Should interracial marriages be allowed?

[opebo]

So, has our society evolved since then; or are parts of our nation still living in the dark ages?  What say you?

Yes:

[opebo]

Didn't you say once you would like to f**ck a Filipina chick because lots of them are hot?

That's another main reason for it, all those hot Filipinas and Latinas.

I didn't say anything bad about doing them, did I? That's different from marrying one and having kids.

Every time you make a deposit, an offspring can result - marriage has nothing to do with it.  You're a rather hypocritical racist.  Is that worse or better than a non-hypocrite racist?

Speaking along these same lines, is it then acceptable in your view that your lily-white sister experiment with some better-hung races as long she settles down with a white husband in the end?

[opebo]

I'm not sure I can explain angus' fixation on "white trash," I certainly don't consider myself such. I never said you were either, merely that white-black marriages are usually between lower-class people (thus the 'white trash' description). White-asian relationships are not characterized in that way, in fact, probably the opposite. I consider the latter to be much more tolerable than the former.

I think the main point made by the use of 'white trash' is that in our heirarchical, economically oppressive society, most whites occupy virtually the same position as blacks do - working class.  Only a tiny minority of whites are the ruling class.

As for white-asian being less offensive to you than white-black, why do you think that is?  Is it because asian males threaten your sexual insecurities less?  By the way, you never responded about your sister - is it OK if she merely dabbles with the black snake for fun, as long as she does't settle down, marry, and reproduce with one?  Or do you have a double standard for genders as well as races?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, favoring likeness is most normal?  That would make homosexuality the norm.  Also, it would suggest that ugly and fat people would prefer their fellow undesirables.  As we all know, everyone finds the same top few percent of the sexual heirarchy attractive, and race or one's own appearance has nothing to do with it.

[opebo]

You're deranged, not to mention a pervert. Don't actually expect me to respond to your spittle.

What do you mean by 'pervert'?  Someone who finds persons of another race attractive? 

I didn't mean to defame your lily-white sister, only to inquire as to whether your implied acquiescence to merely recreational sex with the 'mud-peoples' meant that she could avail herself of something a bit beefier than standard Master Race endowment?  Just for fun.  As long as she used birth control and married a cracker afterwards.  She could always do Kegels..

[opebo]

I personally wouldn't date a black woman

Why ever not?!

[opebo]

Don't assume blacks have AIDS.  What is your sister dating a black guy?  If so, TOO BAD!  GET OVER IT!  I personally wouldn't date a black woman, but have no problem if others do.  opebo is not wrong here.

Of course she's not. It was all hypothetical...

Are you sure?  She could be sneaking out at night!  Better keep her in the house and put a burkha on her just to make sure - you wouldn't want to have to lynch some buck, might damage your bright future.

[opebo]

I agree with walter.  Opebo has a brunette fetish that seems superficially similar to my own.

Actually in spite of my gluttonous intake of asian delights these days, all my serious girlfriends from back in the States were WASPs, not so terribly different from me.  I think my 'type' is the waif or ectomorph, so skinny Wasps or asians will do just fine for me.

That might be another criticism of AuH2O's views - body type has more to do with attraction than race, any day.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm curious about this - I have had some, though not a lot, and was not impressed.  The few freebies I had were.. well just average.. and the paid experiences were decidedly worse than similar engagements with other racial types.

[opebo]

I personally wouldn't date a black woman

Why not?!

I probably wouldn't myself, but it's really just a personal preference as I usually don't find them as attractive as Asians, Latinas and most ethnicities of whites. Now for a particularly hot one such as a certain stripper here that definately wouldn't be the case.

Oh, well I do have to admit that is generally the case with me as well.  But I wouldn't make any blanket statement that I would never date a black, just because I find my 'type' amoung asians, latinas, and whites more often.

[opebo]

how many races have you had opebo? every one? also latinas? you said once you wanted to go to south america but haven't yet. any filipinas ever? That'd be great! how about native americans? my first "girlfriend" was one (of course we were only 8, lol)

Yes I know for sure I had one Puerto Rican girl back in St. Louis and she was great!  Come to think of it she was sort of half black half latin, like many carribean and brazillian girls.  And I've been to the Philippines several times, good times.  No never had a native american but I definitely want to try.

To be honest so far my most intense PSE has been with regular upper-middle class white American girls.

[opebo]

PR is not a race.  Yeah, that's the good free black pussy I was talking about too.  (well, I actually I was referring to a Dominicana, or what the New Yorkers call Spanish n, but, and I don't mean to be insensitive, I do think those two island cultures are somewhat similar.)

Oh, ok, well that was a fantastic experience, but I always thought of her as a latina, not black.  I tend to think more in terms of language/culture than race, but I suppose she was about 1/2 african.  Anyway, it was only $40 (in the car!), met her through a telephone dating line.  When I called back a week later for another go, her boyfriend yelled at me!  That was the end of that.

[opebo]

The results vary, from higher criminality to less investment and saving (i.e. more consumer spending). In other words, even law-abiding and affluent blacks exhibit the same characteristics ON THE WHOLE-- certainly there are many exceptions.

These characteristics are the result of being a subject people - in other words of a politically and socially defined racial role, rather than any inherent racial difference.  Any violence blacks commit - especially against whites - is simply a sort of thrashing about of the victim under the bootheel.  He may not accomplish much, but you can't really blame him for thrashing.

[opebo]

1) You make an assumption that is a big no-no: genes don't affect culture. IF they do, then it is not a valid defense to talk about rappers-- the violent rhetoric actually represents genetic tendency, not random cultural developments.

Whites are far, far more violent than blacks, as evidenced by their history.  Keep in mind that individual whites need not commit violence in America, as all of the violence that the State commits is perpetrated on their behalf and in their interests (or rather, in the interest of the top 1 or 2 percent of whites).

[opebo]

IF blacks are genetically more prone to violence, as we are looking at, then THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THEIR CULTURE.

Perhaps so, but your definition of violence is a very narrow one.  Keep in mind that White violence is perpetrated less by individuals and more by the apparatus of the State, which they control.  Or at least the top 2% control.  The situation is almost exactly analagous to the Isreali/Palestinian situation, in which the arabs bombings are termed terrorism, while the nearly indistinguishable acts by the Jewish state are not. 

[opebo]

But that's essentially libertarianism, and its logical conclusion leads to legalized bestiality, sex-slavery, and the like.  Since I don't condone some of those things, I am left to conclude that mine is a moralistic view, at least in part.  Perhaps I am mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken about libertarianism - its chief tenet is that force should not be used to interfere with individuals freedom, unless they use that freedom to interfere with others.  So libertarianism would be very much for using the power of the state to prevent 'sex-slavery', if such a thing exists.

It probably would tolerate bestiality, however.

Obviously advocates of freedom of marriage are the individualists, and advocates of limits on marriage, or any other private voluntary interaction, are the 'moralists' (AKA intolerants).

[opebo]

If such a thing exists?!  I have never questioned your sincerity on this fourm, Ind I'd expect you not to question mine.  As I have posted before, there were a number of documented cases of slavery in the united states and other OECD countries over the past several years.  Over a hjndred in the US alone.  And more than 99% of those cases are "sexual" slavery cases.  In fact, outside of the african continent, most slavery convictions are sexual in nature.  The UN keeps a very user-friendly database of this sort of thing.

As for libertariansism, I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that it is about individual freedom.  If I want to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc., it can be argued that these are libertarian positions.  But the moralist would obviously argue that it is exploitation of that kid who I have selling coke on the corner, or exploitation of that young woman (or man) selling the body on the street, even if she (or he) doesn't realize that she is being exploited.  This idea of government non-interference versus government interference has been the subject of debates over abolition of slavery, prohibition of alcohol, criminalization of bestiality, and the like.  If you want to debate these points, that's one thing.  But to claim that these debates don't exist, or to claim that modern sex-slavery doesn't exist, is offensive for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you are basically saying that I'm making stuff up.  That's really not the proper etiquette in reasonable debate.

The 'if such a thing exists' comment was not the main thrust of my post, obviously.  It was merely a rhetorical flourish to remind you that I believe that nearly all prostitution is voluntary,and that such 'sex slavery' is exceedingly rare.

But I think my point holds, that critiquing private behaviour such as consensual sex or marriage based on race, gender, or whether money was exchanged is clearly the 'moralist' position.  I consider all moralists, moral absolutists, and religious to be the problem with the world - they're nothing but freedom-hating intolerants.

[opebo]

BUMP.

What do you think of these photos AuH20?