Whiter women are generally colder, but "easier" mostly because of recent cultural developments. Medieval European standards were placing a very high standard on womens' honor and Christianity was not a very sexually liberating religion. If you compare tv shows by country, you shall notice that Latin Americans are way more obsessed with women and their assets as well as their occasional wardrobe "malfunctions" than Northern European women. When was the last time you saw a tv show like this in Sweden?
Yes, the emboldened part of your comment is what I was referring to regarding Northern European women. But since the 1960s, the somewhat flighty, sexually adventurous, big breasted, platinum blonde Swede with a penchant for nudity has been etched into the cultural zeitgeist of the world...
*Ahem* ANITA EKBERG R.I.P. *Ahem*
Because of this stereotype, along with being widely perceived as ultra-independent, almost militaristic feminists hellbent on being just as "liberated" as men are, Scandinavian/Northern European women have been desirable to those seeking a no-frills, "good time"--of course, the actual truth is far more nuanced and complex. The modern Scandinavian woman may be more "open" to the
possibility of casual trysts, knowing that it is her right to use her body when/as she sees fit, but she is not hyper-sexualized. However, the
stereotype of the ditzy, promiscuous, nudist blonde with a silly, rise-and-fall accent persists throughout the world.
If we start discussing what Middle Eastern men "think", pretty soon we'll establish that they think with their lower head 90% of the time.
I think this applies to a lot of men--some are just socialized to mask, hide or repress it better. Swedish guys may not check out women as they walk by or make cat calls or randomly approach them on the street or at a club (unless ultra-intoxicated lol) but that doesn't mean they don't want to. It's just that we have been raised to respect not only a woman's right to space and privacy but all people's right to space and privacy.
Respectable black women? Those same black women who end up single mothers 75% of the time?
This was offensively rendered in an intellectually lazy way. For one, I was referring to those Black, Latin and Asian women
who see themselves as "respectable." I was not saying that they all are--all White women certainly aren't for that matter, either. Secondly, who decides what's respectable or not? Thirdly, that
72% figure only refers to children born to women who are not married but
includes both fathers who still live in the household and fathers who still have regular contact with their children. And guess what? Sweden, one of the most advanced countries in Europe and the world, with one of the highest quality of life indexes,
leads Europe in couples who live together but are unmarried. Another fact:
In 2013, 54.4 percent of the children were born to an unmarried mother, compared to the EU average of roughly 40 percent. My point? Let's not impugn the "respectability" of people as if to imply that their life choices are innately flawed. In the case of black women, there are several factors not having to do with promiscuity (like the mass incarceration of black men, restricted access to birth control, avoiding marriage altogether--which is a national trend) that contribute to the high rate of children born out of wedlock and living in single parent homes.
You've seen Latino women on the above show, you can tune on the internet and see a few hundred such Latin tv shows where objectification of women is as much frequent as snow in Sweden. Asian women could be quite different by culture. Japanese women are even more objectified as they live in an ultra-patriarchist society, although they are not exactly hot. Philippinos are almost sex toys, Chinese women vary immensely according to latitude:
Again, you missed my point. I was talking about minority women in the US who see themselves as "respectable," as far as their value systems, and therefore, would see white women as "less respectable" because of their stereotypical proclivity towards unconventional sex--which I didn't say was a fact, but was a stereotype. Furthermore, different cultures have different ideas of what constitutes "respectability"--what may be normal for some, may be found to be objectionable by others, and vice versa.
I don't think that the phrase "virtue signalling" makes a reference to either genes or environment,
It seemed to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you were implying that relegating skin color preference to "cultural inculcation" versus "hardwired genetic drive/imperative" was somehow an attempt by some--let me guess, the "politically correct left"--to coerce people into some higher (but 'unnatural') state of moral consciousness that eschews biases based on skin color. I agree with Angela and don't think that she was being "politically correct"; therefore, my comment was primarily concerned with showing that there is a strong socio-cultural precedent for the (seemingly) worldwide affinity for white/lightness.
I don't think that the Chinese ever saw the Mongols as anything but barbarians, until they overthrew them. The Greeks did never quite aspire to become Muslim either, during 4~5 centuries of oppression. So I shall disagree with your statement, might does not always awe people, especially those well established.It does but fails to make an impact. You won't succeed to turn a strait male baby into gay or female by putting pink booties on him, or to turn a straight female into a lesbian or boy just by putting blue booties on her.
1.) Even before the Qin Dynasty (the first Chinese Dynasty), way before the Mongols invaded, commoners who worked out in the fields were referred to as "black headed ones." The Chinese have been associating whiteness with wealth and darkness with poverty before the Mongols, did so during their stay, and most certainly continued after they left.
2.) I
did say that, particularly, those seeking to integrate and advance are the ones who usually adapt and conform; I didn't say that all do, or willingly, at least. I agree that the colonized don't always love their colonizers--quite the opposite, at least initially. But some form of Stockholm Syndrome eventually takes root, where the victimized eventually begin to care for and protect their victimizers. And even if the colonizers are never fully embraced, that doesn't mean that society does not or will not orient towards them and their ways. In degrees large and small, there will be some acquiescence amongst the subjugated.
3.) Who said anything about turning babies gay or straight? My point was that from an early age, society molds and forms who we become, and even if that runs at odds with any genetic inclinations! Speaking of sexuality or gender, there are people who live horribly unhappy, unfulfilled, repressed lives just because they fear going against their dominant socialization. That crazy, self-loathing bastard in Orlando who killed all of those gay people perfectly exemplifies this--he was indoctrinated, in part, to be a vicious homophobe regardless of his sexual inclination towards men.
Ultimately you stop short of suggesting that whiter people are more desire because they always end up at the top of the global hierarchy. This simple fact could have passed into genetics as well, although I prefer simpler explanations.
Wrong--sheer luck and opportunity have been the bulk of white people's success. In every group, there will always be a few innovators who think outside the box and do things that catapults the whole group forward. As people began leaving Africa, they kept encountering environments and circumstances, over thousands of years, that forced them to adapt and innovate. Cue "Guns, Germs and Steel" and voila--world conquerors. A universal, hardwired genetic affinity for "whiteness" seems ridiculous and arbitrary in the grand scheme of things. I'm blonde, blue, and white as can be and I sure as hell don't have it!