From: HF.GTD@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gabrielle Daniels)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Styling, profiling and pretending
Date: 17 Nov 1992 10:15:42 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

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:
>>
>>a) he enjoyed her company
>>b) they were good together in bed
>>c) he thought that she was happy with the relationship as it
>>stood (I mean, she _did_ say so, didn't she?)
>>.
>>.
>>Well, here is where my statement about female machista comes in.  I
>>mean, she may say she likes the situation as is, and she may for a
>>time just hold on for that sake, but if she really, really wants
>>something like the C word, there ya go.  Problems in the great by
>>and by.
>
>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!
Remember, it takes TWO, not one...even in miscommunications.

I hate to say this, but men are extremely afraid of the word, love.
The word almost cuts their balls off.  Yeah, and I don't need any
flame retardant, either.

>>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.

>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...
.
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 mean, there is always the possibility that he might get mixed up
>>>with a sequence of women that might either piss him off or drive him
>>>crazy, before he comes across another that he can feel as
>>>comfortable with as the one that he might be leaving now)
>>.
>>Well, hell.  That's his journey, as the New Agers call it.
>
>Do I sense a double-standard here?  If the woman is reluctant to break
>of a relationship that is not necessarily going the wat that she wants
>it to, though she says that everything is fine..... and this is
>"the man's fault" for "stringing her along".  Now if the man is reluctant
>to break off a relationship that is going just fine by him (and by the
>spoken sentiments of his SO), then it is "his journey".......
>When is it ever _her journey...... or does responsibility for one's
>actions apply to men only?
.
.
No double standard implied.  Perhaps it was because it was a man
speaking, and not a woman, from the original post.
.
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.
.
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.  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.  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?
.
For the record, it takes TWO to cause:
a) Miscommunication
b) Love
c) All of the above
Xref: sparky soc.culture.african.american:11209 misc.legal:20061