From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating (The Atomic Dog Speaks)
Date: 11 Nov 1992 10:27:25 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

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):
>>.
>>.
>>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!
.
.
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?
>
>        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?

>        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. 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?
>
>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.

> > 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.
.
.
>Keith   (donning asbestos suit :-))
.
.
Well, hell--you deserve it.