Sunday, August 30, 2009

The Catalog Of Ethical Insanity, Part 1: Down Low Detectives & Down Low Enablers

Before psychiatry had the concept of psychopaths, there was what used to be called "moral insanity:

""The term 'moral insanity' is unfamiliar to psychiatrists today, but it was an accepted diagnosis in Europe and America throughout most of the 19th century. As late as 1883, the American Journal of Insanity (forerunner of the American Journal of Psychiatry) published an article titled 'Moral Insanity.' Individuals who retained their intellectual capacity but harbored strange and unrealistic ideas had puzzled European physicians of the 18th century.

. . . Dr. J.C. Prichard (1786-1848) of England is credited with being the first to use the term moral insanity. In 1835 he wrote: 'There is a form of mental derangement in which the intellectual faculties [are uninjured], while the disorder is manifested principally or alone in the state of feelings, temper, or habits. . .The moral. . . principles of the mind. . . are depraved or perverted, the power of self-government is lost or greatly impaired, and the individual is. . . incapable. . . of conducting himself with decency and propriety in the business of life.'"

Moral Insanity: A Brief History, by Lucy Ozarin, M.D., M.P.H., Psychiatric News May 18, 2001Volume 36 Number 10, American Psychiatric Association, p. 21.

Since I don't like the ugly connotations that right-wing, Christian religious fanatics have created around the word "moral," let's call it ethical insanity. I think that in many ways it's a better term than "sociopath/psychopath" because it gives a more precise flavor of what's wrong with so many people. I think the term "ethical insanity" also helps us to see the nuances between people who aren't quite psychopaths, yet are still far outside the bounds of human decency and propriety.

The African-American collective is TEEMING with ethically insane individuals. Individuals who retain their intellectual capacity but harbor strange and depraved ideas that are far outside the bounds of decency and propriety.

We've seen examples of ethical insanity with the strange and depraved ideas voiced by a number of African-Americans regarding the Dunbar Village gang rape case.

We've seen examples of ethical insanity with the strange and depraved priorities of many of our (mis)leaders. [Please note that Maude Ford Lee, the President of the West Palm Beach Branch of the NAACP, is the mother of the ethically insane Vanessa Lee who is quoted in the first What About Our Daughters post linked above. It's obvious that this ethically insane "apple" didn't fall far from the tree.]

I was reminded of the issue of ethical insanity during our recent blog discussion about the emerging trend of historically Black colleges and universities becoming epicenters of HIV/AIDS infections. I was quite impressed by the commenters. They didn't do what African-American women typically do when discussing the skyrocketing numbers of HIV/AIDS infections among Black women. I was delighted to see that commenters didn't fixate on becoming what some gay Black male activists have called "down low detectives." [All of which is not to deny the need for concern about unwittingly dating down low men. But prudent concern isn't the same thing as an irrational fixation.]

My Sisters, Eliminate The KNOWN Risks Before Fixating On Speculative Risks

I've always wondered why so many African-American women fixate on becoming what some gay Black male activists have called "down low detectives" instead of starting by eliminating KNOWN, easily-identified risks from their sexual lives such as Black male criminals, drug users and playboys.

Yes, down low Black men ARE a large part of the problem as pertains to African-American women becoming infected with HIV/AIDS. But so are the straight Black male jailbirds, dope fiends and playas! It amazes me to see how fixated so many African-American women are on scoping out hidden down low signs instead of getting rid of the known, easily-identifiable risks such as the jailbirds, dope fiends and playas. I wouldn't call this behavior ethically insane, but it is irrational and self-defeating if the point is simply to reduce one's risk of dating an infected man. There's also a touch of unethical cowardice in only fixating on culturally "approved" targets of condemnation, instead of speaking the entire truth. Instead of also identifying the "sacred cows" of Black male jailbirds, druggies and playboys as sources of HIV/AIDS transmission to African-American women.

However, there are some Black female "down low detectives" who ARE ethically insane:

Ethical Insanity Outbreak At D.C.'s Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church

Here's part of the story published by the Washington Blade dated February 1, 2008 (you really need to read it in its entirety---it's that . . . special---my comments are in blue):

"One of Washington’s largest black Pentecostal churches was rocked by a female member of its choir who sent separate e-mail messages to the pastor in December and January outing more than 100 church members as gay, mostly male choir members.

The outings added to the inner turmoil experienced by a large number of gays who attend services at the 7,000-member Greater Mount Calvary Holy Church, located on Rhode Island Ave., N.E., according to a gay former member who provided copies of the e-mails to the Blade.

'I will be leaving the choir at the top of the year because 80 percent of the tenors are homosexuals and act more like a female in choir rehearsal than I do,' the church choir member said in one of her e-mails to Bishop Alfred Owens Jr., the church pastor. [Khadija speaking: So . . . let's see. This woman is writing the pastor complaining about allegedly gay men in the church choir that she also accuses of acting in a stereotypical effeminate manner. And she feels compelled to "notify" the pastor about this . . . because these multitudes of allegedly effeminate, gay men in his choir have somehow escaped his notice. Even though he watches these men sing each and every Sunday. Hmmm . . .]

The e-mail, sent in December, identifies about 45 fellow church members as gay. She sent a second e-mail to Owens on Jan. 2 identifying another 62 church members as gay. [Khadija: So, somehow the pastor (who we'll later see is an anti-gay bigot) supposedly never noticed over 100 allegedly effeminate, gay men singing in his choir each Sunday. That's . . . interesting.]

'The following people I am asking you to monitor very closely and my prayer is that you will sit them down from their ministries,' she told Owens in the December e-mail. 'Because they are ushering in the presence of sin, lies, a spirit of homosexuality and sexual spirits.' [Khadija: Whatever. Gee, I wonder what "spirit" this "blessed and highly favored" woman is ushering in?]

She sent a copy of her e-mails to a Yahoo list group that goes to more than 300 church members, the gay former church member said. [Khadija: Oh, my God . . . that's incredibly vicious. She already called herself "telling on" these men to the pastor. What possible, purportedly "good faith" reason could she have for doing this? As my best friend from New Orleans says in the gentle drawl that she pulls out for emphasis---Ahhh . . . naaawwww. This is some petty, evil, and downright Satanic mess. What sounds most likely is something along the lines that after spending several years in the choir, "Sister Bertha" was not chosen to do a solo and then she got mad. And then she decided to lash out. Whatever her true, petty gripe was, she's certainly ethically insane.]

. . Owens became the subject of media attention in April 2006 when he used the word 'fag' in a sermon on Palm Sunday. 'It takes real men to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior,' Owens said in the sermon, which was recorded by the church. 'I’m not talking about no faggot or no sissy,' he said. 'Let the real men come down here and take a bow — all the real men. I’m talking about straight men … praise God that you’re straight.'

The church’s web site includes a listing of twice-monthly sessions of a ministry called 'Breaking the Chains of Homosexuality,' which it says helps gays change their sexual orientation through counseling and prayer. [Khadija: All right, now. This church has been quite up-front in telling gays and lesbians that they are NOT welcome there; and that this place is NOT a church home for them. So why are they going there; and going so far as to participate in the choirs? In many ways this reminds me of how slave-minded African-Americans persist in shopping with Koreans and Arab shopkeepers who have nothing but hatred and contempt for them.

But it also raises the ethical question of what good-faith reason could gays and lesbians possibly have for going to this particular church? This church has already let them know that they are not welcome. So, why are they infiltrating places of worship where they've been told that they are not welcome? To my way of thinking, that's somewhat unethical. A house of worship is not intended to function like a government building. It's a place of private fellowship among presumably like-minded believers. There's NO obligation whatsoever for any house of worship to make any particular person or any particular category of persons feel welcome there.

It would be similar to me (as a progressive Muslim) infiltrating a Taliban-type mosque that's up-front about the fact that they preach reactionary madness. What legitimate purpose would I have for running up in there when I know they don't want progressive Muslims in THEIR mosque? And it is their mosque since it was founded, and is being run, according to their reactionary doctrine. That's their spiritual "home." How is it legitimate for me to either infiltrate or gate-crash their spiritual home when they've made it clear that they don't want me in there?]

. . . The gay former church member who sent the outing e-mails to the Blade also sent a copy of a separate e-mail from an outraged gay church member who was among those named in the first two e-mails as gay. 'I do not believe that someone would [have] the nerve to put my name to a list of known gays,' he wrote in an e-mail sent to Owens and members of the church Yahoo group. 'This has gone too far, I am not going down by myself.' He went on to name other gays, including some in high-level church positions. [Khadija: WOW! . . . just wow. . . Yet another example of ethical insanity.]

'It is so bad that in the last e-mail we are turning on each other,' the gay former church member, who sent copies of the e-mails to the Blade, said. 'Although I wanted to remain anonymous, someone has to do something.'" [Khadija: Yes, that was unfortunate. It's an important reminder that people can be victims AND victimizers at the same time. We'll get back to this point later.]

Several Black gay and lesbian blogs discussed this incident at the time. Pam's House Blend (although her audience seems to be composed of mostly White lesbians and gays. and Living Out Loud with Darian at discussed this incident at the time. You may find it interesting to read the discussions there.

There Are Many Situations Where People Are Victims AND Villains At The Same Time

Real life is filled with nuances and shades of gray. There are many situations where oppressed people are also victimizing and endangering others. A person can be a victim and a villain at the same time. I've talked about this before in the context of battered women:

"If You Choose to Help a Victim of Domestic Violence, Offer Help From A SAFE DISTANCE.

This is the part where I'm sure to offend many, if not most, survivors of domestic violence. I must admit that I'm not automatically as empathetic as I used to be about this issue. I've had too much work-related exposure to domestic violence victims. Both as a former prosecutor and as a defense attorney.

Here's the part that women's advocates won't tell you: Many women who are victims of domestic violence will ultimately, and eagerly, go back to their abusers. If you allowed yourself to get heavily involved in "rescuing" such a woman, she AND her abuser will paint you as somebody who just wanted to break them up (after she returns to him). This means that the male abuser might want to come after YOU after they are lovey-dovey again!

Many women who are victims of domestic violence will also destroy any sanctuary that you offer them. They will bring predators into the previously-safe environment. After she reconciles with her batterer, she will start having him come visit her in the new apartment that you provided for her. She will be resentful if you won't allow him to move into the new apartment. This scenario has happened to several other landlords I know. Good Samaritan, Beware!"

Several readers described their own observations of this:

One reader said, "As a child, I witnessed my mother turn on people who tried to intervene when she was getting beat on. As an adult, I was told by my brothers that once she regained custody of them, that she would turn on them whenever they tried to stop the fighting between her and her husband. They eventually just learned to tune it out, by going into their bedrooms and turning on some music."

Another reader commented, "My niece had a friend who lived next door to us several years ago. The friend lived with her mother, and her mother’’s boyfriend. One summer day we had a cook out in the back yard when we heard screaming and yelling. The woman was being beaten by her boyfriend, and actually began screaming for my 8-year-old niece to help her!

She was actually screaming my niece’s name and telling her to come and help her!! My niece wanted to go upstairs, but my mother stopped her. Instead we called the cops. By the time the cops got there, it was over. We directed the cops to the right door, and when they knocked, she opened the door and told them that he had left. The cops told her they had to come in and talk to her, but I guess the boyfriend hid while she talked to them.

Do you know this woman didn’t speak to us for about a month after this incident! Apparently, she didn’t want the cops called. She just wanted someone to come and help her. As far as I was concerned, the cops were help! The boyfriend never spoke to us again, which was fine by me. My niece was very confused by the whole thing, and I was actually mad myself, so her not speaking worked for me.

I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if my niece had been visiting her daughter or if she had been in the back yard by herself. She probably would have gone up there to try to help. And what about my niece's friend? God only knows what she was seeing living there. After that incident I forbade my niece from ever going to their house again. In these situations, you are not only up against the abuser, you are also up against the abused. How many times have the cops put cuffs on an abuser only to have the victim scream to leave him alone. I can't save a woman from herself."

There are many times when we have to protect ourselves from people who are being victimized by others. This down low phenomenon is one of those situations. Yes, the widespread and virulent anti-gay bigotry within African-American culture is what causes so many gay and bisexual Black men to hide their true orientation. However, this oppression does NOT give anybody license to use women (without their knowledge or consent) as cover stories. It's one thing to hide without involuntarily involving other people in your deception. It's something else to deceive women and endanger their lives because you want to hide. This sort of behavior is ethically insane.

Many Gay Black Male Activists Are SOLELY Focused On Avoiding Accountability For Their Group's Part In The Spread of HIV/AIDS---They DON'T Care About Public Health Or Safety

It's been disturbing to see that many gay Black male activists don't seem to comprehend the ethical insanity of down low gay men deceiving women, using them as involuntary cover stories, and thereby endangering these women's lives without their knowledge. Let's get real: Most women across the board are not going to insist upon their husbands wearing condoms. Period. The only thing many gay Black male activists are focused on is ducking and dodging having any level of accountability for this plague being assigned to gay/bisexual Black men.

I've read all sorts of utterly irresponsible statements from gay Black male commenters and activists. I'll just mention one such activist named Keith Boykin. I read his book Beyond The Down Low: Sex, Lies, and Denial in Black America. His book is basically several hundred pages of "Don't blame us gay/bisexual Black men for being involved in spreading this plague." Read the following essay to get the flavor of the book.

No matter what the issue (violent crime, drug addiction, etc.), irresponsible African-American "thinkers" consistently argue that focusing on elimating our own destructive behavior is a distraction from the so-called REAL issue. And somehow the so-called "real" issue is always something that is outside of our control. This posture of ducking and dodging any responsibility for the negative results caused by negative behaviors is a tradition. It's a tradition with African-American males, and the African-American collective in general. Protecting an image is more important than the African-American lives that are lost. This posture is ethically insane.


Faith at Acts of Faith Blog said...

Ethically insane is a wholly appropriate term. I didn't know Boykin would end up in the excuser/denier pile for his earlier work but at this point I really should not be surprised. Hill Harper was recently suggesting that black women should yet again lower their standards to attract a black man in this latest incarnation of help a brotha out. All of this just makes my head hurt when it comes to black people and our numerous pathologies. I seriously don't understand how anything gets done and by whom or how much leeway to give from those still confused as we take steps to free ourselves (or to maintain that distance).

Khadija said...


I was particularly disgusted with Mr. Boykin because he's the same age as me. I can see younger gay BM taking this irresponsible "don't blame us" posture, but this Negro was in college during the 1980s.

That means that he was old enough to see for himself as AIDS wiped out an entire generation of gay men. Just like I saw this.

The other thing that disappoints me about his position is that he doesn't seem to realize the long-term danger this posture creates for his demographic. In the long run, it's better to clean up the mess instead of acting like the invisible gremlins from The Family Circus cartoon.

[Whenever the children were asked who had done certain misdeeds, they would say that "Ida Know" and "Not Me" did it. The cartoonist would draw blank gremlins with these names in various poses of knocking over vases, etc.]

Mr. Boykin's "Not Us" stance is helping the spread of this plague. At the rate that AAs are going, this plague is going to destroy even larger numbers of us. Once that happens, most straight AAs are going to be looking for a scapegoat. Guess who it'll be? He's not doing his own demographic any favors.

Peace, blessings and solidarity.

lisa99 said...

Once again, another deep post!

I thought about this topic (but didn't have a name for it) when I was reading the interviews on WAOD. What stood out to me was how one of the defendant's family members kept talking about "God." As they tried to dodge the fact that their son/brother committed a heinous crime, they peppered their comments with statements about trusting in God or God offering forgiveness or asking people to pray to God for this man.

Now, if such folks were so "Godly," one would think that teaching strong moral character and making good choices oneself would be the order of the day. But no, God is always mentioned after the fact, after something awful has been done, after the ball has been dropped, after it's been clear that one wasn't thinking about "God" all that much when they decided to act a plum fool.

In the article you posted, I saw lots of that black church jargon you often mention in this woman's concerned "letter" to the pastor... things like, "they should be sat down from their position," and the like. (Who says "sit him/her down" anywhere outside of a black church construct? What does that mean, anyway?)

There is no analytical and logical reasoning among any of these folks mentioned in your piece, which seems to be par for the course in many predominantly black Christian denominations. Things are based on "emotion," and "feeling good," with no examination of morality, ethics and proper behavior.

But then the most vile of the group wants to call out "God," as the buffer to make all others back off when they are rightfully trying to take the offender to task for bad behavior.

Khadija said...


Thank you for your kind words about the post; I truly appreciate it. The amount of non-stop ethical insanity among AAs makes my head spin at times. What's even more bizarre (to me, at least) is that very few people question any of this madness.

Muslim AAs also have religious "patter"---most of which consists of parroting Arabic phrases, and using the Arabic words for various concepts.

In terms of AA "religious" folks, it's been my observation that it's the very WORST people who are the ones using the most religious patter/slogans/jargon.

In fact, it's a running joke to me at work that the BM fake prison Muslims know more Arabic religious phrases than I do! I had to ask my imam about some of these phrases just to try to keep up. LOL! [And I'll note that from what I've seen, it's the WORST, most violent convicts that talk the most Arabic religious phrases. Basically, the convicted gangbanger killers are the ones with the largest Arabic religious vocabularies.]

I've noticed that the REAL "church ladies" who actually live the values they believe in almost never talk that church patter. This includes my best friend the Protestant minister from New Orleans.

For the vast majority of AAs there's NO connection whatsoever between talking that religious patter and what they actually do in their lives. It's a scam, and I've begun to have negative knee-jerk reactions to hearing that patter in any of its forms (which is a shame).

I've gotten to the point that I've refused to return Muslim religious greetings from a couple of convict clients---which is most likely a sin on my part---IIRC, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) instructed Muslims to return a greeting with a better greeting. [Also, I remember hearing from an old-school former NOI member that in the old NOI under Elijah Muhammad, you risked getting an a**-beating for failing to return religious greetings from other Muslims.] Oh well..

Peace, blessings and solidarity.

Unknown said...

great post and i agree with your points.

It's funny how this is all used to deflect degenerate behavior amongst our men...and we scape goat the most powerless of our community.

Karen said...

I guess what leaves me cold is that there is no outrage in the BC against black on black crime - PERIOD.

There are no leaders calling attention to the fact that black people need as a group to clean up their act. We kill each other more than anyone else (murder or AIDS either one leaves the same result).

How much death and depravity will it take before people wake up.

This behaviour is NOT NORMAL.

I can only save me and mine, but it is a tragedy what is playing out on a daily basis.

The Dunbar Village is only one of many, thankfully it received publicity via WAOD and at least some of those monsters will be brought to justice.

The problem is that these types of monsters are being created daily and the common denominator is that they are not being raised by anyone. The single mother is not raising them in all too many cases and the infrequent or absent father are certainly not raising them either.

Men must be raised by men. If one was widowed, then the uncles used to be there to fill the gap.

Now, with the badge of honor to be a multiple unwed mother (everyone can make a mistake with one child but after that it is a habit), these women in most cases (not all) cannot raise a boy to be a man.

The results we are seeing with the increased savagery of the crimes.

The continued denial of these types pathologies and their obvious results is the epitome of "ethical insanity".

Khadija said...

Brother Omi,

Thank you for your kind words about the post; I truly appreciate it.

Yes, this is all so craaa-zeee in so many ways that it makes my head spin!

Peace, blessings and solidarity.

Khadija said...


We're NOT waking up, and by all indications most of us will NEVER wake up. Most of us are in a coma.

What bothers me about the few who are half-awake is that they're not seeing the connections between all of this. The root cause of the escalating violent crime among us is BF single parenting---it generally does NOT work. And we know this.

Let me be clear. I'm NOT saying to single mothers "You ain't s*&^$."

I AM saying:

(1) Single parenting is NOT the same as 2-parent, in-home parenting; it's an inherently inferior situation for the children.

(2) NO surviving society has ever expected women to socialize boys into manhood---because this does NOT work---and leads to the destruction of any group of people foolish enough to make this their norm---which is what's happening to AAs.

(3) The problems created by the pre-ordained failure of most single parenting will be the DEATH of the AA collective.

All of the above (in addition to the HIV/AIDS issue) is why we need to be EXTREMELY concerned about our baby girls' dating prospects while they're in college! It's ALL connected.

If our baby girls aren't in a position to be on track for marriage, then they're on track for single parenthood. And single parenthood is the root cause of the various phenomena that are KILLING AAs as a group.

Why aren't more people making these connections?

Peace, blessings and solidarity.

Anonymous said...

Khadija, I could just pass out from blind rage. I see even more clearly all of this is connected; my compassion and optimism for the collective are officially shot. that, and I woke up screaming.

Like Karen, I can only save me and mine...

Oh, I just realized that the behaviors are unchecked only because there's too much money and "image maintenance" involved. Ugh. (can you tell I've been paying attention?)

SouthlandDiva said...

The 'DL' used to describe any form of cheating outside of the primary relationship.

I read somewhere the reason some women don't use condoms is because using condoms implies the woman is planning to have sex. If a woman doesn't have a condom, then she can claim sex 'just happened'. This is a seriously distorted form of plausible denial. This is also just plain irresponsible, immature and insane!!!

As far as the church....... speechless.


Felicia said...

Co-signing what you've recently stated Karen and Khadija.

We've already discussed why the masses of AA black folk aren't making the necessary connections.

It's because of intrenched, intractable and accepted sexism, coupled with the current atmosphere of misogyny specifically directed against BW and black girls in the non existent (on a group level) "bc".

The unwillingness to call a spade a spade for fear of confirming what white racists have been saying for centuries.

Basically, most BM are white flesh craving, violent, lazy, non-family oriented males who aren't interested in caring for or about the children and women of their race.

When we BW bloggers/commenters state easily observable behavior and conditions in the modern so called-"bc", I believe we're thought of by most black folks as co-conspiring with the Klan to "bring the brotha's down".SMH

What these black folks fail to realize is that we're merely stating easily observable FACTS.

It's NOT out fault that growing numbers of black men (AA and non) are trying with all of their might to live up to stereotypes created by racist white men and women.

Black folks can continue to put their collective heads in the sand if they want, but that doesn't mean the problems will go away or be made invisible.

EVERYBODY already knows about (collectively speaking) our dirty laundry.

It is IMPERATIVE that we continue to get the message out to BW young and old alike - and black girls - that NO ONE is coming to the rescue.

NO ONE is going to magically appear and make things right.

BW are going to have to save themselves. But intelligent life-affirming decisions can ONLY be made if BW are armed with truthful, up to date, and accurate information.

So lets all keep bringing it ladies. The personal experiences, statistics, latest research findings, ALL of it.

Knowledge is power. The "bc" does NOT under any circumstances want BW to be truly knowledgeable about the current negative state they're in if they continue to stay psychologically and physically bound to the Matrix.

IMO the "bc" would prefer BW to simply die off, than for growing numbers to live thriving, love filled and respected married lives outside of the Matrix.

Because the fragile ego's of threatened BM (all BM are not threatened by the growing number of BW marrying out) are at stake here. And nothing is supposed to threaten THAT.

The "communities" answer to BW's growing list of fears, grievances, and concerns is "to pray on it".SMH

When God ONLY helps those who help THEMSELVES.

This work we're all doing will continue to be an uphill battle.

Because like Evia stated in a previous post, we BW empowerment bloggers and commentors are about the ONLY ones ANYWHERE telling BW to look out for themselves and choose men based on QUALITY and not "race". We're the only ones giving support to those BW interested in looking out for SELF FIRST.

The only ones telling BW to NOT give a usually color-stuck, struggling, under or unemployed, multiple baby daddy, with a possible criminal record "brotha" "a chance".

Anyway, I don't want to ramble. I just wanted to throw some thoughts out there into the mix.

Daphne said...

Wow, that Washington Blade article was.....interesting. Like, trainwrecky sort of interesting.

I wish I could say that I was never caught up in the "Down Low Phenomenon - Clutch your pearls and get your Sherlock Holmes on!" mentality, but thankfully I have matured in my thinking.

There are some women who are so fixated on it that they assume a (black) man is gay until he proves otherwise. This is very perplexing to me, as it seems like it takes a lot of mental energy to do all of this detective work. That's not to say ignore obvious signs, but no need to be paranoid about it. I figure that half of the battle is wearing condoms during sexual activity, but as someone else said, there's a twisted logic with that as well.

In terms of the easily identifiable risks, they fall under the "Give a brutha a chance!" campaign that is very often waged on behalf of said categories of men, which probably explains why collectively, black women don't really talk about those. If this happened, the available pool of black men would get even smaller, and thus there would be even more gnashing of teeth and wearing of sackcloth.

Thanks for the post!

Khadija said...


These clowns need to understand that the "image maintenance" game only goes so far. When you let a problem fester, eventually it gets so huge that it's impossible to "play off."

Right now, non-AAs are being polite and simply not speaking these truths to our faces (about our OOW rates, HIV/AIDS rates, etc.). But when these things escalate to the point that our dysfunctional behavior begins to affect Whites, then they'll do something about us AND our mess. And it won't be anything pleasant.

For an example that somebody mentioned at another blog: When enough AA males (of whatever category---DL, convicts, druggies, or playboys) start infecting WW in the numbers that they're currently infecting AA women with HIV/AIDS, then Whites will crack down and start prosecuting infected BM en masse for doing this.

Now that I think of it, almost all of the cases that I can think of where somebody was arrested and prosecuted for the criminal transmission of HIV/AIDS involved BMs infecting WW and White girls. WM are NOT going to let Negroes infect their daughters at the rate that they're infecting BW and Black girls.


You said, "I read somewhere the reason some women don't use condoms is because using condoms implies the woman is planning to have sex. If a woman doesn't have a condom, then she can claim sex 'just happened'. This is a seriously distorted form of plausible denial. This is also just plain irresponsible, immature and insane!!!"

I had a BF friend thought like this in college. When other friends and I tried to talk her down from this madness, she would insist that she was "safe" because she "only had one sexual partner." I responded by asking her how she calculated just "one." After all, of the men that she had mentioned sexing to me, there was:

(1) the Kappa (!! - for level of known promiscuity);

(2) the Que (!!!- for same); and

(3) a BM professional musician (!!!!!!!!!! - for level of KNOWN promiscuity---wasn't that an Eddie Murphy joke about how singers get almost all the women?).

Her response was that this counted as "one" sexual partner because she did them one at a time. {still shaking my head at the memory}

Khadija said...

Part 2


You said, "What these black folks fail to realize is that we're merely stating easily observable FACTS.

...Black folks can continue to put their collective heads in the sand if they want, but that doesn't mean the problems will go away or be made invisible.

EVERYBODY already knows about (collectively speaking) our dirty laundry."

Yep. And outsiders will play along with our denial, and not say anything about these EASILY OBSERVABLE FACTS to our faces as long as our demise is not affecting them. To put it coldly, this is similar to how those of us in the industrialized world can more or less to afford to ignore the HIV/AIDS catastrophe in several sub-Saharan African countries. Their being wiped out doesn't really impact people in the West.

But when our self-destructive behavior starts to impact Whites and the other emerging political power brokers in this country (Latinos and Asians), then there'll be a crackdown. But even larger numbers of what used to be the AA community will be infected, incarcerated, or dead by that point.


You're welcome!

Yep. That Washington Blade article was...special.

You said, "In terms of the easily identifiable risks, they fall under the "Give a brutha a chance!" campaign that is very often waged on behalf of said categories of men, which probably explains why collectively, black women don't really talk about those. If this happened, the available pool of black men would get even smaller, and thus there would be even more gnashing of teeth and wearing of sackcloth."

Well...AA women can either wake up, expand their dating pools, and LIVE, or they can continue to play RUSSIAN ROULETTE with their lives!

Peace, blessings and solidarity.