Lavender Marriages, Black Culture, Relationships, and Why Cultural Differences Matter

This is a really cool video, and I think it looks really good. The artwork is amazing. However, I would like to say a couple of things and share my opinion because it got me thinking.

First, I don't think black people are particularly likely to enter lavender marriages. As a black person, I have never personally heard of one. If you asked a random black person on the street what a lavender marriage was, they might genuinely ask, "What's that?" Even asking a gay black person might lead to the same question.

Lavender marriages seem to be more commonly discussed in white cultural circles. Essentially, a lavender marriage is when someone knowingly marries a gay individual, usually to conceal that person's sexuality. For example, a straight woman knowingly marries a gay man, and they use their marriage to hide his homosexuality. In some situations, the woman might genuinely love him romantically and accept his sexuality because she wants to be with him. She knows he's gay, but she doesn't care as long as he continues being romantic with her and they maintain their relationship.

However, this can lead to a lot of problems. Honestly, I think it's a terrible idea in many circumstances.

But why don't black people commonly enter these arrangements? Why aren't black women generally interested in lavender marriages? This is something white people, particularly those in LGBTQ communities, should understand. Sometimes people look at relationships through rose-colored glasses without considering the full picture. Everything seems bright, colorful, and peachy, but realistically, that's not how these situations always work.

Most straight black women aren't particularly interested in dating gay men. It happens, but it's relatively uncommon in my personal experience. Lavender marriages are also not something I've commonly encountered in black communities. They could exist, but most black people I know aren't familiar with them, at least not by name.

Based on my observations, black people generally don't willingly enter these arrangements very often. In many situations, gay men don't tell their wives about their sexuality. Even when they do, some men might actually be bisexual or romantically attracted to women. They may not disclose their sexuality because they're afraid their wives will leave them, particularly if they discover that their husbands are cheating with other men.

And here's the thing: A woman deciding to leave a marriage because her husband has been cheating is a valid response.

You might think this is simply about homophobia in the black community. And yes, there are homophobic individuals in the black community. However, that's not the entire picture.

A major concern is that some men who hide their sexuality from their wives also have sexual relationships with other men while remaining married. This can create serious health risks, particularly when sexually transmitted infections are involved.

In the black community, HIV/AIDS has affected some of our friends and relatives. I personally had a relative who was gay and eventually developed AIDS. The situation led to an extremely painful family experience. He almost committed suicide, and we had to help him financially. It was terrible.

Essentially, AIDS has affected people in our families and communities, including people we loved.

Unfortunately, when women unknowingly have relationships with men who are secretly having sexual relationships with other men, they can also be exposed to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.

This is one reason you'll sometimes see LGBTQ individuals, particularly those in the black community, become angry when someone hides their sexuality from a romantic partner.

It's not necessarily that people lack compassion or don't understand what being gay means. It's that dishonesty and cheating can have serious consequences. Someone can unknowingly transmit an infection to their partner. Even worse, someone might know they have an infection and still knowingly expose their partner to it.

That's a very different situation from simply being gay.

If you're black and gay, this is something worth understanding about the cultural environment you're entering. If you're a lesbian, the situation can be different because, in some circumstances, the primary concern is heartbreak and infidelity rather than the particular health risks associated with a husband having undisclosed sexual relationships with other men.

However, black lesbians and bisexual women may understand some of these concerns, particularly when they've grown up around conversations about relationships, sexuality, and sexual health.

One thing I've noticed about black families is that children are sometimes exposed to conversations about serious adult subjects at relatively young ages.

Black parents can discuss some surprisingly serious things in front of their children. Sometimes they don't even realize the children are listening.

For example, a black child might grow up hearing conversations about drugs, sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy, and other adult subjects. Meanwhile, another child might not encounter those conversations until much later.

This isn't because every black parent behaves the same way or because white parents never discuss these subjects. It's simply an observation about differences I've noticed in how some families approach parenting and education.

In my experience, black children can receive more direct explanations about certain dangers at younger ages.

For example, a black child might hear about marijuana when they're five or six years old. Their parents might explain that drugs can be harmful, that using certain substances can lead to legal trouble, and that they shouldn't experiment with them as they grow older.

The intention is to prepare children for the future.

Black parents may also start discussing sexual health and relationships relatively early. A child might hear warnings about sleeping around, having sex as a teenager, and the possibility of contracting HIV.

A child might be around ten years old and already understand that unprotected sex can expose someone to serious diseases.

In contrast, some children in more sheltered households might not receive those explanations until they're older.

I've also noticed that family conversations can be very direct. Imagine being five years old and overhearing your mother talking on the telephone:

"Deronda got AIDS. Yeah, Rita got around again. Why? Roland was gay. Roland was gay, yeah."

You're sitting there listening, wondering what's happening. You might ask your mother what AIDS is, and she'll explain that it's a disease that can seriously affect someone's health and even cause death.

She might explain that HIV can be transmitted through sexual contact and that people need to protect themselves. She might also explain that medical treatment is available.

Your parents might not explain every symptom or medical detail, but you'll learn that these things exist.

Sometimes, if a black child seems to know more about certain subjects than another child, it may be because their parents introduced those subjects earlier.

For example, imagine a white woman married to a black man. Their ten-year-old son comes running to his mother and says:

"Mama, I don't think we should hang out with Roro anymore. Roro smokes weed."

His mother might ask, "How do you know what weed is?"

The child responds, "Dad told me about it. He said it's bad and that I could get into trouble if I use it."

The child learned about it from his father.

If that child had grown up in a different household, he might not have understood what was happening or recognized certain substances.

And Gen Z children like me also grew up with the internet. We were exposed to information through television, movies, online discussions, and other media. Sometimes children also watch movies intended for older audiences and learn about things through those experiences.

Black media can also play a role. A lot of the media I've encountered emphasizes the consequences of drugs, prostitution, and other destructive behaviors.

It's a different cultural environment.

I've noticed that some older generations have a more traditional outlook. Old-school values are often viewed as protective, while newer attitudes can sometimes be viewed as allowing behaviors that older generations consider problematic.

This is one reason I think a lot of black women, particularly straight black women, would be hesitant to enter a lavender marriage.

The concern isn't necessarily that they hate gay men. It's that they don't want to marry someone who might secretly cheat on them, expose them to HIV, or put their health at risk.

I've heard of situations involving black women who married men without knowing those men were having sexual relationships with other men. Some of those situations reportedly ended with the women contracting HIV.

That's a serious concern.

This is something straight black women, black lesbians, and bisexual women may understand differently depending on their experiences. White women may also have these concerns, of course, but the cultural conversations surrounding them can differ.

In some communities, parents may protect their children's innocence by withholding information about unpleasant realities. In others, parents may believe that introducing those realities early is necessary to protect their children.

I sometimes describe it as the difference between rose-colored glasses and having a clearer view of the world.

Some children receive a more sheltered version of reality because their parents want to protect their innocence. Other children receive a much more direct explanation because their parents want them to recognize potential dangers.

I'm not saying one family or one race is universally better at parenting. These are observations about cultural differences I've noticed.

The main reason I think straight black women are generally less interested in lavender marriages is that the potential consequences can be particularly serious.

If a woman marries a gay man who secretly has sexual relationships with other men, she could be exposed to HIV without knowing it. If she becomes pregnant, there can also be concerns about transmission to the child.

HIV can be transmitted from mother to child during pregnancy, childbirth, or breastfeeding. However, modern medical treatment can greatly reduce these risks, and people living with HIV can have healthy children with proper medical care.

I also want to address something else: undetectable status.

I've heard people discuss how someone with HIV can reach an undetectable viral load. The medical concept is important, and they say people who maintain an undetectable viral load do not sexually

transmit HIV. This is commonly described as U=U, meaning Undetectable Equals Untransmittable.

However, I am concerned that it maybe possible to transmit after such.

I am concerned that it may be possible because there were men who had HIV who treated it like it wasn't a big deal and would sleep around with it and women would get aids making me concerned it may be rare or uncommon or because it is undetectable that if it spreads, it can't be detected so doctors wouldn't know who it came from.

However, I still think people should understand the importance of medical treatment, testing, and responsible sexual behavior rather than treating someone's health as an afterthought.

I've heard people casually say that HIV isn't a big deal anymore. While treatment has improved tremendously, that doesn't mean people should be careless about their health.

I also think children should be educated about sexual health and responsible relationships as they grow older. It's for the best to tell them if they are born or contract HIV as babies not to enter sexual relationships or pressure others lest they spread it, and to offer them other options of having children such as adoption.

If someone decides they don't want to have children biologically, adoption is another possibility. There are many children in foster care who need loving, stable homes.

And this brings me to another subject that I found particularly uncomfortable.

I once encountered a news story about a gay couple who wanted to adopt a child but were having difficulties because of their sexuality. They eventually encountered an organization that presented them with a list of children described as unwanted.

The couple was extremely upset.

They felt as though being handed a list of unwanted children was comparable to being handed a list of used cars. They considered the experience disrespectful and discriminatory.

Eventually, they reportedly went through a difficult process and even divorced to pursue the adoption they wanted.

I don't want to judge them, but I found their reaction to the children particularly concerning.

These are children, not used cars.

If you're gay and want to adopt, please don't look at children who are waiting for adoption as though they're unwanted products being offered to you because you couldn't get something better.

There may be children who have experienced abuse, neglect, abandonment, or the death of their parents. There may be children whose biological parents simply couldn't care for them. There are also children whose circumstances are complicated by situations their parents experienced.

Not every child in foster care was unwanted. Some were deeply loved but couldn't remain with their biological families.

And even when a child was genuinely unwanted by their biological parents, that doesn't make the child less valuable.

I sometimes wonder why people don't consider that adopting an older child or a child with a difficult background could be an opportunity to give someone a loving home.

There are adoption organizations that provide information about children with different backgrounds and needs. Families can learn about children who may be a good match for their household.

There are even situations where prospective parents can express preferences regarding age, background, and other considerations.

The point is that children shouldn't be treated as status symbols or trophies.

You don't have to approach adoption as though you're shopping for a product. You can approach it as an opportunity to welcome a child into your family.

That couple could have considered adopting those children without viewing them as inferior.

However, I also think it's important to consider whether they were genuinely prepared to adopt children who might have more complicated needs.

If their immediate reaction was that they were being handed inferior children, perhaps they weren't ready to adopt those particular children.

Children can be difficult. Children can have behavioral challenges. Some need additional attention and support. That's part of parenting.

But they're still children.

I don't think they necessarily understood the circumstances behind the list. Perhaps they genuinely felt insulted, but the way they described those children bothered me.

These aren't toys, products, or status symbols.

They're real babies and real children.

Anyway, back to lavender marriages.

Essentially, I think most black women are unlikely to enter these arrangements because of the potential consequences. We're generally more familiar with the possibility of infidelity, HIV exposure, and the emotional fallout that can happen when someone conceals their sexuality.

I also think religion plays a significant role.

In the black community, Christianity is particularly influential. More than 70% of black Americans identify as Christian, according to the figures I've encountered, and many belong to Protestant denominations.

Baptist churches are especially prominent in many black communities.

A lot of Christians believe divorce is sinful, and some also believe that remarrying after divorce is sinful.

This can make people particularly cautious about entering a marriage they believe might eventually end.

There are exceptions in certain Christian interpretations. For example, some traditions recognize adultery as grounds for divorce. Others recognize abandonment by an unbelieving spouse as grounds for considering the marriage dissolved.

The Bible discusses these subjects in passages such as Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 7.

My understanding is that some Christians believe that when an unbelieving spouse abandons the marriage, the other spouse is no longer bound to remain in it.

I'm still learning about my own religion, so I'm not claiming to be an expert on every interpretation. I'm explaining how I've come to understand these beliefs.

Imagine a gay man marrying a black Christian woman and then disappearing for several years.

If he cheated on her, abandoned her, and completely disappeared, she might eventually consider herself free to move on.

She could remarry, have children with someone else, and establish an entirely new household.

Then, years later, the original husband comes home expecting everything to be the same.

Except it isn't.

He walks through the door expecting to see his wife and children. Instead, there's another man sitting in his chair. His wife is pregnant with that man's baby, and the older children are playing on the floor calling the other man Daddy.

He asks who the man is.

His former wife looks at him and asks:

"What are you doing here?"

She tells him that they divorced because he abandoned her.

He might even discover that she's already remarried.

That's the kind of situation that can happen when someone assumes their marriage will always be waiting for them.

If you're going to marry someone, you need to understand that abandoning them has consequences.

The only situation where I could realistically imagine someone entering a lavender marriage under these circumstances would be a marriage primarily intended to obtain a green card.

For example, a bisexual man might marry a woman, have a sexual relationship with her, and then leave shortly afterward.

However, even that could create additional complications, particularly if she becomes pregnant.

And realistically, marrying a black woman isn't necessarily something that happens quickly.

If she's not interested in you and you propose, she might simply say no. She isn't automatically going to marry someone just because he wants a green card.

There are also cultural differences surrounding premarital sex.

In some religious black households, particularly in Texas, sex before marriage is strongly discouraged. Some couples won't have sex until they're married.

Of course, plenty of white people are religious too, and plenty of black people aren't. I'm talking about the differences I've observed in certain communities.

If a man marries a woman, gets her pregnant, and then leaves, she may still have the child.

Many black Christians are pro-life, although beliefs about abortion vary considerably.

He could end up paying child support anyway.

If you're marrying someone for a green card, you might as well understand the responsibilities you're taking on. If you get someone pregnant, you have responsibilities toward that child.

You might as well support your family rather than abandoning them.

But yeah, that's essentially my point.

I also think it's possible for some gay men to maintain sexual relationships with women for reasons that aren't necessarily based on sexual attraction.

For example, some asexual people experience romantic attraction without experiencing sexual attraction. Some still have sex with their romantic partners because they enjoy the intimacy, want to maintain the relationship, or simply enjoy the physical experience.

Likewise, a gay man might sometimes have sex with a woman because he wants to maintain the relationship, even if he's not sexually attracted to her.

There are also bisexual men who genuinely experience attraction to women and men.

Sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and physical enjoyment aren't necessarily the same thing.

However, regardless of someone's sexuality, I wouldn't recommend cheating on a spouse.

If you're married, you have responsibilities to your partner. You shouldn't expose someone to health risks through dishonesty.

And this brings me to another cultural difference.

In many black communities, marriage is generally understood to involve monogamy.

There are black women who are open to different relationship arrangements, but in my experience, monogamy is a very important expectation.

Black women can become extremely upset when they discover infidelity. Some will cry, some will become angry, and others will simply decide that they're done.

And I think that's something people need to understand.

If you're marrying a black woman, don't assume that she'll automatically accept an open relationship just because you want one.

Polyamory and traditional expectations surrounding marriage can clash significantly.

If you tell a black woman that you want an open marriage, she may decide that she doesn't want to participate in that arrangement.

She might assume there's already another woman involved.

And honestly, that's a reasonable concern if someone suddenly starts asking for permission to sleep with other people.

In some relationships, the woman might simply say:

"If you want to be with somebody else, then go be with her. I'm not going to participate in this."

She may decide to divorce you, take the children, and move on.

This isn't necessarily because she hates you. It's because she doesn't want to share her marriage.

In my observations, black people generally don't approach open relationships with the same casual attitude I've sometimes seen portrayed in other cultural circles.

The perceived risks can outweigh the potential benefits.

There may be jealousy, arguments, additional partners, pregnancy, infidelity, and unnecessary complications.

And what exactly is the reward?

Sometimes there really isn't one.

I've also noticed that some black women have very strong expectations about their husbands.

They want a man who is committed, dependable, and willing to take care of his household.

This doesn't mean every black woman thinks the same way, but traditional family expectations remain important in many black households.

Some black women want a husband who takes responsibility for the bills, the children, and the general well-being of the family.

They may have grown up watching their fathers take care of their mothers and expect something similar from their husbands.

For example, my father took care of his family. He took care of his wife, his children, and the responsibilities of the household.

That kind of example can influence what someone expects from a marriage.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily want to be the head of an entire household. I would be comfortable taking responsibility for children, but managing the entire household sounds like a tremendous responsibility. I would be perfectly happy sharing that responsibility with someone else.

However, I understand why some women want a traditional marriage.

There are also certain relationship dynamics that women might not appreciate when they're expected to fulfill traditional gender roles.

For example, some women might expect their husbands to behave in ways that they themselves wouldn't necessarily want to experience from a partner.

I've noticed differences in how people communicate their expectations.

Some women communicate indirectly. They hint at what they want instead of directly asking for it.

For example, a woman might tell her husband:

"I'm hungry."

What she actually wants is for him to take her somewhere to eat.

He might respond:

"Okay."

And then continue doing whatever he was doing.

Meanwhile, she's getting increasingly frustrated because she expected him to understand what she meant.

I've seen this kind of indirect communication portrayed in media, particularly with certain white female characters.

Black women, in my experience, can be much more direct about what they want.

A black woman might say:

"Honey, I'm hungry. I want something to eat. Go to the store and get us something."

She isn't necessarily going to leave the entire situation up to interpretation.

If she wants something, she might simply tell you.

Of course, this doesn't describe every black woman or every white woman. There are plenty of direct white women and indirect black women.

I'm talking about communication patterns I've personally noticed.

I've also noticed that black couples can be very vocal about their expectations.

If a black woman expects her husband to do something, she might tell him directly.

She may say:

"Why didn't you do this? You need to take care of that. You need to handle this. Why am I having to remind you?"

Meanwhile, someone from another cultural background might be more likely to remain quiet, become dissatisfied, and expect their partner to recognize the problem without being told.

I've noticed these differences in media and in real-life interactions.

I also think this influences how people approach conflict.

For example, I've never entirely understood why some people consider the silent treatment such a powerful punishment.

As a black person, I've sometimes found the idea confusing.

If someone stops talking to you, you can still go about your day.

Of course, I understand that the silent treatment can hurt people emotionally, and some individuals find it extremely upsetting.

However, not everyone reacts to it the same way.

Imagine a white woman telling a black woman to give her husband the silent treatment because he didn't bring her something to eat.

The black woman might respond:

"Why would I do that? I'd just go get myself something to eat."

That's the difference I'm trying to explain.

Some people prefer to communicate indirectly, while others would rather address the problem immediately.

I've also noticed that black women can be very outspoken about relationship problems.

They might tell you directly that something is a terrible idea.

They might warn you that your husband is going to cheat, that another woman is going to interfere with your marriage, or that you're putting yourself in a bad situation.

They aren't necessarily trying to be mean.

Sometimes they're trying to protect you.

This is particularly relevant to lavender marriages.

If a black woman tells her friend that marrying a gay man who intends to hide his sexuality is a terrible idea, she might be speaking from concerns about infidelity, sexual health, and the possibility of an extremely painful divorce.

She might tell her friend:

"Girl, don't do that. You know he's going to cheat on you. You could end up getting HIV. You need to know your worth."

That's not necessarily hatred.

It can be concern.

I've noticed something similar in some East Asian cultures, particularly Chinese culture, where people may be extremely direct because they believe they're helping you.

They might tell you something unpleasant because they genuinely think you need to hear it.

I think some black communities have a similar approach.

They might hold their tongues initially, but when they finally speak, they'll tell you exactly what they think.

And if you ignore their advice and everything goes wrong, you might hear:

"I told you. I told you that wasn't going to work. Why did you do it?"

Sometimes it isn't even an argument. It's just someone calmly explaining that they warned you about the consequences.

That's something I've observed.

I also want to explain why I think some of these cultural differences exist.

Growing up, I didn't realize how different certain aspects of black and white culture could be.

I genuinely thought many of our experiences were basically the same.

For example, I thought white churches had praise dancing in the same way black churches did.

In the black church, I've seen women wearing white face paint and long, flowing black gowns, performing dances that resemble mime or contemporary dance.

They use their hands, arms, and bodies to translate the lyrics of religious music into movement.

It's incredibly elegant.

I loved watching it as a child. It was one of my favorite parts of church, aside from communion.

I didn't realize that other communities might have completely different traditions.

That's one example of how cultural experiences can differ even when people share the same religion.

I also think some black families have a very direct approach to teaching children about the world.

For example, consider how a child might learn about the Holocaust.

Some parents might provide a simplified explanation appropriate for their child's age.

Other parents might explain the historical events more directly.

In my experience, black parents can sometimes be very straightforward when discussing unpleasant historical events.

They want their children to understand what happened and why it matters.

The reason is that black families have historically had to prepare their children for experiences that other families might not have to consider as frequently.

For example, a black child might experience racism at a relatively young age.

Their parents may need to sit them down and explain why someone treated them differently because of their skin color.

They might explain that racism exists, that discrimination is wrong, and that the child should understand how to recognize it.

This can be a very different experience from growing up in an environment where those conversations aren't considered necessary.

I'm not saying white children never experience racism or that every white parent shelters their children. I'm talking about the cultural differences I've personally observed.

I also think the conversations surrounding critical race theory demonstrate some of these differences.

Some white parents worry that teaching children about racism will make them feel guilty about being white.

But a child doesn't need to feel guilty for something they personally didn't do.

You can explain that being white doesn't automatically make someone racist. Anyone can be racist, and anyone can choose to treat people with kindness and respect.

You can teach children about historical injustices without making them personally responsible for the actions of people who lived before them.

You can also teach them about systemic racism and encourage them to understand how institutions and policies can affect different communities.

Honestly, I think one of the most helpful things white people can do is educate themselves and listen to black people when they explain their experiences.

You can also support black-owned businesses, including black real estate businesses, and participate in efforts that genuinely help communities.

You don't necessarily need to have a tremendous amount of money to make a difference.

You can learn, educate others, support organizations, and participate in community efforts.

Protests can be useful, but holding signs doesn't automatically mean that institutions will listen or change their behavior.

Sometimes meaningful change requires education, resources, organization, and people who understand how to work within the systems they're trying to change.

And honestly, I'll be straightforward with white people: You can try to fight racism. It can work. You can get involved in institutions, learn how policies work, and use your education and resources to make meaningful changes.

However, one of the easiest places to start is by listening to black people and educating yourselves about what we're actually experiencing.

The main issue is that white individuals sometimes don't recognize how sheltered certain children can be until they see it happening in real time.

For example, some white parents don't want their children learning about racism because they're afraid their children will feel guilty.

But again, you can explain that they haven't personally done anything wrong. They're individuals, and they can choose how they treat other people.

You can teach them not to be racist, to respect others, and to recognize discrimination.

You can also teach them to stand against systemic racism.

I think some Southern families approach parenting differently from certain urban Northern families.

Southern parents, including white Southern parents, can sometimes be more direct and traditional. They may introduce children to uncomfortable subjects earlier.

I've noticed that some Midwestern families can also have a more straightforward approach.

I'm not entirely sure how much of this comes down to regional culture, parenting styles, or individual families.

However, I think certain urban Northern communities can have a more protective approach toward childhood innocence.

And that's where I see the difference between what I call the rose-colored glasses and the grit glasses.

Some parents want their children to see the world as a safe, pleasant place for as long as possible.

Other parents want their children to understand the dangers that exist so they can recognize them when they encounter them.

Black parents can sometimes be very brutally honest with their children.

They don't necessarily believe that protecting a child's innocence means hiding every unpleasant reality from them.

They might explain something directly while still making sure the child understands that they're loved and protected.

This is something I associate with old-school black parenting.

I also think this is why certain episodes of Black Mirror would have played out very differently if the main characters had grown up in different cultural environments.

For example, consider the episode where a mother uses technology to censor what her daughter sees.

The idea is that the mother wants to protect her child from disturbing images and experiences.

However, I think many black parents would question the idea of placing a technological device inside their child's brain to censor reality.

They might simply tell the child to close their eyes, look away, or avoid looking at something dangerous.

If something disturbing is happening in the sky, look down.

If something inappropriate is happening on television, cover your eyes.

If there's something frightening happening in front of you, turn away.

You don't necessarily need to implant a device in your child's brain.

And there are practical reasons to be concerned about something like that.

Imagine a child living in a neighborhood where gang violence occurs.

They walk outside, and suddenly there's a shooting or a gang confrontation.

If the device begins censoring everything around them, the child might not be able to recognize the danger.

They could become confused about what's happening.

They might not see someone approaching them.

They might not recognize that they're standing in the middle of a dangerous situation.

What if the device malfunctions and causes hallucinations?

What if it interferes with their ability to recognize threats?

What if the child becomes partially blind because the device is censoring too much?

Now the child is in a dangerous environment without being able to understand what's happening.

That's an enormous problem.

A parent might reasonably ask why they would put their child through that when they could simply teach them to look away from inappropriate or disturbing things.

There are also religious considerations.

In some black Christian communities, people believe that the Mark of the Beast described in Revelation is associated with 666 and the forehead or hand.

Some Christians believe that accepting the Mark of the Beast will have eternal consequences.

That belief can make people particularly cautious about technology that involves placing something inside the body.

Of course, not every Christian interprets these passages the same way.

But I've grown up hearing these conversations.

I also think the episode's technology would raise questions about privacy, consent, and medical safety.

Imagine a child growing up with a device that censors sexual content.

What happens when that child becomes an adult?

What happens when they want to understand relationships, intimacy, and sexuality?

What happens if they experience sexual assault?

Censoring the experience doesn't prevent the trauma.

It could make the situation even more confusing if the person cannot understand what's happening around them.

And what if the device starts censoring ordinary things accidentally?

You wouldn't want something like that malfunctioning inside your child's brain.

I think many parents would rather teach their children how to recognize inappropriate situations and protect themselves.

That's why I think that particular Black Mirror episode would have been approached differently by many black families.

I could understand using some kind of protective technology if there were a Lovecraftian eldritch entity that could literally kill someone just by looking at it.

But even then, some parents might simply tell their children to wear a blindfold, close their eyes, or look down.

If the entity is in the sky, don't look up.

Look straight ahead.

Watch where your feet are going.

There are ways to protect someone without necessarily putting a device in their brain.

This also connects to something I've heard in Christian communities about seeing God.

Some Christians believe that looking directly at God's face in His full glory would be fatal to a human being.

Moses, for example, was permitted to see God's back but not His face, according to Exodus 33.

So the response in some Christian households might simply be:

"Well, don't look at His face."

Close your eyes, cover them, or look down.

We already pray with our eyes closed in many Christian traditions.

We don't necessarily need to censor our children's entire experience of reality.

Of course, parents aren't going to explain every detail of sex or expose children to graphic material.

A child might receive an age-appropriate conversation about sexuality, but that doesn't mean they're going to receive graphic descriptions or be shown pornography.

There's a difference between educating children and exposing them to inappropriate material.

I also remember hearing about a woman who had a chip implanted in her head and later experienced health problems. She reportedly went to a doctor to have it removed, but there were complications surrounding the removal.

I remember seeing a news report about this.

Some black Christians questioned whether she could still go to heaven because of the implant.

Personally, I've questioned that interpretation.

If someone had a device implanted against their will, that is very different from someone knowingly and willingly accepting something they believe to be the Mark of the Beast.

The circumstances matter.

The Mark of the Beast, as described in Revelation, involves worship, allegiance, and the ability to buy and sell.

A medical device implanted in someone without their consent doesn't automatically meet those conditions.

I also don't believe someone should automatically be condemned for something forced upon them.

That's something I've thought about because I don't see how an involuntary medical procedure would be equivalent to willingly accepting the Mark.

The number 666 is also associated with the Mark in Revelation.

I've heard different interpretations of the prophecy, including the belief that those who accept it will face judgment and that those who refuse it will remain faithful to God.

Some interpretations also discuss a period of seven years, although Christians disagree about the timeline and how those passages should be understood.

These are religious beliefs and interpretations I've encountered growing up.

Anyway, returning to lavender marriages, I think another reason many black women might not be interested in marrying gay men is that traditional expectations surrounding masculinity and relationships can be important in some black communities.

Some women aren't particularly interested in feminine behavior in men.

Some might not like men who cry frequently, although personally, I wouldn't leave a man simply because he cries.

I'd probably ask him:

"Are you good, bro? What's wrong?"

There are women who find certain feminine behaviors unattractive, though.

I'm not talking about a man liking pink or carrying a tote bag. I'm talking about behavior and relationship expectations.

Some black women want a man who takes care of them rather than someone they feel they must constantly take care of.

Not every black woman thinks this way, but I've noticed that traditional expectations can be quite important.

Some women want to feel protected, provided for, and cared for.

They want a man who takes responsibility for the household.

This is something that can be connected to old-fashioned relationship expectations.

Some black women still believe strongly in the traditional idea of the man being the head of the household.

However, the way that expectation is expressed can differ.

For example, a black woman might tell her husband:

"You're the head of this household. You should be handling the bills. You should be taking care of the family. You should be doing this and that."

She might expect him to take responsibility because that's what she saw her father do.

Meanwhile, a woman from another background might have a different interpretation of what a traditional marriage should look like.

I've noticed that some people want traditional gender roles dismantled, while others prefer to maintain them.

Black women can be particularly traditional in certain areas, even when they don't necessarily fit every stereotype associated with traditional femininity.

I think that's an interesting cultural difference.

I've also noticed differences in how people handle disagreements and relationship expectations.

Some people prefer to hint at what they want.

Others will tell you directly.

Some people prefer to avoid confrontation.

Others would rather have an argument and get everything out in the open.

I've seen black women described as more outspoken, bold, and direct.

Sometimes that directness can come across as harsh.

However, I don't think it's necessarily a lack of affection.

It can simply be a different communication style.

I've also noticed that some people portray urban white culture, particularly in Northern cities and certain parts of California, as more open to unconventional relationships.

That doesn't mean all white people are like that.

Southern white communities can be considerably more traditional.

But I've encountered situations where certain urban communities seem more accepting of open relationships, alternative relationship structures, and less traditional expectations.

Meanwhile, some black communities can be much more skeptical.

For example, if you tell a black woman that you want an open marriage, she might immediately ask:

"Why would you want to do that? What if the other woman tries to break up your marriage? What if she gets pregnant? What if you start caring about her more than your wife?"

The other woman might be referred to as the side chick, or even less politely, the homewrecker.

The husband might insist that he doesn't care about the other woman, but that doesn't mean his wife will believe him.

There are a lot of potential problems.

Someone might simply tell you:

"That's a terrible idea. Don't do that."

And if you ignore the advice, they might let you experience the consequences.

Then, when everything falls apart, they'll remind you that they warned you.

Again, I don't think this necessarily comes from hatred.

Sometimes people are genuinely trying to prevent someone from getting hurt.

If someone hears that their friend is intentionally marrying a gay man who plans to hide his sexuality, they might be extremely confused.

They might tell her that the man could cheat, that she could be exposed to HIV, and that she should reconsider the marriage.

They might also tell the husband that if he married a woman, he needs to be honest with her and respect the marriage.

That's the point.

People can be brutally honest because they care.

I didn't realize how different some of these cultural experiences could be until I started thinking about them more seriously.

I used to assume black and white culture were basically the same, but there are differences in parenting, religion, relationships, communication, and expectations.

And I think it's important to recognize those differences instead of assuming everyone approaches life the same way.

I'm not saying every black person behaves this way or that every white person behaves differently.

These are my personal observations of black people, black families, and the cultural environments I've experienced. They are not universal rules, and there are plenty of exceptions.

I'm simply explaining why I think lavender marriages might be viewed differently in certain black communities.

For a lot of black women, the concern isn't necessarily that a man is gay.

It's that he might deceive them, cheat on them, expose them to health risks, and leave them with the consequences.

And that's a very different conversation.

If you're gay, don't marry someone outside your sexuality just to conceal who you are, particularly if you already know you intend to pursue sexual relationships with other people.

If you're bisexual, that's a different situation because you can genuinely experience attraction to more than one gender. But you still need to be honest with your partner about what you want from the relationship.

If you're not interested in monogamy, don't marry someone who expects monogamy and assume they'll eventually accept something different.

And if you're already married, don't cheat.

That's really the main point.

Marriage involves another person's feelings, health, future, and family.

You shouldn't treat someone else's life as though it's something you can experiment with.

Anyway, that's my perspective on lavender marriages and why I think they may be less common in black communities.

I also want to emphasize that this is based on my personal observations of black people and the cultural differences I've noticed. I'm not claiming that every black woman, every black family, or every black community thinks the same way.

I just think these conversations need more cultural context.

And yeah, that's pretty much it.

I'm also going to post this on my website. I'm not sure whether I'll put it on my blog, but I think I'll probably put it in the group section under General Description.

I know you can find my stories, my books, and other things there. You can also find my YouTube channels and my shops because I sell books. I actually have an area where I sell things for $1, too.

We're going to be selling a lot more on that website because it's still relatively new.

It's called bucksoup, this is the link to that.

But yeah, goodbye!