laurarichardson said:

johnart said:

I don't get the title of that clip. How is that a Gay/Trans Agenda? DC didn't even mention anything about Gays/Trans.

Well Dave Chappell complained that Comedy Central wanted him to put on a dress however, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

What about Flip Wilson, Benny Hill, and Milton Beale all of these guys wore dresses as a part of their routine and no one suggested they were gay.

It is just a comedy routine. Tyler Perry is not Ru Paul.

That's not an entirely accurate comparison. Perry has an impressive (in scope and profits, not in content) filmmaking empire. He's not just an actor or comedian like the other people you reference. As a result, his potential to affect society's thinking at large goes a lot further.

KatSkrizzle said:

Yeah but what "nasty rumors" have came from Tyler Perrys camp?

Tyler was just about THIS close to letting us know he is a proud gay man and shit like this just makes it harder for one to come out when u got people making fun of you. I bet if he did no one would even be posting on this thread this post because it would not exsist.

ThreadBare said:

laurarichardson said:

Well Dave Chappell complained that Comedy Central wanted him to put on a dress however, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

What about Flip Wilson, Benny Hill, and Milton Beale all of these guys wore dresses as a part of their routine and no one suggested they were gay.

It is just a comedy routine. Tyler Perry is not Ru Paul.

That's not an entirely accurate comparison. Perry has an impressive (in scope and profits, not in content) filmmaking empire. He's not just an actor or comedian like the other people you reference. As a result, his potential to affect society's thinking at large goes a lot further.

Wow, I liked the way that you phrased that. I totally agree, which is why I previously referred to Tyler as "powerful".

Reel said:

I will really miss the Boondocks after this season. The writers were just open and honest in their work. I normally KRINGE when I hear the "N" word uttered by anyone. Yet, they made that word relevant to the characters of the animation, and the mentality. I admit the Uncle Ruckers character is a little too over the top for my tastes...but "I get it".

They will offend everyone from black people, to black gay people, to white people and any other group between. But usually something that "makes sense" comes out of all of the work, even the most offensive.

ThreadBare said:

laurarichardson said:

Well Dave Chappell complained that Comedy Central wanted him to put on a dress however, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

What about Flip Wilson, Benny Hill, and Milton Beale all of these guys wore dresses as a part of their routine and no one suggested they were gay.

It is just a comedy routine. Tyler Perry is not Ru Paul.

That's not an entirely accurate comparison. Perry has an impressive (in scope and profits, not in content) filmmaking empire. He's not just an actor or comedian like the other people you reference. As a result, his potential to affect society's thinking at large goes a lot further.

You must be looking at different Tyler Perry movies than I am. Dude is not that deep or running some kool-aid drinking cult.(LOL)

This is almost as bad as the Prince is the devil stories from the 80s.(LOL)

laurarichardson said:

ThreadBare said:

That's not an entirely accurate comparison. Perry has an impressive (in scope and profits, not in content) filmmaking empire. He's not just an actor or comedian like the other people you reference. As a result, his potential to affect society's thinking at large goes a lot further.

You must be looking at different Tyler Perry movies than I am. Dude is not that deep or running some kool-aid drinking cult.(LOL)

This is almost as bad as the Prince is the devil stories from the 80s.(LOL)

I disagree there, because what we are saying about Tyler is no "rumor"...it's a definite perception that many people from his peers (Spike) to his audiences share. This is not about an "unconfirmed" rumor. This is about a cross dressing man pushing onto the masses a character that is a baffoon and nothing more despite his intentions for her character. When you take this sort of thing, and you add the fact that Tyler have about 3 sitcoms floating around in syndication that are scaled down versions of that Madea shuckin and jiving , and you have other sad and drab movies out there.....yes people with liked minds are going to caution of the dangers of such an "empire" and the effect that it may have on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

I get the fact that people like to rip Tyler for coonery in some of his work although

i only see the Meet the Browns character as a loud example of such. What gets me is

the same people that crack the whip on Tyler for his work are and were huge fans

of Good Times. Try telling me their wasn't any coonery in that sitcom.

Jimmie Walker and Bernadette Stanis are also supporters of Tyler Perry.

phunkdaddy said:

I get the fact that people like to rip Tyler for coonery in some of his work although

i only see the Meet the Browns character as a loud example of such. What gets me is

the same people that crack the whip on Tyler for his work are and were huge fans

of Good Times. Try telling me their wasn't any coonery in that sitcom.

Jimmie Walker and Bernadette Stanis are also supporters of Tyler Perry.

This is why John Amos, and Ester Rolle were pissed off with the show's writers. They felt exactly what you were saying, and this amongst other reasons ended up resulting in John Amos leaving the show. Now, when Good Times initially aired, I was too young to understand the criticizm.

Reel said:

phunkdaddy said:

I get the fact that people like to rip Tyler for coonery in some of his work although

i only see the Meet the Browns character as a loud example of such. What gets me is

the same people that crack the whip on Tyler for his work are and were huge fans

of Good Times. Try telling me their wasn't any coonery in that sitcom.

Jimmie Walker and Bernadette Stanis are also supporters of Tyler Perry.

This is why John Amos, and Ester Rolle were pissed off with the show's writers. They felt exactly what you were saying, and this amongst other reasons ended up resulting in John Amos leaving the show. Now, when Good Times initially aired, I was too young to understand the criticizm.

I knew Esther Rolle was a critic of the show but i guess they had to convince her that

they would take on serious topics like alcohol, drugs, and pregnancy. You know there

was still the classic stereotypes of Michael and JJ doing their little pimp walk and Sweet Daddy

and Lenny.

For all the people so afraid of the effect that Tyler Perry's "empire" may have on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

I have to ask where are your complaints about all the so called "reality" shows out there, which are nothing more than scripted shuck and jive buffoonery, being passed off as REALITY?

phunkdaddy said:

Reel said:

This is why John Amos, and Ester Rolle were pissed off with the show's writers. They felt exactly what you were saying, and this amongst other reasons ended up resulting in John Amos leaving the show. Now, when Good Times initially aired, I was too young to understand the criticizm.

I knew Esther Rolle was a critic of the show but i guess they had to convince her that

they would take on serious topics like alcohol, drugs, and pregnancy. You know there

was still the classic stereotypes of Michael and JJ doing their little pimp walk and Sweet Daddy

and Lenny.

Yeah but that "pimp walk" was pretty pervasive in the "hood" during the 1970's so it did in fact reflect a little reality. And regarding Sweet Daddy and Lenny (one or both were pimp characters I believe).... Pimping was at an all time high during the era of the 70's so yeah I think however silly those characters were, they did reflect some sort of a reality that occurred in some black ghettos in the 70's across the nation. They were after all living in the projects which manytimes had those elements and even worst in them.

Reel said:

laurarichardson said:

You must be looking at different Tyler Perry movies than I am. Dude is not that deep or running some kool-aid drinking cult.(LOL)

This is almost as bad as the Prince is the devil stories from the 80s.(LOL)

I disagree there, because what we are saying about Tyler is no "rumor"...it's a definite perception that many people from his peers (Spike) to his audiences share. This is not about an "unconfirmed" rumor. This is about a cross dressing man pushing onto the masses a character that is a baffoon and nothing more despite his intentions for her character. When you take this sort of thing, and you add the fact that Tyler have about 3 sitcoms floating around in syndication that are scaled down versions of that Madea shuckin and jiving , and you have other sad and drab movies out there.....yes people with liked minds are going to caution of the dangers of such an "empire" and the effect that it may have on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

We have had buffoonery, shucking and jiving and just piss poor films dumped on us long before Mr. Perry came along. I do not think dude is talented as a writer but I admire his hustle and unfortunately there is an audience for this type of movie. Every time we get a decent film you cannot drag black people out to support the movie. The reality is some members of our community like this type of entertainment and unfortunately it does have a lot to do with your background and education. Mr. Perry is not Spike Lee he did not have the benefit of film school or a solid home life so he is writing about what he knows and a lot of people in our community can relate. It is sad but true and not the result of any form of brainwashing.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

For all the people so afraid of the effect that Tyler Perry's "empire" may have on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

I have to ask where are your complaints about all the so called "reality" shows out there, which are nothing more than scripted shuck and jive buffoonery, being passed off as REALITY?

Since there were quite a few words in that statement that mirrored my previous response, I'll respond to that question. When someone starts a thread aimed at reality TV....I will definitely sound off and give my opinion about it then. This is not the forum to thoroughly get into a dialogue about reality tv, because Tyler has no reality tv shows out there at the present time.

Reel said:

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

For all the people so afraid of the effect that Tyler Perry's "empire" may have on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

I have to ask where are your complaints about all the so called "reality" shows out there, which are nothing more than scripted shuck and jive buffoonery, being passed off as REALITY?

Since there were quite a few words in that statement that mirrored my previous response, I'll respond to that question. When someone starts a thread aimed at reality TV....I will definitely sound off and give my opinion about it then. This is not the forum to thoroughly get into a dialogue about reality tv, because Tyler has no reality tv shows out there at the present time.

Why is this not the forum to get into that dialogue? You are talking about effect that TP's fiction based work, may have on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

I'd just like to know what your thoughts are on the so called "reality" based, shuck and jive, buffoonery conglomerate, that's dominating our airwaves, in ways Tyler Perry's fictitious work, couldn't if he wanted it to. That must indeed also have an effect on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Reel said:

Since there were quite a few words in that statement that mirrored my previous response, I'll respond to that question. When someone starts a thread aimed at reality TV....I will definitely sound off and give my opinion about it then. This is not the forum to thoroughly get into a dialogue about reality tv, because Tyler has no reality tv shows out there at the present time.

Why is this not the forum to get into that dialogue? You are talking about effect that TP's fiction based work, may have on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

I'd just like to know what your thoughts are on the so called "reality" based, shuck and jive, buffoonery conglomerate, that's dominating our airwaves, in ways Tyler Perry's fictitious work, couldn't if he wanted it to. That must indeed also have an effect on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

Like I said, I won't get into a dialogue about "reality tv" on a Tyler Perry thread but I will say that I agree with your highlighted statement.

paisleypark4 said:

KatSkrizzle said:

Pretty much. Bunch a greazzzed up half naked men, all over the stage, his movies, and his compound!

Tyler is about simple trite stories, and serving his kool aid. I have a friend that works in the film circuit here in ATL and she sums up TP as a hot ghetto mess. The set is disorganized, no one knows what to do, and TP gets missing for DAYS. While staff come to work everyday to sit and do...nothing. But get paid. That's a mess. And it is also a waste of TP's money. And the other thing I'll say is TP treats his staff the way Kathy Hughes does her Radio One staff. Like mules.

I can't say I've ever heard that about Cube. Maybe he does, I don't know. But you never heard nasty rumors about Mr. Cube.

Yeah but what "nasty rumors" have came from Tyler Perrys camp? Tyler was just about THIS close to letting us know he is a proud gay man and shit like this just makes it harder for one to come out when u got people making fun of you. I bet if he did no one would even be posting on this thread this post because it would not exsist.

Quite frankly I don't care if he liked men, women, dogs, or popcicles. His movies are poo piles that are trite and simple. I can't get over how people swear by them. They are so SIMPLE! And Aaron McGruder alluded to that in the Boondocks episode. That's my only beef with him. Just simple beyond anything. Intro to film making 101 student kind of quality.

laurarichardson said:

ThreadBare said:

That's not an entirely accurate comparison. Perry has an impressive (in scope and profits, not in content) filmmaking empire. He's not just an actor or comedian like the other people you reference. As a result, his potential to affect society's thinking at large goes a lot further.

You must be looking at different Tyler Perry movies than I am. Dude is not that deep or running some kool-aid drinking cult.(LOL)

This is almost as bad as the Prince is the devil stories from the 80s.(LOL)

Nor are his shitty movies!

phunkdaddy said:

I get the fact that people like to rip Tyler for coonery in some of his work although

i only see the Meet the Browns character as a loud example of such. What gets me is

the same people that crack the whip on Tyler for his work are and were huge fans

of Good Times. Try telling me their wasn't any coonery in that sitcom.

Jimmie Walker and Bernadette Stanis are also supporters of Tyler Perry.

I think the complaint is, those that liked it then don't want to see it 30 years later. No growth.

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

For all the people so afraid of the effect that Tyler Perry's "empire" may have on the negative status quo thinking of people of all races in this country.

I have to ask where are your complaints about all the so called "reality" shows out there, which are nothing more than scripted shuck and jive buffoonery, being passed off as REALITY?

Dead on about the reality shows.

KatSkrizzle said:

chocolate1 said:

(I changed it to "Preys"- thanks! )

And I'll bet the character development in that film was as weak as it was in Why Did I Get Married, or I Can Do Bad as well.

Tyler Perry script = TRITE to the 100th POWER!

It wasn't some earth-moving experience, but it was entertaining.

What I don't understand is why some people are going to the movies looking for something that is going to change their lives. I can't believe that people actually get a deep, spiritual message from TP movies.

I had a friend who swore by Madea, but she had other issues, and it became apparent that the lines of reality were blurring for her.

Some movies are just entertaining.

chocolate1 said:

KatSkrizzle said:

And I'll bet the character development in that film was as weak as it was in Why Did I Get Married, or I Can Do Bad as well.

Tyler Perry script = TRITE to the 100th POWER!

It wasn't some earth-moving experience, but it was entertaining.

What I don't understand is why some people are going to the movies looking for something that is going to change their lives. I can't believe that people actually get a deep, spiritual message from TP movies.

I had a friend who swore by Madea, but she had other issues, and it became apparent that the lines of reality were blurring for her.

Some movies are just entertaining.

I really TRIED to watch why did I get married. But it was just awful! I guess I can't turn off my brain to watch a TP movie. I think I even had more film education that him and I was an audio theory student.

I guess when I want to be entertained I look to something else. Those movies are just so insulting to my intelligence I just can't sit through any of them. It's like watching a Jet magazine story of the month made into a movie. Seriously, a TV movie made for the big screen. TP makes Black versions of Lifetime movies. That's my opinion.

KatSkrizzle said:

chocolate1 said:

It wasn't some earth-moving experience, but it was entertaining.

What I don't understand is why some people are going to the movies looking for something that is going to change their lives. I can't believe that people actually get a deep, spiritual message from TP movies.

I had a friend who swore by Madea, but she had other issues, and it became apparent that the lines of reality were blurring for her.

Some movies are just entertaining.

I really TRIED to watch why did I get married. But it was just awful! I guess I can't turn off my brain to watch a TP movie. I think I even had more film education that him and I was an audio theory student.

I guess when I want to be entertained I look to something else. Those movies are just so insulting to my intelligence I just can't sit through any of them. It's like watching a Jet magazine story of the month made into a movie. Seriously, a TV movie made for the big screen. TP makes Black versions of Lifetime movies. That's my opinion.

Now that's funny....true...but funny nonetheless.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Hero0101 said:

The funny thing about all of this is...being a drag queen or a transvestite DOES NOT make you gay. Case in point: Eddie Izzard -- straight as an arrow, yet a transvestite. Still, Tyler wearing a dress as "Madea" gets him instantly labelled gay.

Now whether he is or not...we'll let him answer that question.

=0P

People aren't making the claim based on him wearing a dress. They are making it since he is clearly flaming outside of one

And let's not even get into the rumors of him dating that one famous gospel singer.

Here's my take on all this. Perry's sexuality is actually part of a presentation I gave at one of our local colleges. The reality is, Perry is making madd money off the the black religious community. This is different then Berle and Wilson. Plus, the fact that he obviously hiding his sexuality to protect his commerce really pisses people off. Especially when you ignore the big white elephant within black communuites: The intolerance of homosexuality has lead to a disgraceful DL mentality that is causing straight black woman to contract HIV or AIDS at a much higher rate then any other class of person.

Plus, the fact that this dude's films are just straight up horribly made leads to the toxic environment that has led to the creation of this unfunny but timely cartoon.

And, I second the notion that 30 years should have shown more growth between "Good Times" (which, though packed with buffoonery, carried far edgier dialogue about race than you'll see on TV today) and Perry's tired schtick today. He has the money -- and could get the writers -- to force TV to change the dynamic of black representation within a season. But he won't.

As to the reality point, I have only ever liked "The Real World" (way, way back in the day) and the first season of "Survivor" (because it seemed like it was about something different, that first season -- and because the villain won. ).

But, my gripe with reality TV is that it's more of the same with the TV world in general: There aren't many representations of black people. I'd love to see "The Bachelorette" wind up with a black dude. Will it ever get that far? Has a white "Bachelorette" ever gone so far as to kiss a black contestant?

I didn't think so.

Don't get me wrong. Gidget ain't The Promised Land. But, it's an interesting measure for where we are in this day and age.

And the majority of black "characters" that stand out in the genre are either hypersexualized disgraces (Flava/New York) or wholly unlikeable and repellant (Omarosa). It's extreme television, with the biggest personalities winning and with editing playing an even bigger role in playing up the drama. The genre as a whole is contrived.

[Edited 6/29/10 20:52pm]

sosgemini said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

People aren't making the claim based on him wearing a dress. They are making it since he is clearly flaming outside of one

And let's not even get into the rumors of him dating that one famous gospel singer.

Here's my take on all this. Perry's sexuality is actually part of a presentation I gave at one of our local colleges. The reality is, Perry is making madd money off the the black religious community. This is different then Berle and Wilson. Plus, the fact that he obviously hiding his sexuality to protect his commerce really pisses people off. Especially when you ignore the big white elephant within black communuites: The intolerance of homosexuality has lead to a disgraceful DL mentality that is causing straight black woman to contract HIV or AIDS at a much higher rate then any other class of person.

Plus, the fact that this dude's films are just straight up horribly made leads to the toxic environment that has led to the creation of this unfunny but timely cartoon.

I'm with you on the intolerance of homosexuality leading to DL mentality.

I'm just not sure 100% how that transfers to unprotected sex (the cause of HIV/AIDS in anyone of any gender or color). There's DL dudes that have the sense to wear a condom just like there's married women who have sense to insist on protected sex.

At which point in this epidemic do people get real and take responsibility for themselves? I guess I'm tired of hearing "I'm married, why would I think I need a condom?" when it's common knowledge that like 1/2 of marriages fail and people have indiscretions. From anyone regardless of race or gender. That is fine stance to have, but when something happens that you know can happen by forgoing the protection I just can't see how it's entirely the other person's fault.

johnart said:

sosgemini said:

And let's not even get into the rumors of him dating that one famous gospel singer.

Here's my take on all this. Perry's sexuality is actually part of a presentation I gave at one of our local colleges. The reality is, Perry is making madd money off the the black religious community. This is different then Berle and Wilson. Plus, the fact that he obviously hiding his sexuality to protect his commerce really pisses people off. Especially when you ignore the big white elephant within black communuites: The intolerance of homosexuality has lead to a disgraceful DL mentality that is causing straight black woman to contract HIV or AIDS at a much higher rate then any other class of person.

Plus, the fact that this dude's films are just straight up horribly made leads to the toxic environment that has led to the creation of this unfunny but timely cartoon.

I'm with you on the intolerance of homosexuality leading to DL mentality.

I'm just not sure 100% how that transfers to unprotected sex (the cause of HIV/AIDS in anyone of any gender or color). There's DL dudes that have the sense to wear a condom just like there's married women who have sense to insist on protected sex.

At which point in this epidemic do people get real and take responsibility for themselves? I guess I'm tired of hearing "I'm married, why would I think I need a condom?" when it's common knowledge that like 1/2 of marriages fail and people have indiscretions. From anyone regardless of race or gender. That is fine stance to have, but when something happens that you know can happen by forgoing the protection I just can't see how it's entirely the other person's fault.

I think most people still enter marriage thinking fidelity is a reasonable explanation. Call it naivete or delusion, but that's the case.

And, if it's an expectation the future philanderer helps build at the outset, I don't see how you can blame women for contracting a disease brought home to them by their DL/secretly bisexual or gay husbands.

ThreadBare said:

johnart said:

I'm with you on the intolerance of homosexuality leading to DL mentality.

I'm just not sure 100% how that transfers to unprotected sex (the cause of HIV/AIDS in anyone of any gender or color). There's DL dudes that have the sense to wear a condom just like there's married women who have sense to insist on protected sex.

At which point in this epidemic do people get real and take responsibility for themselves? I guess I'm tired of hearing "I'm married, why would I think I need a condom?" when it's common knowledge that like 1/2 of marriages fail and people have indiscretions. From anyone regardless of race or gender. That is fine stance to have, but when something happens that you know can happen by forgoing the protection I just can't see how it's entirely the other person's fault.

I think most people still enter marriage thinking fidelity is a reasonable explanation. Call it naivete or delusion, but that's the case.

And, if it's an expectation the future philanderer helps build at the outset, I don't see how you can blame women for contracting a disease brought home to them by their DL/secretly bisexual or gay husbands.

I'm not blaming the woman solely. I'm saying that when you have sex that is concensual, you make a decision. If you're gonna put your life solely on TRUST and forgo protecting yourself when you know how and why you should, you can't point a finger 100%.

Is there no such thing as responsibility for our actions?

[Edited 6/29/10 21:06pm]

johnart said:

ThreadBare said:

I think most people still enter marriage thinking fidelity is a reasonable explanation. Call it naivete or delusion, but that's the case.

And, if it's an expectation the future philanderer helps build at the outset, I don't see how you can blame women for contracting a disease brought home to them by their DL/secretly bisexual or gay husbands.

I'm not blaming the woman solely. I'm saying that when you have sex that is concensual, you make a decision. If you're gonna put your life solely on TRUST and forgo protecting yourself when you know how and why you should, you can't point a finger 100%.

Is there no such thing as responsibility for our actions?

[Edited 6/29/10 21:06pm]

Also, let me clarify that this is not about blame. Blame is a loaded word. It carries malicious connotations. Taking responsibility for oneself is not the same as inflicting something on someone knowingly and on purpose (which is the instance where I would use the word Blame). It's not that I don't feel for these women. My mother was poz due to this very mentality. I know about it all too well. Sentimentality does not strip us of responsibility.

[Edited 6/29/10 21:17pm]

johnart said:

sosgemini said:

And let's not even get into the rumors of him dating that one famous gospel singer.

Here's my take on all this. Perry's sexuality is actually part of a presentation I gave at one of our local colleges. The reality is, Perry is making madd money off the the black religious community. This is different then Berle and Wilson. Plus, the fact that he obviously hiding his sexuality to protect his commerce really pisses people off. Especially when you ignore the big white elephant within black communuites: The intolerance of homosexuality has lead to a disgraceful DL mentality that is causing straight black woman to contract HIV or AIDS at a much higher rate then any other class of person.

Plus, the fact that this dude's films are just straight up horribly made leads to the toxic environment that has led to the creation of this unfunny but timely cartoon.

I'm with you on the intolerance of homosexuality leading to DL mentality.

I'm just not sure 100% how that transfers to unprotected sex (the cause of HIV/AIDS in anyone of any gender or color). There's DL dudes that have the sense to wear a condom just like there's married women who have sense to insist on protected sex.

At which point in this epidemic do people get real and take responsibility for themselves? I guess I'm tired of hearing "I'm married, why would I think I need a condom?" when it's common knowledge that like 1/2 of marriages fail and people have indiscretions. From anyone regardless of race or gender. That is fine stance to have, but when something happens that you know can happen by forgoing the protection I just can't see how it's entirely the other person's fault.

I just think that in general men are not as careful regarding protection against STD's. I believe most men wear condoms to prevent pregnancy and not to prevent diseases. Don't ask me if I have any statistics or proof because I dont. I just have my own personal experiences talking with men. In regards to your statement, I don't understand why a married woman would insist that her husband use protection during sex, if she had no idea that he was out there cheating in the first place.

Out here in the San Francisco Bay Area it was estimated by a few studies back in the 90's that approximately 50% of all men who identified as having sex with men were HIV positive. 50%. So you take a man who is in denial about his sexuality, or a man who is keeping it on the down low, and you add careless sex with other men on top of that, he is 50% likely to infect his "unsuspecting" wife or girlfriend with the virus if he lived in the San Francisco Bay Area during the 1990's . Even in areas where the statistics are less in terms of gay men infection rates...the dynamics are still the same.

I respect one's choice to be on the "down low" and not come out of the closet. But I think you are a selfish MF for carrying on a dual relationship with an "unsuspecting partner" which has been demonstrated to put lives at risk. If you are into men and are afraid of being scorned by society, just secretly deal with men...don't put the lives of women at risk because of your sexual preference. HIV was damned near approaching epidemic status in the black community because of this dynamic. Another means of transmission is men in jail who don't identify as being gay, these men are exposed in prison and come back and infect their wives / girls.

So that's the Big White Elephant in the room that I got from her post.

johnart said:

ThreadBare said:

I think most people still enter marriage thinking fidelity is a reasonable explanation. Call it naivete or delusion, but that's the case.

And, if it's an expectation the future philanderer helps build at the outset, I don't see how you can blame women for contracting a disease brought home to them by their DL/secretly bisexual or gay husbands.

I'm not blaming the woman solely. I'm saying that when you have sex that is concensual, you make a decision. If you're gonna put your life solely on TRUST and forgo protecting yourself when you know how and why you should, you can't point a finger 100%.

Is there no such thing as responsibility for our actions?

[Edited 6/29/10 21:06pm]

John, I had a rather popular local Rev. tell me that his parish doesn't believe that HIV is real because "our community" has never met anyone with HIV/AIDS. There is a cultural denial that HIV/AIDS is a threat because they refuse to talk about it. Our local AIDS Foundation has repeatedly attempted to reach out to the African American community yet they get zero support and are not alllowed to reach out to a community that sorely needs it. When you have the leaders of a community denying reality, how are you supposed to expect the men and woman who are followers to make and educated decision about their actions? In that respect, I got major beef with Oprah too. Both she and Perry make millions and are us black folks major media role models. They both make millions telling our stories (wronged black woman, child abuse, struggles of working your way up the social ladder) yet they ignore the role religion plays when it comes to AIDS/HIV. Why is it Oprah will have a couple a shows a season about the DL phenom but never once brings up organized religions role in it?