From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Children/Larger Women (was Re: IR Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks))
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:03:43 GMT

In article <1drjadINNbp1@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.153448.774@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>,
>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes in response to mine
>and others to this earthshattering conversation (with previous
>stuff deleted because of course, this is getting longer than really
>necessary):
Agreed!
>>>.
>>>.................................
>>>.
>>>Some dudes like the above seem only to be thinking of their wallets
>>>or how some "thing" looks.  I've liked brothers with guts as big as
>>>a barrel with brilliant minds.
>>>.
>>Speaking as a black man who has been "around the block" once or twice
>>(just turned 37), I would like to say that "my hat is off" to any man
>>who becomes a stepfather.  I say this as a man who hasd dated women
>>who were parents, and women who were non-parents.  Having my "druthers",
>>and all other things being equal, I prefer to date women who do not
>>already have children for the following reasons:
>>
>>        1) the child(ren) are always vying for their mother's attention
>>           --- I mean, really, try to have a conversation with a woman
>>               in the presence of her two-year-old..... impossible!
>.
>.
>Ever try putting the child in a room (with toys and stuff, and
>preferably in a crib or playpen) and closing the door and having the
>conversation with the mom?

The room with toys bit works for about 5min. with toddlers.  I have
no experience with infants.
>>
>>        2) if you want to go out, then getting a babysitter is one _extra_
>>           logistic that you have to work out.
>.
>.
>That's her job, not yours.  Why put it in your lap?

True, it is _her_ job, but it is still something that _you_ must consider if
you want to go out with her... spontanaity gives way to planning.
>
>>        3) the child knows that you are not their father, and feels that they
>>           don't have to mind you when you catch them doing something that
>>           they hadn't oughta'.
>>           --- this can be especially irritating if you are damn-near
>>               supporting the tyke.... what his _father_ _should_ be doing.
>>           --- besides that, the child is _always right_ in momma's eyes,
>>               because whether you stay or leave, the child will be there.
>.
>.
>Wrong on all counts.  And who appointed you as supporting the
>kid(s)?  None of this kind of mess happened when my parents,
>previously mentioned, married.

For sure, in a marraige-type situation, the man carries a bit more
credibility/weight, but you have to get through the dating period
first.  Really, I wonder how many brother _have not_ had the experience
that I described above, at some time or other, when dealing with a 
woman with children?

>That's what I mean about communication...and especially, expectation.
>
>>        4) if you want to make love, you must first be sure that the child(ren)
>>           are fast asleep, and there is no guaranteeing that any of them will
>>           fall asleep before about midnight, nor any guarantee that they will
>>           not wake up in the middle of the night (due to some nightmare, or
>>           just to investigate the strange noises coming outa' mommy's room),
>>           and insist upon climbing in the bed with you and momma.
>>           ---- or how about this one... you are a light sleeper and momma
>>                could probably get a good night's sleep in a war zone.
>>                jr. can't sleep and he can't wake momma, so he wakes you.
>.
>.
>Tell me something, brother.  What about YOUR pad for privacy?  What
>about rules between you and the sister?

My pad is fine, but then there's that "babysitter logistic" again.
>>
>>Speaking of looks, and speaking as a man who has dated a few big
>>(200 or so lbs.) women, and a few small ones, and a few medium-sized ones.
>>I would like to say that, given my "druthers", and all other things being
>>equal, that I prefer a woman tho is at or near her own personal "fightin'
>>weight".  I say this for the following reasons:
>>
>>        1) I fully appreciate the fact that "looks aren't everything",
>>           but I would just-as-soon be with a woman that I could make
>>           love to with the lights _on_.
>>           --- and I have not come across many really-big women who
>>               meet that description
>.
>.
>Speaking as a sister who is large but well-formed, I make love with
>the lights on so I can see what equipment the brother/white guy has.
>Like Eddie Murphy in "Boomerang," I think this is your looksist
>problem.

First off, if you are well-formed, then by definition, your weight cannot
be too far off.  I, for one, have seen not-a-few sisters who might be
maybe 5'7" and 165-170lbs that looked _damn good_ to me, but I have yet to see
any that I would like to see nude, who were, say 5'2"-5'4" and 200+lbs.
When I talk about "making love with the lights on", I an talking about
doing it with with somebody that looks good to me butt naked.
>
>> > 3) If you are into outdoor-type physical activities, then you >
>will end up doing them without her, because a) homegirl isn't > into
>that (if she was, then chances are better than average > that she
>would be closer to her "fightin' weight/shape), or > b) she simply
>can't "hang" with you...  not to mention that > folx (and this
>includes men as well) are more subject to problems > with their
>joints (knees and ankles, especially) simply _because_ > they are
>too far over their optimum weight.
>.
>.
>Goodness.  I may not be that Cosmo girl, but I do go on nature walks
>to Muir Woods and Castle Rock here in the Bay Area.  I wear shorts
>and some shoes with grip and have only been hurt for sitting down
>wrong--so much for athleticism.  There's bound to be other sisters
>who do same, are limber and do not have joint problems.
>.
I am sure that there are, but that does not negate my observation.
>.
>>Keith   (donning asbestos suit :-))
>.
>.
>Well, hell--you deserve it.

Hey, _somebody_ has to do it!

Keith    (checking fittings on helmet :-))