White conservatives live in constant terror of black sexuality exhibit #9999999
At this rate I give Texas a month before they make interracial marriage illegal. Worst state in this cursed country.
Uhhhh there is absolutely publicly-owned land in Texas. There are national, state, and city parks. There are national and state wildlife areas.
Hi, I'm Amy Coney Barrett. Myself and 4 of my unelected collegues on the Supreme Court have reviewed this case. While personally we find the racism appalling, there is nothing in our divinely-inspired, perfect constitution that says a state cannot do this. Any previous rulings to similar issues were just judicial overreach. So we find in favor of allowing Texas to ban interracial marriage. But don't worry! All that has to happen is to get our zippy and effective US House, Senate, and President to agree to make a federal law that allows interracial marriage legal everywhere. Now admittedly, when we review that law we'll probably find that that's not a power explicitly outlined in the constitution for the federal government, so we'll probably strike that one down too. But you're not out of options! You can always pass a constitutional amendment! Shouldn't be too hard to get 75% of states to agree on something, even though a solid 50-60% of those states are fucking batshit crazy. I mean, it was only in the 1960s that any significant amendment has been made. How hard can it be?
Without looking it up first, guess what year Alabama legalized interracial marriage. And guess how many people voted against it when it did pass?
"HOW DARE YOU SAY WHITE PEOOLE ARE INHERENTLY RACIST AND THE SYSTEMS THAT GOVERN US WERE FORGED IN AND PERPETUATE THAT RACISM! Now excuse me while I make some phone calls and use the system to get you silenced for being black"
I think it's funny to make jokes about big black cock but I wonder if this weird pathology white people have about African American bodies and penises is indicative of some deeper existential anxiety they have. I have to wonder if having subcontracted out all of the work of actually building society has left the majority of suburban office drones and boat dealers feeling impotent. Their very existence hinges on the Negro™ (edit: we can define Negro as any member of the racialized underclass) not stepping out of line, and the Negro™ has readily demonstrated his capacity for industry and hardiness in the immense riches that his labour has brought this country. Is the White willingly to waste away under the hot Georgian sun toiling in an effort to build a better America? Most of the middle class in this country spends their time behind a desk, pancake asses deflating in the dearth of any substantive or meaningful labor. An African American man going out and "getting it how they live" is a blow to their idea of being rugged frontiersmen: They live their lives in quiet cowed submission to capital, and their revolutionary and anti authority rhetoric remains couched purely in the realm of make believe as they consistently fail to challenge any real power structures.
Their fear of Black sexuality is actually a sublimated fear of their own precarious position in the social hierarchy, constantly prodded by the masses who actually make the country run and those who are wealthy enough to live off the produce of the former.
(How did I do with my shitpost?)
Go back in time, you have white sharecroppers and white tenant farmers and white subsistence farmers and white laborers, but then you have an emerging monied white class that doesn't have to get their hands dirty
If you're in the antebellum south, if you're white and on the higher end of the petite bourgeoisie, you still see these muscular men, scarred and athletic and easily capable of wringing your neck, often enough to feel self-conscious... and these people are still alienated; they don't farm their own food, they didn't build their own railroads, everything they see has been provided for them by the labor of an enslaved black man
This isn't like feudalism or serfdom where lines can be drawn to cultural or ancestral similarity; this is having foundational work being done by someone you don't like who doesn't want to do it
Combine this with propaganda of black men being sexually indefatigable (hide your daughters), and you have a mentally precarious position of being supposedly superior yet not actually setting down the foundation of society as your narrative claims... and don't women like strong, tough, men who make things, who provide? See the 'nice guy' mindset of deserving love/sex just because you did the bare minimum of social nicety and how they seethe at the dating success of others; it's a self-described superiority that they know, deep down, can't survive in the real world
Add in getting fucked steamrolled by Sherman, so now every free black person you see is a reminder of your past military failures
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I assume cuckold pornography works along those lines: a rich yet impotent husband allows his wife to be fucked by someone else in order to satisfy her, so it's emasculating, yet simultaneously the cuckold can see himself as being a provider by allowing it to happen
But ultimately, that's the fear: even if racist whites dismiss black people as being inferior, they still fear black men as being a warrior race of Chads who are going to fuck all of the hottest women at their debutante balls
so it’s emasculating, yet simultaneously the cuckold can see himself as being a provider by allowing it to happen
he still has the power (because he's the one who allows the cucking), but is also cucked. I think that's the appeal.
and don’t women like strong, tough, men who make things, who provide?
Careful, assuming this is a rhetorical question, this is incel ideology.
Everything else is solid gold lmao
Sorry, what
This isn't "incel ideology"
Ask rightist women, ask leftist women, ask gay men, there are certain expectations
Now a leftist woman might say she values compassion and empathy and kindness and honesty and loyalty (as I do)... but that's only part of the equation
A man who sits around playing Fortnite and contributes nothing to the household isn't attractive, no matter how kind he is or how much he can quote Lenin or how good he is at eating pussy
There's a reason why the stubbled warrior who builds a log cabin is sexualized and the bloodless accountant isn't
Although what you say "sounds" correct, it is only because we were both raised in the same cultural/media environment. These are archetypes for the "expectations" of the masculine, and may not necessarily reflect reality.
To determine whether this is "correct" or not, we would have to survey every single woman on earth, since women as a group are not a monolithic hivemind who all share the same preferences. To assume so is to fall prey to part of incel thought. I know for a fact that some women value submissiveness within men. Furthermore, the traditional, conservative role of the male provider is changing due to shifting material conditions. The phenomenon of house husbands is an increasing trend.
Also, to assume women are arbiters of worth for masculinity via their sexual preferences is the second part of the trap.
we would have to survey every single woman on earth, since women as a group are not a monolithic hivemind who all share the same preferences.
True, but in the same way if I were to say "people enjoy sex," of course there will be outliers who don't
Then again, I think we're getting our messages mixed here, the hypothetical Antebellum petit bourgeois asshole has very narrow and strict idea of strength/toughness/etc.
And it's one of those weird things: a woman might value submissiveness in a man, but would she value it more or less if he was physically stronger than her? Does the idea of a strong and capable and muscled warrior submitting entice more than that of a lanky gamer bro submitting?
I don't have a PhD in sexology so I don't know
True, but in the same way if I were to say “people enjoy sex,” of course there will be outliers who don’t
False analogy. Seeking to enjoy sex is a hardcoded biological response within all humans who are not asexual. The specific preferences as to which "type" of individual is desirable, however, is born out of other factors related to sociocultural material conditions, and is probably unique to each person.
a woman might value submissiveness in a man, but would she value it more or less if he was physically stronger than her? Does the idea of a strong and capable and muscled warrior submitting entice more than that of a lanky gamer bro submitting?
Idk some people find the idea of dominating a "stronger" partner attractive, some people want to be the stronger partner who dominates a "weaker" partner. Some people find muscles attractive, some people don't. Its all up to the individual, with things like this, as they are subjective 'truths'.
the hypothetical Antebellum petit bourgeois asshole has very narrow and strict idea of strength/toughness/etc.
Yes that is why this person is a fascist/incel. The traditional conservative conception of masucline strength was never based on material reality or higher virtue related to social responsibility in the face of "god". Their conceptions of masculinity are all related to being the ideal male worker in a competitive market framework, which trickled down from the capitalist elite.
The specific preferences as to which “type” of individual is desirable, however, is born out of other factors related to sociocultural material conditions, and is probably unique to each person.
No doubt, but given what material conditions have been since humanity's appearance 300,000 years ago, a 'softcoded' preference for a strong provider of a partner made sense in retrospect; men can be violent and unpredictable and a reliable food surplus wasn't guaranteed, so having a loyal partner who is capable of violence and resource acquisition seems a decent idea; as time goes on and civilization refines, that need for a killer on your side goes away, but the cultural inertia from those prior conditions continues onward
I say 'softcoded' because maybe humanity did evolve into certain preferences, but these preferences could just as easily evolve away (eventually) as material conditions change. Example: the preference for tall men (seems like this is exaggerated in Europe/American compared to everywhere else for some reason). Makes sense 300,000 years ago, maybe, but now with heights increasing and food/nutrient availability, that preference is becoming a holdover, and given how heights over 6.5ft. lead to joint problems, back pain, increased cancer risk, heart issues, blood clots, banging head on doorframes, .etc it becomes counterintuitive
Some things are even softer than softcoding and are purely about material conditions; pale skin was valued because it was associated with not having to labor, now a nice even tan is valued because it means you have the time to hit the beach and aren't stuck in a cubicle. Further preferences are residue from settler-colonialism or just extrapolations of class relations (India's caste system, etc.)
Men being fascinated with curvy women and women's preferences briefly changing during ovulation makes sense evolutionary, sure, despite being unnecessary now, but how much of that 'softcoding' is over-reinforced by culture? I don't know
Their conceptions of masculinity are all related to being the ideal male worker in a competitive market framework, which trickled down from the capitalist elite.
That seems... recent. I think it's more that culturally-approved traits trickle down from the ruling class in general--feudal lords to their knights (chivalry, etc.), Greek leaders to their hoplites, etc. in order to maintain control. What we see in the past 200 years is just the newest iteration
I'm not a biologist, so this is just me throwing petri dishes of DNA at a wall and seeing what happens
... I still feel like we're talking about slightly different things, tell me if I'm not responding well here
I remember an interview with Dollph Lungren where he refered to Kimbo Slice as a "big Black man", even though they're basically the same height.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/black-men-larger-study-trnd/index.html
Then you find out that people literally perceive Dark-skinned men to be taller than they actually are
I remember the media justifying the shooting of Mike Brown by talking up how big and scary he was and now I'm angry all over again
oh yeah, apparently he had superhuman strength and was "like a demon"
apparently the cop arresting him was the same fucking size lmao
they were both like 6'2 and 220ish~
imagine being such an enormous pussy you get your shit fucking rocked by a literal teenager despite like two decades of experience and training
Dark skin also makes muscle bodies look more prominent - that's why bodybuilders slather on fake tan when they go on stage - which further contributes to the "powerful Other" stereotype.
For example, it is shameful if your daughter marries a black guy but the parents would be proud if she marries a white guy.
I'm sure the white part is due to recent colonialist propaganda. Doubt that would be something to be proud of in 12th century China.
does it? I feel like the nature of the prejudices, kinks, common sexual mores, etc are just different in different cultures.
It's selecting a suggested video from inside the article.
To get to the article you have to click on the link itself.
If you use noscript, it defaults to the html only article, loads perfectly
Is this the high school principal or did Dallas do it again?
I got confused by the m&m ad and I thought you were making a joke based off of it
