Spade,

Thank you very much for the constructive critisism. I respect your opinion, though we don't agree.

Peace

By Spade (207.107.115.215) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 02:53 pm:

Wyatt,

---

Quote:

Spade,

I want to address your attack, because I am not sure why you are being so hostile about what I said. What is you beef with me saying "Wow, what a scary situation"? Have I no right to say that here? It was just a statement, so why are you so bent out of shape about it.

---

By Spade (207.107.115.215) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 01:48 pm:

Kansascity,

---

Quote:

Gee! Thanks Spade, for your unrelenting critique and understanding of what I wrote.

---

By Wyatt (207.8.207.10) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 12:38 pm:

Spade,

I want to address your attack, because I am not sure why you are being so hostile about what I said. What is you beef with me saying "Wow, what a scary situation"? Have I no right to say that here? It was just a statement, so why are you so bent out of shape about it.

What is your beef about my devoutness? I haven't talked about you and your religious or spiritual committment, so what is the problem?

I am the same Wyatt throughout here, why do you assume that I am using other peoples personalities?

And What does my educational background and familial background have to do with the statement that I made here? I was addressing C-No-Color and "Wow" is what I said, what is the big deal? How does that make me ignorant, because I stated "Wow"?

With the Fem-Man comment, is that suppose to be another personal attack? have I made a personal attack of you? I have always respected your posts in this site, so I am in a quandry as to the personal attack. What is a Fem-Man anyway?

By Kansascity (209.242.125.215) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 03:52 am:

Gee! Thanks Spade, for your unrelenting critique and understanding of what I wrote.
I have a question not related to the previous issue. I keep hearing about one-world-order government and trilateral union and more. Who do you think is responsible for trying to rule the world so to speak (and do not tell me it is all white people...that is not the case). What is your take on that? Have you read the Bible? Have you noticed how what is written in the good book is so relevant to all times, places, and people?

By Spade (63.71.184.5) on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 02:23 am:

Kansas city,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and your beliefs but you have done exactly what I said many do when this issue comes up. Recall these words that I wrote earlier:

---

Quote:

Our society teaches that submission of any kind that a woman might give to a man is incorrect. It teaches people to believe that something is wrong about a woman who voluntarily is submissive to a man. It teaches people to use terms like "easy" in relation to describing a submissive woman so as to cast a bad light on woman who are submissive to any degree. There is not nearly enough information to educate people correctly in this matter for them to be aware of the mechanics behind what drives dominant men and submissive women...

---

By Kansascity (209.242.125.179) on Monday, April 23, 2001 - 04:07 am:

Being too submissive is not healthy when it is not in a persons true nature. Also, there are some pretty sick submissives who allow anything and everything to go down just because they cannot take a stand on any issue. For example, a dysfunctional couple with children: The father abuses the kids and the mother does nothing to protect them because she always submits to his dominance. Cannot think of one good thing about master/slave relationships. I certainly do not think it is a healthy dynamic for IR couples to say the least.

By Ishvara (38.163.112.39) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 09:44 am:

Also, I just want to add the desciption of the child fit me to a T. Sensitive...you bet! Extremely so....What was described fits me perfectly. That is my personality but I have over the years acquired a tough hide and an unbending strength of will forged by such tragedy.

By Ishvara (38.163.112.39) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 09:32 am:

Thanks Spade that was very honest and I suppose not so unique viewpoint. In my life I am submissive in degrees. As far as someone controlling my actions or preferences totally, as my own person I would not like someone telling me, I'm not allowed to have a drink and then scold and punish me by making me go sit in a corner. I respect the one I'm with and except it to be returned in the same manner.

My man has a very forceful personality, he's used to everything being done his way. You'd might think he'd be looking for a compliment to that, a very quiet submissive type women. However, nothing is closer to the truth. He's told me more than once he loves the fact that I'm not a "yes" women, and if I ever behaved that way he'd lose interest fast as he has in the past with women of that type. Sometimes I think it is easier to buckle beneath the force of his personality and let him always get his way but I'm not made that way.

I enjoy the stimulation it eliviates boredom which is my greatest enemy. We rarely argue, neither of us likes drama. Please don't get me wrong, I know when to be soft and yeilding and I know when he needs me strong and opinionated. I enjoy my soft side fully, my way of showing love and taking care of his every little need is a testimony of that bond. But he's not highhanded or demanding nor do I feel any need to play out that dynamic in a blatant collar wearing way. Each of us have masculine and feminine qualties it's up to the individual to find their own perfect blend.

By Spade (209.185.76.47) on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 12:16 am:

Here is an essay written by Yaldah Tovah M.D.
that also coincides with my earlier points on the thoughts of a submissive woman.

---

Quote:

The Healthy Female Submissive

"Discipline gives total freedom;
it allows you to go beyond your limitations,
to break through boundaries and reach the highest goal.
The path to discipline will not only save a person's life,
it will also give it meaning. How?
By introducing him to deeper joys and deeper longings,
by creating a silence in which the whisper of the heart can be heard.
Truly, discipline is the road to liberation."

--Gurumayi Chidvilasananda



In this discussion, I will be talking primarily about the female heterosexual submissive, because I don't know enough about non-heterosexual female submissives and Dominants to know whether this analysis is completely applicable. This focus is not to suggest that lesbian female submissives and their challenges are less worthy of study, merely that I am not equipped at this time to do such a study.
So often, women who are newly aware of their submissive needs endure a period of self doubt around the troubling question: am I sick?
I've seen women read the psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-IV) and then ask, "do I have borderline personality disorder?"


I am writing here not ONLY about the sexual aspects: "am I sick because I get turned on by images of being taken, used, forced, swept away by masculine energy more powerful than my own?"; I am also writing about the nonsexual aspects of being submissive: "am I sick because I yearn to depend on, and follow the lead of, a man stronger than myself?"

I will attempt to address both aspects in this essay.

What precisely fuels this kind of question, "am I sick?" Why would a woman discovering the language of her nature think she has a mental disorder? Or at the very least, have something very wrong with her?

A submissive discovers, or more properly, realizes and acknowledges that she functions AT HER BEST in relation to another. And the more intimate, holding, containing that relationship, the better she feels and the better she performs in cardinal areas of adult life: work, friendships, and parenting. Realizing she is at her best in such relation makes her wonder why she can't do it for herself? Why does she need such a relationship to accomplish what she should be able to do for herself?

In thinking about this, I have come to question the cultural determinants of what is considered the highest good. Here in Western society, we place highest value on independence, on "pull yourself up by the bootstraps", on the lone pioneer, the trailblazer, the less needy and more self sufficient. We value competition over cooperation, tangible acheivement over acheivement in relationship. We pay big bucks to men (and the few women) who run big corporations, and less to the nursery school teachers, the nurses, the secretaries, the social workers, the caregivers rather than the producers.

There is something wrong with believing that such independence is the only good. It is especially wrong for the most relatedness-oriented among us, the submissive female.

Part of the newly aware submissive's task is to separate out the internalized voices of her culture: those voices that tell her she is too needy, too dependent, too focused on the others in her life. Once she can articulate what those voices tell her, she can begin to question not HERSELF, but the validity of those internalized values, using her own yardstick to measure her life, rather than our culture's standard.

We can see how perspective is critical in understanding a phenomenon. In a study of moral development in children, for example, Dr. Robert Coles, in a study of moral development in children, researched how children decide what is good and right. To do this, he presented several scenarios describing a moral or ethical dilemma, presented the scenario to school age children, and analyzed the results. The description of the study here is to illustrate the nature of cultural bias and it's impact on individuals.

One of Dr. Cole's scenarios was as follows:

A man has a very, very sick wife, so sick she could die if she doesn't get a particular, very expensive medicine. The man doesn't have the money for the medicine, so in desperation he steals it from a pharmacy.

The children are asked questions about this scenario. Coles found that boys tended to conclude that the man should be punished, because the law is the law, and nobody should break the law. Coles saw this as a higher order of moral reasoning, reflecting the statement, "a nation of laws, not of men." That is, that nobody is above the law, and the rule of law is not situationally defined. The boys applied an abstract universal principle to a singular instance. Coles understood this ability to transcend the personal as a "more evolved" form of moral development.

The girls were deeply troubled by the scenario, and most of them sought ways to solve the man's problem within the context of relatedness: they wondered if the man could ask the pharmacist for the medicine, and offer to work for him to pay for it, or pay him back later. They wondered if the man had friends who could help him pay for the medicine, and they believed he shouldn't be punished for his act of desperation. Their sense of right was situational, and defined within the context of relatedness. They did not come to articulate an abstract universal principle, but sought to solve the problem within the context presented. Coles saw this as a less logical, lower order of moral development because the girls could not emotionally distance themselves from the central human drama in the scenario.

After Coles' work was published a woman named Carol Gilligan reviewed the studies that Cole had done and reanalyzed them, in a book called, "In a Different Voice." Rather than seeing the boys' responses as evidence of "higher" development and the girls' as "lower" she redefined them as different. And she pointed out that the girls responses, so firmly rooted in human context and relatedness were devalued by a society in which the typically masculine is of more cultural worth than the typically feminine. She asked, "why is it considered a 'higher' order of moral development to value universal principle over human context?" and in so doing highlighted the sexism inherent in the analysis.

As we can see, this type of analysis is extremely useful in understanding typical submissive conflicts. We tend to ask the wrong questions: "am I bad, sick, weak?", when we should be asking, "is there something missing from the yardstick I use to measure myself?"

If one looks at capacity for relatedness as a strength, as a good, then it becomes clear that the submissive has a talent for this, for relatedness. And that seeking a partner who can meet her need for this relatedness is a good thing, a healthy thing.

If we begin our analysis without the cultural assumptions about what is of "higher" value, we can begin to understand that it is possible for a woman to be submissive, and to be healthy. And we can try to imagine what a healthy submissive functions like, and how she developed her adult personality. Let's start backwards, and ask ourselves, what might a healthy adult submissive woman "look" like, psychologically speaking:


1. The healthy submissive is capable of, and thrives on, intense, intimate, emotionally open relationships. This is often evident in the number of nourishing, sustaining, and life affirming friendships she makes over the years.
2. The healthy submissive is a giver. She often needs help to ration herself because her impulses nearly always lead her to want to do good for others.
3. The healthy submissive is capable of intense joy, especially in the context of a sustaining relationship.
4. The healthy submissive finds significant relaxation when properly related. She is at ease in that place.
5. The healthy submissive has finely tuned interpersonal sensitivity. She is reactive to subtle shifts in the emotional tone of others.
6. The healthy submissive has a fluidity of self, a flexibility that enables her to adapt to changing circumstances.
7. The healthy submissive is playful.
8. The healthy submissive has no more than the usual cultural conflicts about her body, and its goodness and beauty.
9. The healthy submissive takes pride in her accomplishments.
10. The healthy submissive accepts herself as she is, knowing that while her culture values independence and self sufficiency, she has strong dependency needs and that there is no inherent "wrongness" about those needs.
11. The healthy submissive seeks nourishing relationships.
12. The healthy submissive, in accepting herself "as is" is tolerant of others. But neither will she allow anyone to tell her what her truth should be.
13. The healthy submissive has a reasonable self concept, aware of her difficulties as well as her strengths.
14. The healthy submissive hunger is to be the object of an intense and penetrating understanding. When her nature is understood and she is held in a loving and firm frame, her devotion is almost limitless. The healthy submissive has an enormous capacity for devotion, from which springs her service.


What makes a woman a submissive?

As with all conjectures about human development, the answer is likely two-fold: a combination of nature and nurture, biology and environment.

There is a whole body of literature that makes observations about temperment. This literature talks about the variations in behavior in infancy as a manifestation of temperment: the expression of regularity, responsiveness, and reactivity. In the area of regularity, some infants are regular and predictable from the get-go: they sleep regularly, wake at predictable intervals to nurse, and have predictable periods of alertness in which they begin the earliest socialization. Some infants are irregular: they will one day sleep for an 8 hour stretch, then be awake all night, the next day they will sleep for one hour intervals through a 24 hour period. In the area of responsiveness, some infants will find novelty and intense stimulation aversive, and will withdraw or become irritable when presented with those; some infants are stimulated to engage and explore novelty and intense stimulation. Some infants have high thresholds for sensation, requiring a relatively intense stimulus to become aversive, some have low thresholds, and respond to mild stimulation. Some infants will for example, be intensely distressed by a wet diaper; some will not register discomfort until diaper rash sets in.

The sum total of these innate, biologically founded responses make up temperment. It is easy to see what people mean by an "easy" baby: one who sleeps, eats, and eliminates regularly and predictably; one who has a moderate response to stimulation, neither withdrawing nor reacting intensely; one who is drawn easily into social exchanges, and provides pleasurable reinforcement of socialization with their caregivers, one who is easily "read" and easily comforted, one who accepts change without undue distress.


I think one of the traits in this biologically grounded array that makes up temperment is common to all submissives. And that is social responsiveness. I would suggest that the baby who is tempermentally "set" to register and respond selectively and sensitively to social cues has the seeds of submissiveness in her nature. This is the baby that will search the environment for a human face; who will be attuned to, and very responsive to the human voice; who will preferentially and selectively attend to, and process, human interaction.

This baby, as she grows into childhood, will be easy to control, to shape, especially if she is tempermentally on the "easy" side. This little girl will be exquisitely sensitive to criticism and correction, to disapproval, to praise. Rather than requiring a raised voice to correct, a raised eyebrow will often do.

Even further, this little girl will be exquisitely sensitive to nuance: she will know when others are angry, hurt, sad, bewildered even when they are not spoken about. She has a "sixth sense" about people.

As children do, she requires the adults in her life to validate her perceptions when appropriate. Let's say her parents are troubled by a financial stress, and like good, responsible parents seek to shield her from their stress. The child will pick up on the unspoken tension, sensitive as she is to subtleties of body language, voice pitch, facial expression. She might inquire of her parents what is wrong, and be told "nothing is wrong, honey... go and play." This leaves the child confused: she knows in that way that she knows, that something is wrong. But her perceptions are not validated. She is told nothing is wrong. But her parents, who are not at their best, may be a little short with her, and picking THAT up too, she goes off to play concluding that she must have done something wrong, to be sent away. Part of this is the megalomania of childhood, part of this is a reasonable and logical synthesis of resolving the child's felt sense of things with what she is told.

This kind of interaction, repeated over the years, in the BEST and most loving of families, leads to an adult personality in which there is some anxiety associated with relatedness. The submissive female learns to scan the social environment for signs of trouble, seeks to "fix" the trouble, and all too often, believes herself to be the cause of the trouble. If someone important is tired, the submissive has exhausted them. If someone important is angry, the submissive must have angered them. If someone important is disappointed, the submissive must have failed them.

This trait, this interpersonal sensitivity in its highest expression is when the submissive accurately registers interpersonal nuance, and responds to it with a minimun of self-referral, recognizing that other's emotional states may have nothing to do with the submissive herself. This is how it works for the healthy submissive, who as an adult, often finds great fulfillment working in fields such as social work, nursing, medicine, counselling, teaching.

There are certain vulnerabilities a child constituted with a submissive nature faces.

Because of her intense awareness of interpersonal nuance, she is highly sensitive to both criticism and praise. When criticized, she is likely to feel intense shame; when praised, intense pleasure. Since the shame feels so bad, and the praise so pleasurable, she becomes a people-pleaser. This tends to lead to the development of what psychologists call "an external locus of control." Meaning that child bases her self assessment (am I good or bad?) on factors outside herself. The female submissive defines herself based on what others tell her she is.

Parents have enormous responsibility with such an influenceable child. Nascent talents can either be nurtured or aborted with just a word. This child will likely live up, or down to, whatever is expected of her. Expect more than she can constitutionally do (like academic, athletic, or social success) and she will develop an intense sense of inferiority. Praise her out of proportion to her talents (this is the BEST drawing any child EVER did) and she will develop an inflated sense of self. Accurately and sensitively validate her real abilities and talents, and she will seek goals appropriate to her ability, and take pleasure in acheiving them.

When the environment is reality based, sensitive, and balanced, the child grows up embracing her special ability to be "related" to others, to be sensitive, and has a sense of self in reasonable tune with her true abilities and vulnerabilities, neither excessively self effacing or self aggrandizing.

But if development should go awry, as it too often does for this child, the personality traits she has develop in a distorted manner, and cause her difficulties.

In dysfunctional families, this child suffers more than others with tougher hides, less reactive temperments. She is often the one singled out for physical, sexual or emotional abuse. Her very nature makes her available for use: for the parent's angers, frustrations, sexual impulses, or narcissistic gratification.

When a submissive child is misused in this fashion, she is unable to utilize her interpersonal talents in a constructive way. She must either develop rigid defenses that constrain her ability to be flexible as an adult, or be blown about by the winds of other's emotions all her life, or become stuck in what are popularly called, "co-dependent relationships."

Women who emerge from childhood with these traits will be more or less consciously submissive in that they are STILL moldable, controllable by others. Those who don't consciously seek a Dominant partner will naturally gravitate to a man who influences, controls her in a benevolent manner. Who accepts her, loves her, nurtures her, and values her sensitivity.

Those who consciously seek a Dominant partner are those who are perhaps, so sensitive that they require not only benevolence, but someone who understands PRECISELY how moldable and influenceable they are, and is capable of using the power to mold her and influence her deliberately and consciously, for her good and the good of the relationship.

In that kind of relationship, the submissive is freed to be all of herself. She is safe enough to feel her exquisitely sensitive reactions to others, to play like a child, to give care and to take care, to be angry, to lose shame.

There is a strength beyond measure in self knowledge and acceptance. There is freedom in jettisoning shame, in letting go of "shoulds."

To know oneself as a submissive woman, to accept that it is neither the terrible thing that society tells us it is, nor the only right and true way to be for OTHERS, is to be free. What is, is.

There are two kinds of strengths: the strength to lead, and the strength to follow; the strength to control, and the strength to yield. There are two kinds of power: the power to strip another's soul bare, and the power to stand naked.

Do not mistake following for weakness, for it is not. Do not mistake yielding for weakness, for in yielding there is resilience. Do not mistake the submissive's need for relatedness for inability to be alone.

Submissive women are not weaklings. They are sensitive people who have a great deal of resilience in the face of their particular challenges.

Submissiveness is a strength seeking a proper context.

---

By Spade (209.163.236.149) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 11:55 pm:

Now let me stop for a moment and get back to Wyatt and his Ivy league...no....Ivory League education and fondness of reading. I'm not opposed to a man being proud of his achievements and education enough to let others know (quite often) what they are and/or how he acquired them. What sets me off is one who speaks of his accomplishments and background and by action shows himself to be nearly completely contrary to his achievements and education. For example how does one with an Ivy league...no...Ivory league education and a supposedly rich cultural well-to-do background read the initial post of C-No-Color that started this topic and post a reply with the first sentence stating: "Wow, what a scary story and situation?"

What the heck was so darn scary? It wasn't like C-No-Color's cousin whipped out a switchblade and put it to the throat of his girlfriend and threatened to cut her head off. C-No-Color was talking about her cousin not Jack the Ripper. But here you have this Ivy league graduate who loves to read (apparently not enough) saying "Wow, what a scary story and situation" as if he just go through watching Scream. I think its scary to expect that comments like the ones he made come from those considered Ivy league graduates. Not to mention the fact that considering the post that sparked this thread Wyatt and his Ivy...er...Ivory league education should have been able to apply the information about masculine and feminine natures that he learned about on the yahoo board he was a member on and give insight accordingly. Then again he would have actually had to have READ the information to do that now wouldn't he? I mean after all the man just lovvvvvvvvvvvvves to read, no?

Am I to believe that someone who said they "Love to read with a ever growing library" can't apply what they read? Well, first they actually have to read as often as they say they do and then they would have to purchase some more books from which they can put in their "ever growing library" so they can make more intelligent comments instead of nonsense like Wow, what a scary story and situation.

There's a certain person on this board that has a history of playing different people, I don't know if you're another one of his made up delusions he got from various books he has read or you're the real thing but the latter option isn't looking too good right now. Either way you're hyprocrisy has caught my attention and I'm going to get this off my chest right now and drop it unless you have anything further to add. I find it rather ironic that you can call yourself a devout christian but rarely ever speak of God or about God and yet have so much to say about being Ivy League educated and so forth. On top of that you're a FEM-MAN who likes to compliment and jump on the bandwagon of the women of this board (like someone else I know) to get into their good standing to a degree. On this very topic you had a chance to shed some light on the matter discussed but choose to go along with what the women disagreed with even to the point of saying "Wow, what a scary story and situation" just like a little FEM-MAN!

1. If you're going to be a devout christian THEN BE A DEVOUT CHRISTIAN!

2. If you're going to talk of having a Ivy League education and a love to read THEN ACT LIKE IT!

3. If you're going to be a FEM-MAN then at least be one only for your wife.

By Spade (63.72.242.11) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 07:16 pm:

---

Quote:

I honestly don't know how to show or tell my cousin that this is not the case. The thing is he is one of those people who believe that his views are right, and everyone elses is wrong. & Ishvara, I certainly wish that he was with a woman like you that would have put him in his place for speaking that way. I'm just shocked that she sat there and took that crap from him!!! I can't figure out whether or not this woman has a low-self esteem issue, or has been taught that all black men are demanding & dominant over their women, (another stereotype). *sigh* That just troubles me.

---

By Cnocolor (4.17.99.12) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 02:59 pm:

I honestly don't know how to show or tell my cousin that this is not the case. The thing is he is one of those people who believe that his views are right, and everyone elses is wrong. & Ishvara, I certainly wish that he was with a woman like you that would have put him in his place for speaking that way. I'm just shocked that she sat there and took that crap from him!!! I can't figure out whether or not this woman has a low-self esteem issue, or has been taught that all black men are demanding & dominant over their women, (another stereotype). *sigh* That just troubles me.
Spade, I look foward to reading your insight on this issue. Your comments & points are always enlightening. Thanks!!!

*C-No-Color

By Spade (208.186.64.21) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 01:16 pm:

---

Quote:

Wyatt: "Wow, what a scary story and situation."

---

By Wyatt (207.106.60.9) on Thursday, April 19, 2001 - 09:47 am:

Wow, what a scary story and situation. Personally, I know white women who are that way for their men(white and black men), but I could never date someone who lets me treat them like a household pet. The child has a definite low self-esteem and that is probably with this guy. Also, why do these guys want to treat people that way? I would think that a nice fellow from a nice family would have been taught respect and values and never do such a thing. How disgusting on his part and sad on hers.

By Ishvara (38.163.112.103) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 11:54 am:

Well, I too have been exposed to this phenomenon. I think it is the kind of person they seek and attract. It isn't the fact that they are white it's that they obviously have very low self esteems and look to another for self definition and approval. Stereotypes begin somewhere but we are all raised different and must be taken on an individual basis. If that was reality I would think he'd want an Asian women(that was a joke). I have begun to think there is a certain somewhat large element out there dating outside there race for all the wrong reasons, generalizations like the one your cousin made keeps dettermental stereotypes like that one alive. Maybe the majority of white women he's met in his life time are submissive and most of the black women are strong, I'm not sure about this, I too have often wondered, hearing that sentiment echoed often, it really bothers me. Submissive women usually look for powerful overbearing men. If your cousin ever met me believe me no kind of circus act like that would take place else he'd see my backend with a quickness!

By Melirosa (208.48.12.163) on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 - 10:03 am:

cnocolor-
i agree with the fact that you were "fuming" over this issue. it would have made me angry as well. to generalize someone by their race in any manner is flat out racism and it is stereotyping someone. for black men, or even black women for that matter, to think that white women are weak and submissive is a gross misconception. people always say to me "what are you worried about? you are puerto-rican, not white", what do you care what is said about white women? i have been called white girl, spic, you name it by people who like to judge people by the color of their skin and know nothing about me or who i am. i can pass for being italian because i have dark hair and light eyes, so people never know what i am or what to make of me. there are weak women in every race, and white women should not be judged and looked upon as the epitome of these judgemental generalizations. that is like saying all black women are "ghetto" and loud and overbearing, which we know to be totally untrue. your cousin somehow, somewhere got the wrong idea of white women, AND black women for that matter, and hopefully you can show him the light. i know and i am friends with many different women from many different cultural backgrounds and we are all different and i don't mean according to our race. i hope your cousin isn't one of those people who are just to damn heavy to be enlightened. wake up people!

By Cnocolor (4.17.99.12) on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 - 12:28 pm:

Hello, how's everyone doing? It's C-No-Color again. I don't post too much, unless there's an issue that comes up that troubles me. So see if you can help me out on this one. (For those of you who have read some previous posts from me, you know what kind of person I am)
Here's my situation. The other day, my cousin, we'll call him "M", just for the sake of writing this, is a fairly successful night club DJ here in my city. On Friday, M calls me up to invite me & my boyfriend to this new club that he is DJ'ing at so we could come & check it out. So we both decided we would go out dancing since we haven't been in a while. Anyway, my boyfriend & I were sitting at a table near the bar (were both African-American by the way)watching people dance & what-not, we're just basically having a good time. In the meantime, my cousin's new girlfriend walks over to us, introduces herself, & I offer her a seat. She kind of reminds me of a Carmen Electra knockoff. Anyway, my boyfriend buys us a round of drinks and we just start chatting away about the club & making small talk & whatever. M sees her talking to us, puts on a record, walks over to the table, looks her dead in the face and says, "I told you I didn't want you drinking anything!!! Now go back over by the booth & sit down..." just like a scolded child she walks over & sits down. I then asked, "M, why are you yelling at her like that? What's wrong with you? Why are you being so mean, you were taught better!!!" He then says very seriously, "Because I can do it. White women are like that. I tell them what to do, and they do it. I don't get any lip from them like I get from black women, that's why I stopped dating them."
Of course being the type of woman I am, I was fuming!! I COULD NOT believe that my own cousin has this attitude, & that he was raised in the same family that I am. I then said, "O.K, wait a minute. You're telling me that you only date white women because they're easy, & do what they tell you to do? If that's what you're saying to me, you have so much to learn, & you must be dating the WRONG kind of women to have this assumption......" M then says, "see I rest my case, what are you doing? You're sitting here yelling at me for my views on why I date white women. It shouldn't even concern you because you're black." He then walked back to the DJ booth and I asked my boyfriend to just take me home, because I just couldn't sit thru another minute of that.
As you all know, I DO NOT have a problem with interacial dating. It's not my right to tell anyone who they should be with as long as they are happy, fine. But so far throughout my adult life, I have heard this from my fellow black men that they date white women because they're "easy" or "easier to deal with". And I have a very hard time believing that this is true. Is it because they have run into black women who fit the "traditional" role of the ghetto-chick black woman? Please help enlighten a sista on this issue, but it's very sad & pathetic if this is the case.

Sorry 4 the long-windedness
*C-No-Color*