What is the attraction to a Large Penis?

[absinthium]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 17 2005, 02:11 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 17 2005, 02:11 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Dilznick@Jul 17 2005, 12:11 AM
You probably won&#39;t believe me, but white guys regularly hit on my g/f (and I&#39;m not just talking about those wigger types).

Anyway, carry on.

[post=329728]Quoted post[/post]​

You should kick their asses.
[/b][/quote]

This is the aspect of this that always troubles me... It always comes back to violence. How primal is that? Someone hitting on your companion shouldn&#39;t be viewed as a threat unless you are unsure of the strength of your relationship. All that says to me, Dilznick, is that you&#39;re girlfriend has got to be a pretty attractive lady to a lot of people. I don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;d be proud. Sure, it might be annoying after so many times, but it shouldn&#39;t be enough for someone to want to do bodily harm to another person.

It&#39;s the testosterone and big dicks.

[post=329742]Quoted post[/post]​

Silly, silly... Women are just more open-minded. (I kid.)

I&#39;ve often wondered why it seems like I don&#39;t see that many interracial couples involving a black woman and a white man. My guess is that a lot of white men are intimidated... They feel like they might be perceived as racists for even admitting that they might be attracted to a black woman, afraid people would assume upon seeing them together that&#39;s the only reason he&#39;s with her. But that&#39;s just a very unfounded theory I&#39;ve been knocking around in my head for a while.
All I know is I&#39;ve talked to a few of my close white male friends, and they&#39;ve expressed interest in being intimate with a "girl of color", but it seems like they don&#39;t tend to act on it. Perhaps in the cases of those men I know personally, they&#39;re afraid of what their families would think, too. Kinda sad.
Lastly, I will note that I found in Florida I saw a lot more mixed couples, some involving a white man. I was surprised that being that much further south, it seems like integration is actually better. Made me think I&#39;ve been judging the South too harshly. (Although many people will argue that Florida isn&#39;t quite the "true South," but let&#39;s not open that can of worms...)

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick+Jul 16 2005, 11:38 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Jul 16 2005, 11:38 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb
So then something can only be last if it&#39;s both the end and a block used for making shoes?

Horrible analogy.

[post=329633]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
I think it&#39;s a very good analogy. Two definitions are an "or" thing.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by jonb
I think it&#39;s a very good analogy. Two definitions are an "or" thing.

Except they aren&#39;t.

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

The 2nd one is more like: discrimination or prejudice ...based on the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. There&#39;s a clear relationship between the two. The "last" analogy doesn&#39;t even begin to make sense.

And I guess it also depends on how you define "discrimination." I&#39;m all for equal rights and all that other bullshit. As far as me being prejudiced, well...

[Prejudice] must be differentiated from viewpoints accumulated though direct life experience. These are definitively not prejudiced, conditioned or necessarily instinctive. They are not pre-judgements but post-judgements. Arguments which assert that all politically inconvenient views are based on a lack of sufficient life experience provoke the question how much life experience is required before a person&#39;s viewpoint is no longer regarded as prejudice. If the assertion is made that no amount of experience ever entitles a person to a viewpoint then this precipitates a logical absurdity.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by absinthium
This is the aspect of this that always troubles me... It always comes back to violence. How primal is that? Someone hitting on your companion shouldn&#39;t be viewed as a threat unless you are unsure of the strength of your relationship. All that says to me, Dilznick, is that you&#39;re girlfriend has got to be a pretty attractive lady to a lot of people. I don&#39;t know about you, but I&#39;d be proud. Sure, it might be annoying after so many times, but it shouldn&#39;t be enough for someone to want to do bodily harm to another person.

I didn&#39;t say I agreed with it, so why are you assuming? LOL I don&#39;t just beat people up for the fuck of it. But anyway, she says it&#39;s nice to have someone who can defend her if it calls for it. The guy who called her a "nigger slut" had it coming.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 17 2005, 06:08 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 17 2005, 06:08 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>In some cases it takes less than that for a group to speciate,[/b]

not when their generation span is ~20 years each time. humans are not beetles ... although some of you seem to possess approximately the same level of intelligence.

Genetic clusters correspond to blah blah blah

read what I wrote and hammer those 3 brain cells together furiously enough, and you might find yourself wasting less time. biologically nonexistent, evolutionary terms. we already KNOW different races look different - that&#39;s why the distinction is made in the first place. it is a UNIVERSAL aspect of a widespread species - in fact humans display considerably LESS physiological variation between "races" than most other species, which is to be expected because we haven&#39;t been around very long.

There are very little, if any, negative effects of intraracial mate selection. There is even enough genetic variation among subraces to prevent "stagnation".

not if you continually inbreed them over a large number of generations, which is precisely what you&#39;re advocating. the inevitable result is homogenization and the ensuing genetic deterioration.

<!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Jul 16 2005, 11:47 PM
Species can evolve "THROUGH" isolation, because isolation causes divergence, thus speciation.

[post=329741]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
it doesn&#39;t CAUSE anything, dimbulb. you clearly have no fucking idea how evolutionary processes take place. the nature of mutation is RANDOM - the nature of survival favors the least inadequate. again, try READING WHAT I WROTE before you start pounding the keyboard with your twelve webbed digits, okay?

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX
The instance of marriage between a Black man and a White woman is two times more likely than a White man marrying a Black woman though.

Relationships or marriages?

It&#39;s not only race, but economic status too. How many working class black males marry upper class white women in comparison to working class black women marrying upper class white men? I&#39;m willing to bet the latter is significantly more common. If this number is around the same, I&#39;ll shut up on the whole subject. It just seems a lot more rare to see a black woman with a poor white guy, than a black guy with a poor white woman. I&#39;m making generalizations of course, but no conversation about race couldn&#39;t exist without some.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Although Black male-White female couples are still more common, U.S. Census Bureau figures show that the number of Black female-White male marriages more than doubled--from 60,000 to 122,000--between 1993 and 1995. By 2000, that number had climbed to 227,000.

Why are so many sisters stepping across the color line?

"A limited selection pool is one [reason] that pops into mind," says Tyrone Carter, Ph.D., a consulting psychologist in Milwaukee. Dr. Carter says that he sees a lot of Black women in his practice who work in the corporate world, where they don&#39;t interact with many Black men.

"The civil rights movement and upward mobility" among African-Americans have also brought about "more equal-status contact across groups," says Claudia Mitchell-Kernan, Ph.D., a UCLA anthropologist who conducted a 21-city study examining interethnic marital attitudes and dating patterns among Whites, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

Once upon a time, she says, a Black female and White male had limited contact. That has changed: "These days a White male college professor will come in contact with a Black female college professor."

Changing attitudes are also a factor that experts cite for the increase in Black female-White male relationships. "The history of racial oppression, and perceived sexual exploitation as part of that oppression, is a factor that early on discouraged Black women from [having] involvements with White men," says Dr. Mitchell-Kernan. "The mythology was that White men had a sexual interest in Black women but were not interested in marrying them. Reality--White slave masters raping Black female slaves--added to that division."

But Dr. Mitchell-Kernan&#39;s study, conducted in 1995, found that Black women were overcoming these perceptions and that White men, surprisingly, were the group most willing to intermarry. Also paving the way for Black female-White male relationships is the fact that overall, society is still more accepting of those partnerships than of Black male-White female relationships.

http://www.niaonline.com/NiaLD/NewDesign/h...11,2320,00.html

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick@Jul 17 2005, 04:12 AM
The 2nd one is more like: discrimination or prejudice ...based on the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. There&#39;s a clear relationship between the two.

[post=329774]Quoted post[/post]​

Except that it&#39;s not that simple. 2 requires 1, but 1 doesn&#39;t require 2. Dumbass.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by jonb
Except that it&#39;s not that simple. 2 requires 1, but 1 doesn&#39;t require 2. Dumbass.

Exactly my point. Retard.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 16 2005, 10:08 PM
A race or subrace.

And WTF is a race or subrace in genetic terms.

In some cases it takes less than that for a group to speciate, so there&#39;s no need to to dismiss it.

Yeah. In insects. *snicker*

Genetic clusters correspond to percieved racial grouping with 99.86% accuracy: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50128221025.htm

Notice NON-PEER-REVIEWED source.

There are racial differences in cranial form: http://img335.imageshack.us/img335/3066/racesskulls0xf.jpg

Yes, using one specimen from each race can show marked differences. How cute. Also note that the "races" only apply if you ignore everyone who doesn&#39;t fit the main exemplar.

It&#39;s entirely an 18th-century concept of species. Back then, a species was an ideal appearance; species even means sight in Latin.

Three-million year old polymorphism in Europeans:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/01/3-mil...orphism-in.html

Notice NON-PEER-REVIEWED source.

Two-Million year old polymorphism in East Asians:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/06/resea...jects-pure.html

Notice NON-PEER-REVIEWED source.

Wait . . . Two million? Three million? You&#39;re arguing before there were any hominids outside Africa.

There are very little, if any, negative effects of intraracial mate selection. There is even enough genetic variation among subraces to prevent "stagnation".

We&#39;re talking immune genes, though. Let&#39;s talk about immune genes. Particularly the response to herpesvirus in early-contact American and Austronesian indigenous populations.

Of course, if you knew anything, you&#39;d know evolution in and of itself isn&#39;t a "goal", any more than gravity is. God, I hate eugenics. Claims to be a science, has all the trappings of a religion. (It&#39;s true. Early eugenists even had their own "New Decalogue of Science".)

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick+Jul 17 2005, 01:03 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Jul 17 2005, 01:03 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb
Except that it&#39;s not that simple. 2 requires 1, but 1 doesn&#39;t require 2. Dumbass.

Exactly my point. Retard.

[post=329841]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
But you&#39;re still a racist under definition 1, r-tard.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 17 2005, 01:50 PM
Huh? That was a test done by Stanford University.

If you&#39;d cited a peer-reviewed journal, I might be inclined to favor your argument.

Yeah, "clinal extremes."

One exemplar from each one. All that proves is you could find four skulls which were markedly different from each other.

I&#39;m not sure what their margin of error is, but it atleast proves humans had departed Africa ~2,000,000.

Err . . . That source you gave was also NON-PEER-REVIEWED. You also argued for three million. And there&#39;s no way of knowing if that hominid could interbreed with modern humans.

I understand your point. It would take nonrandom mating to ensure the genes for immunity were distributed to everyone though.

Who said anything about everyone? Just enough to maintain a decent genetic base.

Speciation is a goal, so I don&#39;t quite get your point.

No, it isn&#39;t. Nothing about evolution is a "goal". It&#39;s a biological fact. Saying evolution is a "goal" would be like saying gravity or entropy is a "goal". They aren&#39;t; they&#39;re scientific theories. This means they&#39;re the best explanation for the available evidence.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Jul 17 2005, 01:56 PM
You can look up the census records for yourself, but I believe Black men with college diplomas were only 4% more likely to marry a White woman than men without them.  It was something like 92% - 96%.

[post=329866]Quoted post[/post]​

So that&#39;s what this is about. And the ratio&#39;s like 2:1 in the general populace.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 17 2005, 02:18 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 17 2005, 02:18 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by jonb@Jul 17 2005, 05:02 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-ChimeraTX

@Jul 17 2005, 01:50 PM
Huh?  That was a test done by Stanford University.

If you&#39;d cited a peer-reviewed journal, I might be inclined to favor your argument.

[post=329869]Quoted post[/post]​

I don&#39;t understand the difference. Do I need to get the exact source?

[post=329873]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Because you can critique a peer-reviewed article and guarantee you&#39;ll be published.

 

[jonb]

Well, it was 3:1 or 4:1 in the 80s. Last census it was 2:1. You argued it was like 19:1.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 17 2005, 02:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 17 2005, 02:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Jul 17 2005, 05:19 PM
Because you can critique a peer-reviewed article and guarantee you&#39;ll be published.

[post=329874]Quoted post[/post]​

Hmmm, are those the ones that have the "Abstract:"?

[post=329877]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Yep.

 

[jonb]

Okay, that makes more sense. But even endogamy&#39;s probably a cultural thing.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Jul 17 2005, 09:30 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Jul 17 2005, 09:30 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>My point was that two-hundred thousand years of divergence will produce enough divergence worthy of consideration in any species.[/b]

if by "consideration" you mean "insecurity", then sure. I could choose to label anyone who wears a hat as subhuman; it still doesn&#39;t make any sense.

<!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock@Jul 17 2005, 08:58 AM
If there are genetic groupings that correspond to phenotypical form with >75% (subspecies?) accuracy then the race delineation can be made.[/quote]
so? nobody said "race doesn&#39;t exist", they said "race is not biologically significant in terms of variation within a species."

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

2000 Census Shows Interracial Marriage Gender Gaps Remain Large

by Steve Sailer

UPI, March 14, 2003





Newly released data from the 2000 Census show that the interracial marriage "gender gaps" endured by black women and Asian men remained large and may even have worsened since 1990.

In recent years, there has been much discussion about the difficulties African-American women face finding husbands. Although less publicized, similar problems confront Asian-American men looking for wives. Gender imbalances in the number of interracial married couples contribute to both groups&#39; frustrations in the highly competitive market for spouses.

Black women&#39;s resentment of intermarriage has become a staple of daytime talk shows, hit movies like "Waiting to Exhale," and magazine articles. Black novelist Bebe Moore Campbell described her and her tablemates&#39; reactions upon seeing a black actor enter a restaurant with a blonde: "In unison, we moaned, we groaned, we rolled our eyes heavenward.... Then we all shook our heads as we lamented for the 10,000th time the perfidy of black men, and cursed trespassing white women who dared to &#39;take our men.&#39;"

The Census Bureau confirmed black women&#39;s complaints that white women were more likely to marry black men than white men were to marry black women. In 2000, African-American men had white wives 2.65 times more often than black women had white husbands. In other words, in 73 percent of black-white couples, the husband was black and wife was white.

(This interracial gender gap is even sharper among black-white couples who cohabit without being married. Five times as many black men live with white women as white men live with black women.)

Although some commentators had predicted that this intermarriage disparity should be evening out, this 2.65 ratio is similar to the 2.54 ratio in 1990. (The invention of the "multiracial" category in 2000 makes direct "apples to apples" comparisons across time impossible.)

To keep things simple, all these ratios are for non-multiracial and non-Hispanic individuals.

Like most guys, Asian-American men are fairly reticent about admitting any frustrations in the mating game. But the news for them was even worse. Asian women had white husbands 3.08 times more often than Asian men had white wives. That means 75 percent of white-Asian couples featured a white husband and Asian wife.

That 3.08 ratio compared to the 2.54 ratio in 1990, which was based on a slightly different methodology, so readers should be cautious about assuming the trend is growing. (Oddly enough, the 1990 ratios for black-white and white-Asian marriages were mirror images of each other.)

In 2000, the white-Asian inequality was somewhat less severe among unmarried partners: 2.09 times as many white men cohabited with Asian women as Asian men cohabited with white women.

The inevitable flip side of the lack of interracial marital opportunities felt by black women and Asian men is that black men and Asian women find themselves more in demand as spouses.

Black-Asian couples, such as the one that produced golfer Tiger Woods, are still rare, but they are even more unbalanced than interracial pairings involving whites. There were 6.15 times more couples where the husband was black and the wife was Asian than where the husband was Asian and the wife black.

Few whites comprehend the impact on minorities of these interracial husband - wife disparities.

That&#39;s partly because whites don&#39;t intermarry all that much. While the number of interracial couples is steadily increasing, currently 96.5 percent of married non-Hispanic whites are wed to another non-Hispanic white.

Also, among whites, interracial marriage hasn&#39;t impacted one gender much more than the other. Although white women hunting for husbands, for example, suffer more competition from Asian women, they also enjoy increased chances to acquire a black mate. Thus, among non-Hispanic whites, for every 1,000 white women who are married, 1,006 white men are married. On a national level, this imbalance is close to imperceptible.

Although the bitterness that some black women feel over intermarriage is well known, the imbalance rests even more heavily on Asian-American men. For every 1,000 Asian women with husbands, only 860 Asian men had wives, leaving a large number of Asian bachelors left over. In contrast, for every 1,000 black women who were married, there were 1,059 black married men.

Black women, though, often argue that the most desirable black bachelors are likeliest to marry outside the race.

Looking at it another way, 18 percent of Asian wives have white husbands, while merely seven percent of Asian husbands have white wives.

Currently, six percent of black husbands are in an interracial marriage, compared to only two percent of black wives. (Fourteen percent of black men who are cohabitating without marriage have a white woman living with them, while only three percent of cohabitating black women live with a white man.)

In the many Internet chat rooms that debate what young Asians call "the dating disparity," most participants blame media stereotypes. More controversially, some observers have pointed to differences among the races in cultural standards of behavior, or even to average physical differences in height, hair length, muscularity, and the like.

The above numbers refer only to non-Hispanics.

Among people of Hispanic ethnicity (who can be of any race), there was little intermarriage imbalance. Hispanic women were 1.17 times more likely to have a non-Hispanic white husband than a Hispanic husband was to have a non-Hispanic white wife, but that difference is fairly small compared to what is seen among African-Americans and Asian-Americans.

A little under 18 percent of Hispanic wives are wed to non-Hispanics husbands, and a little over 15 percent of Hispanic husbands have non-Hispanic wives.

These data are not estimates, but are the actual counts of all 54,493,232 married couples in America as of April 1, 2000. So, they are extremely reliable. This enumeration is made once every 10 years. Only the decennial Census has enough respondents to accurately measure the various varieties of interracial marriage.

In contrast, the Census Bureau also releases annual Current Population Survey reports on "Families and Living Arrangements." These include cursory estimates of the numbers of interracial couples. These reports occasionally lead to the press filling up with excited comments about new trends in interracial marriage, but they are based on sample sizes too small to be trustworthy. For example, these annual CPS surveys have several times reported that the total number of white husband -- black wife married couples had increased or decreased by 30 percent in the latest year, which is clearly impossible. The last CPS report included this warning: "The Census Bureau cautions the public not to confuse these estimates, based on survey data collected in March 2000, with Census 2000 data."

http://www.isteve.com/2003_Census_Interrac..._Gender_Gap.htm

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Seems to me that those imbalances exist mostly because people prefer to date within their own race. Black women and Asian men only have trouble finding a mate if they&#39;re dead set on only dating black men and Asian women, respectively.

Therefore, I propose that intraracial marriage be banned. In a hundred years or so we&#39;ll pretty much have the same skin color and no one will care anymore. Right? Right? B)