I have serious questions:
Black men, as far as I’ve heard, have used having an animalistic nature as the excuse for cheating.
But when someone says they are operating in animalistic behavior when they are out here terrorizing people and being menaces to society, they are offended, especially if a white person says it. And magically, they aren’t animalistic at all.
Why, in those situations when being called out for having animalistic behavior, they refuse to own the notion that they are animalistic although, out of their own mouths, they’ve claimed that being animalistic is why they recklessly run wild having sex with many women, and men (for the DL men)?
Wouldn’t they be animalistic / like animals in general if they’re admittedly animalistic in at least one instance?
Moving on…
Why is it that, to these men, when women cheat, they’re hoes and get no grace but when men do it, it’s them having animalistic nature?
If women are human and men are human, and men are animalistic and that’s why they cheat, wouldn’t women also be animalistic?
Because humans are of the same nature. Made up of the same.
So, if being animalistic is the excuse for men and a reason to give them a pass for cheating, I think it’s only right to use that as the reason women cheat and men should give their women endless passes and lots of understanding. Especially since these men know all too well what animalistic looks like and know that it’s apparently uncontrollable.
I’m just wondering if those who subscribe to being of animalistic nature and use it as an excuse can answer these questions and make it make sense. I mean, REALLY make sense.