Appropriate sexual behavior

That is a blatant false dichotomy.

How many actual sexual encounters have you been watching over the past 20 years? Notice any changing at all?

I have had the privileged of over-viewing a great deal of social and private behaviors. I have a list of Black men who could not get white women off their minds. One even expressed that he would go so far as to even join the Christian Church if they would set him up with a white woman (I imagine that any would do). Just watch any Sports channel.

But I an not going to debate THIS one with you Carleas. This isn’t Relativity. This is blatant social engineering right in front of your eyes (with the exception that you have already noticed that your news is being filtered).

This is one where you merely have to start looking for yourself. Debating it will not change your mind a bit. GO LOOK at the Media for real, not with your biases.

Carleas, you and most accept it all because you were first hypnotized into the notion that it is a good thing (those evil injustices of the past)and that it is necessary and good to do sneaky and bad things as long as you get good from it. Thus you overlook it quite willingly.

It’s called “being duped”.

Total interracial marriage went from ~9% to ~17% in that that time, so “increased by 50%” could certainly be true, but hides the fact that a 50% increase on small percentage of marriages is still a small percentage of marriages.

Here’s some data on that trend, noting that the rise of online dating plays a role, and pointing out that each interracial couple tends to create a community that fosters more interracial pairings, by bringing together racially diverse communities. The best-fit story seems to be that as people have the opportunity to meet and socialize with people of other races, more interracial coupling happens. No need for hypnosis etc. to explain it.

Unless you’ve been hypnotized, in which case you need to give up, start being more careful, etc.

Couplings that produce offspring have little to do with marriage in this day and age, so no one but you is talking about marriage. Black/white swirls who reproduce don’t tend to marry…multiple babies from multiple daddies is a newer trend.

I believe what is being talked about is that under global neo liberalism where multiculturalism is tantamount that is anti white to its core in ideology there is a phenomenon of social engineering taking place that revolves around encouragingly disrupting all cultural, racial, or ethnic cohesion where white men are at the brunt of this. As an ideology that is anti white the best possible means of getting rid of white males is by assaulting or disrupting the sexual selection of white women that are the reproducers.

An increase of interracial relationships by 50% of the population illustrates the success of this campaign of social engineering in eliminating cultural, racial, and ethnic cohesion of said host population. The hypnosis of a massive social engineering campaign one would look at the controlled influence of mass media in particular television broadcast which in itself is a very powerful influencer of the human mind publicly. In this way popular media can be used subversively.

  1. Most kids are still born in marriages (40% are born out of wedlock, and less than 30% of kids born to white mothers; see here), so the statistics about marriage still give us some insight.
  2. Trends in marriage are likely to mirror trends in other coupling, especially if the indoctrination that’s being claimed in this thread is happening.
  3. James’ claims here are about attractiveness, and again I propose that marriage is a fair proxy to tell us what people find attractive.
  4. As we’ve discussed before, saying some data isn’t good enough does not support your position. If you have better data, present better data. Until then, the best data we have shows that…

Just to clarify, because I feel like this is being overstated, we’re talking about 50% of the population of interracial relationships, which was low to begin with. If X is true of 10% of relationships, and it increases by 50%, it’s still the case the X is not true for 85% of relationships.

As for “eliminating…cohesion”, I think the cohesion was always more familial than racial or ethnic, and in the past family was pretty strongly correlated with race and ethnicity. So the decoupling of family from race looks like a breakdown of that cohesion, but the cohesion was never actually racial, it was just incidentally racial.

Culture I think is different, because people from different racial backgrounds can be part of the same culture. Black and white college graduates are likely to be more culturally similar than a white college graduate and a white high school dropout, and even more so than a white urban American and a white rural Russian.

All of this is a bit off topic though, no? This thread used to be about what’s appropriate sexual behavior, does any of this tie back? How did this get to be another thread about white genocide?

Appropriate sexual behavior in 2017-2018 is for all modern males to cut your dick off and become a woman.

Otherwise you are guilty of sexual harassment and/or rape.

One example:

More: dailymail.co.uk/news/article … SE-4K.html .

I have never been in an interracial relationship, although I am not opposed to the idea

While I personally don’t think an interracial relationship is inherently inappropriate, I do think that some people that engage in one may be particularly sexually interested in the inappropriateness of an interracial relationship as suggested by society/parents (E.g. getting off because its “wrong” or “inappropriate”)

I would think people (maybe moreso men) would want this. I don’t think most people want to offend anyone, and I do think people want to do (engage in a sexual behavior) something if it helps him/her satisfy sexual needs… Not that sex is the only deciding factor in ones actions.

Although, it may be in a persons interest (maybe moreso women) to keep things fuzzy on purpose, supporting an idea of “what can I get in exchange for sex?” or “I’m not in the mood now but I can get treated well until I am so interested”. I also think some people get off to frustrating their partners. I usually don’t oblige when a woman attempts this approach with me, maybe I’d get laid more if I acquiesced to jumping through hoops with no guarantee of reciprocity

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXpFtwYIKew[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c2KoWddKD4[/youtube]

Of course, this very simple and consensual approach to sex is deemed as inappropriate as well (prostitution)

I do agree with your post though

Sorry, missed this earlier. About those 20%, I would say that, since 80% still don’t, it remains true that “white women do not in general prefer black men.”

Counterexample: single white mother of a mixed-race boy who raised him well working multiple low-wage jobs and he became president of the US.

Anecdotes are not a good way to arrive at general positions. I hope that you don’t take that example as supporting any general belief (other than some trivial belief like “not all single white mothers of mixed race babies are doing the best job of parenting”)

I imagine that is true for “some” people, but I think the rate is much lower than it’s made out to be. I don’t have direct evidence for that belief (and I don’t know how we could in practice get reliable evidence one way or the other), but my own experience of coupling is that it is most often not so performative as it is experiential. I also observe that people who don’t know anyone outside their own race see people of other races as much more ‘exotic’ than do people who are intimately familiar with people of another race (and so the former are likely to see exoticism as the salient characteristic in an interracial coupling, while the latter, who include people in mixed-race relationships, are not).

[Edit: clarity]

Well yeah, that’s one aspect of the power play. If you combine “What’s appropriate depends on myriad unique circumstances and can’t be systematized” with the fact that the cultural gatekeepers tend to be all of one ideology that despises men and masculinity, and the result is that any male that needs to be shamed and removed from the scene is guaranteed to have done something wrong. This week, asking out a woman after buying her a drink is rape, next week refusing to be alone with any woman other than your wife is misogyny.

So now it seems like the rule is “Don’t worry, if a woman from 10 years in your past eventually decides it’s to her advantage to declare something you did is inappropriate, she’ll be sure to let you and the rest of the world know through Twitter”.

If a person were to actually make an effort to pin down what’s appropriate and what isn’t, they would lose some of their power to control the culture. I employed that same tactic here, of course, I’m very familiar with it; if you declare that the boundary is 5, people’s behavior will gravitate to 4.9999. By not drawing a boundary, you retain absolute authority to rule capriciously or by instinct.

Out in the real world, though, the people using this method don’t have any fair claim to authority.

We do not any longer have ‘complex social rules’. We have enforced, intentional arbitrariness designed to keep people perpetually under the gun.

The lack of a precise definition isn’t (just?) that it suits people politically. It is also clearly not as politically powerful as it’s made out of be. It is clearly inconvenient for Democrats that probably most of their male representatives have done something in the past that would make headlines in this climate. And it clearly isn’t so inconvenient for Republicans that they will pressure Trump to resign or fail to endorse Roy Moore.

I agree the so-called “weaponized #MeToo” is a thing, and we’re likely to see more of it going forward, but I don’t think it’s prevalence in the press and on Twitter reflects its prevalence in the average person’s life. I expect opposite sex interactions at bars to be roughly what opposite sex interactions at bars have always been (hopefully someone has been studying such interactions so we get a picture of the changes over time). If that’s right, then the keeping-people-under-the-gun theory doesn’t work, because most people just aren’t affected. For most women accusing most men, sexual harassment is as much of a non-story as it always has been.

Something that seems pretty clear about “appropriateness”, which isn’t usually said because it’s inconvenient for how appropriateness is being used at the moment, is that appropriateness is cultural. Appropriateness depends on social expectations and taboos, and those can differ across time and populations to make an awful lot of behavior contingent. That’s a problem for a highly multicultural society like the US, and for evaluating actions that took place several decades ago.

Become a serious expert at defining precisely what you really mean for a limit, and that doesn’t happen.

I didn’t say anything about Democrats v Republicans. Yes, clearly a batch of radical leftists even further out in looney-toons land are taking a scorched earth policy to the DNC and using it to further there “All men are horrible, masculinity must be purged” agenda. It may backfire- it may be that as the left eats itself they lose power.

Deciding not to care and not to apologize is how you fight this power play, and that’s relatively new. It’s only ‘not so inconvenient for Republicans’ because Trump is Trump. If it were anybody else, it would have worked like a charm. So yeah, you get the rise of a new political class that gains steam on dismissing feminism and what the left in general has to say.

But what good does any of this do me? I can still be expelled from college because a woman from a couple years ago decides she regrets having sex with me.

The average person isn’t a target; I mean, unless a woman decides she needs some money or attention.

You’re conflating the tactic with the effectiveness. Yes, the men and women at a bar in Nebraska don’t really care what some feminist on Twitter says about stare-rape, manspreading, mansplaining, or any of other various things that are evil when man does them. But that’s just because a very small percentage of the population is going to college or in their 20’s at any one point in time. Just because the far left isn’t as effective at steering culture by the nose as they wish they were doesn’t mean the tactics aren’t the way I described them, yeah?

I don’t disagree with any of this. But this is just an argument for why you don’t destroy somebody’s life because they misunderstood appropriateness. If you’re going to do things like have college star chamber courts determining a guy’s future over a rumor, or pressure a Senator into resigning because apparently he touched a woman’s butt in a flirtatious way in 1974, then you are obligated to formalize what is and is not appropriate- lives are at stake! Yes, that’s difficult in the kind of America the left has created- perhaps impossible. But that’s just another problem with with their worldview. In the meantime they get to ruin anybody’s life they want because ‘it’s complicated’.

Most of this bullshit is attention-seeking sensationalism, designed to rile Normies up, even though it doesn’t really work. People are sick and tired of “fake news”. And these harassment claims are more fake news. Feminists and radical liberal-left is crying wolf. They’re crying for too long. So when the wolf does come, and a woman truly gets raped, then people are going to discount that. Real rape is rare, anyway, and that’s a good thing. But the radical liberal-left are causing more damage to women in general. Because as mentioned, it lessens of the impact of when real women are really raped.

The liberal-left should be ashamed of themselves.

The big problem with Sensationalist Fake News agencies is that they are giving a microphone to the bottom 1%. People claim to be against the top 1% but they should rethink the bottom 1%. These people need their microphones taken away. I don’t mean “discount raped women”. But I do mean discount fake-raped and fake-harassed women. There’s a difference between real and fake sexual assaults.

Women claiming that their boyfriend “raped” them are part of the fake sexual assault category. The onus and responsibility is on YOU, dumb women, who choose miscreants to socialize and mate with. Only women can “solve” the problem of fake rape and harassment. Women discount themselves entirely when they say “my boyfriend” or “my husband” raped me. Then why the fuck did you start a relationship with them to begin with? “But I didn’t know what they were really like at the start!” Not a good enough excuse. If you don’t want boyfriend-rape or husband-rape then you should enhance your dating and mate-screening processes.

Women want “equality” right? Then gain some moral responsibility! Quit blaming others except yourself! The myth of the “independent woman” is shattered when feminism and other nihilistic ideologies keep parading how ‘victimized’ they are.

Want to know how best not to be a “victim”? Learn to defend yourself. Stand up to your bullies. Quit being cowards.

This cowardice-driven society and culture is reaching the limit. The “victims” are slowly unveiling themselves as the real bullies.

Real victims are being hurt by this modern victim-politicking. They’re being discounted by fake-victims.

Real news throughout the world is buried under a mountain of Fake News.

One of the greatest accomplishments of the Trump presidency and movement is starting a fire and clearing out the brush of all this Fake News.

Real rape victims (woman battered and raped by a stranger in an alleyway) are being discounted and insulted by fake-rape victims ("my ex-boyfriend had sex without my permission, 10 years ago, but I’m coming out about it now).

I mean, Roy Moore has been credibly accused of attempted forcible rape. I agree that there’s a hysteria going on, but not every allegation brought to light during a hysteria is without merit.

I actually do think the affect of time and culture on appropriateness is relevant for Roy Moore, since courting teenagers when he was doing it was not so far beyond the pale as it is today. But forcible rape is a different thing, and “deciding not to care and not to apologize” seems obviously unprincipled. The way you fight it is by expressly distinguishing between (1) credible accusations of criminal conduct and (2) decades late complaints that maybe a senator putting his hand on stranger’s waist was a tad familiar.

It would be one thing if the right were as condemning of the mobs attacking Franken and Conyers as they are of the mobs attacking Trump and Moore, but I see glee about the former and indignation only when it starts threatening the tribe.

And, to the extent there is a need to articulate clearly the bounds of appropriateness, why is it only on people claiming that something was inappropriate? It doesn’t seem like a legitimate move to respond to a credible accusation of forcible rape that the right thing to do is to decide not to care and not to apologize because no one’s provided a clearly articulated description of the boundary for what’s appropriate. Is anyone’s disputing that forcible rape is across any reasonable line we could draw? We agree there’s a boundary, we agree certain things are on either side of it, we fight the weaponization of these accusations by acknowledging and responding to those things, and having debates about the things in between.

I would say you’re inferring a tactic from an effect. The wave of accusations right now are a mix of good faith outrage at actual articulable harms and bad faith tribal bandwagoning. My impression of people who participated in the #MeToo thing was that it was mostly about good faith solidarity in sharing episodes that are genuinely painful to experience and relive. I don’t get the impression that most of them were motivated by a general hatred of men or masculinity (most were heterosexual women, many in relationships with men), except insofar as masculinity sometimes celebrates doing cruel or indifferent things to women. Doing that all at once may have the effect of over-policing normal masculinity/heterosexual male sexuality, and of providing cover and force for bad faith accusations, but that doesn’t mean that the majority of what’s going on is intended to do that.

I’d argue this is part of a larger class of phenomena where most individual-level choices are in good faith and ethical and permitted, but when a lot of people all make that same individual-level choices, there are emergent harms. I think it’s reasonable to point to those harms to encourage individuals to reevaluate the balance of harms of their choices, but for most individuals it is probably the case that their individual choice doesn’t add enough to the emergent harm to make a difference, and rational and moral and fully justified choice is to do exactly what they’re doing. It’s a collective action/commons problem. What’s your take on that?

This argument is so tragically wrong. The whole point of dating before marriage is to get a better idea of who a person is. And plenty of people who date before marriage do so without having sex with their partners, and with the express understanding that sex will be reserved until marriage (though this is obviously a small and decreasing share of the total). Dating is not tantamount to consenting to any and all sex with a person; people retain their autonomy and their ability to consent or deny consent even into marriage.

We don’t even entertain this standard for any other kind of crime. Imagine telling the family of a guy murdered by his crazy girlfriend that it’s his own fault because he should have been more careful about who he dated. Or someone who was robbed or defrauded, or really any other generally accepted wrong. If we agree that it’s wrong to rape someone, then we should agree that it’s wrong to rape someone you’re in a relationship with.

Of course we can plug the fact that two people are dating into the mens rea of rape, so that we’re more likely to infer consent and presume consent in cases where we might not for strangers (e.g. intoxication, rough sex). But that’s very different from saying the whole concept is incoherent. It’s OK to hit a boxer in the ring, but not with a two-by-four. And it’s OK to have sex with your drunk horny wife, but not OK to pin her down and force her when she tells you she doesn’t want it. That’s a clear distinction.

I agree with the sentiment that society and culture must push harder to the Right, with religious conservatism. If sex-before-marriage was explicitly discouraged or punished then ex-boyfriend rape would plummet. There is a strong correlation to liberal-leftist degenerate values, promiscuous sex, and fake rape. It’s much more clear-cut, obviously wrong, and real rape when women are taken advantage of in a conservative-right society. Right-ism knows how to value and protect women. Left-ists do not.

That’s a false analogy.

Women should be blamed, in general, for poor dating choices and failed male screening process. If a woman chooses to date murderers and rapists then that is HER CHOICE. Women and liberal-leftists can’t have it both ways. Either women are self-responsible, or, they’re not. How much babying and coddling is owed to modern women?

You’re basically saying that a woman who CHOOSES to date a drug dealer, gets hooked on meth, is innocent when she winds up dead or in the hospital. That’s wrong.

No it’s not a “clear distinction”.

Traditionally marriage, and today modern extra-marital relationships, imply sexual consent on behalf of the male. When two people are “dating” it’s presumed they’re sexually engaged (in modern liberal left terms). Or when two people are married it’s implied they’re having sex. It’s only recent, and a fad, that modern-liberal-left-feminists are saying that “everything is rape and harassment”. Technically, traditionally, court and general society would discount and ignore such outrageous claims that “my ex-boyfriend raped me 10 years ago”.

You’re ignoring the fact that women need some self-respect and accountability. The further society goes, trying to maintain that “all women are innocent angels”, the more damage is going to be done. Women cannot seriously claim “to be respected” while wallowing in such victimhood. Quit being a victim. Defend yourself. Quit fucking drug dealers, murderers, criminals, and rapists.

Oh, but you see, women will continue to do so anyway.