From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Children/Larger Women (was Re: IR Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks))
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:49:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.225927.24920@uts.cc.wayne.edu> delledg@uts.cc.wayne.edu (DeVaughn Elledge) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.200343.21007@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>>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!
>>>>>.
>>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!
>>>.
>>>.
> 		You have a point there, but the two of you should both
>		understand how children are and work out a comprimise
>		that suits you both.
>	
>>        2) if you want to go out, then getting a babysitter is one _extra_
>>           logistic that you have to work out.
>
>		As others have posted, its her responsibility to that child.
>		But you also have to understand that she has a responsibility
>		to that child and make plans to do things with her or them
>		both.  It's understandable that you prefer not having to 
>		always to worry wether she can go out or not based on her child
>		but....thats life. If you wan't to go out with this woman
>		then you both should work together. There's ways of taking a
>		woman, with a child who can't get a babysister, out with out
>		leaving the house. Just use a little imagination and patients.
>		
>  		IMHO, the problem with single women with a child(ren) is the
>		date who dosen't respect the fact that she has something more
>		important to deal with than him. Not talking about you in
>		particular.
>
>>>>        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.
>>>.
>>>.
>		I agree with part of this. Children know what and with whom
>		they can get away with things. You best believe when you open
>		your mouth to say "don't do this or that" the 1st word that
>		comes out their mouth's: "You aren't my father". 
>	
> 
>>        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.
>>>.
>>>.
>		Now thats a problem that, you know you have to deal with the
>		moment you know she has children. And it is frustrating
>		, but thats what your PAD is all about. 
>>
>>My pad is fine, but then there's that "babysitter logistic" again.
>		You got a point!

The bottom line with me re women with/without children, is that as long
as there are nice women available who _do not_ already have children, then
why should I want to make extra work for myself by dating a nice woman who
_does_ already have children.  When you date a single, childless woman,
you only have to deal with her.... her likes/dislikes/foibles/moods/needs
and schedule.  I think that most brothers would have their hands full with
these things alone.  If she has children, then you have a whole bunch of
_additional_ things to deal with as listed above, and more stuff not listed.
>
>>>>
>>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
>
>	No comment on your preferences, but I was lucky enough to find
>someone about that weight who has an extremly sexy body. Trust me, I knew
>she wasn't 150 but I could believe by looking at her that she was much
>heavier.

My brother, if your SO weighs about 200, but looks like 150, then she
is quite likely on the tall side (no problem with that), quite likely
fairly large boned (again, no problem), and quite likely in excellent
physical condition (does she have a sister :-)).  I would say that,
by definition, she must be pretty near her personal fightin' weight.
On the other hand, of the women that _I_ dated that were about 200lb or so,
neither one of them was about 5'2", and the other was maybe about 5'4".
Granted, one of them was built quite a bit better than the other, but even
she was obviously well over (by a good 40-50lbs.) her best fightin' weight.
Think what you will, but a woman who is so far beyond her own personal
fightin' weight that she has rolls on her back, a big "gut" out to here,
"cellulite" on her hips and thighs, saggy breasts, and not much shape
or tone to speak of...... this women is simply not gonna' look good to
me nude.  If she is a naturally big woman who has supple skin, good
proportions, a reasonable waistline, shapely hips and thighs, and reasonably
good tone throughout....... I'm interested!  The biggest woman that I ever
saw in person, and who impressed me as having a great shape, had to be about
5'8", and every bit of 180 well-stacked pounds.  She had the "thighs of life",
and, shall we say, there were no _small parts on this model.  Yet and still,
she had a reasonably trim midsection (ie., no rolls or "spare tire" or
whatever), she had full, well-rounded breasts that didn't sag or droop,
and she was well-toned and shaped all over.  I mean, homegirl looked _good_!
There just ain't too many built like her in my neck-o-the-woods. 
Mind you, I have seen plenty of larger women who have great parts, but
not too many that have a great figure overall.

>
>================================================================================
>=  De Vaughn A. Elledge      **            What!?! CLINTON WON??? 

Keith
Newsgroups: sci.medicine,soc.culture.african.american,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism