black women & dating w/in peer group
generally, black people do not care if a black woman dates, marries, or bears children with a white guy! if she's an oreo or fake, then black people will dislike her and she'll look for solace with white people. she'll be trying so hard to "act white" that white people will be entertained and not fearful, while black people will recognize another oreo. black people don't care about the offspring 'cause the kids will be black by legal default. in contrast, whitey cares about black / white offspring 'cause their white genes / skin color and hair is lost forever. the prejudice that they (ie. white people) survive under and perpetuate will be directed towards their children's child and the white people know how bad / tough / burden it is to be black usa.
using hollywood icons as a litmus for interracial dating is fraudulent. in addition, all of the aforementioned actresses are of light or mixed breed with lighting and make-up.
on the other hand, a black usa guy who dates white girls is looked upon negatively mainly because the white girl is "trailer trash" and he's giving the money / financial mobility to the white man bypassing black people. sure the kids will be black by legal default, but they will be immersed in white man's land with the white girl, who knows 0% about oppression, being the trustee. also, black males dating white females after the 500 year legacy of lynching, sodomy, castration, etcetera lends bad feelings to those that would choose / encourage this behaivor.
white usa already doesn't want black usa to gain success or mobility and if it is acquired to reward a white girl with access is the black usa paradigm. again, the black male usually marries down (ie. trailer trash) although he too is from the black trailer park (ie. housing projects.)
black usa already knows about the subjugation of black males since the slavery days. divide the family with black male usa financial / occupational inferiority and he will become dislocated while she assume "single parent" status helping to enstill another generation of black family instability which leads to social ills and lack of social mobility. everyone knows this! hence, we understand the phenomenon, but with usa commercialization this fact is being repackaged under the guise that social mobility is available to everyone void race. example: professional athletics, o'bama, hollywood entertainment. in contrast, how many fortune 500 ceos are black usa; us federal government politicians; and other real advancements in the social structure.
in conclusion, black women know the game and only those that desire to be oreos or lacking in self-pride get confused. trying to be oreo looses white respect from the one's you are attempting to impress. and when you're not present, they continue laughing at you as do your black peers.
finding your peer group depends on your geographical location as well!
Image of Beauty & Strength
[QUOTE=Dickhead]I dunno but there has to be 20-25 times as many couples where he is black and she is white for every couple where he is white and she is black. That's gotta mean something.
I just have no idea what that something might be.[/QUOTE]
White women are marketed as being the symbol of beauty and therefore everyone wants what is marketed! For if you have what is marketed, then you gain social acclaim.
Black guys are marketed as the symbol of physical and sexual strength! For if you have what is marketed, then you gain social acclaim and physical intimidation with sexual lusts! The lack of social acclaim is provided, except for celebrity, due to envy, racism, and other fabrications.
Strength: For a race and gender to endure domestic-terrorism encompassing over 30 countries for 500 years, the perception of strength is realized. For a race and gender to "roll with the punches" until 1965 (ie. USA aparthied; 1988 South Africa Aparthied; 1990s Australia Aparthied) one is living proof of such strength (ie. physical, mental, emotional, economic.) Only racism and social ostracization can prevent such female attraction from being realized.
O'bama: Every organization needs a mascot! The Board of Directors / Senate make the actual decisions and they are ill-represented to ensure any real change / militant acts do not occur! Short Leach.
I can only speak for myself....
as a black man (not from a trailer park, or the "hood") date mostly white women but not exclusively, well almost but in reality that isn't true.
at my "middle class" peer group level (if you will, which contains the "working poor"), i have access to a wide range of women, especially in "liberal" california. i could date black women if i wanted too, i choose not too for a very narrow range of reasons.
if white women are the standard of beauty that everybody else is measured too, then call me naive for subconsciously feeling that might be true and running with it (western media doesn't help...)
that's not to say there aren't attractive black women, but ask any black man and he'll tell you, its a numbers game. if you demand an attractive black woman, by western standards, not african/south american standards then the pickings are quite slim.
i have dated and banged almost every color under the rainbow and the basic problems lie beneath; the same problems we outline in this forum at great lengths.
there are plenty of "hot" mixed black women all over the us that aren't famous and live quite the normal "life". i will agree with meat loaf that most bi-racial men tend to identify with their father's origins while bi-racial women tend to gravitate to their mother's origins or praise the ideal balance of being "both".
what i have seen with bi-racial males is that "street cred" is important now that urban culture has permeated (sp?) our society and to appeal to women, they tend to go down the "thug life" path. one of my very close friends, his brother is bi-racial (black father/white mother) and he's well, "kinda corny" even though he played football at the high school and college level (he's now a lawyer). that same friend's twin sister has a child that is bi-racial, but he's more black than white, since his father is bi-racial and his mother is black. he believes he's "black" though and there's no need to ask if he identifies with one more than the other. he know his father is half white and that his other mother (his father's wife) is white, so i'm sure he understands (plays football at utah state and 3.8 student) both sides.
the fact remains that black/black marriages is more likely to happen than black/other marriages in america. many blacks feel an obligation to marry within race for a narrow range of reasons, including "don't marry the white devil". but as i have said before there are quite a few interracial marriages in my immediate family and i could have quite possibly had a white stepfather and brother many years ago, it just didn't quite work out between them.
because of these factors, there are no raised eyebrows at family reunions as a result...
The Problem With Sex Offender Registries
By United States Of Jamerica
Posted on September 8, 2009, Printed on September 29, 2009
[url]http://www.wiretapmag.org/blogs/44488/[/url]
(This post originally appeared on US of J.)
The thing that bothers me most about this New York Times piece on the efficacy of sex offender alert programs is that it focuses on the efficacy of sex offender alert programs, and doesn't bother to raise any objections to the idea of a sex offender alert program itself.
Indeed, it's pretty much taken for granted that everyone wants some sort of program or registry that catalogs and monitors sex offenders. So, at the risk of sounding objectively pro-sex offender, I'm going to say that I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the idea of a sex offender alert program, and sex offender registries more generally.
The practical objections are pretty straightforward and are worth repeating. For starters, the definition of "sex offender" is impossibly broad and varies from state to state. In Virginia, for instance, a 16-year-old who has a sexual relationship with his 14-year-old girlfriend would "qualify" as a sex offender, due to Virginia law assigning sex offender status to anyone having sexual relations with someone under the age of 15.
And if, for whatever reason, he was arrested, prosecuted and convicted for having sex with his girlfriend, he would have earned himself a permanent spot on Virginia's sex offender registry. That's even a relatively benign example; in several states, crimes like public nudity or public urination warrant inclusion on a sex offender registry.
Unsurprisingly, this loose definition of sex offender has left us with a ridiculously high number of registered sex offenders. By the Economist's count (and I recommend that you read the whole article), there are 674,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S., and considering the huge range of crimes that warrant registration, there's no question that a plurality -- or even a majority -- of those are unfairly listed as sex offenders.
Which is made all the more problematic when you consider that sex offender registries often don't provide enough information for the reader to make a judgment on whether or not the person in question is actually dangerous.
It doesn't help that states continue to pass incredibly draconian sex offender laws. In Georgia, for example, registered offenders are barred from living within 1,000 feet of any area where children may gather, including schools, libraries, parks and other public recreation facilities. Furthermore, sex offenders are forbidden from even working within 1,000 feet of schools or childcare facilities.
The sheer number of restrictions associated with being a registered sex offender make it nearly impossible to carve out a life post-conviction and, in all likelihood, play a significant part in contributing to the high levels of homelessness among convicted sex offenders.
Now, it's worth saying that I understand why the public supports registering sex offenders; a significant number of those registered have committed terrible crimes against children, and it is important that parents can identify those offenders, considering the relatively high rate of recidivism among sex offenders.
That said, sex offender registration laws -- as currently constituted -- are mostly counterproductive. The downside of registering thousands of people for crimes like public nudity or streaking is that it becomes nearly impossible to monitor the offenders who pose an actual threat to children. What's more, the side-effects of harsh sex offender laws -- homelessness, joblessness, heightened anxiety and stress -- make it far more likely that serious sex offenders will commit further crimes out of desperation.
Trying to make life a little more comfortable for convicted sex offenders isn't exactly popular, but it's necessary. Condemning men and women -- most of whom have served their time in prison or on probation -- to a lifetime of severe restrictions is counterproductive and manifestly unfair. Sure, forcing sex offenders onto the streets or into the poorhouses might make us feel good, but it does absolutely nothing to help us build safe and strong communities.