Whether we like it or not, whether we agree with it or not, whether we would ever participate in it or not, the cold hard reality is that women tend to share men at one point or another in their lives. Some say acknowledge it. Deal with it. Make the best of it.Others say hell no.
Before I got married, I always had more than one woman, in one form or the other. It wasn't my intention. It just seemed to work out that way. Not until I grew up did I realize the advice from my father was on point: "Son, one woman at a time ... is enough for me."
Now I'm old enough to value peace more than punany. So I thank God I don't have a baby momma in another state, an insatiable coworker or a young chick across town with rent issues. I sleep good.
But, I understand the cats who do hold it down. I aint mad at em. Hell, with a society that locks up heterosexual men for profit and promotes homosexuality ... these brothers are doing the world a good service. Shit. We should reward them. Give 'em tax breaks or something.
According to some experts, as many as eight out of every ten women have at one time shared or are currently sharing a man. "It's as common as the cold," asserts Audrey Chapman, a family therapist at Howard University and author of the controversial book, Man Sharing: Dilemma or Choice. "But, as one man told me, it's like masturbation. Everyone's doing it but nobody's going to admit it."Verifying the number of Black women who man-share either knowingly or unknowingly is virtually impossible since, as Chapman points out, it's such a touchy, close-to-the-bone issue. "I wrote the book thinking if I came out with a well researched statement acknowledging its widespread existence, women could then start to deal with it," she says. "Instead, what I got was a lot of anger and rage for airing our dirty laundry.'"
O. Mahogany said...
"Why can't we train them to accept men who have relationships with more than one woman?"
HA HA HAAAA!!!!!!!!
Muther. F%$*@r!!
Hell no.
I'll tell you what, you better start with the fat bytches cuz the fly ones aint takin that shit easy. lol.
I suppose I'm just not the digger of gold type. I know there is no way of preventing a shared experience but I couldn't possibly agree to share it.
For me I think that...strong...mighty..beautiful... black..lol...D,D,D is just too good for me to be letting some other chick sample by my own acquiescence. Unh-unh, no sir.
I've put up a strong D-FENCE. No side beaches allowed in my yard! I feel that creative source is precious. I don't share the ketchup at a diner let alone my man.
You set up that army of poly-wifing men, you can expect to meet some strong opposition with your girl, DV.;)
22 comments:
A local radio station in an urban (aka hip hop) market dealt with this issue and invited callers - specifically Black women who knowingly entered into marriage with Black men who want more than one wife.
I'll never forget the one caller... a woman in her 40's... who spoke very positively about the arrangement. She could continue to pursue her career goals without the added pressure of being the only source of affection for her husband.
I have no problem with these arrangements. Three perfectly mature consenting adults are living the life they want.
I have a problem with the Slick Willies who pretend they're being faithful (aka monogamous) and running around with another woman. That's just dishonest and works like an admission that they're doing something wrong. In this case, the woman isn't given the opportunity to consent.
I have respect for men (and women) who are up-front about wanting this type of relationship. Anything else is selfish and lacks maturity.
How does this fit with the rest of your philosophy? Specifically your posts on "Menage a trois" and
"Heterosexuality involves bonding permanently with a member (singular) of the opposite sex for love and usually procreation. It is participating in the natural life cycle, in the intrinsic meaning of life. Personal and societal health depend on heterosexuality."
and your endorsement of "Get A (this too is singular) Chick"
Not disagreeing, just wondering how you pull all this together into a cogent philosophy.
Because you know there will be cats who call keeping several side-chicks as following "polygyny".
I'm no mere advocate for polygyny. I am family advocate. I believe that we need to stop pussyfooting around with life and at the very least bring polygyny to the table for what it is: a viable solution for some individuals, as it has always been.
It is not a one size fits all so it's not applicable to everyone and it never has. The same is true for monogamy.
Prior to my marriage I was either "the one", "the other one" or "amongst others". I entered into a monogamist marriage that served my spouse and I well.
We engaged in serious life discussions regularly. Prior to having children we discussed whether we were going to vaccinate or not, circumcise or not, eat healthy or not and we even discussed polygyny. I married a man who came from a family of lengthy monogamous couples. He was and is a one woman man. That he was that didn't mean that we couldn't have a discussion about it. The discussion was never about whether we wanted it for ourselves but about the practicality of it and why it had been regelated a back seat in western society.
As a Muslim I've seen good and bad marriages of both the monogamous and polygynous kind. We need to get to a point where this isn't frowned upon. Sharing a man is not new and doesn't appear to be going away. But it should be done respectfully and in a way that the women and the children are provided for. Broken homes, high rates of divorce lead to fatherless homes and women and children with no male representation. Both the male and female presence are vital in a home. And when men have multiple partners and no responsibility to them its a lose-lose situation. The women in those relationships tend to be promiscuous and have many life partners. The children that are born products of those hook ups often suffer and are more likely to get involved in drugs, have sex earlier and become parents out of wedlock themselves.
It starts with us sisters. Our condition as a race is deteriorating with every generation. Marriage is a tool and institution that strengthens the social fabric. So what ever method you embrace is cool so long as we are making vows to have and hold. But we have to discontinue limiting our choices. We need every tool available to build families. I had a good husband and heaven knows I've always wanted for my sisters what I want for myself. And yes I would've shared him with the right sister in a heartbeat. He's a good man and an excellent father - what sister couldn't use that?
I read a story last year about the life and times of Sitting Bull, a man with three wives; married to the last two (who were biological sisters) at the same time. When he approached their father and gained permission the younger sister indicated that she'd only marry him if he took her older sister, who was a widow with two children and very much needed a husband to take care of them. Sitting Bull obliged and they held this arrangement until his death. Native Americans practiced polygyny. Read about Denmark Vesey? Yep, him too. In fact it was in one of his wife's bed that he was captured. These men didn't exist on the fringes of their of there communities. They were just brothers, existing to make it for their families.
When, where and why was it necessary to establish laws against a common practice and to whom's benefit? If it exist today in America as a cultural or religious subset it didn't always.
God will not change the condition of a people until they change their hearts. I'm done with this.
"Heterosexuality involves bonding permanently with a member (singular) of the opposite sex for love and usually procreation. It is participating in the natural life cycle, in the intrinsic meaning of life. Personal and societal health depend on heterosexuality."
There is no contradiction.
You inserted "(singular)".
Bonding with a woman. Committing to a woman. Marrying a woman ... doesn't always mean 1 woman.
It hasn't throughout most of human history.
Men, particularly men of means, have more often than not been committed to more than one woman.
Not bonding with any woman. Not committing to any woman. Not marrying any woman ... is homo.
Actually it means just that. You used the singular form, not me. I was just pointing it out, but if that's what you meant. OK.
I'll have to disagree here, I don't think the majority of these men are COMMITTED to more than one woman. If they were they'd be open about it...and we both know most men with several women on speed dial aren't up front about their "flock".
Nothing wrong with polygyny...or polyandry for that matter.
I don't know D.
I don't think it is that simple.
Just because some brothers don't walk around advertising the fact that they are involved with other women doesn't necessarily mean they are full of shit or innately deceitful.
Some cats take the path of least resistance.
Some women don't want to hear it.
Few women are equipped to handle it.
Our culture teaches women this fact of life is abominable. That they are victims. That they are "stupid". That the men are dogs.
We have a generation of women raised on Oprah.
Hell. Half the women in that situation ... know ... good and gotdamn well ... she is not the only woman sleeping with homeboy.
But they don't necessarily want to acknowledge it.
Sisters like Nicki Nicki Tembo are progressive and rather rare.
Instead of demonizing the men, we should teach the women.
Make it a societal imperative.
Hell.
If we can train a nation of people to "accept" homosexual men ...
Why can't we train them to accept men who have relationships with more than one woman?
If we did ... the "deceit" would be unnecessary.
Let these men ... come "out of the closet".
DV:
I was going to ask the same question as DMG but you cleaned it up nicely.
A good friend of mine who has/had:
* An ex-wife and one kid with her
* A baby mama and one kid with her
* A wife with her own kid
said to me:
"Think about it CS - YOU have one woman that you need to satisfy and you have your hands full.
Think about my life. I have to try and make THREE WOMEN happy".
From there I saw his point.
We can agree that marriage has the particular effect or tendency of bringing stability to the people involved and by extension the greater community. I feel that the lack of responsibility taken by men that fail to commit and provide for the women in their lives and the offspring produced cheapens lives and has the particular effect of subtracting rather than building the lives he touches. Bonded commitment is a social stabilizer.
Our condition as a people requires that we utilize every tool available and it behooves us to consider additional means of survival versus limiting ourselves to the one form of male-female bonding at the exclusion of another. Polygyny deserves a seat at the table. Polygyny will, and has not ever been for any and everyone.
The basis of polygyny or monogamy should not be pussy and that is how a lot of people are defining this issue. Albeit pussy is a natural and direct consequence of marriage. It is the union and what that union produces regardless to whether there is one or more wives that is of the greatest importance.
Nicki Nicki Tembo for President
"Let these men ... come "out of the closet"."
"Why can't we train them to accept men who have relationships with more than one woman?"
HA HA HAAAA!!!!!!!!
Muther.
F%$*@r!!
Hell no.
I'll tell you what, you better start with the fat bytches cuz the fly ones aint takin that shit easy. lol.
I suppose I'm just not the digger of gold type. I know there is no way of preventing a shared experience but I couldn't possibly agree to share it.
For me I think that...strong...mighty..beautiful... black..lol...D,D,D is just too good for me to be letting some other chick sample by my own acquiescence. Unh-unh, no sir.
I've put up a strong D-FENCE. No side beaches allowed in my yard! I feel that creative source is precious. I don't share the ketchup at a diner let alone my man.
You set up that army of poly-wifing men, you can expect to meet some strong opposition with your girl, DV.;)
My ex-husband and I discussed polygyny during the early years of our marriage just as we did other issues such as child-rearing, diet, and current events. He had always been a one woman but our discussion centered on the practicality of polygyny. Despite what seemed an insurmountable issue that resulted in our divorce he is a great guy and wonderful father. I would have gladly shared him within a marriage with the right sister-wife. But I was enough for him and he enough for I.
Polygyny has always been with us which makes its outlaw here in America very suspect. When, where, why and for the benefit of whom was this ban enacted? *rhetorical question*
I read "The Lance and the Shield: the Life and Times of Sitting Bull" last year and it was of note that polygyny was a common practice among Native Americans. His wives were biological sisters. Through their father he requested the younger sister who only submitted under the condition that Sitting Bull marry her elder sister too, who at the time was a widow with two small children. He agreed and they maintained that union until his death. The namesake of this blog Denmark Vesey maintained two wives as well. His wives were slaves on different plantations. It was Mr Vesey's frustration of not being able to secure the freedom of his wives and his children from those unions that led him to devise, what would have been, the greatest slave uprising in the history of North America.
"Some women don't want to hear it."
Come ON MAN! Even you don't believe these cats aren't just getting some on the side. Polygyny in the dudes mind only isn't polygyny in sense of a cultural institution geared toward plural marriage. Again, let me make it clear, what some cats do with a consenting woman (or women) is none of my business, but lets call it what it is.
By the way, where do you draw the line between a committed man, and what you refer to as "de facto homo"?
Everybody needs to be on the same page and open if you are going to call it real polygyny. Otherwise it's just some cat with several unknowing chicks on the side. In polygyny, the women are committed to each other as much as to the man, they may share childrearing, taking care of the home etc.
Nicki, serial (or "parallel") monogamy isn't the same as polygyny. I think we can agree with that.
O.M., it aint for everybody to be sure but why the big girls gotta be bitches? And no need to start with them when so many sisters of every stature already down with sharing. I think its at the root of this is accountability.
We mothers are the teachers and we've been derilecting our duty of raising these children to be accountable and responsible and many would rather have no man or a sub par ass nigga than openly share an astute, responsible man with the testicular fortitude to carry two homes with dignity.
But this is why we suffer and lag, because God will not change the condition of a people until they change their hearts.
@ DMG - agreed!
O.M., it aint for everybody to be sure but why the big girls gotta be bitches? And no need to start with them when so many sisters of every stature already down with sharing. I think its at the root of this is accountability.
We mothers are the teachers and we've been derilecting our duty of raising these children to be accountable and responsible and many would rather have no man or a sub par ass nigga than openly share an astute, responsible man with the testicular fortitude to carry two homes with dignity.
But this is why we suffer and lag, because God will not change the condition of a people until they change their hearts.
@ DMG - agreed!
@Nick
Dont take it the wrong way. Skinny women are bytches too..."cuz the fly ones" (fly bytches)...and no doubt. both thin and big alike share.
"We mothers are the teachers and .. many would rather have no man or a sub par ass nigga than openly share an astute, responsible man with the testicular fortitude to carry two homes with dignity." - Nik nik
I agree completely.I'm one of those women. For me the thought is tormenting. I think for the most part, when a man finds a woman they really find to be a true matrix and even exceptionally beautiful ( by their own standards) he will want no other man dipping in his pot soooo... I think you know where I'm going with this. I simply think his member is just as special, if not more, than mine. It is solely about "that thing" for me as it relates to this topic. I can only see myself bonding with one man AND I would hope that most men will always feel that way too.
"I've put up a strong D-FENCE. No side beaches allowed in my yard! I feel that creative source is precious. I don't share the ketchup at a diner let alone my man."
OM.
LOL.
I feel you sista. I feel you.
"A good friend of mine who has/had:
* An ex-wife and one kid with her
* A baby mama and one kid with her
* A wife with her own kid" CF
Wow.
Damn.
Bra.
Glad it aint me.
Lawd ha' mercy.
Personally, I think it is a lot more difficult for a woman to face the idea of her man having an emotional connection with another woman than having sex with some chick on the side. THAT is why polygyny would never be common practice in this society. It is a lot easier to look the other way when your man is messing with some chick on the side than if he is setting up a home with her and raising a family with her at the same time as he is setting up a home and raising a family with you. I think most women would rather their man have the occasional sexual experience with a random chick than have a real relationship with a second woman.
@ Joanna - such a system devalues women and any children that result from that arrangement. Again, this type of system cheapens lives.
It's already a foregone conclusion that the members of this society are selfserving. Therein lies the problem. In many other cultures the group is more important than any individual.
There is an adage that says: I want for my brother/sister what I want for myself.
nicki nicki tembo- you may be right about that, but it is what it is. I do not know many women who were raised in this country who find it acceptable for their man to have a full blown relationship with another woman. Someone on the side for some sex on occasion? A lot of chicks can deal with that. But bring emotions into the mix and most women don't even want to attempt to go there.
As for me, if my man is gonna have another lady, I want to have another man. I am greedy like that/
While you may be greedy, this example only demonstrates that you are promiscuous, vindictive, immature and lack self worth.
How is your man's desire to have sex with another woman remotely related to your desires to suck on or have multiple penises penetrating you. The answer is that there is NO RELATION. Your decision to do so would be solely driven by one of the following:
a. a skewed sense of feminine empowerment
b. your true whorish nature
Merry Christmas folks.
Post a Comment