty trivial silly comment. My skin color is what I am born with, it is not a lifestyle as promiscuity is. How can you come up with a comparison like that? It's like you are saying I am limited in my functions as a person because I am black. And that is a statement coming from a fellow black man? I am shocked. From your logic I can not say someone is a thief because if I do he would say I am a nigger. LOL. Wake-up one is a lifestyle that one can do make a conscious decision to stop or pursue whiles the other is genetic and one can not do anything about. The example is very silly indeed.

    Back to the comment, "where does it get us?" I suggest you read the comments of the consequences of female promiscuity as opposed to male promiscuity. It looks like you conveniently ignored that or you would not be asking this question
    quote:

    More importantly - THERE WOULD BE NO "PROMISCUOUS" WOMEN IF MEN WEREN'T SLEEPING WITH THEM. It is the most ridiculous argument to me to malign women when the behavior you attack is wholly dependent upon their interaction with men.

    I'll agree that there would not be promiscuous women if there were no men to sleep with them but then again it sounds like again you are missing the point altogether. It's like saying if there are no houses then there would be no burglars to rob them. So what, people should not build houses?

    Men the world over are the same i.e. they are promiscuous, but when was the last time you heard women from Asia and Middle East labeled as promiscuous? If these women are seen as virtuous then from your logic the men from this part of the world do not sleep around. Pleeeaaase, you and I know better.

    However that is beside the point. Again I would rather refer you back because you really need to understand the points made about responsibilities and consequences. Please understand no one is ignoring the role men play in this behavior. In fact if you checked my last post I said I have never come across any man that would defend male promiscuity. The point made in case you missed is that the damage these men do is limited. A promiscuous woman on the other hand is whole new ball game.

    If I take a woman and educate her it is highly likely her children would follow her example and become highly educated people. That would create a strong and prosperous society.

    If I take another woman and set her on a course of drug taking, thieving prostitution etc. What do you think are the chances her children achieving anything in life? More importantly do you think this woman would pass her depraved lifestyle to her children?

    Please try and contrast the above carefully and understand the points made then you should see THE POINT of this conversation. Our women are the foundation on which our society is built, please try and understand that. Justifying or comparing women behavior to what their menfolk do is a wrong idea.
    henry38 - children are not merely the responsibility of their mother. Why do you ignore the voluminous research (much less basic common sense) which shows that children raised in two parent families fare far better than those who do not. Since a child is the product of both an egg AND a sperm, your attitude reflects - in my opinion - just merely more of the problem of sexism that is at the root of these ridiculous characterizations than anything.

    When a child is raised it is the responsibility of both parents to shape that child's life in the best way posssible. How, on Earth, can ignore 50% of the equation?
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    I guarantee you - get a sample of 100 black men and 100 black women. Ask them how many partners they have had in their lives. Which do you think, on average, will have had MORE partners?

    Are you suggesting you would get a truthful answer to that question from women? You are sounding very naive about womens sexuality here.

    Here let me ask you just to gauge how much you know about women.

    If I said women are sexaully predatory same as men. Would you say that is true or false?

    Answer this honestly because I am beginning to suspect from your comment above you know very little about women
    quote:
    Originally posted by henry38:

    If I said women are sexaully predatory same as men. Would you say that is true or false?

    Answer this honestly because I am beginning to suspect from your comment above you know very little about women


    I'd say the entire construct of your question is at the root of your problem. You believe that it is perfectly acceptable for men to act in a manner that is "predatory" - to act without conscience and propriety. Yet you hold women to a standard that is at a completely different level. In addition, you hold them completely responsible for the by-product of behavior which, be definition, involves both men and women.

    This from a man who goes on and on about his righteousness and piety! laugh

    BTW - why don't YOU answer a question for a change instead of just spouting off endlessly?
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    henry38 - children are not merely the responsibility of their mother. Why do you ignore the voluminous research (much less basic common sense) which shows that children raised in two parent families fare far better than those who do not. Since a child is the product of both an egg AND a sperm, your attitude reflects - in my opinion - just merely more of the problem of sexism that is at the root of these ridiculous characterizations than anything.

    When a child is raised it is the responsibility of both parents to shape that child's life in the best way posssible. How, on Earth, can ignore 50% of the equation?


    What makes you think I am ignoring anything. I AM A PRODUCT OF MY MOTHER'S DISCIPLINE AND upbringing. Not my fathers even though he was around but at work most of the time. I can confidently tell you if you ask the answer would be same the world over. Mothers do the upbringing not the father and that is a statement coming from a father who is the head of his houseld
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    quote:
    Originally posted by henry38:

    If I said women are sexaully predatory same as men. Would you say that is true or false?

    Answer this honestly because I am beginning to suspect from your comment above you know very little about women


    I'd say the entire construct of your question is at the root of your problem. You believe that it is perfectly acceptable for men to act in a manner that is "predatory" - to act without conscience and propriety. Yet you hold women to a standard that is at a completely different level. In addition, you hold them completely responsible for the by-product of behavior which, be definition, involves both men and women.

    This from a man who goes on and on about his righteousness and piety! laugh
    Really where? Becareful not to make accusations if challeneged you can not prove or substantiate

    Oh I see because I answer your questions in the religious section that makes me come across as righteous and pious. I would say your roots are showing. I would know never to vist that section of your website again.

    Besides you never answered my question. I need to know if I am wasting my time with you or not.
    quote:
    Originally posted by henry38:

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    henry38 - children are not merely the responsibility of their mother. Why do you ignore the voluminous research (much less basic common sense) which shows that children raised in two parent families fare far better than those who do not. Since a child is the product of both an egg AND a sperm, your attitude reflects - in my opinion - just merely more of the problem of sexism that is at the root of these ridiculous characterizations than anything.

    When a child is raised it is the responsibility of both parents to shape that child's life in the best way posssible. How, on Earth, can ignore 50% of the equation?


    What makes you think I am ignoring anything. I AM A PRODUCT OF MY MOTHER'S DISCIPLINE AND upbringing. Not my fathers even though he was around but at work most of the time. I can confidently tell you if you ask the answer would be same the world over. Mothers do the upbringing not the father and that is a statement coming from a father who is the head of his houseld


    Well, I guess we are clear now then. You only see the world from your own extraordinarily limited and narrow perspective. You appear incapable of comprehension, cognition and analysis beyond what's at the end of your nose.
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    quote:
    Originally posted by henry38:

    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    henry38 - children are not merely the responsibility of their mother. Why do you ignore the voluminous research (much less basic common sense) which shows that children raised in two parent families fare far better than those who do not. Since a child is the product of both an egg AND a sperm, your attitude reflects - in my opinion - just merely more of the problem of sexism that is at the root of these ridiculous characterizations than anything.

    When a child is raised it is the responsibility of both parents to shape that child's life in the best way posssible. How, on Earth, can ignore 50% of the equation?


    What makes you think I am ignoring anything. I AM A PRODUCT OF MY MOTHER'S DISCIPLINE AND upbringing. Not my fathers even though he was around but at work most of the time. I can confidently tell you if you ask the answer would be same the world over. Mothers do the upbringing not the father and that is a statement coming from a father who is the head of his houseld


    Well, I guess we are clear now then. You only see the world from your own extraordinarily limited and narrow perspective. You appear incapable of comprehension, cognition and analysis beyond what's at the end of your nose.
    Limited and narrow? Incapable of comprehension. That sounds like insults to me and from my experience that is what happens when the other side has no argument
    quote:
    Originally posted by henry38:

    Limited and narrow? Incapable of comprehension. That sounds like insults to me and from my experience that is what happens when the other side has no argument


    laugh

    We're talking about society and the behaviors of men and women in it. You respond to a question about society with what your mother and father did. So what? Who cares? How on Earth is that relevant to the broad question? Answer: it is relevant only to the extent that your particular family is reflective of society. Since you, henry38, represent about 1/5,000,000,000 of society - I would think that it would be fairly safe to call that a "limited" and "narrow" subset. Don't you?

    Furthermore, since you answered based upon personal experience and personal experience alone, you infer that that is the only data from which you establish your opinions. Since there is an extraordinary amount of information - beyond your personal experience - available about this issue, then your decision to base your perspective off of such an enormously limited (and perhaps even irrelevant) data set suggests either an unwillingness to consider other information - or an inability. Beyond that, it suggests an unwillingness to really grasp the facts and complexity of the "problem". Apparently you'd rather wallow in your sexism than accept any responsibility in the issue.
    Was God being a sexist by having the female bare children and not the male? Is not that a double standard of God and nature? Why is the acknowledgement of the different roles of men and women and behaviorism conducive to those roles considered sexist?

    Again, I contend that male behavior in a free society is commanded by what male behavior the women in the free society will reward with sex, given that sex is a males primary objective and obsession. This is not rocket science. Thus, in order to change male behavior women must first change their reward behavior. If men want to control the behavior of women, they must control their behavior of reward of women, by the same token. The problem arises when men and women don't want the same thing to the same degree. In short, if it is your opinion that male behavior should change...it implies that the behavior of men that women are rewarding must change. Remember...women are making these decision from free will.

    What men really want is being rewarded by the trend in female behavior, but what women really want is not being reward by current male behavior. Thus, the males are winning while the females are losing. However, when the females lose, the institution of family loses as well, as well as society as a whole.

    In think that intra-female competition for men helps to exacerbate female promiscuity. Life is a competition and if a women believes that to be competitive in the game of catching and trying to keep a man, that she has to give it up, lest the next women will and hence get the man, it becomes a race to the bottom for female virtue. Women are attempting to outbid one another for the often short term contract of alpha male affection and attention. They bid via sexuality and willingness to attempt to maximize a males pleasures by various means. Much of this behavior is rooted in insecurity as too many women are not truly confident in who and what they are which leads them seeking validation from a mans attention.

    As the proverb states: War between grasshoppers delights the crows. In this case, the crows are men and as long as women are competing with one and other for men and not unifying to control the behavior of men by what they reward, women are going to continue to come out with the short end of the stick.
    quote:
    Originally posted by henry38:

    Read my answer again I remember saying something like, "I am confident you would get the same response the world over."


    The world over thinks you're a nigger and genetically inferior to white people. So what? Beyond that, IMHO, there are far more men who are evolved enough to see past this 19th century view of the world than you think.

    quote:
    Why don't you do a poll and ask the question here and now and maybe it would give you a clue of how things work in the house.


    Sex involves both a man and a woman. Yet women who engage in sex (with men) risk the characterization of being "promiscuous" while men are "playas". ek

    Respectfully, whoever believes this is appropriate is both morally and intellectually retarded.
    Now you are insulting my color when we are talking about behaviours. Wow MBM what an eye opener.

    If you think those of us in this post that don't agree with you are retarded, well then I am in a good league because I have NEVER EVER come across any man that thinks female promiscuity is OK. You are in the minority.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Noah The African:

    Was God being a sexist by having the female bare children and not the male?


    You know this is hilarious. The same folks who go on and on about the sanctity of the traditional FAMILY and the Godliness of a man and woman in relationships when opposing gay marriage somehow forget the man when talking about this issue. Suddenly now the child is the exclusive responsibility and domain of the woman. nono

    Regarding male behavior, you know when we're born we have the impulse to shit whenever and wherever we are when the urge comes to us. Do we learn to control our impulses and behavior or do we shit at will? Are we thinking, rational adults, human beings - or are we just a mere bundle of nerves and impulses incapable of self-control or thought?

    laugh
    quote:
    Originally posted by MBM:
    quote:
    Originally posted by Noah The African:

    Was God being a sexist by having the female bare children and not the male?


    You know this is hilarious. The same folks who go on and on about the sanctity of the traditional FAMILY and the Godliness of a man and woman in relationships when opposing gay marriage somehow forget the man when talking about this issue. Suddenly now the child is the exclusive responsibility and domain of the woman. nono

    Regarding male behavior, you know when we're born we have the impulse to shit whenever and wherever we are when the urge comes to us. Do we learn to control our impulses and behavior or do we shit at will? Are we thinking, rational adults, human beings - or are we just a mere bundle of nerves and impulses incapable of self-control or thought?

    laugh


    I would hope that you would first link words of mine to thoughts on Gay marriage before you integrate it into a debate. However true your statement may be, it has nothing to do with me because I have never voiced an opinion here in regards to Gay marriage.

    Yes, we are born with the impulse and need to defecate when the need arises and we never stop defecating from childhood to adulthood. People do not defecate at will, but by impulse. Sure, you may be able to hold it an hour or so but you still going to take that dump...sooner or later. By the same token, just because males are being promiscuous does not mean that they have not held back their impulses. In other words, it is false to assume that men are having sex every time the urge comes up. If that was the case most of us would be screwing all the time and never passing up a women without trying to get in her pants. Even promicious men encounter women on a daily bases who they refrian from making sexual advances toward....in other words, they are practicing some degree of self control and are not void of controling their impulses, like a newborn, as in your analogy.
    quote:
    Even promicious men encounter women on a daily bases who they refrian from making sexual advances toward...in other words, they are practicing some degree of self control and are not void of controling their impulses


    As do promiscuous women. She is not necessarily screwing everything that passes in front of her face. But she will never get the same credit you so willingly lavish on men who may pass up the occassional toothless hobo.

    We can't even come to a concensus for what number of sexual partners and frequency of sexual activity makes one positively promiscuous. Any woman who's number of sexual partners is too high for your liking is promiscuous.

    As usual, the Black woman is always the alpha and the omega of all the Black community's problems. If we really try perhaps we can come up with a few reasons for why the Black woman is completely and solely responsible for racism in this country. Christ. Yes, the Black woman's role is as the head of the childrearing, but she is not solely responsible (unless her partner is worthless). That is precisely why we continue to lament the lack of precense of Black fathers in the home. He is vital! He may not be as involved in all of the minute details, but children certainly learn from him and emulate him. We know the popular saying that girls marry men like their fathers (or spend their entire lives looking for a substitute) and we probably all know several women for whom this is true. You can't simply write off all male behavior when it comes to the health and perseverance of the Black family.
    quote:
    Mothers do the upbringing not the father and that is a statement coming from a father who is the head of his houseld



    Bro...speak for yourself...my mother dealt with the domestic issues to a certain extent....my Dad set the tone for me and my brothers and Mom backed him and re-inforced what he said do with threats of having him get our azz straight....and when it came to issues of manhood...my Pops handled that one except for the issues about women, how to treat em......what to look for in one....and what kind that is fulla schit and to tell to kiss your azz when you are trying to do the right thing and she ain't feeling it...My Mom dictated schit to my sister....and back in that day...black women didn't f-k around with their daughters and all that hoochie azz behavior predicated on being a floosie and not being able to be told schit without givng flack to the parent.....back then....like Slick Rick said in the song Children's Story....the moral of the story is "straight and narrow or your soul gets cast".........parents both play a nuturing and disciplinary role...and that is more divided between Mom and Dad as the kid gets older..........
    quote:
    Yes, the Black woman's role is as the head of the childrearing, but she is not solely responsible (unless her partner is worthless). That is precisely why we continue to lament the lack of precense of Black fathers in the home. He is vital! He may not be as involved in all of the minute details, but children certainly learn from him and emulate him. We know the popular saying that girls marry men like their fathers (or spend their entire lives looking for a substitute) and we probably all know several women for whom this is true. You can't simply write off all male behavior when it comes to the health and perseverance of the Black family.




    Henry...please read this and absorb it.....because this statement is not even up for debate....don't embarrass yourself dogg...and i'm coming at ya as a homie......
    henry38 (and perhaps Noah The African), if we were all to take your advice and begin to ruthlessly root out and shame all the promiscuous Black women, who would we be looking for? All women who have had sex before marriage? How many sexual partners would she need to have to qualify? Does time period matter (eg. Is 40 partners by age 15 the same as 40 partners by age 80)? How many abortions would she need to have had (if any)? Does an abundance of oral or anal or digital sex partners count toward her promiscuity total? Does it matter if she is on the receiving end or the giving end? Do rapes count toward her total? Does it matter if she was in some sort of relationship with these men?

    Who exactly would we be looking for?
    henry38:
    quote:
    Also bear in mind what these promiscuous women get up to is not their own business as some would have us believe. Their actions hurt a whole lot of people. They degrade and tarnish the reputation of the entire race of black women. They are baby killers and through their recklessness and subsequent abortions have killed more black people than slavery, the KKK and racist America all put together.


    let's see the math on that one...?
    henry38 to MBM:
    quote:
    Are you suggesting you would get a truthful answer to that question from women? You are sounding very naive about womens sexuality here.

    Here let me ask you just to gauge how much you know about women.

    "If I said women are sexaully predatory same as men. Would you say that is true or false?"

    Answer this honestly because I am beginning to suspect from your comment above you know very little about women


    hmmm....this is adding a curious and entertaining new dimension to this thread... now men are judging how well other men know women !!

    laugh
    To date, I haven't commented on this thread because I find the whole female-promiscuity=Bad/Male promiscuity=Human Nature discussion fallacious.

    Such labelling says way more about a male's attempt/need to control a female, than anything about her promiscuity (whatever that means).

    IMHO, those men concerned about female promiscuity, at the root, are more concerned with their personal insecurity regarding their ability to measure up (pardon the pun) to those that have gone before them.

    Honestly, every man somewhere in the back of our mind wants to know (No, I don't...Yes, I do...No, I don't) how we compare to other lovers. We want/need to be, or believe that we are, the woman's "best" lover, ever. That is why there is such a premium on female virginity. "If I'm the first, I have to be her best. And, if I can brow-beat her into believing this promiscuity=Bad thing, I will always be her best."

    But it's not about her, it's about our perception of us. If a ["promiscious"] woman told a man that he was her absolute best lover [even if she was lying, and the man didn't know it] and therefore would never leave him, her promiscuity would never be a problem.

    So brothas, let's give this, "I'm looking out for the race" thing a rest. Every problem with female promiscuity cited here, has a male somewhere, and equally, involved. Stepping up to this fact is what manhood is about.
    Well, many of you sisters have obviously missed my point. Males will behave in a manner in which women reward...which means that women have the power and control...not the men. As young men, we quickly learn what types of brothers and behavior women are attracted to, because we get our queue from the brothers who have all the fine women and try to emulate their technique and method of operation. Now, that might not be scientific methodology employed by young males, but seeing and doing is the most prolific learning methodology in nature. Hence, male youth are conditioned to emulate such behavior by their biological directive to be with females.

    In the land of Utopia, which many of you seem to have immigrated to, one can simply make a suggestion that males should take it upon themselves to not be promiscuou and PRESTO..it manifests. However, in the real world, where I reside, men need an incentive to change their behavior. They are not going to change simply from the power of suggestion, like in your world of Utopia, which is the only plan offered by Utopians. Men will only be inspired to change when women start rewarding a different set of male behaviors. That's not blaming women, that's simply recognition of the power women have over the control of men. It only works via collective effort and commitment.

    The same holds true for how to change women behavior, which is vie men rewarding a different set of behaviors. The problem is, however, that male biological instincs will lead them to reward promicous behavior in women. What I am saying is that for the most part...men are happy with promicous women with th only draw back being that they are not marriage material. However, who needs marriage when you can have sex, kids and variety from a growing pool of promisuous women? Thats having your cake and eathing it too.

    The greatest responsibility goes to those with the greatest power. The fact that women do not recognize their own power or do not want to assume the responsibility of the power is born from their own insecurities. As I said, women have the most valuable role in nature, not men as men are expendable and that is why traditionally they go out and fight the wars because even if the majority of them are killed, the supply of eggs and wombs is more important to being fruitful and multiplying than is the supply of sperm donor.

    I would suggest that some of you women not let your personal insecurity about possible being promiscuous taint your examination of the collect condition. I am not a promiscuous man and thus I am not defending male promiscuity because I have been hedonistically rewarded from the practice. My opinion is not born from a "defensive" position in which I feel I need to rationalize an acceptance for my own behavior by ignoring it.

    Men, for the most part, are not the ones complaining. Women voice most of the complaints. You might hear men lamenting about how discussed they are about scantily clad women who appear on some video.... but when they see it they aren't turning the channel and in fact many move in for a closer look. Consequently, men are reveling in female promiscuity and raunchiness. The number one business on the Internet is pornography, which is primarily a male customer base. Men are simply taking advantage of the decline of female virtue and promote even promote it, secretly or openly. No one is forcing these women to get on TV and leaving nothing to the imagination or to go to clubs with their tig bitties and bog biities all hanging out.

    When one takes an inventory of feelings, it's really the women who are the unhappiest with the current situation and are the loneliest. Thus, if women are the loneliest and unhappiest from the current situation, then it only makes sense that they will be the ones to take responsibility for changing it. Don't expect the male to change when he is....having a ball.
    Hello Frenchy,

    quote:
    Originally posted by Frenchy:
    quote:
    Even promicious men encounter women on a daily bases who they refrian from making sexual advances toward...in other words, they are practicing some degree of self control and are not void of controling their impulses


    As do promiscuous women. She is not necessarily screwing everything that passes in front of her face. But she will never get the same credit you so willingly lavish on men who may pass up the occassional toothless hobo.

    We can't even come to a concensus for what number of sexual partners and frequency of sexual activity makes one positively promiscuous. Any woman who's number of sexual partners is too high for your liking is promiscuous.

    As usual, the Black woman is always the alpha and the omega of all the Black community's problems. If we really try perhaps we can come up with a few reasons for why the Black woman is completely and solely responsible for racism in this country. Christ. Yes, the Black woman's role is as the head of the childrearing, but she is not solely responsible (unless her partner is worthless). That is precisely why we continue to lament the lack of precense of Black fathers in the home. He is vital! He may not be as involved in all of the minute details, but children certainly learn from him and emulate him. We know the popular saying that girls marry men like their fathers (or spend their entire lives looking for a substitute) and we probably all know several women for whom this is true. You can't simply write off all male behavior when it comes to the health and perseverance of the Black family.


    ...and both the book and the movie, "Waiting to Exhale" promoted by Black women, trashed the Black male. Bar none, "Waiting to Exhale" is one of the most disgraceful books, movies, ever written by, and/or translated into a movie, by Black people.

    The theme of "Waiting to Exhale" is very far from the reality of it. Just as surely as Black men have betrayed Black women, the same can be said, and/or worse, concerning the relationship between Black women and Black men. Just as surely as there are many good Black women around, the same can be said for Black men.

    The "alpha and the omega", of all the Black communities problems, as depicted in "Waiting to Exhale", stereotyped the Black male as being worthless, uncouth, untrustworthy, lazy, etc., etc.

    This being said there is more than enough blame to go both directions. Bottom line, Black people need to be more respectful of each other.
    What about this double standard...

    Woman who is seen turning down very attractive, prospective mates, "She must be saving herself for the right one or marriage"

    Man who is seen turning down very attractive, prospective mates, "He must be gay"


    Class Act, American Pie, and several other movies I can't recall serve as paradigm's for this macho sexuality, that many young men face day to day. Time and again you see Fathers in these movies questioning the sexuality of their sons when their sons don't prematurely indulge in sexual behavior. To a certain extent promiscuity is applauded and encouraged by the Father's of these men in movies and TV shows.

    I share the frustration in the double-standard of sexuality. I'm frustrated with the fact that we sit idly by and watch the peer pressure that young men go through, wait for them to fail, just to get the chance to call them 'dogs'. I'll stray away from the land of Utopia that is prevalent amidsts this discussion, and address the issue of 'Manhood'. Much of our peers equate our 'manhood' with our degree of sexual intercourse. Some men went through so much pressure that they had to lie about their sexual 'status', in order to be accepted into the male clich without being belittled or held under critical skepticizm.

    *weak argument*
    Do women in general desire a mate that is a virgin? Or are they more sexually responsive to a mate that appears to be more sexually experienced?

    Women hold eachother to higher moral standards, but replace these standards in men with quality instead of morality.

    It would appear that I suggest that the onus lies with women. However, IMHO I think the onus lies with the 'FATHERS' of men; who should encourage their sons to live to a higher standard of sexuality and preserve themselves for 'the right one'.

    ---------

    Problem is... most of these 'dogs' didn't have a father. So without a father alot of men emulate their peers, so in essence they are raised by their peers which is obviously problematic.
    Noah The African, you sidestepped completely defining this promiscuous behavior in women that is dragging down men who are simply at the mercy of their biology.

    In defining it, you would see that the criteria is completely subjective. In use, the word is frequently trotted out only to denigrate women who do not fit into your moral box, however small or large it may be. THAT is the problem. Women should stop rewarding promiscuous behavior? Fine. How many sexual partners is the cut off limit before we women refuse to date a man or sleep with him? Do kids matters? Does frequency matter? Etc. There can be no consensus!

    If you choose to date women with under a certain number of sexual partners or a certain amount of sexual experience, then fine. Knock yourself out. But if we are going to attempt some sort of change, it has to be on something other than this shaky, sexist persecution.

    quote:
    I would suggest that some of you women not let your personal insecurity about possible being promiscuous taint your examination of the collect condition.


    I was wondering when that line was going to make an appearance in this thread. Anyone railing against the labelling of other people's sexual activities must be insecure about their promiscuous behaviors? I guess anyone marching against AIDS must have it? Come on, Noah. Wrong is wrong and you don't need to suffer from it to recognize it and speak out against it. Nor should we.

    quote:
    Men, for the most part, are not the ones complaining.


    Of course not! That is the very crux of sexist behavior. It's good for men and men only!

    quote:
    You might hear men lamenting about how discussed they are about scantily clad women who appear on some video.... but when they see it they aren't turning the channel and in fact many move in for a closer look. Consequently, men are reveling in female promiscuity and raunchiness.


    Scantily-clad women are now being labelled as promiscuous??? She can be called promiscuous without any idea of whether or not she's had sex, huh? I guess she just has that promiscuous look. It is enough for you that she has her "tig ol bitties" hanging out. It is enough for some other men that she simply HAVE big breasts. Not surprising because that is the same way this language is used toward women everyday.

    quote:
    When one takes an inventory of feelings, it's really the women who are the unhappiest with the current situation and are the loneliest. Thus, if women are the loneliest and unhappiest from the current situation, then it only makes sense that they will be the ones to take responsibility for changing it.


    Certainly! I contend it is sexists and misogynists we should be viciously rooting out and shaming. Women cannot continue to let men tear down their fellow sisters. Women cannot continue to buy into sexists garbage designed to leave them always on the short end of the stick.
    Frenchy, First, women are not dragging down men, rather, men have been morally low down for a long time and women, in quest for equality, are dragging themselves down tying to reach parity with men. Secondly, it's more than a number that determines promiscuity. I would say that any person who would have sex in the first two weeks of dating is promiscuous, because you don't really know the person and can't truly be in love. If you are having sex in the first week or first date, a person is as very promiscuous.
    Let us take inventory:

    One, I have consistently exalted women as the highest and most valuable form of humanity for natures objectives.

    Two, I have consistently stated that men are puppets of what women reward, which implies that it is women who control men.

    Three, I have shown that sex comes with more risk for women than it does for men, which means that women should naturally be more careful and responsible for their own protection.

    Four, I have stated, and no one has disproved or even attempted to disprove, that men and women are biological unequal and were given different roles by nature. Thus, one cannot make equality out of an inequality, especially when nature programs it that way.

    Five, I have demonstrated that survival and recreation, via the continuation of the bloodline, is the prime biological impulses of life and how males propensity for promiscuity serves a biological purpose, where there is little species benefit to female promiscuity.

    AM I a sexist? Yes I am. Given that the suffix "ist" denotes one who performs the root word that it is affixed to....the fact that I do perform it makes me guilty as charged. However, the pejorative popular usage in which you presented it is also correct. You see, I am sexist in that I believe women are superior in nature's eye. Thus, I hold women to a greater set of expectations than I hold men, just as I would hold an adult to a greater set of expectations than I would hold a child. When the world is destroyed, the destruction will be testosterone driven. Women are the salvation for humanity...but only if and when they recognize their worth and power as women and stop trying to create equality with men by striving to emulate male behaviorisms. The female in nature is meant as a counter weight or balance of the male and the male the counter weight and balance of the female in order to form the proper equilibrium for humanity and the rearing of offspring. When females try to behave like males and when males try to behave like female, disequilibria and chaos is the result, because the genders were never meant to be biological or behavioral equals as women are striving for.
    A few thoughts:

    quote:
    Originally posted by Noah The African:

    Two, I have consistently stated that men are puppets of what women reward, which implies that it is women who control men.


    I think men are attracted to sex. Period. They do not do what women "reward" IMO as much as they do what - as you infer - their testerone tells them to do. There is a difference. In this way, again IMHO, women are not responsible for male behavior. The responsibility for male behavior lies squarely with men.

    quote:
    Three, I have shown that sex comes with more risk for women than it does for men, which means that women should naturally be more careful and responsible for their own protection.


    This is only true if it presupposes that men are not responsible for the product of their sexual behavior. This approach implicitly takes men 'off the hook' for doing the right thing by their partners and by their children. Frankly, (and I do not imply that you personally are suggesting this) I think this subtle assumption is at the root of much of the problems of the black family. If we tacitly accept that women are somehow MORE responsible for children just because they are the ones who bear them, then we inappropriately excuse men of their rightful responsibility. This has hugely negative consequences and is overhwlmingly unfair to women and their children.

    quote:
    Four, I have stated, and no one has disproved or even attempted to disprove, that men and women are biological unequal and were given different roles by nature. Thus, one cannot make equality out of an inequality, especially when nature programs it that way.


    Being biologically "unequal", IMO, has no bearing on male behavior or how we administer the characteristics of responsibility and judgment and discipline etc. in our lives.

    Would you excuse the behavior of a woman who deceives a man about birth control in an effort to selfishly have a baby - merely by saying that women may have a biological need to procreate? I don't think many men would just merely let that go because of "biology".

    We are adult human beings. We are thinking rational mammals. We have moral and ethical capacity. We have the God given ability to act NOT on impulse devoid of reason, but out of thought and judgment. Those who do not do so should not be excused because of their personal weakness.

    quote:
    Five, I have demonstrated that survival and recreation, via the continuation of the bloodline, is the prime biological impulses of life and how males propensity for promiscuity serves a biological purpose, where there is little species benefit to female promiscuity.


    It would seem logical that the perpetuation of the species is a trait shared equally by all of the species. If not, then how would the species continue? If one gender was somehow disproportionately interested, versus the other disinterested, that would seem to be a guaranteed prescription for demise.

    Furthermore, as I said above, explaining away inappropriate behavior because of "biology" does not hold water. Do we excuse murder or assault, for example, because of biology? Hey, men have testerone. It makes them quicker to conflict with other males. Sometimes stuff happens and people get hurt. It's a guy thing - no need to prosecute. Confused

    I have the biological need to eat. Does society excuse my behavior of breaking into a grocery store to steal food?

    quote:
    Thus, I hold women to a greater set of expectations than I hold men, just as I would hold an adult to a greater set of expectations than I would hold a child.


    Whatever your rationale, sexism is inappropriate and immoral. By holding women to a different standard you inflict upon them a set of expectations that inhibit their ability to live their lives as they see fit. That is wrong, IMO.
    quote:
    You see, I am sexist in that I believe women are superior in nature's eye. Thus, I hold women to a greater set of expectations than I hold men, just as I would hold an adult to a greater set of expectations than I would hold a child.

    By Noah the African

    Oh, how paternalistic and condescending. td6

    I'm reminded of an account of a British Missionary's reference to the Black Africans he encountered. He referred to them as "Noble and Elegant Beasts."

    Your rationale for your sexism leaves me with the same taste in my mouth.
    I know you are more intelligent than that MBM. If men are attracted to sex, PERIOD, as you say, then does it not logically follow that if women control the offering of sex to men that they could steer men's behavior? Men cannot have intercourse by themselves, they need the women and if women are only giving it up under a certain set of conditions, say something wild like MARRIAGE, then such restrictions would naturally inspire men to get married, due to their obsession with sex. To suggest that the responsibility of male behavior rest solely with the man ignores the reason why men behave as they do. Your position is not tenable, because it ignores reality.

    Well, given what is happening today, the presupposing is true. Yes, men SHOULD be responsible, but how should women respond or protect themselves and their future in light of the EVIDENCE that many men are NOT being responsible and utopians offer no viable plan for such behavior to change? In other words, if men are proving not trust worthy, why keep trusting them in a 50-50 deal to hold up their end? They are taking the risk despite the calculus that it is bad.

    So, you are saying that biology has no bearing on behavior MBM? I will wait for your research results and methodology to be published in the New England Journal of psychology before I accept that proposition. That is absolutely absurd. Behaviors are a product of nature and nurture my good friend, not just one or the other and biology is a product of nature.

    No, we do not excuse murder and assault because of biology, but scientists do use biology to explain the difference in rates of murder and assault between male and females. That having been said, why are you not pushing for equality of that behavior? Women should be murdering as many people as men. It's not fair that males be the gender that gets to commit the vast majority of murders. It is sexist to try and keep women from being just a murderous as men.

    Does not the Bible hold women and men to a different set of expectations and standards? Did not God via nature create men and women different for a purpose? Everything was not meant to be equal.

    MAKE and argument....don't FAKE an argument.
    quote:
    Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
    quote:
    You see, I am sexist in that I believe women are superior in nature's eye. Thus, I hold women to a greater set of expectations than I hold men, just as I would hold an adult to a greater set of expectations than I would hold a child.

    By Noah the African

    Oh, how paternalistic and condescending. td6

    I'm reminded of an account of a British Missionary's reference to the Black Africans he encountered. He referred to them as "Noble and Elegant Beasts."

    Your rationale for your sexism leaves me with the same taste in my mouth.


    How I view and treat women is irrelevant to your interpretation. Your insecurity or hedonistic desires is what apparently make you see my statement as condescending. If I exalt and praise God, am I being condensing to God? Your statement is only indication that YOU don't believe that women are of superior design and purpose, hence, you can't believe that I believe such, which leads to you "projecting" that I am being condescending.

    The people that I love and or respect the most in my life are all females. Because I have a great deal of respect for women and high set of expectations for women, makes me a sexist? What kind of twisted world do you people reside in? High expectations are only placed upon those whom one is confident in their abilities. Low expectations are reserved for those who are seen as inferior. The fact that I place high expectation upon women is a praise of women, not a condemnation or disrespect.

    It is sad that so many of you are going to such length to rationalize the acceptance of women becoming just as immoral as men. It's not an argument that men are amoral, hedonistic and much more...however, why do women need to follow men off this cliff? It is because you see sin as a pleasure and are jealous that you are not getting to enjoy the pleasures of sin to the same degree as men. Thus, you are making the devils argument by rationalizing why women should have the equality of sin. Are you sure that is what you want?
    Noah - I've not resorted to attacking you personally. I'm not sure I understand why you are reverting to the appraoch that you have. I can certainly play that game if you wish however.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Noah The African:

    If men are attracted to sex, PERIOD, as you say, then does it not logically follow that if women control the offering of sex to men that they could steer men's behavior?


    Noah - men and women enjoy sex equally. The fact that you associate a double standard to that feeds the rest of your misperceptions on this issue.

    BTW - IF there was any control here it would be counterbalanced by the man's control over commitment and marriage.

    quote:
    Men cannot have intercourse by themselves, they need the women and if women are only giving it up under a certain set of conditions, say something wild like MARRIAGE, then such restrictions would naturally inspire men to get married, due to their obsession with sex.


    Why aren't you simply pushing men to be more moral and just about their sexual behavior? If you are concerned with sex out of wedlock - why not equally apply responsibility and higher standards to both parties to solve that problem? Why is that seemingly exclusively the woman's problem in your opinion?

    You associate a completely self serving and sexist construct to frame the issue of male and female sexuality in a way that categorically panders to the basest of male urges. It is desinged to perpetuate male supremacy and to subjugate women. You're cool with that? nono

    quote:
    To suggest that the responsibility of male behavior rest solely with the man ignores the reason why men behave as they do. Your position is not tenable, because it ignores reality.


    It absolutely amazes me that you cannot see the absloute absurdity of what you write. ek Men have no control. They are sexual beasts. The pussy was there so I had to take it!! bs You know this is logically consistent with the argument that the rape victim wore suggestive clothing so she invited the rape. nono

    quote:
    Yes, men SHOULD be responsible, but how should women respond or protect themselves and their future in light of the EVIDENCE that many men are NOT being responsible and utopians offer no viable plan for such behavior to change?


    You want advice. Cool.

    Men - unless you are prepared to deal with the potentially life long consequences of your sexual behavior - govern yourself accordingly.

    Now - how simple is that?

    quote:
    So, you are saying that biology has no bearing on behavior MBM? I will wait for your research results and methodology to be published in the New England Journal of psychology before I accept that proposition. That is absolutely absurd. Behaviors are a product of nature and nurture my good friend, not just one or the other and biology is a product of nature.


    Brother - reading is fundamental. Here is what I said:

    quote:

    Being biologically "unequal", IMO, has no bearing on male behavior or how we administer the characteristics of responsibility and judgment and discipline etc. in our lives.


    And . . .

    quote:

    We are adult human beings. We are thinking rational mammals. We have moral and ethical capacity. We have the God given ability to act NOT on impulse devoid of reason, but out of thought and judgment. Those who do not do so should not be excused because of their personal weakness.


    In short, men may have impulses (nature) but we also, obviously, have the ability to control and focus those urges in a way that benefits ourselves, our families, and society.

    quote:
    Women should be murdering as many people as men. It's not fair that males be the gender that gets to commit the vast majority of murders. It is sexist to try and keep women from being just a murderous as men.


    Society obviously disapproves of murder. Society does not disproportionately disapprove of it from either sex. The fact that men commit more murders than females is precisely indicative of the phenomenon that you are trying to defend. If we can expect men to control themselves as it relates to murder - why not also as it relates to their sexual behavior?

    quote:
    Does not the Bible hold women and men to a different set of expectations and standards? Did not God via nature create men and women different for a purpose? Everything was not meant to be equal.


    Brother - first - it is just plain wrong to discriminate against anyone. This is particularly the case of a group that is the majority on this planet and that does (unfairly) bear the burden of life and parenting.

    Do you understsand that the Bible was created by men - with an interest in their perpetuating their control and power? Have you not read the stories about the potentially fundamental role that Mary Magdalene played in the development of Christianity? Are you not aware that her role has been minmized in an effort for men to retain control and power over women in the church?

    Also - I fundamentally reject any notion that God would create over 50% of the human beings on this earth (women) to be somehow subordinate to the minority (men). This is just patently ridiculous and morally void. The fact that men have sex organs that do one thing and women have others that do other things implies NO difference in roles, rights, and responsibilities.

    quote:
    MAKE and argument....don't FAKE an argument.


    laugh
    I never made a person attack on you MBM. What I said is that I KNOW you to be an intelligent person and I am surprised by you not activating that intellect on this subject matter. You position is emotional, not logical.

    The fact that men and women enjoy sex equally has absolutely NOTHING to do with my proposition. I never made any statement in regards to who enjoys sex more. However, there have been studies that show men think about much more than women. In truth, you are losing me bro. The direct question is do women have the power to change male behavior by virtue of the conditions women choose to have sex with a man? Unless you can refute that, we can just move on to the next topic. Men are not going to change their behavior WITHOUT INCENTIVE. Simply lamenting that men SHOULD change on their own is unrealistic, because they are getting to much pleasure as is.

    I am pushing men to be more moral but unlike you I realize that men are not going to become more moral via the power of suggestion. I believe that men will behave more moral, in regards to sexuality, as a result of women ceasing to reward immoral behavior with sex.

    The ultimate conclusion of my proposition would be that women would be limiting sex to marriage, which would reduce the supply of women for men to be promiscuous with, which would led to more matrimony and more traditional families. Actions produce reaction. No action produces no reaction. The action of women produces reaction in men and the action in men produces reaction in women. Hence, the behavior of men and women are not going to change unless the opposite sex triggers it. Men want sex, more than most other things from a woman. Women want sex, but long term intimacy, security and provisions as well. Females being promiscuous play right into male biological desires, but at the expense of promoting long term intimacy, security and provisions because there are far too many women to get with to rationalize tying yourself down to one. Thus, that state of men and women simply sharing sex leaves the women unsatisfied and the male satisfied, because most women desire much more than sex from a man.

    You again are faking my argument instead of making yours. I never said that men have no control and practice not control. In fact, I stated in response to your child defecation analogy that all men are practicing restraint given that they are not having sex with every women they meet who is attractive to them. Of course, opportunity influences and tests a man's will power.
    How I view and treat women is irrelevant to your interpretation. Your insecurity or hedonistic desires is what apparently make you see my statement as condescending. by NTA

    I am neither insecure nor ceding to hedonistic desites. Rather, in challenging your views on promiscuity, I represent those of us that neither worship, nor ascribe inherent moral flaws and/or weakness, to one gender over another. To do so, is a simplistic, at best, and intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

    Be that as it may, how can you, on the one hand claim to rever, love and exalt women; and then in the next breathe, condemn women for failing to meet some vague, moralistic code of conduct, that you have established for them alone? And, how can you argue that your behavior is not sexist?

    Your position is similar to that of early desegregation teachers' treatment of gifted Black students. They professed their racial empathy and sincere desire to aid in the students success. They heralded the Black students' abilities, only to fail them, when the students did not meet the impossible standard set for the Black students alone. No amount of praise or adoration was able conceal the teachers' racist nature.

    The people that I love and or respect the most in my life are all females. Because I have a great deal of respect for women and high set of expectations for women, makes me a sexist? by NTA

    Love and respect aside; YES, setting high expectations for women, makes you a sexist, when you fail to hold males similar expectations. Just like a white person holding Black folk to a higher standards than white folk would rightfully be termed racist.

    It is sad that so many of you are going to such length to rationalize the acceptance of women becoming just as immoral as men. by NTA

    This discussion is not about "[our] rationaliz[ing] the acceptance of women becoming just as immoral as men." It's about exposing your contempt for women, in the guise of adulation, as evidenced by the length you go through to condemn them for conduct that unindicted/excused males are equal parties to.

    Its about exposing the fundamental inequity of your position.
    Whoooooaaaa. Hold up there. If, God forbid, my young daughter grew up to be amoral in her behavior, the fact that I love and revere her does not mean that I cannot look down upon and be disappointed by her actions. In other works, I can condemn her actions while still loving and revering her unconditionally. I would let her know that I had higher expectations of her than that and just because others are doing it that it is no excuse or rationalization for her to follow that path in the quest for equality.

    Sister, if you want to "back that thang up" or have been "backing that thang up", go right ahead. If you have a young daughter and you want to promote her "backing her thang up" go right ahead. If you want to debate and rationalize female promiscuity...go right ahead. Because men jump off a cliff, send yourself and your daughters along with them....go right ahead sister. If you want to blame and condemn me for saying...DON"T DO IT....go right ahead sister.

    I have an older brother who was drug dealer (quasi pimp too) in his youth and young adulthood. He had cars, money and women. He got those things from doing the wrong things, even though those wrong things netted him pleasures in the short run. However, he always tried to persuade me away from such a life style, notwithstanding the benefits he was getting from it. Was he wrong for or some kind of pejorative-ist for trying to prevent me from engaging in such a lifestyle? Was he wrong for having higher expectations of me? Who did he think he was...just because he was older that he could try and tell me not to take the path that he was taking? THat is sibling prejudice. Its sibling-ism! Had I taken that path, I could have been dead or in jail by now....how dare he deprive me of such a future...when he himself was heading down such a path?

    Do what you will sister...as long as you are happy....nothing else matter...but somehow I doubt that you are....or will be in the long run.
    quote:
    The direct question is do women have the power to change male behavior by virtue of the conditions women choose to have sex with a man?



    *The answer is hell yes......not saying that men are not responsible also but the vicious cycle starts with the woman...they are the ones that add value or take value to sex....hell they can make men buy new cars, nice clothes, groom themselves, wear that smell-pretty bullschit...and buy anything they sell on TV that makes a man think he can have sex as a result of buying that product....they can also make a man behave according to higher standards....just like the women who only f-k around with the rappers with big cars and houses....present themselves as if they REQUIRE a man to have that schit in order to get their goodies....why can't they hold a man to a high non-materialistic standard the same way? The reason allot of men are the way they are is because they can be sorry SOB's and get laid.....if coochie could only be had if you were an upstanding brother......the line would be down the street at any venue that affords a man self-improvement....because they really do want that thang....and this would be just another effort to get it...like paying for a porsche or something........that question is a no-brainer to me....and the answer is definitely yes......
    quote:
    Originally posted by Kevin41:
    quote:
    The direct question is do women have the power to change male behavior by virtue of the conditions women choose to have sex with a man?



    *The answer is hell yes......not saying that men are not responsible also but the vicious cycle starts with the woman...they are the ones that add value or take value to sex....hell they can make men buy new cars, nice clothes, groom themselves, wear that smell-pretty bullschit...and buy anything they sell on TV that makes a man think he can have sex as a result of buying that product....they can also make a man behave according to higher standards....just like the women who only f-k around with the rappers with big cars and houses....present themselves as if they REQUIRE a man to have that schit in order to get their goodies....why can't they hold a man to a high non-materialistic standard the same way? The reason allot of men are the way they are is because they can be sorry SOB's and get laid.....if coochie could only be had if you were an upstanding brother......the line would be down the street at any venue that affords a man self-improvement....because they really do want that thang....and this would be just another effort to get it...like paying for a porsche or something........that question is a no-brainer to me....and the answer is definitely yes......


    THANK YOU..THANK YOU....THANK YOU. BINGO...its sad that too many women are so busy competitng with one and other to recognize the collective power they have to control male behavior. War between grasshoppers is to the delight of crows.
    Noah,

    First, Kweli4Real is a 44 year old married and monogamous man that has had and survived his hedonistic/insecure days (years).

    Whoooooaaaa. Hold up there. If, God forbid, my young daughter grew up to be amoral in her behavior, the fact that I love and revere her does not mean that I cannot look down upon and be disappointed by her actions. In other works, I can condemn her actions while still loving and revering her unconditionally. I would let her know that I had higher expectations of her than that and just because others are doing it that it is no excuse or rationalization for her to follow that path in the quest for equality. by NTA

    And, I have no problem with this. In fact, I have and continue to tell my 10 year old daughter much of the same thing.

    That, however, is not my issue with your position on promiscuity. My issue can be summed up by asking you, "What do/would you tell your SON?" Unless it is the same thing or a similar condemnation of self-destructive behaviors, then you are a sexist, despite you love and reverance.

    You tell the story of your brother warning you off the hustler's path and ask, "Was he wrong for or some kind of pejorative-ist for trying to prevent me from engaging in such a lifestyle? Was he wrong for having higher expectations of me?"

    Can you not see how that undercuts your sexist view?

    Apparently, your brother has/had more love for you than you have/had for him, or any other male. He saw you as a reasoning, self-controling being; not the naughty-by-nature, can't control my urges, flawed being that you represent males to be.

    Finally, Noah ...

    You give big ups to K41 for saying something that is miles from where you reside. His message is not your message. K41's post recognizes the power of the "P". [And guess what, I absolutely agree that woman can get a man to do just about anything with just a hint that a shot is possible.]

    But where K41 got it right, he was not condemning women for living a lifestyle of her choosing. One that maintains her control over her body; rather than ceding to some undefined, male imposed lifesyle, that you approve of.

    Tell me, if a woman bedded 16 CPA's and 14 PHD candidates in a month, is she more, less or equally as promiscuous as the woman that sleeps with 12 men, all of whom know each other, that she meets in a club over the course of a year?
    If a woman is not raped, then she willingly puts herself in a position that may have negative consequences...just like a man who sleeps with 100's of strange women....if the condom breaks...he may be in deep doo doo also......but the thing is....i do not past judgement on others if their actions do not directly affect me even though I may personally disapprove of what they are doing...it kinda falls in line with my no stance take on personal social issues such as abortion and gay marriage...that have no direct bearing on me......even when I tell youngsters what is probably not the best thing to do....i always start with, "you have the choice to do what you like, but since you solicited my advice, this is what I would do in that situation"....and even if I had a daughter, I would tell her what I do not approve of and what she MUST follow in my house....but once she gets 18 and is independent of me...the choices are hers...and I will intervene to the extent I am told to by her...unless I have to save her life or pull her out of a dangerous situation...then that is my call...but as so far as value systems...at that point all I can tell her is what the hell I will not allow around me....i think that is fair in nature.....I really do.......
    Kweli, my bad for thinking you were a woman. I would tell both my son and daughter that they should wait until marriage before engaging is sexual activity. However, I would tell my daughter that she faces an extra burden of risk from such activities, which is the truth. Given that the risk is greater for her, I would be irresponsible not to make an extra effort to prevent such activity from her. That having been said, if every parent were convincing their daughters not to engage in such activity there would be no outlet for boys hormones other than a porno magazine. I do believe that male sexuality is more bound by opportunity than is females and there have been studies to prove this. Thus, it only makes sense that the best strategy to reduce promiscuity is to reduce the opportunities supplied to males.

    In regards to my brother, that is a self-serving interpretation. The difference is that I did not have little influence over my brother's behavior, nor did my parents. However, I looked up to my brother, as most young siblings do. Therefore, what he told me was very influential. It is very unlikely that I had the same effect on my brother as he had upon me. The fact that you think I loved him less then he loved me is totally incorrect. Maybe he loved me more than he loved himself, because he was willing to risk his life and freedom in the game, but could not stand the thought of me risking mine.

    If you think that his message is not my message than your ability of comprehension is clouded by your emotions on this topic. My message was exactly that women have the power to influence men behavior and that men will not change their behavior without the incentive provided by women. He answered the question I asked to MBM with an affirmative....so how the hell is that a totally different message? Bro, you are just seeing what you want to see.

    You also need to go back and check my definition of promiscuous, which you, I believe, asked me to provide in an earlier thread. You ignored the definition that I provided so that you can go on a self-serving tangent of reasoning. Once you go back and check my definition, then you can then apply it to that last question you asked...which I thought was pretty silly.

    Add Reply

    Likes (0)
    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×