Why Sex Comes Cheap Nowadays

I had to post this article since it relates so much to what our side has been saying for so long. The interesting part is that this article is not directed as black people, but at the overall population. The BWE/IR bloggers would have you to think that such trends below don't exist among whites and other non-blacks, but as we can see this isn't true. One can say that such trends are simply more intense among blacks. But lets take a look at the article below:

Sex Is Cheap
Why young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they're
failing in life.

We keep hearing that young men are failing to adapt to contemporary
life. Their financial prospects are impaired—earnings for 25- to 34-year-old
men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971. Their college enrollment numbers trail
women's: Only 43 percent of American undergraduates today are men. Last year,
women made up the majority of the work force for the first time. And yet there
is one area in which men are very much in charge: premarital heterosexual
relationships.

When attractive women will still bed you, life for young men, even
those who are floundering, just isn't so bad. This isn't to say that all men
direct the course of their relationships. Plenty don't. But what many young men
wish for—access to sex without too many complications or commitments—carries the
day. If women were more fully in charge of how their relationships transpired,
we'd be seeing, on average, more impressive wooing efforts, longer
relationships, fewer premarital sexual partners, shorter cohabitations, and more
marrying going on. Instead, according to the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health (which collects data well into adulthood), none of these
things is occurring. Not one. The terms of contemporary sexual relationships
favor men and what they want in relationships, not just despite the fact that
what they have to offer has diminished, but in part because of it. And it's all
thanks to supply and demand.

To better understand what's going on, it's worth a crash course in
"sexual economics," an approach best articulated by social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs. As Baumeister, Vohs, and others have
repeatedly shown, on average, men want sex more than women do. Call it sexist,
call it whatever you want—the evidence shows it's true. In one
frequently cited study, attractive young researchers separately approached
opposite-sex strangers on Florida State University's campus and proposed casual
sex. Three-quarters of the men were game, but not one woman said yes. I know:
Women love sex too. But research like this consistently demonstrates that men
have a greater and far less discriminating appetite for it. As Baumeister and Vohs note, sex in
consensual relationships therefore commences only when women decide it does.

And yet despite the fact that women are holding the sexual purse
strings, they aren't asking for much in return these days—the market "price" of
sex is currently very low. There are several likely reasons for this. One is the
spread of pornography: Since high-speed digital porn gives men additional sexual
options—more supply for his elevated demand—it takes some measure of price
control away from women. The Pill lowered the cost as well. There are also,
quite simply, fewer social constraints on sexual relationships than there once
were. As a result, the sexual decisions of young women look more like those of
men than they once did, at least when women are in their twenties. The price of
sex is low, in other words, in part because its costs to women are lower than
they used to be.

But just as critical is the fact that a significant number of young men are
faring rather badly in life, and are thus skewing the dating pool. It's not that
the overall gender ratio in this country is out of whack; it's that there's a
growing imbalance between the number of successful young women and successful
young men. As a result, in many of the places where young people typically
meet—on college campuses, in religious congregations, in cities that draw large
numbers of twentysomethings—women outnumber men by
significant margins. (In one Manhattan ZIP code, for example, women account for
63 percent of 22-year-olds.)

The idea that sex ratios alter sexual behavior is well-established.
Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men
outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer
children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to
lead to a more sexually permissive culture. The same holds true on college
campuses. In the course of researching our book Premarital Sex in America, my co-author and I
assessed the effects of campus sex ratios on women's sexual attitudes and
behavior. We found that virginity is more common on those campuses where women
comprise a smaller share of the student body, suggesting that they have the
upper hand. By contrast, on campuses where women outnumber men, they are more
negative about campus men, hold more negative views of their relationships, go
on fewer dates, are less likely to have a boyfriend, and receive less commitment
in exchange for sex.

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health data offer other
glimpses into just how low the cost of sex is for young men ages 18 through 23.
Take the speed with which these men say their romantic relationships become
sexual: 36 percent of young men's relationships add sex by the end of the second
week of exclusivity; an additional 13 percent do so by the end of the first
month. A second indicator of cheap sex is the share of young men's sexual
relationships—30 percent—that don't involve romance at all: no wooing, no dates,
no nothing. Finally, as my colleagues and I discovered in our interviews,
striking numbers of young women are participating in unwanted sex—either
particular acts they dislike or more frequent intercourse than they'd prefer or
mimicking porn (being in a dating relationship is correlated to greater
acceptance of and use of porn among women).

Yes, sex is clearly cheap for men. Women's "erotic capital," as Catherine
Hakim of the London School of Economics has dubbed it, can still be traded for
attention, a job, perhaps a boyfriend, and certainly all the sex she wants, but
it can't assure her love and lifelong commitment. Not in this market. It's no
surprise that the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds who are married has shrunk by an average
of 1 percent each year this past decade.

Jill, a 20-year-old college student from Texas, is one of the many
young women my colleagues and I interviewed who finds herself confronting the
sexual market's realities. Startlingly attractive and an all-star in all ways,
she patiently endures her boyfriend's hemming and hawing about their future. If
she were operating within a collegiate sexual economy that wasn't oversupplied
with women, men would compete for her and she would easily secure the long-term
commitment she says she wants. Meanwhile, Julia, a 21-year-old from Arizona
who's been in a sexual relationship for two years, is frustrated by her
boyfriend's wish to "enjoy the moment and not worry about the future." Michelle,
a 20-year-old from Colorado, said she is in the same boat: "I had an
ex-boyfriend of mine who said that, um, he didn't know if he was ever going to
get married because, he said, there's always going to be someone better." If
this is "the end of men," someone really ought to let
them know.

And yet while young men's failures in life are not penalizing them in
the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to
achieve in life. Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked,
redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today's
young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year's book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern
Sexuality put it, "Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and
authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty
sexy." They're right. But then try getting men to do anything.

The last paragraph is the kicker and pretty much sums up what so many black men have declared before and so many black women insist on denying. Women's sexual behavior significantly influences the behavior of men. This is reality. Women have always been the ones who bring restraint to heterosexual sexual activity which is why gay men have on average three times the number of sex partners as straight men, even in this day of female sexual liberation. It's such restraint that motivates men to achieve and commit in order to have such female affection at hand. Nowadays, commitment and true success are no longer necessary for sex and this is made worse by the low standards and unrestrained bad boy love prevalent among today's women with black women leading the way.

It is clearly not solely a black phenomenon but this problem is quite notably more intense in the black community. Black women have on average more sex partners than women of other groups in America and based on the words of the experts cited, this directly influences the higher level of average sex partners for black men. Women are the ones most in control of whether sex occurs or not.

The last paragraph is worth repeating:

And yet while young men's failures in life are not penalizing them in the bedroom, their sexual success may, ironically, be hindering their drive to achieve in life. Don't forget your Freud: Civilization is built on blocked, redirected, and channeled sexual impulse, because men will work for sex. Today's young men, however, seldom have to. As the authors of last year's book Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality put it, "Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy." They're right. But then try getting men to do anything.

Lies Exposed

Well, this just goes to show the levels of lying a scorned sista will go to. I have always said this. When you go to these various IR/BF Empowerment blogs, you get so many claims that, if you really look deep into them, are quite far fetched and questionable. Their generalizations are easily discredited with figures and research (as well as common sense) and I find their claims regarding what happens in their personal lives very unbelievable.

Gina Mccauley recently used the words of Steve Harvey's ex-wife, Mary Shackelford, as another justification for her multiple attempts to discredit Steve Harvey and his two "relationship" books. Of course judging his advice to women on how men think (which, in my opinion is fairly sound advice) based solely on the advice itself is unthinkable to her. She MUST judge the man as opposed to the advice because all to often, women will not accept men knowing more about men than women do. Seriously, many women feel that they can tell us how we think and will dispute us when we tell them how we think.

Steve does not give relationship advice per say. He gives advice to women on how to deal with men. I could accept the criticism more if he was giving advice to men on how to deal with women since that implies that he has had success in doing so, but a man, especially a man who has experienced so much including the ups and downs, is probably the best source of information for women who are trying to figure us out. Unfortunately, MANY women only accept all of their advice on how men think from other women.

But back to Mary Shackelford. Here is the article on the recent revelations:

Well, it appears Steve
Harvey was telling the truth after all. The news arrived in resounding
fashion, as a Dallas court issued a temporary injunction forcing Harvey’s ex
wife, Mary Shackelford, to refrain from releasing more YouTube
videos or conducting future interviews that disparage her marriage to
Harvey.


Shackelford released three YouTube videos in which she blasted Harvey,
claiming that he left her homeless and turned her son against her. Immediately
following the release of the videos, Harvey refuted the claims, vowing to have
his day in court. That day would come in a big way, as the courts found the
following:


The Court finds Movant BRODERICK S. HARVEY’S relief is granted.
Further, the Court finds that:


1. Respondent MARY LEE HARVEY was not homeless or evicted from her home
and was awarded three (3) homes in the property settlement;


2. Movant, BRODERICK S. HARVEY did not take, withhold or turn the child
against Responded, MARY LEE HARVEY.


3. Respondent, MARY LEE HARVEY willingly placed the child on an
airplane and sent him to MR. HARVEY without his knowledge.


The court also found that Harvey had awarded his wife $40,000 a month
since 2005, until March 2009 when she received a payment of $1.5
million.


Wow … that doesn’t sound like the life or bank account of a destitute
woman. Harvey’s “love guru” status may have taken a hit, but one has to believe
that he’s glad to have the truth on his side. The couple will meet in court on
March 10, 2011, to address a little matter of contempt of court. –djr

So she lied and lied very aggressively. I was listening to her on the Tom Joyner show expressing these falsehoods passionately. It just goes to show that you can't take the sensationalized, passionate arguments of scorned women at face value. You can't believe the far fetched implications of a Sandra Rose that black women are walking down the streets in fear. You can't trust it when they try to convince the world that black women are living in so much terror and pain. They are most likely doing exactly what Shackelford was doing. They are scorned women who rant and having accuracy in their rants is not a priority. Truth becomes the victim of a delete button.

Squares, Geeks and Nerds, Oh My!

Over on Von's blog there is an ongoing theme that is an attempt at attacking the commonly expressed criticism of black women’s choices in dating. The criticism is directed at what many view as the strong tendency for black women to be attracted to a certain type of male who is commonly referred to as “the bad boy” or “the alpha male”. This type of male is often broken down into, among others, the categories of “thugs” and “players”.

The criticism usually expresses the common repercussions of such a trend. “Bad boys” tend to be less committed to children and relationships, live more risky lifestyles, are less focused and stable, etc. But women often find such guys to be exciting and will defend such choices based on the acceptable idea that “man (or woman) does not live on bread alone” and on the natural evolutionary bases of this attraction.

I believe that most men understand that on top of good character, a man must have some appeal beyond just being a good guy. We understand that the inclination of women to be attracted to dominant, aggressive and even violent males is rooted in nature, but if this is to be understood, then should we not similarly be understanding of the fact that the male tendency toward multiple sex partners is similarly rooted in natural evolution? Yet, male polygamous based infidelity is treated with far more scorn than female hypergamy and the subsequent hypergamous based infidelity that commonly results. Should we not similarly reference the need to move away from base desires for the benefit of developing stable civilized societies?

Beyond this, Von and others attempt to defend alpha male/bad boy love by tossing ad hominem attacks at its critics. Her most noted one is implying that such critical men are those who are social misfits and/or are visually unappealing. The idea is that they are resentful of being routinely passed over by the more desirable women and that their criticisms are based on such resentment. With this notion being put forth, I decided to investigate, beginning with an example of an individual who expressed the viewpoint that much of the behavior of men is shaped by the mating choices of women and women should refrain from dating the more thuggish types. This particular young man grew up middle class in a loving two parent home and attended Morehouse College. Here is his quote:

"American women have issues. Black women are the backbone of our families. If every Black woman got together and said, "We're not gonna date guys unless they have PhDs. We're not gonna date guys unless they have a Master’s [degree].”
Guess what? In due time, n****s will stop selling dope and they'll start going to college. It's that simple."

"Just like if I want to have all the hoes on the block and be a pimp, I got to get all the women's backing first. Then I can get all the dudes to come to any party I want them to come to. Look at strip clubs. You take all the women out of strip clubs and see how popular the strip club becomes. You tell women to stop dating dope dealers and you’ll see how cool dealing dope becomes."

These quotes are some of the controversial statements made by Polow Da Dom in interviews. Now let's take a look at this "nerd":





Now I'm no real expert on what women find appealing about men, but I will take an educated guess and say that Polow would generally be considered a good looking guy. He quite apparently spends some time in the gym and he seems to me to be what many would call a "pretty boy". I wonder what kind of social life he leads.

Well, it appears that this "geek" does interact with rather pretty women. Maybe this is a fluke shot. Let's look again:

Hmmm. This "square" managed another photo with a very pretty celebrity at some high class event. Has he taken more?:

Well, this is odd. I thought that the opinion that Polow expressed was strong evidence that he is ugly, a loser, a geek, a social misfit and a nerd. But the truth is that he is a well know rapper, singer, songwriter and millionaire super producer. As a matter of fact, Billboard labeled him as the number one Hip Hop producer of 2010. This is the same man who purchased a Porche Panamera worth over $100,000.00 as a gift to his cousin Monica to congratulate her on her new album.

Even looking at the Black Men Vent episodes on Youtube, I don't see nerds and geeks. None of them are ugly. I don't see social awkwardness. They seem to interact rather comfortably with the ladies they are debating. Some of them have children from previous relationships. What I see are regular guys who put a lot of thought into a particular issue and are very vocal with their opinions.

Now lets take a look at a nother view of "nerds". Here is an article from the The Spearhead discussing the reaction to his criticism of a video game service which charges men to play video games with women:

"The transition of video games from a niche hobby to a mainstream pastime that occurred in the past decade has wallpapered over many of the more sordid realities of the gaming community. It’s not a stretch to say that most
hardcore gamers are nerds, and while not all manginas are nerds, almost all nerds are manginas. Remember the brouhaha over Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech’s science fiction article back in October? The hordes of sniveling dweeboids who screamed bloody murder over his piece on blogs, forums, and The Spearhead’s own comment section were doing what
they do best – kissing the tails of the less-fair sex in vain hope of a little tail being tossed their way. Your average gamer is a servile sack of snot who will roll over and beg for a woman who so much as brushes him in the
hallway."

Here is another article deeply critical of nerds:

"Nerds are manginas. Keeping in theme with the previous paragraph, a man whose ideal woman is basically a dude with breasts and a vagina is a man who will likely allow women in general to walk all over him. Afraid of confrontation and used to bowing and scraping, nerds place themselves at the mercy of women in the vain hope of getting laid. Also, male feminists are overwhelmingly nerds – see pansies like Hugo Schwyzer and Barry “Ampersand” Deutsch."

Here is a comment from someone reading an article related to this topic:

"I can’t remember if there was any sort of formal statistical study done, but I do remember reading a story awhile back discussing how nerdy men often end up marrying attractive women (my husband — a rather nerdy but lovable engineer —
got quite a kick out the article). Part of the reasoning behind such paring is that these ‘nerds’ tend to be nicer and more respectful to these women than their more hunky counterparts. Of course there was mention of greater success, stability, personality and the like as well."

"It would be interesting to see how the woman’s education level matches up with the man’s in these cases. Do these women tend to be higher educated as well, so they have greater preference for men who are on par intellectually, regardless of looks? Or do you get more of the dense trophy wife effect?"— Casey

Now while I don't agree with "nerd hate" (there is nothing wrong with being a nerd), it does make sense that nerds would tend to be more pro-feminist and be more defending of women. Nerds tend to be your classic "nice guys" in the sense that to compensate for their lack of things like swagger, charm, assertiveness, style, etc., they tend to be extra nice to women. They are quick to jump to a woman's beck and call and will defend feminist ideals. They may envy the popular guys who get the pretty girls, but it is typically outside of their nature to be resentful and misogynistic. So in all likelihood, guys who are critical and hard on women are the furthest from being nerds. How often do we see nerdy wife batterers?

It would be difficult for people like Von and her cohorts to acknowledge that it is quite possible than those men who are vocally critical of black women's choices do so due to honest observation and being socially aware of how black women's dating choices and other behaviors contribute among other things to the destruction of the black family. Such an acknowledgement would require an open mind.

The Socialization of Black Boys

I was reading a very interesting book entitled "The Origins of War in Child Abuse" by Lloyd deMause. The book is provided free online at the link. It basically proclaims that the violent behavior exhibited so often by men is not be the result of higher testosterone levels as has been the common belief, but rather due to the childhood conditioning that they commonly receive from their mothers:

"The only neurobiological condition inherited by boys that affects later violence
is they have a smaller corpus callosum, the part of the brain that connects the
right and the left hemisphere.16 The larger corpus callosum of infant girls
allows them to work through trauma and neglect more easily than boys.
Furthermore, boys who are abused had a 25 percent reduction in sections of the
corpus callosum, while girls did not.17 This means boys actually need more love
and caretaking than girls as they grow up. If they do not receive enough
interpersonal attention from their caretakers they suffer from damaged
prefrontal cortices (self control, empathy) and from hyperactive amygdalae (fear
centers), their corpus callosum is reduced further, and they have reduced
serotonin levels (calming ability) and increased corticosterone production
(stress hormone). All these factors make them have weak selves, reduced empathy,
less control over impulsive violence and far more fears than girls.18"

So as we see, for neurobiological reasons, boys are in greater need of love and caregiving than girls. This brings up the question of whether they actually receive such greater love and caregiving:

"The central psychobiological question, then, is this: Are boys given more love
and attention than girls by their caretakers in order to help them offset their
greater needs? The answer, of course, is just the opposite: boys are given less
care and support, from everyone in the family and in society, and they are
abused far more than girls, so by the time they are three years of age they
become twice as violent as girls.19 Boys’ greater violence by this time,
including their propensity to form dominance gangs and to endlessly “play war,”
are the results of their greater abuse and distancing by adults and being
subject to demands to “grow up” and “be manly” and “not be a crybaby” and not
need attachments—attitudes taught by their parents, teachers and coaches. By age
four boys’ play is full of provocations that test their self-worth: “At 4 years
of age, girls’ insults to one another are infrequent and minor…Boy/boy insults,
however, are numerous and tough.”20 The so-called “aggressiveness” usually
ascribed to boys is in fact wholly defensive, as they try to ward off their
greater feelings of insecurity and hopelessness.21 It isn’t “aggression” males
display; it’s bravado—defensive testing and disproof of their fears."

So as one might clearly suspect, boys are typically shown less affection and given less support than girls. Such lesser affection probably comes from both mothers and fathers, yet that which comes from mothers is most important:

"The mother, of course, is the focal point of this widespread distancing and
insecure attachment pattern. High levels of violence and of testosterone have
been shown to be associated with poorer relationships with mothers, not fathers,
since mothers are the primary caretakers in most families (even in America
today, fathers spend only an average of eleven minutes a day with their
children).22 It is not just genetics but more importantly maternal environment
that Tronick and Weinberg blame when they see from their studies that “Infant
boys are more emotionally reactive than girls. They display more positive as
well as negative affect, focus more on the mother, and display more signals
expressing escape and distress and demands for contact than do girls.”23 This is
because from infancy boys are expected to “just grow up” and not need as much
emotional care as girls—indeed, boys are regularly encouraged not to express any
of their feelings, since this is seen as “weak” or “babyish” in boys.24 While
mothers may sometimes dominate their little girls and expect them to share their
emotional problems, they distance their boys by not making contact with them and
expect them to “be a man.” This begins from birth: “Over the first three months
of life, a baby girl’s skills in eye contact and mutual facial gazing will
increase by over 400 percent, whereas facial gazing skills in a boy during this
time will not increase at all.”25 Boys grow up with less attachment strengths
because careful studies show that mothers look at their boys less, because both
parents hit their boys two or three times as much as they do their girls,
because boys are at much higher risk than girls for serious violence against
them, and because boys are continuously told to be “tough,” not to be a “wimp”
or a “weakling,” not to be “soft” or a “sissy.”26"

Here is more good information on the subject:

"Perhaps because boys’ needs are greater than girls’, harried and often depressed
mothers give them less love and attention from birth. Careful studies reveal
that mothers look at and talk more with their daughters than with their sons,
spend more time interacting with them, smile more at their daughters than at
their sons, direct more orders and prohibitions toward their sons, and use more
severe disciplinary styles and more shaming techniques toward them.50

If they are ashamed of what their mothers have taught them they are and by their continuing need for her understanding, they “learn to suffer quietly, in retreat behind the mask of masculinity [and] cover up the more gentle, caring, vulnerable sides of themselves.”63 If, of course, they are brought up with love and care, like my sons—and probably like yours—they grow up neither violent nor war lovers. But abandoned and abused boys regularly hide their shame and fears behind a defensive fantasy of grandiosity, dominance and violent bravado.64 The violence they exhibit both kills other Bad Selves (called “enemies”), who like themselves are seen as both angry and weak, plus it provokes the violence of others, inviting self-destructive, suicidal responses. Confrontation, “carrying a chip on their shoulders,” is their defense against admitting that they feel weak, rejected and worthless.65"

So how does all of this relate to the excessive violence that is so prevalent among black men? Is the lack of affection and support received by black men greater than that of other men. One study entitled Parent-child Play: Descriptions and Implications, does address this basic idea:

Blacks:
1) Infants are doted on; much attention to food and clothes.
2) But 'most black women believe the children are easily spoiled by too much attention including being held, carried, and praised.'
3) Infants are often left unattended for long periods of time. Black infants forced to be autonomous earlier than other groups.
4) Teenage pregnancy is tolerated but mother soon becomes disinterested in baby and grandmother takes over most of the care.
5) High levels of physical discipline, including 'shaking and spanking, often with belts and switches.'

Cuban-Americans
1) Teenage pregnancy not sanctioned. High rate of abortions.
2) Infants are the center of attention of entire extended household.
3) Infants are carried everywhere and rocked a great deal, are scolded infrequently, and are seldom physically punished.

More details of the study can be found here. The trends shown by the study applies to both teenage and adult mothers.

So this leaves the final question of whether there is a difference between the affection level given black girls and black boys. For a couple of decades, the idea that black mothers love their boys and raise their daughters has made it into black folklore, despite there being no empirical evidence to support this notion. One study finally takes a look at it with the following results:

'While no differences were found in the way that the mother uses control with her children, the mother did appear to have a more warm and guiding-producing relationship with her daughter. This finding runs contrary to the stereotype that the “African American mother ‘loves’ her son, but ‘raises’ her daughter.”'

So the evidence seems to say that boys are shown less affection and support than girls, black mothers show less affection and support to their young children than other groups and black boys receive less affection and support than black girls. While numerous other factors certainly are among the reasons why black males today show so much excessive violence, evidence does support that lesser attention and affection from their mothers at an early age could play a major role in this.

Response to Von's Rant

Well, I guess will have to respond to idiocy. The profane and unladylike blogger known as Von has responded to my previous post with the usual insults, straw man arguments, false accusations, etc. In her attempt to try and seem intelligent, she doesn't realize how dumb she seems. Here is what she says:

Rocky likes to cite old studies with small sample sizes and random blogs with
little validity/credibility in his comments and blogs. This is when he's not
using SURVEY results as if they hold some magic key to more creditable data that
one would find in a scholarly database such as JSTOR. He gives no thought at all
to the source of the study/blogs, sample size, age of the study, demographics of
the study, or any of the other stuff they teach you in Data & Research
analysis in college. He does this in an effort to IGNORE real numbers and
statistics that can't be refuted. He also does this in an effort to IGNORE
decades of continuous research from African American social scientist that go
against his ideas about black men.

This is comical. I presented the research of this man in the blog post that she is ranting about. I'll take the research of a trained and experienced PH.D over the rantings of an imbecilic blogger who provides NOTHING in the realm of data to counter any of the data I produce. Her data is her own proclaimed observations. So basically she says that peer reviewed research takes a back seat to what she allegedly sees with her "own eyes" (which are probably fabricated observations). She claims all of this research by African American social scientists that contradict me, yet she provides none of them. If she new anything about JSTOR, she would know that Rebekah Levine Coley's work IS on JSTOR and her research has been described as "comprehensive". I have presented Coley's work and her work was presented on dingbat's blog. I'm quite sure that she is feeling quite the fool she is now.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1132081

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3599997

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3599896

On his blog he didn't bother to address the actual post, For My Critics: If You
Have A Better Solution Bring It ( here). Instead he did what I would expect from a
deflector: He nitpicked his argument while attacking me. He can't argue my
points so he decides to assassinate what he assumes is my character with
no evidence to support his bullshit. Let's get to it....

Hey, I can come to you blog and go word for word against you. Oooops. I forget. We would have two exchanges and your cowardly behind would block me from posting because you couldn't take the heat.

Ummm.... I guess "Rocky" (who suffers from selective reading...like most
hypersensitive black men that respond in the way he did) missed this statement
from that post....
I got nothing but love for the REAL "good" black men who
are handling their business (that includes actually being faithful, loving ONE
woman, and making her your wife)... The key word in that statement is
REAL. We got fakes and frauds in the black male population, but people like
Rocky like to ignore this reality and simply focus on a black man being
"productive" as proof of his "goodness".

Sorry. That little bone you attempt to throw does not change the fact that you are attempting to establish "REAL good black men" as minuscule in numbers as shown by how you specifically declare "MOST" so-call good black men to be snakes in the grass. Even David Duke has said that there are some blacks that he has a lot of respect for. Does that statement make him a non-racist. No. Just as your statement doesn't make you anything other than what you actually are.

There are fakes and frauds in every population including the black female population and I never said that being productive is proof of goodness. I disputed your notion of MOST productive black men being fakes and frauds.

I would like to know what makes "Rocky" think a man is above evil simply because
he is productive?
??

Your Straw Man has been addressed above.

The part of my blog you decided to nitpick didn't have much of anything to
do with black men not "seeking a wife" as you put it, Rocky.

Seems like backtracking to me:

"Where the hell are these so-calledgood black men when their female
counterparts are seeking marriage?"

Instead it had to do with self-proclaimed "good black men" being anything but good. It had to do with black men claiming to be one thing but turning out to be no better than the Pookie and Ray-Rays they hold themselves so high above. It had to do with self-proclaimed "good" black men USING women instead of being true stand up good men. Your deflection here is amusing because it shows how far out the box people like you will take things to supposedly prove something incorrect. You have no defense for this behavior and I'm certain you have witnessed it at some point in your life.

No, it had to do with you proclaiming MOST productive black men as being this way. It's a lie and a distortion that I am tossing right back into your face and you respond with insults and nothing of substance. Typical.

I would like one of my readers that has followed this blog for some time to
point out to me where I have EVER placed an emphasis on education and income for
a woman to pull a man. Show me where I have EVER stated that a woman is entitled
to a man simply because she is educated/professional/ and making bank...I'll
wait....

No one proclaimed that you place such emphasis in your blog. I said that nuts like you often think that being professional and educated automatically makes a woman a catch because that commonly makes a man a catch. In other words, you fall into a group of women who feel that female professional success should be a male draw as male professional success is a female draw. It has nothing to do with what has been stated in your blog.

This fool is acting like he knows me when clearly he has no idea.

I know your type.

The black race is the only race I know of that expects the WOMEN to CONTROL the
way MEN behave instead of the men just having some sense of MORALITY.

This is a common falsehood pulled out of the rear ends of women such as yourself who promote black female victimism. If you have read any reasonable amount of comments from black men, you will know that one of the most common complaints is directed at black women who hook up with thugs and hoodlums under the guise of "changing them". This is quite different from the clear cultural impact of the continued sexual rewarding of bad behavior. If you had any degree of intelligence, you would see that no one is talking about any one or more women being responsible for changing the behavior of individual grown men. We are talking about a cultural impact that contributes strongly to promoting the development of men who practice such bad behavior. It has been shown in research and the common sense that you lack prevents you from understanding this.

The sad reality...a lot of black men's greatest asset is their dicks. They
don't have anything else to show for their manhood except it. The bedroom is the
one place they feel superior compared to other races of men (need proof? Click here). No matter what black women do these
individuals will find a way to have sex. So the idea that black men will change
if the black women they get down with stop "rewarding" them with sex is
bullshit. Some black men on my blog have even admitted as such....

So are black women's vaginas their greatest assets? As you can see, black women are the most promiscuous women and the difference between them and white women in promiscuity is almost identical to the difference between black men and white men.

Bottom line: It's not on the woman to change a man's behavior (because she
can't change him)...the onus is on him. He has to WANT to do better. The notion
that black men sell drugs, become thugs, and deviant to get with black women
goes against everything we know about the lifestyle from sociologist and from
these individuals themselves. Every drug dealer I've ever encountered has cited
four things as his motivation to become a thug/drug dealer:
Easy/quick money
and plenty of it (or greed).
Poverty
Inability to secure adequate
employment.
Car, clothes, and the finer things in life.
Sociologist have
backed up this mindset in their analysis. In every "hood flick" I have watched,
produced by a BLACK MALE, the motivation for the drug dealer was money and
material things. NEVER once have I heard a single drug dealer say he started
selling drugs to get women or get laid. NEVER. In fact, these individuals
subscribe to a "Money over hoes" mentality or "Get money...fuck hoes." Women
just seem to enter the picture at some point. They are an afterthought. They
have nothing to do with black men's actual motivation to sell drugs or become
thugs. Any type of "sexual reward" from women is an afterthought for most of
these individuals who are driven more so by the factors listed above.

So sex is not a major motivation for getting money? Right?

Again with her alleged "personal experiences" and now we have "hood flicks" taking priority over research. Such comedy. As for backing up this mindset:

"For instance, a recent study by Colorado anthropologists Craig Palmer and Christopher Tilley suggests that the formation of young male gangs, with all the associated viciousness and violence, may be driven, partly, by reproductive competition: sexual access to females. By tracking a sexually transmitted disease outbreak in Colorado Springs during the early 1990s, they found that gang members not only achieved a kind of power/money status within their community, they had an unusually high number of female partners, compared to the nongang members involved in the outbreak."

This is so easy.

"Black Unconscious Thought"

Here is an excerpt from the the black female blogger known as "Von", who basically is a profanity spewer whose blog quite commonly includes black female victimism and black male bashing.

What about them? Where the hell are they when the “bad” black men are fucking up
the community? Where the hell are they when shit is popping off and black women
and children are dodging bullets in the neighborhood or trying to protect
themselves from rape or some other bullshit? Where the hell are these so-called
good black men when their female counterparts are seeking marriage? I’ll tell
you where MOST of the so-called good black men are: They are off somewhere
taking advantage of their position sexing up every damn woman (and possibly man)
they come in contact with ( here
and here).

Most of the so-called good black men are wolves in sheep’s clothing. On paper
they look real nice/appealing, but once you dig a little deeper you realize just
how whorish and trifling they are. They are no better than the Pookies and
Ray-Rays they try to pull rank over. More often than not these so-called good
black men have a little money, a decent job, and some education. This is the
MAIN reason they walk around feeling special. However, instead of being stand up
men (or REAL good men) and seeking a wife, they take advantage of their low
numbers and the high number of single black women. So, I say FUCK THEM. I can’t
see myself being allies with these so-called good black men because I don’t
respect or trust them.

Finding a true stand up black man is like finding a needle in a haystack. Great
if you find one (I count my blessing daily) not the end of the world if you
don’t find one (my life will keep moving with or without a man...I love my soon
to be husband dearly but I'm not going to lay down and die if things go south).
I got nothing but love for the REAL "good" black men who are handling their
business (that includes actually being faithful, loving ONE woman, and making
her your wife), but let’s not act like those individuals are the majority or
even half of the African American male population. There aren’t enough of these
men to go around. These individuals cannot take up the slack for all the other
fucked up black men. Black folks need to concede to this reality (which helps my
case).

Now what this is a prime case of is the enormous difficulty women like her have in giving black men any credit. She can’t comfortably claim that all or most black men are uneducated street thugs, so she must find a way to degrade those who are productive. Thus, she eliminates any sense of them being of quality by declaring them to be worthless simply because they are not “seeking a wife”. Of course, not “seeking a wife” as she puts it is actually a case of these men not marrying the first black woman each of them encounters.

The reality is that the vast majority of black men do plan to marry at some point and are always open to it when and if they meet the right women. What fails to do and what those of her type fail to do is to acknowledge that most black women today are not very appealing from the standpoint of marriage. Yes, there are plenty of very sexy black women with desirable bodies and faces; more than other groups in my opinion. There are many who are very fun to be around. The problem is that it takes far more than that to be considered marriage material. Many of our women lack the sweetness men like and instead exude course personalities that border on masculine while readily obtaining masculine tattoos and discarding any sense of ladylike behavior. Many take pride in being loud and using profanity. Many black women are very pugnacious and give off the impression that a life with them would be life lacking in harmony. Men don’t mind a challenge when chasing tail, yet we don’t want to have to be challenged daily by our wives. We don’t want to constantly be pressured to please a woman who cannot be pleased. We don’t want a woman who can see no other use for a dollar other than to spend it (which is why the average single black woman has a medium net worth of $5.00). When a man marries a woman, what belongs to him tends to belong to her while what belongs to her remains hers. Thus, a man is expected to contribute to the spending habits of his wife and women who are irresponsible with money will be irresponsible with their husbands’ money.

And let’s face it. Studies have shown that a woman’s marriage possibilities decline as her weight goes up and one can easily see a direct relationship between black women’s general weight problems and their inability to get husbands.

Yet, women such as Von treat being educated and having a profession as all a black woman should need to get a husband (and most are actually not highly educated nor professionals). This is a prime example of black women trying to place their points of view into the heads of men. Women desire professional men because women place priority on men who have money. Men don’t place nearly that amount of priority on women’s earning potential. Thus, being educated and professional is low on the list on what men seek in a wife. We want good looks, a sweet personality, common sense and a positive attitude. We don’t want the cynicism and truculence so many black women are socialized to have.

THIS IS WHY SO MANY OF US AVOID MARRIAGE.

As far as what the “good” black men are doing about the “bad” black men, I would challenge her to tell us exactly what good men are supposed to do. A man’s ultimate responsibility is to his family. His responsibility is to protect and provide for his wife and children and to use his influence to guide them. How exactly does putting them and himself in jeopardy by confronting thugs and drug dealers fit in with protecting his family? Would it not be stupid to start a war against drug dealers and gang members so that they can vengefully break into your house and rape your wife because you were “snitching” to the police or trying to mess up their business? A good man tries to build up his finances so that he can move his family out of that situation. Otherwise, he does what he can to protect them and this involves not drawing the attention of thugs to himself so as to endanger his life and the well being of his family. She even contradicts herself when she says:

“These individuals cannot take up the slack for all the other fucked up black men.”

She can’t even remain consistent. According to her earlier statement, not being able to “take up the slack for all the other fucked up black men” would eliminate them from the category of “good black men”. How can they not be confronting the bad black men while at the same time trying to “pull rank” on the “Pookies” and “Ray-Rays” ? One should at least try to remain consistent within their one post.

In reality, community activists fill practically every black community. It is not hard to find black men volunteering time to try and help steer youth in the right direction. There are many black men voluntarily coaching youth sports leagues. There are plenty of black men working in community centers. But since they are not confronting drug dealers in suicidal fashion, they are not good men. Amazing.

The greatest way to get rid of bad black men is to stop rewarding them sexually. The worst street thugs and players routinely attract the attention of some of the most desirable women in the community. Much of what men do is for the purpose of attracting women so if a community is filled with drug dealers, hoodlums, gang members, etc., one can attribute this greatly to the number of women who find them appealing. What should be doing is telling the Latifahs and Kameishas of the world to stop their thug-love.

Check this out:

To get to the root of male-on-male violence, we need to take a closer look at
human sexuality and human sexual selection. We all know that women are the
ultimate selectors in the sexual game (and if you don’t know that, then go ask
ten different married women who made the ultimate selection). The facts are
pretty straightforward: Women ovulate once a month, and a pregnancy takes nine
months during which you become increasingly immobilized. Men, on the other hand,
produce millions of sperms each hour, and are not physically affected at all
while they are waiting to become fathers. Who has more reason to choose their
sexual partner carefully, men or women? Who is the buyer and who is the seller
in the sexual market?
What this means is that men have always had to work
hard in order to prove their worth to women. In fact, the competition between
men has been so fierce that only half as many men as women have passed on their
genes throughout history, according to a research report from
2004. This kind of competition to get access to sex and to have the ability
to pass on your genes has never been a situation that women have needed to face,
and for the most part women simply fail to understand this aspect of being a
man.
Men will compete in whatever ways are available to reach the top of the
food chain, and be able to provide for women. In a civilized society that will
usually mean constructive behaviors such as working hard and becoming a well
respected person. In an uncivilized society, which has been the case through
most of history, men will instead resort to violence towards other men, to fend
off the competition. Why are so many women attracted to bad boys and even
prisoners? Well, during most of human history that kind of behavior from men was
an effective way to be respected by other men and therefore rise to the top of
the food chain.
Male violence is therefore the end result of a dance in
which both women and men participate. Women select the most suitable men, men
compete to be chosen (using violence if needed), women again select the most
suitable men (regardless of whether they used violence or not to become
suitable), men compete to be chosen… On and on it goes.

Here is more:

“The more men have to offer, the more valuable they become to women as a
reproductive resource,” Geary says. “For this reason, men in all cultures are
highly motivated to attain social status and control of culturally significant
resources. Male-male competition is about making themselves attractive to women
but the competition also can lead men to compete in lethal ways to gain control
of social resources.”

Even The President Has To Take The Fault

I have a lot of respect for First Lady Michelle Obama. She seems to be a woman of class and elegance, yet this statement shows that she is not unique in all of her perspectives and does subscribe to at least some of the idiosyncrasies common with women. In response to a question of who apologizes first when she and The President have an argument she says:


'I always wait for the president to say sorry because I am a woman,'

This statement goes a long way in showing the modern dynamic not only common with black relationships, but common with relationships in general. Women expect certain treatment for no legitimate reason so they resort to the “chivalry” card, even if “chivalry” does not even apply.

I am not familiar with a man apologizing first falling under the umbrella of chivalry. What this shows is the tendency to try and create an atmosphere of automatically giving in to the whims of women and in this case, using it as a way to facilitate the strong trend for black women to not take fault for anything.

Logically, one would conclude that the person who generally apologizes first is the person who is in the wrong. By saying that your husband always has to apologize says that you always have to be right. This mentality prevents black women from any sense of self-reflection. They often don’t see fault within themselves and when they do, they attribute those faults to outside forces. They blame their excess weight on their children, job schedule, etc. They blame their bad relationships on the men they choose to have relationships with. They blame their single status on the men around them. They blame their status as single mothers on the fathers of their children. They exclude any blame on that which they have the most control over and that is them themselves. Thus, nothing ever changes. They can’t change the behavior of the people around them to compliment their character, they can’t change normal functioning of society around them and they refuse to change or alter themselves.

When this happens, they resort to bitching. They verbally lash out at the world around them including the men they interact with, black men. They make anti-black male blogs, proclaim that there are no good black men, try to use white men and the notion of interracial dating as some type of means of payback, criticize white women, etc. This is why the IR bloggers are strict about moderation. They don’t want their faults thrown at them because doing so tosses a monkey wrench in their need to point the finger at everyone but themselves.

Then they resort to straw man arguments. When they are advised to take responsibility for themselves, they treat it as if folks are asking them to take all responsibility for the black community. Simply asking them to stop sexually rewarding thuggish behavior in men, not allow themselves to be impregnated outside of wedlock, not be so pugnacious, put some priority on keeping your man happy, etc. is treated as placing the burdens of society upon them. Studies have shown that black men participate in housework and childcare more than any other group of men whether the wife works or not, yet you have the IR bloggers declaring black women to be the mules of the black community. If they take the true informal definition of “mule” (somebody regarded as stubborn or intractable), they may have a point, but the definition that they apply to the word actually does not apply.