From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Subject: Re: Styling, profiling and pretending
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:14:49 GMT

In article <1ebcseINN24c@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.150654.15859@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>,
>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>>In article <1e9g5fINNnal@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:
>>>Keith, (and to a lesser extent, Greg) says:
>>>................................
>>
>>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.

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

Are you tryin' to tell me that they _both_ were being dishonest
about their intentions?
>
>................................................
>>>d) he was happy with the situation such as it was and saw no
>>>reason to be alone/go through "the chase" again unnecessarily
>>>.
>>>.
>>>>Lazy!  Of course, HE'D feel comfy (and any (wo)man would) with
>>>>the hot stuff right there and AVAILABLE.  I mean, why not find
>>>>the right woman who would accept the situation with no (unseen)
>>>>strings like love attached.  Spare me.
>>
>>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
>
>>This is not so much a case of "lazy", but one of, "if it ain't broke,
>>don't fix it".  I mean, homey was happy with the situation such as it
>>was, or he would have "roamed" a long time ago.  If homegirl wanted
>>out, all that she had to do was:
>>        a) leave
>>        b) make homey want to leave
>>           (make it seem like it was _his_ idea)
>>If she chooses to do "none of the above", you cannot blame homey for that.
>.
>.
>I mean, jeez, didn't I make this clear?  Women don't normally do
>this if they are in love with the spook!  They don't wanna!
>.
>Furthermore, there is ALWAYS the possibility that my man is gonna
>leave when he sees something betta up the pike. Then there would be
>the usual final confrontation: "but I love you, baby" ain gonna stop
>HIM from going out that door...especially when homey's been home and
>comfortable for so long with no commitment...

Homegirl also had the option of leaving.  What could homey say if homegirl
found something betta up the pike?  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)
>.
>I applaud any sister who is of sound mind enough to:
>a) leave
>b) make homey want to leave
>   (makes it seem like it was _his_ idea)
>
>
>..........................................
>.
>I say women should not stand for being in a relationship that gives
>over too much of THEIR power to men.  By the same token, as I have
>been trying to say, dudes can be real direct, half-assed and out and
>out slick in their dealings with women.  While I am not saying that
>my man was trying to be slick with his woman, it seemed that the
>situation was chock full of trouble about to brew.

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.
>.
>My man's sister bailed him out of that by giving him a picture of
>what my girl was really pulling.  I said that perhaps my girl was
>thinking, I've got to hold on, I think he's testing me, maybe he'll
>change.  My scope on the matter is for the dude--and any woman--to
>flat break up with someone if they are not in love with them. 

Okay, this sounds like the best thing for all concerned parties.

>I still don't see any relationship in which the power is one-sided and
>not equal as being profitable for anyone.  Except perhaps, in this
>case, for the man.
>
>>
>>The bottom line is that this is an adult, and she was apparrently
>>doing what she wanted to do for her own reasons.  Whether you or I think
>>that she was doing the right thing or the wrong thing, I don't think that
>>you can blame the man for the behaviour of the woman, based upon _her own_
>>ulterior motives.
>.
>.
>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 :-)).
While it is true that men (not just the bruthas) have been known to plot,
plan, lie, cheat, and experiment with a dizzying array of combinations
of all of the above, to come up with even more dastardly ways of influencing
the behaviour of womenfolk from time immemorial, and while it is also true
that women have been "running games" on men, as well, for just about as long...
......I thought that we were talkin' 'bout my-man and his former SO....
......therefore, all of this other stuff is irrelevant :-)

>This logic stuff coming from
>you guys is mostly a black (male) thing and while it may keep you
>together, why is it I still I hear about sisters shooting brothers
>or brothers shooting sisters over love or relationship issues?  Can
>I get a witness?

It sounds like a breakdown in communication to me :-)
>.
>For the record, it takes TWO to cause:
>a) Miscommunication
>b) Love
>c) All of the above

Keith
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,misc.legal