It's wrong for a woman to cheat on her man; and equally wrong for a man to cheat on his woman. I wouldn't join Black-er and encourage Macka Diamond to have an affair on the side as a response to her 'man problems'. No sah, two wrongs never make a right. I can't help noticing though, that a man's wrong is often viewed as kind of 'wrongish' but the same wrong by a woman is always double and triple wrong. Why?

Check how some Jamaican men take pride in declaring that they are not 'one-burners!' For the uninitiated, a 'one-burner' is a stove that can only hold one pot at a time, so a 'one-burner man' is a man who is only willing and/or able to be intimately involved with one woman at a time. Of course, there are other men who don't make public declarations, but secretly practice their self-assumed right to have more than one woman at the same time. In Jamaica, there's widespread cultural acceptance of this reality. So how come when a woman is involved with two different men she is so viciously condemned by everybody? Well, not exactly everybody - just everybody except the man on the side who's enjoying the benefits of the deed.

The goose and gander

John lives with his wife and kids and has two other women on the side, so he is a 'three-burner'; and naturally he wants to be the only man sleeping with all three. And stupidly, he thinks he is. But what happened to share and share alike? If what's good for the goose is also good for the gander, why is it that what's bad for the man is worse for the woman? Why is it admirable to be a dog, but contemptible to be a bitch? Isn't a dog just the male version of a bitch?

I heard a story the other day about a man who got paranoid and started stalking a woman. He would drive pass her house numerous times a day or park down the road from her gate and sit and watch. Why? He was worried that she - his woman on the side - may also have someone on the side, even though he has his wife at home. The outside lady accepts the fact that he's married and lives with the arrangement. But the day he starts to suspect that this outside lady may have another man, he goes ballistic. Why? How comes men give 'bun' so easily, but take it so unwillingly?

But hey, if you stay with the stove analogy, one thing is certain: If you have a stove with plenty burners and you use up all burners at the same time, plus you're secretly baking bun in the oven, yuh gas gwine done quick! If you're really into a serious and permanent relationship then what you're cooking is soup; a one-pot meal, so one burner is all a big man really needs. The older I get, the more I realise how true this is. Or is it?

Some men may want to kill me for saying it but yow, truth is truth. If you're always baking bun, one fine day you might end up eating a slice or two; it's that simple. So we shouldn't give what we're not willing to take. The sad thing is, our society encourages men to be wild and expects women to be faithful. Yes, we mock decency and gentleman-like behaviour in boys, but demand virtue and 'ladylikeness' in girls. As for the often repeated nonsense that even women love to preach about 'girls can't do what the guys do and still be a lady', that's just another archaic piece of patriarchal manure that can be easily summed up in two words - double standard. And it's hurting women and harming men. Is lie ah telling?

box-mi-back@hotmail.com