From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Styling, profiling and pretending
Date: 18 Nov 92 23:35:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu


>In article <1992Nov17.150654.15859@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>,
>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

>>I contend that any problems that would have resulted from this
situation >>in the "great by and by" would have been the direct
result of the "female >>machista" that you refer to above.  I mean,
really, who was the one being >>dishonest here?  Are you still going
to blame the man for the behaviour >>of the woman?  I say that when
you make the bed, you have to lie in it.

  >.  >.  >Oh, come on.  I
said BOTH people were at fault here.  The woman for >trying to
accept an untenable situation and the guy for being >half-assed
about it:  I don't love you, but I wanna see you?  Yucko!

Whether you believe that homey was being half-assed or not about his
part in the relationship, you must admit that he was up-front about
his intentions/motivations.  He was _not_ operating under some
hidden agenda.


He believes he was not, but as his words fed into her computer,
it probably spat out some other messages into the paper tray,
which I illustrated in previous posts.

>Remember, it takes TWO, not one...even in miscommunications.

Are you tryin' to tell me that they _both_ were being dishonest
about their intentions?


Sometimes words mask actual intentions.  One has to be very
careful talking to people sometimes.  Say what you mean, mean
what you say.

>>Maybe he thought that he _already had_ the right woman who would
>>accept the situation with no strings attatched (as his SO had
>>told him out of her own mouth).  >.  >.  >No, jack.  He found the
right sucker, period.

Homegirl could only have been a sucker if:
        a) homey was promising something that he had no intention
           of delivering
        b) if homegirl had laid her (true) cards on the table and
           asked him if he were willing to committ, only to
accept
           "maybe" as an answer

Those shoes haven't dropped yet in this discussion.  But some men
look to find someone who is, who'll do the emotional work for
them and then drop them when it gets too heavy.  Don't tell me
they don't.

Homegirl also had the option of leaving.  What could homey say if
homegirl found something betta up the pike?


Nine times outta ten, girlfriend ain gonna look twice, yet.
She's gonna stick with my man.

  I can see it right now:

        homegirl:
                I am leaving you homey.  I have found somebody
who
                really loves me, and is ready to commit
        homey   :
                Oh baby please don't leave me!  We're so good
together!
        homegirl:
                Do you love me?
        homey   :
                No, but I like you a lot.
        (sound of door closing behind homegirl on the way out)

Lord.  I'm repeating this again:

>I mean, jeez, didn't I make this clear?  Women don't normally do
>this if they are in love with the spook!  They just don't wanna!
Their option is to continue to fight on, not leave.
>.

Men and women have been direct, half-assed, or out and out slick in
their dealings with each other for just about as long as there have
been women and men.  Your paragraph above makes it seem so
one-sided.


Now, you're misreading me.


>Bulltacos.  I knew that "adult" number would come up.  So what?  We
>are still rather like kids dealing with each other.  What about the
>hidden agendas of men, pray tell?  Like yall don't plan nothin',
see >how somethin' plays to sisters?  Like yall don't LIE?  Like
yall don >scheme, neither?  Come ON...  One thing about black
heterosexual >women (of which I am one):  we do hang on every word
you cats say to >our everlasting sorrow at times.  We go deef, dum
and blind, >especially when we love you.  Our mammas warned us about
stuff like >this, even tho' we try to play the game, too..  I mean,
this kind of >shit's been going on for time immemorial, brother, so
nigga please, >this ain no new high-tech '90s thing.

It seems that I have struck a nerve (he types while grinning
fiendishly Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha :-)).

Hah!  You wish...8D.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american