[Easy E]

Don't want to start a race thread, but I read this really interesting article in the LA times and though it deserved discussion. Plus, it is only tangentially related to race, so I guess it isn't too controversial. It is more about another reason why the marriage rate is probably falling in America.

Interracial couples increasingly common, though many aren't marrying

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-adv-...1986.story

Quote:

More Americans are forming serious relationships across lines of race and ethnicity, moving in with or marrying people who check a different box on their census form. Married or unmarried, interracial couples were more than twice as common in 2012 than in 2000, U.S. Census Bureau data show.

Yet not all kinds of relationships are as likely to cross those lines. Racially and ethnically mixed couples are much more common among Americans who are living together, unmarried, than those who have tied the knot, a Census Bureau analysis released last week shows.

Last year, 9% of unmarried couples living together came from different races, compared with about 4% of married couples. The same gap exists for Latinos — who are not counted as a race by the Census Bureau — living with or marrying people who aren't Latino.

I was actually expecting the rates to be higher, but I guess it is because I mostly know the dating world and not serious couples who live together or are married. Still, only 9% of of couples that live together and 4% of married couples are interracial. That is still pretty low, especially considering how everyone thinks we live in a melting pot. I guess it makes sense when you consider that most of the country is still somewhat segregated by race to a certain extent. The article also tries to speculate as to why there is a difference in the co-habitation rate versus the married rate.

Quote:

Earlier studies have shown that even among younger couples, Americans are more likely to cross racial lines when they move in together than when they marry. Scholars are still puzzling over why, musing that interracial couples may face added barriers to marrying — or may be less impatient to do so.

Some researchers believe the numbers are tied to continued challenges for interracial and interethnic couples in gaining acceptance from friends and family. Marriage can bring family into the picture — and stir up their disapproval — in ways that rooming together does not...

...Many older Americans, especially whites, are still uneasy about interracial marriage, a Pew Research Center study released three years ago showed. Only about half of white respondents ages 50 to 64 said they would be fine with one of their relatives marrying someone of any other race or ethnicity.

I think they kind of throw white people under the bus with the quote above because there is resistance to marrying someone of another race for most races in this country, especially when you poll older people. Either way, there still is some resistance there and it is real, so there is no point trying to hide it. I myself couldn't think of any other reasons for the discrepancy between interracial couples that live together and interracial married couples, so I guess their explanation is probably right.

[Sonsowey]

Overall the numbers are low, but for instance something like 40-50% of Asian women marry non-Asian men, usually white men. And Asian guys, about 20-30% of them marry non-Asians (again usually whites).

Also categories like "black" and "hispanic" are so ridiculous and mixed up as to be meaningless. Most "black" people in the U.S. have 20-60% European genetics, but are just classed as "black" because whatever, they have curly hair or African facial features.

Latinos can be 100% European descent, 100% African descent, or 100% Indigenous descent. Hell there are millions of Asian "Latinos" in Peru and Brazil.

Categories like "black" and "hispanic" in the U.S. are not really instructive in terms of true race, they're more social categories. Not that "race" doesn't exist, but "black" people in the U.S. are by no means 100% Sub-Saharan African, it's a politically created community. For instance, growing up in a white suburban community, I would call most Dominican people "black" instinctively because they look black. Try to call a Dominican black in person though, they probably will not like it. They see much finer grades of racial disctinction than we do, which is really closer to the reality in racially mixed societies.

That's probably really why more inter-racial couples don't marry, because they're from different communities all together and just have different cultures really. It shouldn't surprise anyone that black people who grew up in majority white areas are much more likely to marry whites than are blacks who grew up in majority black areas. Just a matter of different cultural norms.

[Kabal]

All else equal, girls prefer to date within their own race.

Women have their sexual reputations to protect. If you're a high quality chick (re: highly attractive) why risk it by going for someone outside of the tribe?

I mostly see 8+s with members of their own race. Dorky white guys may pull Asian 6s en masse, but I often see Asian 8s with fresh-off-the-boat-looking dudes. White 7-8s seem to rather pair up with non-descript white guys than square up with a fly black or Asian guy... and the research corroborates this observation:

Quote:

The results are striking. An African-American man would have to earn $154,000 more than a white man in order for a white woman to prefer him. A Hispanic man would need to earn $77,000 more than a white man, and Asian man would need, remarkably, an additional $247,000 in additional annual income.

Classic OKCupid heatmap. What's interesting is the greenness of the black-female column (and to a lesser extent, Native American) and the green/yellowness of the white-male row:



Game/fame/status trumps all, of course. But trends don't lie...

[Tex Pro]

Good points, Sonsowey and Kabal, but it still doesn't explain the discrepancy between interracial couples that live together versus interracial couples that get married. The rate at which interracial couples live together is a little more than twice the rate at which they marry. What is driving the difference? The LA times speculated that interracial couples face challenges in getting married due to possible family resistance, so they instead choose to live together and not get married.

[bacon]

Quote:

The results are striking. An African-American man would have to earn $154,000 more than a white man in order for a white woman to prefer him. A Hispanic man would need to earn $77,000 more than a white man, and Asian man would need, remarkably, an additional $247,000 in additional annual income.

I wonder if the IRT can take yet another blow to his already fragile self-confidence with white women when he reads this statistic?

[Therapsid]

(09-02-2013 10:04 PM)bacon Wrote:  

Quote:

The results are striking. An African-American man would have to earn $154,000 more than a white man in order for a white woman to prefer him. A Hispanic man would need to earn $77,000 more than a white man, and Asian man would need, remarkably, an additional $247,000 in additional annual income.

I wonder if the IRT can take yet another blow to his already fragile self-confidence with white women when he reads this statistic?

Frankly, I question your own self-confidence considering how often you bring in the IRT to at best tangentially related threads.

[Basil Ransom]

(09-02-2013 09:50 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Overall the numbers are low, but for instance something like 40-50% of Asian women marry non-Asian men, usually white men. And Asian guys, about 20-30% of them marry non-Asians (again usually whites).

Also categories like "black" and "hispanic" are so ridiculous and mixed up as to be meaningless. Most "black" people in the U.S. have 20-60% European genetics, but are just classed as "black" because whatever, they have curly hair or African facial features.

Latinos can be 100% European descent, 100% African descent, or 100% Indigenous descent. Hell there are millions of Asian "Latinos" in Peru and Brazil.

Categories like "black" and "hispanic" in the U.S. are not really instructive in terms of true race, they're more social categories. Not that "race" doesn't exist, but "black" people in the U.S. are by no means 100% Sub-Saharan African, it's a politically created community. For instance, growing up in a white suburban community, I would call most Dominican people "black" instinctively because they look black. Try to call a Dominican black in person though, they probably will not like it. They see much finer grades of racial disctinction than we do, which is really closer to the reality in racially mixed societies.

For 99.9% of people in America, their self-reported race corresponds with their genetic ancestry. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/. More people get their sex wrong than their race wrong!

Your self-identified race still very much exists. It's like saying a 'labradoodle' has no breed at all, because it's a mix of two different breeds. Clearly dog breeders and consumers don't think so.

(09-02-2013 09:55 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Good points, Sonsowey and Kabal, but it still doesn't explain the discrepancy between interracial couples that live together versus interracial couples that get married. The rate at which interracial couples live together is a little more than twice the rate at which they marry. What is driving the difference? The LA times speculated that interracial couples face challenges in getting married due to possible family resistance, so they instead choose to live together and not get married.

Because the more commitment that's involved, the more conservative people are? Especially when future offspring are being considered. Just think about who you're willing to fuck vs date vs marry.

[Kabal]

(09-02-2013 09:55 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  

Good points, Sonsowey and Kabal, but it still doesn't explain the discrepancy between interracial couples that live together versus interracial couples that get married. The rate at which interracial couples live together is a little more than twice the rate at which they marry. What is driving the difference? The LA times speculated that interracial couples face challenges in getting married due to possible family resistance, so they instead choose to live together and not get married.

My post hinted at it, albeit obliquely.

Adverse selection.

Despite the photo of the pretty (off a cursory glance) half-Irish, half-Thai girl, and the fresa-looking Mexican guy, interracial couples are disproportionately comprised of individuals with lower socioeconomic and socio-sexual value.*

I say this as someone who identifies as mixed and likes to buck the trend.

The girls who are wont to date interracially are the ones with probabilistically lower future time orientation, lower conscientiousness, and lower impulse control--the ones less able to/prone to "lock" a man down de jure--thus these couplings lead to cohabitation without marriage.

Lower class America is rife with women unable to lock men down--this is not a race-specific phenomenon, although it's not equitably distributed in its affliction upon blacks, latinos, whites, and Asians, in descending order--if single motherhood rates are any indication.

White-male/East Asian-female pairings appear to be the exception on the socioeconomic side.

[bacon]

(09-02-2013 10:08 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

Frankly, I question your own self-confidence considering how often you bring in the IRT to at best tangentially related threads.

[Therapsid]

(09-02-2013 10:09 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Because the more commitment that's involved, the more conservative people are? Especially when future offspring are being considered. Just think about who you're willing to fuck vs date vs marry.

The percentages for (East) Asians suggest otherwise.

The Orient has a history of civilization extending back thousands of years and in almost all of that time, the region comprising China, Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia, etc. has been remarkably homogeneous.

But suddenly, as Sonsowey suggests, thrust among the diverse populace of the multicultural West, Asian women and Asian men seek out spouses from outside their own race at higher rates than you'd suppose based upon the risk adverse mating strategy you suggest above.

[speakeasy]

(09-02-2013 10:09 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Because the more commitment that's involved, the more conservative people are? Especially when future offspring are being considered. Just think about who you're willing to fuck vs date vs marry.

But how many kids these days are even born inside of marriage? I don't think marriage status stops many people from breeding.

[Sonsowey]

(09-02-2013 10:09 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

For 99.9% of people in America, their self-reported race corresponds with their genetic ancestry. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/. More people get their sex wrong than their race wrong!

Your self-identified race still very much exists. It's like saying a 'labradoodle' has no breed at all, because it's a mix of two different breeds. Clearly dog breeders and consumers don't think so.

You misunderstand the article. This is saying that people who identify as "African American" cluster together, people who identify as "Asian" cluster together, etc. This is of course true.

That does not mean that "African Americans" are 100% sub-saharan African. Case in point Obama is 50% white, yet he and everyone else calls him "black" or "African American." His daughters are also called black yet they are probably more than >25% white, considering that his wife likely has European ancestry herself.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2...iVUyjY3tu4

Here is an analysis of the genetic structure of African Americans. There is a range. All of course have some "Sub-Saharan African" ancestry, and most are majority "Sub-Saharan African". Yet many are largely mixed with Europeans, and a small number even have more European ancestry than African ancestry.

This chart shows the proportions of different populations represented in different African American individuals. The blue component is "European". All other colors are different African groups. Notice that all but one of the African Americans have some level of European ancestry. And a few are more European than African



This shows that throughout the U.S. African Americans are on average 22% European. In the South it seems, the standard to "pass" as white is higher than in other regions, so people with even higher proportions of European ancestry classify themselves as "African American", while in the other regions of the U.S. the general level of European ancestry among "African Americans" is lower, meaning mixed people are less likely to identify as African Americans outside of the South.



Back to the "clustering" from your link.

Yes African Americans cluster together. This means if you look at them in comparison to other populations, they themselves form a distinct population. Yet you see, comparing them to Eurpoeans and different African groups, the variation present in African Americans is huge, with some much closer to Europeans than to Africans. The point being that the ethnic community of "African Americans" includes people with many different ethnic backgrounds.

[Sonsowey]

(09-02-2013 10:09 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

Your self-identified race still very much exists. It's like saying a 'labradoodle' has no breed at all, because it's a mix of two different breeds. Clearly dog breeders and consumers don't think so.

Dog ancestry isn't as problematic as human ancestry. There is no reason for a "labradoodle" to not be labelled as such.

Throughout American history people of mixed white/black ancestry have been labelled "black" and thus lived in Black communities. Hence the "black" community here is much more "white" than actual Africans.

[Kabal]

(09-02-2013 10:26 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

You misunderstand the article. This is saying that people who identify as "African American" cluster together, people who identify as "Asian" cluster together, etc. This is of course true...

Sonsowey, you are addressing a strawman.

The existence of relatively admixed populations far from precludes population structure--paradigm examples would be Uyghurs and Ashkenazi Jews.

Basilransom's reading of that paper is correct--that self-identification concurs with genetic cohorting--a reading that you appear to agree with, although you state otherwise.

[Therapsid]

(09-02-2013 10:34 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 10:26 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

You misunderstand the article. This is saying that people who identify as "African American" cluster together, people who identify as "Asian" cluster together, etc. This is of course true...

Sonsowey, you are addressing a strawman.

The existence of relatively admixed populations far from precludes population structure--paradigm examples would be Uyghurs and Ashkenazi Jews.

Basilransom's reading of that paper is correct.

You're still not responding to his main point.

Society declares mixed race African Americans (which are the majority) as black period.

Likewise, white people will judge racially admixed Mexicans, Dominicans, etc. as non-white. Even when they're majority European.

And to the extent this plays out in marriage incidence, it demonstrates that people are not responding merely to genetic or phenotypic cues in choosing spouses.

[MrXY]

(09-02-2013 09:51 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

All else equal, girls prefer to date within their own race.

Women have their sexual reputations to protect. If you're a high quality chick (re: highly attractive) why risk it by going for someone outside of the tribe?

I mostly see 8+s with members of their own race. Dorky white guys may pull Asian 6s en masse, but I often see Asian 8s with fresh-off-the-boat-looking dudes. White 7-8s seem to rather pair up with non-descript white guys than square up with a fly black or Asian guy... and the research corroborates this observation:

Quote:

The results are striking. An African-American man would have to earn $154,000 more than a white man in order for a white woman to prefer him. A Hispanic man would need to earn $77,000 more than a white man, and Asian man would need, remarkably, an additional $247,000 in additional annual income.

Classic OKCupid heatmap. What's interesting is the greenness of the black-female column (and to a lesser extent, Native American) and the green/yellowness of the white-male row:



Game/fame/status trumps all, of course. But trends don't lie...

Here's how OKCupid summed up their race study http://blog.okcupid.com/index.html/your-r...-you-back/

"The numbers on the perimeter of the table are the weighted average rates for each column/row. Here’s what we can know:

Black women write back the most. Whether it’s due to talkativeness, loneliness, or a sense of plain decency, black women are by far the most likely to respond to a first contact attempt. In many cases, their response rate is one and a half times the average, and, overall, black women reply about a quarter more often that other women.

White men get more responses. Whatever it is, white males just get more replies from almost every group. We were careful to preselect our data pool so that physical attractiveness (as measured by our site picture-rating utility) was roughly even across all the race/gender slices. For guys, we did likewise with height.

White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else—and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively. These three types of women only respond well to white men. More significantly, these groups’ reply rates to non-whites is terrible. Asian women write back non-white males at 21.9%, Hispanic women at 22.9%, and white women at 23.0%. It’s here where things get interesting, for white women in particular. If you look at the match-by-race table before this one, the “should-look-like” one, you see that white women have an above-average compatibility with almost every group. Yet they only reply well to guys who look like them. There’s more data on this towards the end of the post.


Men don’t write black women back. Or rather, they write them back far less often than they should. Black women reply the most, yet get by far the fewest replies. Essentially every race—including other blacks—singles them out for the cold shoulder.

White guys respond less overall. The average reply rate of non-white males is 48.1%, while white guys’ is only 40.5%. Basically, they write back about 20% less often. It’s ironic that white guys are worst responders, because as we saw above they in turn get the most replies. That has apparently made them very self-absorbed."

______________________________________________________________________

That's right white guys-you're the ones who are self absorbed-not the online women

The real reason these guys don't write back as often is that most of the women who message you first are ogresses, but OKC is very PC and won't say that

The article is full of the usual SWPL race shaming against white people for the terrible crime of preferring to mate with (shocker) other white people, thus producing the dreadful result of the continued existence of that nasty group, but other than that it's a valuable study for anyone doing online dating

[Sonsowey]

(09-02-2013 10:36 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 10:34 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 10:26 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

You misunderstand the article. This is saying that people who identify as "African American" cluster together, people who identify as "Asian" cluster together, etc. This is of course true...

Sonsowey, you are addressing a strawman.

The existence of relatively admixed populations far from precludes population structure--paradigm examples would be Uyghurs and Ashkenazi Jews.

Basilransom's reading of that paper is correct.

You're still not responding to his main point.

Society declares mixed race African Americans (which are the majority) as black period.

Likewise, white people will judge racially admixed Mexicans, Dominicans, etc. as non-white. Even when they're majority European.

And to the extent this plays out in marriage incidence, it demonstrates that people are not responding merely to genetic or phenotypic cues in choosing spouses.

Yep

To be clear I totally understand that admixed populations do cluster and form distinct populations. The whole world is admixed.

The idea that people naturally prefer "their own kind" in a genetic sense may have some effect overall on mate choice, but societal designations like "African American" which are not purely genetic, also play a role. Probably a much larger one than pure genetic inborn mate preference.

Here is a relevant study on the issue:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado...ne.0031703

This study has "white", "black" and "Asian" people rate the attractiveness of opposite-sex "white", "black", and "asian" faces. All women agree that black men are the most attractive, whites are in the middle, and Asian men are least attractive. All men agree that Asian women are the most attractive, whites are in the middle, and black women are the least attractive.



This is obviously explained in lay-terms that Asians overall are the more "feminine" race and blacks are the more "masculine" race, therefore black men are the most attractive men and asian women are the most attractive women as they are closer to the "masculine" or "feminine" ideal.

Yet you have the fact that of Asian women, basically half of them marry other races, whereas only around 10% of black men marry people who don't identify as "African American". The obvious explanation here is that there is no stigma against a white man marrying an Asian woman, but there is a stigma against a white woman marrying a black man.

[Kabal]

(09-02-2013 10:36 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 10:34 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 10:26 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

You misunderstand the article. This is saying that people who identify as "African American" cluster together, people who identify as "Asian" cluster together, etc. This is of course true...

Sonsowey, you are addressing a strawman.

The existence of relatively admixed populations far from precludes population structure--paradigm examples would be Uyghurs and Ashkenazi Jews.

Basilransom's reading of that paper is correct.

You're still not responding to his main point.

Society declares mixed race African Americans (which are the majority) as black period.

Likewise, white people will judge racially admixed Mexicans, Dominicans, etc. as non-white. Even when they're majority European.

If his main point is that common notions of race do not properly and fully reflect population genetics, then that is one I would agree with.

However, that is orthogonal to Basilransom's point (or at least my interpretation of it)--that despite the noise introduced by the aforementioned phenomenon, population notions of race still reflect genetic underpinnings to a very good approximation.

Russians are but a fraction Central Asian/East Asian--but that is still a useful way by which to distinguish them from say, Germans.

After all, even the species concept is fluid, without fixed demarcations.

Quote:

And to the extent this plays out in marriage incidence, it demonstrates that people are not responding merely to genetic or phenotypic cues in choosing spouses.

Of course not merely.

But people do--materially and substantially.

[Therapsid]

(09-02-2013 10:47 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

If his main point is that common notions of race do not properly and fully reflect population genetics, then that is one I would agree with.

However, that is orthogonal to Basilransom's point (or at least my interpretation of it)--that despite the noise introduced by the aforementioned phenomenon, population notions of race still reflect genetic underpinnings to a very good approximation.

Russians are but a fraction Central Asian/East Asian--but that is still a useful way by which to distinguish them from say, Germans.

After all, even the species concept is fluid, without fixed demarcations.

Do you really think Russian women or men in America significantly prefer fellow Russians as spouses over people of German ancestry?

I agree genetic population differences are real. And I agree (I think Sonsowey concurs also) that there are innate predispositions toward choosing mates of one's own race.

The argument being made here is merely that cultural definitions of what constitutes a race also play a major role.

Simply put - a white chick who meets a swarthy, good looking chap will be more likely to marry the exact same man if he describes himself as Greek or Sicilian than if he says he's Mexican or Turkish.

The only explanation for this discrepancy is culture, not innate sexual attraction.

People throw around the phrases red pill and blue pill a lot. I'd say taking the red pill simply means deeply imbibing the truth that the world is far more complex than any simple ideological formula would suggest.

[speakeasy]

(09-02-2013 10:41 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

That's right white guys-you're the ones who are self absorbed-not the online women

The real reason these guys don't write back as often is that most of the women who message you first are ogresses, but OKC is very PC and won't say that

The article is full of the usual SWPL race shaming against white people for the terrible crime of preferring to mate with (shocker) other white people, thus producing the dreadful result of the continued existence of that nasty group, but other than that it's a valuable study for anyone doing online dating

Yeah, I'm a black male and my reply rate was low too of the women that messaged me first. Because most of them were land whales.

[Kabal]

(09-02-2013 10:57 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(09-02-2013 10:47 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

If his main point is that common notions of race do not properly and fully reflect population genetics, then that is one I would agree with.

However, that is orthogonal to Basilransom's point (or at least my interpretation of it)--that despite the noise introduced by the aforementioned phenomenon, population notions of race still reflect genetic underpinnings to a very good approximation.

Russians are but a fraction Central Asian/East Asian--but that is still a useful way by which to distinguish them from say, Germans.

After all, even the species concept is fluid, without fixed demarcations.

Do you really think Russian women or men in America significantly prefer fellow Russians as spouses over people of German ancestry?

I agree genetic population differences are real. And I agree (I think Sonsowey concurs also) that there are innate predispositions toward choosing mates of one's own race.

The argument being made here is merely that cultural definitions of what constitutes a race also play a major role.

Simply put - a white chick who meets a swarthy, good looking chap will be more likely to marry the exact same man if he describes himself as Greek or Sicilian than if he says he's Mexican or Turkish.

The only explanation for this discrepancy is culture, not innate sexual attraction.

People throw around the phrases red pill and blue pill a lot. I'd say taking the red pill simply means deeply imbibing the truth that the world is far more complex than any simple ideological formula would suggest.

You and I do not disagree on much, on this particular issue.

I was referring to the genetic underpinnings of population structure with the allusion to Russians, not the mate attraction of American girls (men, as we all sense, are more agnostic to female race).

[Kabal]

(09-02-2013 10:45 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Yet you have the fact that of Asian women, basically half of them marry other races, whereas only around 10% of black men marry people who don't identify as "African American". The obvious explanation here is that there is no stigma against a white man marrying an Asian woman, but there is a stigma against a white woman marrying a black man.

A confounding factor is that black men have lower earnings on average, which hurts them in the dating market for any race--as women are hypergamous, even if they don't care about the money per se.

So a stigma against black men should not be "the" "obvious" explanation, unless we want to proffer "stigma" as an explanation for perceived shortcomings in the dating market for Asian men as well, for there appears to be a net penalty that is more deleterious for Asian men than for black men when it comes to white women, as discussed in one of the links I provided above--it is entirely possible that controlling for raw physical attraction vis a vis Asian men, there is a greater stigma against black men--but this has not been demonstrated.

[DjembaDjemba]

The propensity to mix it up is very cultural. In Canada and Britian, interracial relationships are far more common. The level of segregation in the USA still boggles my mind, but fully understandable given its history.

Women's preferences for a mate are more oriented towards maintaining their social value in the eyes of their peers, family, and society in general. If society (or most importantly her social circle) has a racial caste system, even an implicit one, women will reflect that in their choice of mate.

If you happen to benefit directly from this social ladder, your goal is to maintain and reinforce It. This is done by socially shunning strays and letting them know of your disapproval. Women fear this.

If you're on the bottom of this social ladder, your goal is to make sure the women you're swooping feel comfortable enough to not feel their personal reputation will be rubbished in the eyes of their peers. This is why you would need more money to compensate for your slight but still quite surmountable disadvantage. There's other ways such as totally poking holes in societal norms, deflating them, pin by pin whereby they are no longer norms. Other methods are to create loopholes, like having a girl move in with you instead of marrying her, taking baby steps, inch by inch, thus avoiding the furor any big jump (marriage) can make. Think of it like avoiding the scared cat principle, in this case avoid scaring a whole herd of cats. Plus, marriage isn't fully desirable.

This my friends is all part of tight game.

[Sonsowey]

(09-02-2013 11:08 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

(men, as we all sense, are more agnostic to female race).

This is something that's interesting to me. I'm basically white/jewish (cluster with Palestinians/Mozabites due to some SSA admixture LOLZ). Anyway most of my friends from growing up are also white/jewish. Many times I'm at parties with all white people or only a few token non-whites.

Growing up I only dated white/jewish girls, partially because that's what was around, and partially because my social circle was made up of those people. When I actively started gaming and going after any girl I choose, I began dating girls of all backgrounds and racking up some flags.

It's not uncommon for me to go to some social event with a girl, and for her to be the only non white/jewish person there. It's also not uncommon for her to not really fit in because, say, people are listening to Phish and acting super white and never really even hang out with non-whites.

Now most of my friends who really get it in aren't like me, in that they don't want to rack up flags or value banging a new "type" of girl. They don't see it as a "waste" to fuck 20 white Long Island girls. To me it's like, why would you focus energy on banging the same type of girl over and over? Don't you want variety? For them variety is a blonde, then a brunette.

Though a good deal of my white friends who've never slept with a black or Latina girl express interest in it. Many have asked me for particular
tips, or just said "I would love to but I can't, I just have no idea how".

Partially because of their lack of game, and partially because of their being so surrounded by other white people, they are totally inept at relating to people of any other background, and really say lots of racist and ignorant things because they truly are ignorant.

So they have the pure sexual desire to sleep with girls who are racially unlike them, but because they're so culturally different A. they hardly ever interact by chance, B. they can't really relate to each other. So in the end they don't end up doing it because they're not out there banging hos and racking up knowledge of how to interact with all sorts of different people in positive ways. They're just in their own little bubble and could easily escape, but don't.

So I view it as very much a social thing, because I could have easily gone that path had I never took up gaming girls and meeting people outside of my social circle.

[Sonsowey]

(09-02-2013 11:30 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

A confounding factor is that black men have lower earnings on average, which hurts them in the dating market for any race--as women are hypergamous, even if they don't care about the money per se.

So a stigma against black men should not be "the" "obvious" explanation, unless we want to proffer "stigma" as an explanation for perceived shortcomings in the dating market for Asian men as well, for there appears to be a net penalty that is more deleterious for Asian men than for black men when it comes to white women, as discussed in one of the links I provided above--it is entirely possible that controlling for raw physical attraction vis a vis Asian men, there is a greater stigma against black men--but this has not been demonstrated.

The data discussed in this article shows that for a black man to be seen as "as dateable" as a white man, he must earn $154,000 more than that white man. Seems to me that racism/social stigma are in effect here.

If there was no racism/social stigma, a black man earning the same income as a white man would be advantaged in the dating market because he's more attractive. But that's not the case.

http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/do-w...-in-a-mate