From: krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks)
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:34:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1dn5udINNdfb@morrow.stanford.edu> HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.005334.6961@osf.org>,
>kenny@osf.org (Kenneth Crudup) writes, on top of the other <hum>
>observations made below:
>
>>In article <1992Nov9.203317.9531@cbnewse.cb.att.com>
>>ronaldd@cbnewse.cb.att.com (ronald.h.davis) writes:
>>>but doesn't it so often seem that the one's doing most of the
>>>complaining seem to be women who:
>>>       a)weigh 300+pounds.  hey! there's *always* been a shortage for
>>>         these pigs.
>.
>.
>Oh, barrother. Out of the mouths of infants.
>
>>>       b)have a half dozen kids by as many different guys who
>           wants to work hard all their lives just to raise *other*
>           guys' kids?
>
>> >In article <1992Nov9.205756.16041@cs.ucla.edu> >gds@cs.ucla.edu
>(Greg Skinner) writes:
> >>This isn't doing any of us any good.  >
>.
>.
>Quite true.
>
>>True, but quick- how many brothas out there *not* run
>into this?
>It must be >some state law in Mass that unmarried (now, or ever)
>sisters have to have >at least one child.  Everybody's got kids.
>Hell, I'll take a smoker over a >parent anyday.  > >>Comments like
>this justify black women calling black men dogs, etc.  > >...and how
>does this "justify"?  Perchance you meant "Comments like this cause
>>Black women to *retaliate* by calling us dogs, etc."
>
>> > -Kenny "seen a lot in just 28 years" Crudup
>.
>.
>You certainly haven't seen enough, and I'm certified 10 years older.
>As far as some man loving a woman who has already had a child or
>children by other men (married or otherwise), he would have to be an
>understanding, loving individual. I'm a woman who was raised by her
>mother and her stepfather. Now this man, who I love and respect,
>has also had what we call "outside children."  They were still his
>children, no matter what. He supported them in whatever way he
>could.  And I was always his daughter, there was no step in it. So
>whatever has happened to family? extended family?
>
>Furthermore, from what I have heard, black women who are
>unmarried normally have about 2-3 children. Doesn't sound to me like
>a "golden horde" of black babyhood.
>.
>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!

	2) if you want to go out, then getting a babysitter is one _extra_
	   logistic that you have to work out.

	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.

	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.

>Some minds need to be checked out, seriously.

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

	2) Gravity... Unless you are a really big man (I am not), then
	   when you are ready to "roll over and go to sleep", you
	   invariably roll "downhill".... whether you want to or not.

	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.

Keith	(donning asbestos suit :-))