double post

[Edited 6/29/10 21:45pm]

Reel 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 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.

Why would a married woman expect protected sex...Oh I don't know.

If she knows facts, why wouldn't she? Seems a fairer question to me.

And if she knows facts, but knowingly forgoes protecting herself, it's purely on someone else because why? Society told her? Religion told her?

Because her husband is not supposed to cheat??? I mean, we know this. That's what the vows say, so it must be. But in spite of alllllll we know (friend's husbands cheating, friend's wives cheating, celebrities cheating, marriage statistics) she will put her health on the line for the chance that she might be on the better side of that 50/50 and the fairy tale might come true for her (and it might).

How does one do all that knowingly yet remain a complete victim in the situation?

For all the empowering and strides that have taken place for women, "victim" is ultimately still our go-to?? That worries and saddens me.

I meant economic ladder, not social ladder.

sosgemini said:

johnart said:

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?

We're on the same page. My mom was an AIDS educator so I believe and know what you are talking about 100% I've been to churches where they had to fight for her (and other speakers/educators) to even be able to speak to a few women in a basement. Or in some schools. It was ridiculous.

It's not just a shame but a crime.

Here's all I'm saying I don't understand. If we're willing to understand why a woman will put her health on the line due to societal/religious/cultural pressures, why are we not willing to do the same for the man? If they are both products of the same pressures.

This excludes someone who purposely infects their partner of course.

[Edited 6/29/10 21:59pm]

johnart said:

sosgemini said:

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?

We're on the same page. My mom was an AIDS educator so I believe and know what you are talking about 100% I've been to churches where they had to fight for her (and other speakers/educators) to even be able to speak to a few women in a basement. Or in some schools. It was ridiculous.

It's not just a shame but a crime.

Here's all I'm saying I don't understand. If we're willing to understand why a woman will put her health on the line due to societal/religious/cultural pressures, why are we not willing to do the same for the man? If they are both products of the same pressures.

This excludes someone who purposely infects their partner of course.

I'm not singling out either sex. In both cases, Oprah and Perry are ignoring the White Elephant within our black community because of commerce. (IMHO) The fact that Perry is a closeted gay, well...that makes the burn even more painful for me. A gay black male. (I throw that out 'cause U think some here think I am female. LOL )

sosgemini said:

johnart said:

We're on the same page. My mom was an AIDS educator so I believe and know what you are talking about 100% I've been to churches where they had to fight for her (and other speakers/educators) to even be able to speak to a few women in a basement. Or in some schools. It was ridiculous.

It's not just a shame but a crime.

Here's all I'm saying I don't understand. If we're willing to understand why a woman will put her health on the line due to societal/religious/cultural pressures, why are we not willing to do the same for the man? If they are both products of the same pressures.

This excludes someone who purposely infects their partner of course.

I'm not singling out either sex. In both cases, Oprah and Perry are ignoring the White Elephant within our black community because of commerce. (IMHO) The fact that Perry is a closeted gay, well...that makes the burn even more painful for me. A gay black male. (I throw that out 'cause U think some here think I am female. LOL )

I know you're not singling out either. I'm just making that statement because a lot of folk do. The man went out the marriage, he's the cheater devil-man. And I'm not saying he's great for doing that. Not at all. But they neglect to acknowledge that maybe he entered that marriage being untrue to himself under the same pressures and religious/culturally perpetuated ignorance by which the woman ignores the possible realities of marriage/relationships/health.

LOL I thought I saw a post somewhere refer to you as female.

[Edited 6/29/10 22:23pm]

sosgemini said:

johnart said:

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?

If you are looking for any "credible" church to start handing out condoms in their santuary....it's just not going to ever happen. What will likely continue to happen is that Pastors will continue to preach the principals of their faith which is....abstinence prior to marriage, and once married - no sex outside of marriage. However unrealistic for mankind to adhere to those tenants, it is the church's beliefs that they are to shape the world through their Faith, and not the other way around in regards to the world making the church adjust it's views on what the Bible, Quran, or Torrah says about abstinence and sexuality.

But there are causes that many church have addressed in the community. Many of these are "after the fact" sorts of things such as "programs" for HIV postive mother's / children etc.

Now as far as any Pastor in the black community saying that many in his parish don't think HIV is real, I think he misspoke. Perhaps he is the one who does not want to address this thing. HIV has damned near ravished the black community just as much as crack did. I don't believe that for one minute theres a congregation of folks in a black community that is not aware that HIV is out there in full force (not unless they are a congregation of 95 year olds )

Reel said:

sosgemini said:

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?

If you are looking for any "credible" church to start handing out condoms in their santuary....it's just not going to ever happen. What will likely continue to happen is that Pastors will continue to preach the principals of their faith which is....abstinence prior to marriage, and once married - no sex outside of marriage. However unrealistic for mankind to adhere to those tenants, it is the church's beliefs that they are to shape the world through their Faith, and not the other way around in regards to the world making the church adjust it's views on what the Bible, Quran, or Torrah says about abstinence and sexuality.

But there are causes that many church have addressed in the community. Many of these are "after the fact" sorts of things such as "programs" for HIV postive mother's / children etc.

Now as far as any Pastor in the black community saying that many in his parish don't think HIV is real, I think he misspoke. Perhaps he is the one who does not want to address this thing. HIV has damned near ravished the black community just as much as crack did. I don't believe that for one minute theres a congregation of folks in a black community that is not aware that HIV is out there in full force (not unless they are a congregation of 95 year olds )

Not in our county. I will say though that that our initial forum (meeting) did get some conservative church leaders to think and that's all I had hoped for. I still feel like our lil percieved conservative county in California are finally having conversations that most here in our State had during the 80's. It's progress yet change is slow and I understand that. Hopefully we will get to the point where they allow programs that have a difference "after the fact" but we aren't there yet. One of our guest participants spoke to how she was shunned by her church for being a straight woman with HIV. The reality is sad...but we are fighting for change. I just wish Oprah and Tyler Perry would put their money were their mouth is in regards to our community. Unfortunately though, money speaks louder than anything these days and I don't expect either to speak up when it causes such uncomfort. Funny that Oprah will go after the cattle/beef industry but is silent on black churches and HIV.

johnart said:

sosgemini said:

I'm not singling out either sex. In both cases, Oprah and Perry are ignoring the White Elephant within our black community because of commerce. (IMHO) The fact that Perry is a closeted gay, well...that makes the burn even more painful for me. A gay black male. (I throw that out 'cause U think some here think I am female. LOL )

I know you're not singling out either. I'm just making that statement because a lot of folk do. The man went out the marriage, he's the cheater devil-man. And I'm not saying he's great for doing that. Not at all. But they neglect to acknowledge that maybe he entered that marriage being untrue to himself under the same pressures and religious/culturally perpetuated ignorance by which the woman ignores the possible realities of marriage/relationships/health.

LOL I thought I saw a post somewhere refer to you as female.

[Edited 6/29/10 22:23pm]

D'oh. U should have been I. Oye...too many glasses of wine tonight. LOL

johnart said:

Reel said:

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.

Why would a married woman expect protected sex...Oh I don't know.

If she knows facts, why wouldn't she? Seems a fairer question to me.

And if she knows facts, but knowingly forgoes protecting herself, it's purely on someone else because why? Society told her? Religion told her?

Because her husband is not supposed to cheat??? I mean, we know this. That's what the vows say, so it must be. But in spite of alllllll we know (friend's husbands cheating, friend's wives cheating, celebrities cheating, marriage statistics) she will put her health on the line for the chance that she might be on the better side of that 50/50 and the fairy tale might come true for her (and it might).

How does one do all that knowingly yet remain a complete victim in the situation?

For all the empowering and strides that have taken place for women, "victim" is ultimately still our go-to?? That worries and saddens me.

Oh well I guess that we can expect for the entire World's population to just die off because now married women have to wear condoms within their marriage because they should somehow expect that their men will be cheating with other men. That sounds like "chucking " the responsibiltiy onto the victim to me.

The human race must have sex in order to survive naturally with out artificial insemination. It is reasonable within a marriage that a woman have normal unprotected sexual relations with her spouse. I think that if you were referring to a regular relationship where there were NO VOWS taken, then I would 100% agree with you.

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.

Is it not Perry's business if he wants to hide his sexuality? Why is his ability to make money so upsetting to so many people when white corporate media outlets produce all sorts of stereotypical programming that black people spend a lot of time and money on?

I do not think by any means that Perry is a talented film maker but I really think some of the haterade directed at him falls into the crabs in the barrel mindset.

laurarichardson 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.

Is it not Perry's business if he wants to hide his sexuality? Why is his ability to make money so upsetting to so many people when white corporate media outlets produce all sorts of stereotypical programming that black people spend a lot of time and money on?

I do not think by any means that Perry is a talented film maker but I really think some of the haterade directed at him falls into the crabs in the barrel mindset.

See...I'm a prophet! If yall check my very first post on this thread I said this would happen....I KNEW that the ole "crabs in a barrel" cliche' was just around the corner and would inevitably be hurled at someone when they critique Tyler Perry in the presence of other black folks. Surprised that it wasn't said by somebody sooner. It ALWAYS happens during discussions; which is why in the real world I never even go this far in discussing my disappointments with Tyler.

Tyler's a powerful black man with limited accountablity who's powerful enough to help change the status quo, but instead wallows in it and re-serves it to us....sort of like serving the people "sugar on shhhh", and telling them that the sugar makes it muchable.

Now if I could only use that prophecy to win the lotto.

Reel said:

Wow...I watched that episode because I like the Boondocks. Even with it's overt political incorrectness. Yanno, something was always a bit bizzare about Tyler Perry to me. And it went even past the whole cross dressing Madea thing. I really have no idea how he is with his staff and cast, but that Boondocks episode definitely appeared to have some pretty obvious Tyler Perry themes in it ie. "Homo-erotic Christian Cult". I know that Tyler has a "tight camp" and that can possibly why people on the inside feel like it's a "cult". Wouldn't be surprised if one of his cast members "dropped dime" on the real Tyler. But who's to really say.

I always saw things in Tyler that very few other people saw, and this would lead to arguements when I expressed my views about him and his work, so now I just don't say shydt. Good to know that I wasn't the only one out there "sensing" that there was something a bit "different" or amiss about ole boy.

Sometimes when one of "our" people do well for themselves no one can dare say anything that is perceived to be negative or critical about that person less you get a verbal tongue lashing, and get accused of being a crab in a barrel. So I won't even state what my real feelings about Tyler are.

What I will say is that his empire has been amazing, he is definitely talented. I think he addresses some themes in his work that is very sensitive for him seeing that he has been abused by his father, and molested etc. I'm sure his work is therapeutic for himself, and people seem to gobble it up. I just hate his Meet The Browns series and whatever other crappy minstrel type series that he has on television.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Spike said about Tyler. Spike didn't lie, and Tyler handled the criticism like a lil bitch as far as I'm concerned. Hell there's an "audience" for everything. Just because you have an "audience" for something doesn't mean that the work is steller. Tyler got "schooled" by one of his peers and by someone who has paid his dues in the business long before Tyler crawled out of the bad situation that he was in. Tyler should have listened instead of "flexed". Hell Spike took tons of critcism. He was like the first to be accused of being an "angry black man". He just took it, and spun it out and delivered better and better work. He didn't bitch.

[Edited 6/25/10 16:55pm]

Wish my predictions could earn me some money.

Don't know about all this, but I watched the epi last night and it was hilarious.

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 was even more of a fan of All In A Family & The Jeffersons. Both of these shows were guilty for it share of controversies (including some coonery from a few white and black characters alike).

But hot damn it, I still enjoy some of those classic episodes every now and then. Why? Because of the political incorrectness of it! By the end of the day, the viewing audience of all backgrounds wants AND needs a good laugh at themselves. Even in 2010, we still do.

So why are we in general are going to hate on Madea now, when we almost NEVER hated on Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, Fred Sanford, James "J.J." Evans Jr, OR any other character of the 1970's that were funny as hell to laugh with and/or laugh at?!?

Think about it.

TonyVanDam 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.

I was even more of a fan of All In A Family & The Jeffersons. Both of these shows were guilty for it share of controversies (including some coonery from a few white and black characters alike).

But hot damn it, I still enjoy some of those classic episodes every now and then. Why? Because of the political incorrectness of it! By the end of the day, the viewing audience of all backgrounds wants AND needs a good laugh at themselves. Even in 2010, we still do.

So why are we in general are going to hate on Madea now, when we almost NEVER hated on Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, Fred Sanford, James "J.J." Evans Jr, OR any other character of the 1970's that were funny as hell to laugh with and/or laugh at?!?

Think about it.

Not so much into the Jeffersons, but I still watch All in the Family on TVLand. I think Archie is so funny, the way he butchered words and had the craziest philosophies about things. I was too young to "get" a lot of what was going on back then, but his political incorrectness is hilarious to me now...

George Jefferson just came off as angry to me.

chocolate1 said:

TonyVanDam said:

I was even more of a fan of All In A Family & The Jeffersons. Both of these shows were guilty for it share of controversies (including some coonery from a few white and black characters alike).

But hot damn it, I still enjoy some of those classic episodes every now and then. Why? Because of the political incorrectness of it! By the end of the day, the viewing audience of all backgrounds wants AND needs a good laugh at themselves. Even in 2010, we still do.

So why are we in general are going to hate on Madea now, when we almost NEVER hated on Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, Fred Sanford, James "J.J." Evans Jr, OR any other character of the 1970's that were funny as hell to laugh with and/or laugh at?!?

Think about it.

Not so much into the Jeffersons, but I still watch All in the Family on TVLand. I think Archie is so funny, the way he butchered words and had the craziest philosophies about things. I was too young to "get" a lot of what was going on back then, but his political incorrectness is hilarious to me now...

George Jefferson just came off as angry to me.

As a character, George had a darker edge (no pun intended!) because he was a victim of borderline bigotry long before he became a borderline bigot in his own right, especially after becoming rich through the success of his dry cleaning business chains. But George would definitely lighten the hell up in later seasons of The Jeffersons. Just like in real life, he had to evolve AND go through changes sooner than later.

chocolate1 said:

TonyVanDam said:

I was even more of a fan of All In A Family & The Jeffersons. Both of these shows were guilty for it share of controversies (including some coonery from a few white and black characters alike).

But hot damn it, I still enjoy some of those classic episodes every now and then. Why? Because of the political incorrectness of it! By the end of the day, the viewing audience of all backgrounds wants AND needs a good laugh at themselves. Even in 2010, we still do.

So why are we in general are going to hate on Madea now, when we almost NEVER hated on Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, Fred Sanford, James "J.J." Evans Jr, OR any other character of the 1970's that were funny as hell to laugh with and/or laugh at?!?

Think about it.

Not so much into the Jeffersons, but I still watch All in the Family on TVLand. I think Archie is so funny, the way he butchered words and had the craziest philosophies about things. I was too young to "get" a lot of what was going on back then, but his political incorrectness is hilarious to me now...

George Jefferson just came off as angry to me.

And that's probably the way it was planned: the angry Black man, hence the theme song adding that they're moving on up.

Reel said:

johnart said:

Why would a married woman expect protected sex...Oh I don't know.

If she knows facts, why wouldn't she? Seems a fairer question to me.

And if she knows facts, but knowingly forgoes protecting herself, it's purely on someone else because why? Society told her? Religion told her?

Because her husband is not supposed to cheat??? I mean, we know this. That's what the vows say, so it must be. But in spite of alllllll we know (friend's husbands cheating, friend's wives cheating, celebrities cheating, marriage statistics) she will put her health on the line for the chance that she might be on the better side of that 50/50 and the fairy tale might come true for her (and it might).

How does one do all that knowingly yet remain a complete victim in the situation?

For all the empowering and strides that have taken place for women, "victim" is ultimately still our go-to?? That worries and saddens me.

Oh well I guess that we can expect for the entire World's population to just die off because now married women have to wear condoms within their marriage because they should somehow expect that their men will be cheating with other men. That sounds like "chucking " the responsibiltiy onto the victim to me.

The human race must have sex in order to survive naturally with out artificial insemination. It is reasonable within a marriage that a woman have normal unprotected sexual relations with her spouse. I think that if you were referring to a regular relationship where there were NO VOWS taken, then I would 100% agree with you.

Well first off the assumption that all women are infected by men who are bi or gay is ridiculous. Is there a large percentage of that. Yes I'm sure of course. But to not even consider that a woman can pass the virus onto a hetero man (either through drug use or unprotected anal/vaginal sex) is naive and/or perpetuating the whole religious/social/cultural thing we were discussing in prior posts.

And no I am not saying that women should expect this will happen to them, or that a woman is in any way dumb for or shouldn't have unprotected sex with her spouse/partner if she wants to. But it is not unreasonable to expect that she accept that the possibilities are there (cheating, gay, bi, str8 whatever) and acknowledge that one is responsible for one's body/well being and making a concensual and informed desicion. How is it when the subject of pro-choice comes up so many women are up in arms over a man having any say over her body, but when it comes to protecting that body from contracting a virus, they're willing to lay it down and leave it up to a man because of love and vows? That's fine. Just acknowledge and accept the risk is all.

You don't expect you're gonna get hit by a car when you leave your house, but you still walk on the sidewalk rather than the middle of the damn highway.

[Edited 6/30/10 9:15am]

TonyVanDam 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.

I was even more of a fan of All In A Family & The Jeffersons. Both of these shows were guilty for it share of controversies (including some coonery from a few white and black characters alike).

But hot damn it, I still enjoy some of those classic episodes every now and then. Why? Because of the political incorrectness of it! By the end of the day, the viewing audience of all backgrounds wants AND needs a good laugh at themselves. Even in 2010, we still do.

So why are we in general are going to hate on Madea now, when we almost NEVER hated on Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, Fred Sanford, James "J.J." Evans Jr, OR any other character of the 1970's that were funny as hell to laugh with and/or laugh at?!?

Think about it.

Because those shows were intelligently written, were in on the joke and highlighted inappropriateness to make a point, that we should all get along. Perry's ishh is soo stupid and poorly written, all it does is highlight the stereotypes.

sosgemini said:

TonyVanDam said:

I was even more of a fan of All In A Family & The Jeffersons. Both of these shows were guilty for it share of controversies (including some coonery from a few white and black characters alike).

But hot damn it, I still enjoy some of those classic episodes every now and then. Why? Because of the political incorrectness of it! By the end of the day, the viewing audience of all backgrounds wants AND needs a good laugh at themselves. Even in 2010, we still do.

So why are we in general are going to hate on Madea now, when we almost NEVER hated on Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, Fred Sanford, James "J.J." Evans Jr, OR any other character of the 1970's that were funny as hell to laugh with and/or laugh at?!?

Think about it.

Because those shows were intelligently written, were in on the joke and highlighted inappropriateness to make a point, that we should all get along. Perry's ishh is soo stupid and poorly written, all it does is highlight the stereotypes.

Classic!^

TonyVanDam 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.

I was even more of a fan of All In A Family & The Jeffersons. Both of these shows were guilty for it share of controversies (including some coonery from a few white and black characters alike).

But hot damn it, I still enjoy some of those classic episodes every now and then. Why? Because of the political incorrectness of it! By the end of the day, the viewing audience of all backgrounds wants AND needs a good laugh at themselves. Even in 2010, we still do.

So why are we in general are going to hate on Madea now, when we almost NEVER hated on Archie Bunker, George Jefferson, Fred Sanford, James "J.J." Evans Jr, OR any other character of the 1970's that were funny as hell to laugh with and/or laugh at?!?

Think about it.

Good point.

johnart said:

Reel said:

Oh well I guess that we can expect for the entire World's population to just die off because now married women have to wear condoms within their marriage because they should somehow expect that their men will be cheating with other men. That sounds like "chucking " the responsibiltiy onto the victim to me.

The human race must have sex in order to survive naturally with out artificial insemination. It is reasonable within a marriage that a woman have normal unprotected sexual relations with her spouse. I think that if you were referring to a regular relationship where there were NO VOWS taken, then I would 100% agree with you.

Well first off the assumption that all women are infected by men who are bi or gay is ridiculous. Is there a large percentage of that. Yes I'm sure of course. But to not even consider that a woman can pass the virus onto a hetero man (either through drug use or unprotected anal/vaginal sex) is naive and/or perpetuating the whole religious/social/cultural thing we were discussing in prior posts.

And no I am not saying that women should expect this will happen to them, or that a woman is in any way dumb for or shouldn't have unprotected sex with her spouse/partner if she wants to. But it is not unreasonable to expect that she accept that the possibilities are there (cheating, gay, bi, str8 whatever) and acknowledge that one is responsible for one's body/well being and making a concensual and informed desicion. How is it when the subject of pro-choice comes up so many women are up in arms over a man having any say over her body, but when it comes to protecting that body from contracting a virus, they're willing to lay it down and leave it up to a man because of love and vows? That's fine. Just acknowledge and accept the risk is all.

You don't expect you're gonna get hit by a car when you leave your house, but you still walk on the sidewalk rather than the middle of the damn highway.

[Edited 6/30/10 9:15am]

The reason that I mentioned that was because a few threads earlier we (including you) were discussing the "Big Elephant' in the room. Of course there are other modes of transmission of the virus like you stated. I just don't think married women should be faulted in any way because her husband decides to cheat with "whomever" and brings her back a lethal disease. The only thing that she should be taking responsibility for is perhaps "ignoring red flags" and proceeding with the marriage anway. I just don't think it's right to even "hint at" the idea that she "should have been practicing safe sex while in the marriage". If he cheats during the marriage and gets caught and she decides to stay - yes she should protect herself. But if she is unsupecting, it makes no sense for a woman to anticipate that her husband will bring her home HIV, Herpes, or anything else. I think the cheating party should make a decision and stick with it.

[Edited 6/30/10 10:27am]

TonyVanDam said:

chocolate1 said:

Not so much into the Jeffersons, but I still watch All in the Family on TVLand. I think Archie is so funny, the way he butchered words and had the craziest philosophies about things. I was too young to "get" a lot of what was going on back then, but his political incorrectness is hilarious to me now...

George Jefferson just came off as angry to me.

As a character, George had a darker edge (no pun intended!) because he was a victim of borderline bigotry long before he became a borderline bigot in his own right, especially after becoming rich through the success of his dry cleaning business chains. But George would definitely lighten the hell up in later seasons of The Jeffersons. Just like in real life, he had to evolve AND go through changes sooner than later.

That's weird... my original reply didn't show up.

I was saying that that makes a lot of sense. But I just didn't find him as funny.

And by the time his character wasn't as angry, I didn't think the show in general was funny.

[Edited 6/30/10 11:06am]

RebirthOfCool said:

chocolate1 said:

Not so much into the Jeffersons, but I still watch All in the Family on TVLand. I think Archie is so funny, the way he butchered words and had the craziest philosophies about things. I was too young to "get" a lot of what was going on back then, but his political incorrectness is hilarious to me now...

George Jefferson just came off as angry to me.

And that's probably the way it was planned: the angry Black man, hence the theme song adding that they're moving on up.

I'm sure, but he wasn't as funny. To me, he was funnier playing off Archie's character.

chocolate1 said:

RebirthOfCool said:

And that's probably the way it was planned: the angry Black man, hence the theme song adding that they're moving on up.

I'm sure, but he wasn't as funny. To me, he was funnier playing off Archie's character.

And that's because he had his equal to play off of. He didn't have his equal in his own show.

RebirthOfCool said:

chocolate1 said:

I'm sure, but he wasn't as funny. To me, he was funnier playing off Archie's character.

And that's because he had his equal to play off of. He didn't have his equal in his own show.

Reel said:

johnart said:

Well first off the assumption that all women are infected by men who are bi or gay is ridiculous. Is there a large percentage of that. Yes I'm sure of course. But to not even consider that a woman can pass the virus onto a hetero man (either through drug use or unprotected anal/vaginal sex) is naive and/or perpetuating the whole religious/social/cultural thing we were discussing in prior posts.

And no I am not saying that women should expect this will happen to them, or that a woman is in any way dumb for or shouldn't have unprotected sex with her spouse/partner if she wants to. But it is not unreasonable to expect that she accept that the possibilities are there (cheating, gay, bi, str8 whatever) and acknowledge that one is responsible for one's body/well being and making a concensual and informed desicion. How is it when the subject of pro-choice comes up so many women are up in arms over a man having any say over her body, but when it comes to protecting that body from contracting a virus, they're willing to lay it down and leave it up to a man because of love and vows? That's fine. Just acknowledge and accept the risk is all.

You don't expect you're gonna get hit by a car when you leave your house, but you still walk on the sidewalk rather than the middle of the damn highway.

[Edited 6/30/10 9:15am]

The reason that I mentioned that was because a few threads earlier we (including you) were discussing the "Big Elephant' in the room. Of course there are other modes of transmission of the virus like you stated. I just don't think married women should be faulted in any way because her husband decides to cheat with "whomever" and brings her back a lethal disease. The only thing that she should be taking responsibility for is perhaps "ignoring red flags" and proceeding with the marriage anway. I just don't think it's right to even "hint at" the idea that she "should have been practicing safe sex while in the marriage". If he cheats during the marriage and gets caught and she decides to stay - yes she should protect herself. But if she is unsupecting, it makes no sense for a woman to anticipate that her husband will bring her home HIV, Herpes, or anything else. I think the cheating party should make a decision and stick with it.

[Edited 6/30/10 10:27am]

We will just have to agree to disagree on this because from all I'm reading what I get is that once a woman enters into holy matrimony (or vows) it is perfectly acceptable for her to willingly hand her life over to a man's hands and coin herself "victim" if anything goes wrong. It's either that, or, I don't know...that some kind of "duming down" of woman seems to occur, which I hate even the thoguht of.

I've said time and time again that I am not faulting. Fault and the acknowledgement or acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions and decisions are different things.

[Edited 6/30/10 12:02pm]

johnart said:

Reel said:

The reason that I mentioned that was because a few threads earlier we (including you) were discussing the "Big Elephant' in the room. Of course there are other modes of transmission of the virus like you stated. I just don't think married women should be faulted in any way because her husband decides to cheat with "whomever" and brings her back a lethal disease. The only thing that she should be taking responsibility for is perhaps "ignoring red flags" and proceeding with the marriage anway. I just don't think it's right to even "hint at" the idea that she "should have been practicing safe sex while in the marriage". If he cheats during the marriage and gets caught and she decides to stay - yes she should protect herself. But if she is unsupecting, it makes no sense for a woman to anticipate that her husband will bring her home HIV, Herpes, or anything else. I think the cheating party should make a decision and stick with it.

[Edited 6/30/10 10:27am]

We will just have to agree to disagree on this because from all I'm reading what I get is that once a woman enters into holy matrimony (or vows) it is perfectly acceptable for her to willingly hand her life over to a man's hands and coin herself "victim" if anything goes wrong. It's either that, or, I don't know...that some kind of "duming down" of woman seems to occur, which I hate even the thoguht of.

I've said time and time again that I am not faulting. Fault and the acknowledgement or acceptance of responsibility for one's own actions and decisions are different things.

[Edited 6/30/10 12:02pm]

Ok...honest discussion. We'll just agree to disagree on the points where we don't see eye to eye.

sosgemini said:

johnart said:

We're on the same page. My mom was an AIDS educator so I believe and know what you are talking about 100% I've been to churches where they had to fight for her (and other speakers/educators) to even be able to speak to a few women in a basement. Or in some schools. It was ridiculous.

It's not just a shame but a crime.

Here's all I'm saying I don't understand. If we're willing to understand why a woman will put her health on the line due to societal/religious/cultural pressures, why are we not willing to do the same for the man? If they are both products of the same pressures.

This excludes someone who purposely infects their partner of course.

I'm not singling out either sex. In both cases, Oprah and Perry are ignoring the White Elephant within our black community because of commerce. (IMHO) The fact that Perry is a closeted gay, well...that makes the burn even more painful for me. A gay black male. (I throw that out 'cause U think some here think I am female. LOL )

Honey I am so late to the party here. I only have time to hinge on one tiny thing here before I hitr the sheets:

Now I understand why the issue of what Tyler does is painful for you. But what I want to ask is that is it confirmed (via 'family') that he's gay, or is this just rumor and supposition?