Racism in Porn

[hedonis]

If you read the thread, even the recent part of it, you'll see why the term interracial, its connotations, and its usage in the porn industry, are all, very racist.

Well, I will agree that anymore, I don't like the way interracial porn is advertised, played out, or hyped- I mean, just look at some of the titles.

But as Xxaru said "THE term itself", and no- the term itself is not racist- it is a word that means what I said it means in my last post. Its connotations and usage in the porn industry don't change the original, intended meaning of the word. It's just a shame that these scenes, and the people behind them, have come to give the word a very ugly piggy back. I don't even watch the stuff now- much like I don't watch anything where the woman is slapped, *****d, etc.

A shame, really.

H

 

[ChefChiTown]

And what term do YOU use to describe black Americans?? There is no negative connotation associated with using the term black. I think most people would agree that it's an accepted ethnicity that you can find on most surveys, applications, etc. You'd have a hard time trying to claim it as negative or "racial labeling".

1) I use the term black when I refer to black people. Just like I use the term white when I refer to white people.

2) I agree that the term "black" has no negative connotation, because that's how I personally feel about the word. But, I can easily make the term black sound negative. If I called you an asshole, would that upset you? Eh, maybe, who knows. Now, if I called you a black asshole, I'm willing to bet that would **** you off.

FYI - I'm not calling you an asshole or a black asshole, I'm just making a point. The point is, it's not the word that's hurtful, it's how it's said.

And by continuing to justify the use of these labels through ignorance, by saying things like "interracial... it is what it is... etc.", you're only contributing to the problem.

There is no ignorance on this side. I don't live my life by pussy-footing around certain issues. Just because I'm open and honest about my feelings towards so-called racism, doesn't make me ignorant just because I don't 100% agree with you.

There are two sides to every story. EVERY story. You (and other people, both on this thread and out in the real world) will see the term "interracial" as being a racist label. That doesn't mean that you're right. Me? I don't think the term "interracial" is racist at all. That doesn't mean I'm right either. Neither of the sides of this story is right, nor are they wrong.

Everybody looks at certain words in a different light, so everyone will have their own interpretation on how to "take" them. Bottom line...they're fucking words.

Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

If interracial was just one of many subheadings like, bald guy with blonde girl, or brunette lesbian scenes, etc... if it were strictly there to describe the porn so you knew what you were getting...

But the problem is it IS like "anal" or "mature" - it's *****, it's extreme, it's implying that the white girl doing the black guy is slutty and more whorish than ever, or that the black girl doing the white guy is fucking across racial boundaries - what a wild, slutty whore she must be.

The whole idea of watching people have sex is *****...no matter what kind of scene you're watching. Anal, mature, interracial...*****, *****, *****.

 

[D-rock]

Peace to you too.

That's very easy to explain, and the scientists can explain it in more certain terms than I can, but let me tell you exactly how it works.

We all come from the same group of people, so essentially there should be NO differences between us, right? Well, of course, that small group grew and then travelled and split up and ended up inhabiting most of the planet as what today we call the human race. So how did we all end up so different looking?

The skin colour differences are easy to explain (the temperature and weather conditions in the places where our more recent ancestors settled). Then, I hear you asking, what about height differences, bone structure differences, facial feature differences, that can be observed, some of which are more typical to some skin colours or parts of the world than others.

The answer is *the same kind of thing*

As the first group split up and spread out, it was exposed to not only different climates and temperatures (which explained the skin colour), but also to different environments and different challenges. Human beings, even from one generation to the next, and especially over hundreds and thousands of years, adapt. Just as our various skin colours were "adapted" to fit the temperature and climate, our facial features, our body types, all of the differences you point to... evolved in us as we adapted to our various surroundings. So people in West Africa developed certain things, whereas people in South East Asia developed others, and so on and so forth. So every single physical difference, every common trait between what we now foolishly call "different races", from skin colour to everything else... was just that BRANCH of the human race, somewhere in the past, ADAPTING to whatever environment they were in.

So as I said - we are all EXACTLY the same. You can think of racial differences like skills. One of us is black, one is white, one is latino. Just as one of us is a butcher, one is a baker, and one is a candlestick maker. Originally we were all babies, and then we were all just **** in school. Exactly the same. Then we went our separate ways and learned different jobs and different ways of life and now we are very different - but we have far more in common than we have different. All of the differences, we picked up along the way, from adapting to whatever environment we were in. But our similarities are far more profound: we are FROM the same region, we are from the same race, we are from the same skin colour and the same facial features - our differences NOW are just ***** ADAPTATIONS that helped us along the way - END OF STORY.



And this is not just a theory. This is proven and universally agreed upon scientific fact. All the evidence has been presented a thousand times. It goes against mainstream religion and all racist ideologies, but it is fact. Ask any expert. It's exactly as much of a fact as the fact that we evolved from apes, and the fact that we need oxygen to survive.

Sincerely and with peace
Fox

I think his problem is that your assertion that there is only one race or race is non-existent is wrong just by the very definition of what the word race is. It would be like somebody saying the sky is red because that’s how they want to define the color of the sky themselves even if they see the exact same thing everybody else does. Go look in the dictionary and look up the word race as it pertains to this. All those features that are different constitute what makes people a different race by definition. There is definitely no science that contradicts that and it fact it coincides with it. So unless you use a different definition than the rest of the world uses for the word race than the point about there only being one race can't be right. Saying there is only one race of people is like saying there is only one bread of dog. Yet we know there are hundreds of breads of dogs that we quite clearly distinguish between. If you have a different definition of what race is than the rest of the world then be honest with that fact and state it before hand, but I wouldn't try to tell people something different based on it.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Defining people racially is a very slippery slope it can lead to things like the way race was used in **** Germany or by by the slave trade of the past.

 

[ninetysixcavy]

Scientists have proven that all of the so-called "racial differences" actually are completely due to environment and adaptation over time depending on where in the world ancestors lived. So there aren't any set races, but actually a bunch of intermixed intertwined different adapted features, all over the world, that are a hodge podge of everything all of us as one race have been through since we became human beings in Africa, when we first learned to speak and walk upright and all that jazz.

The "breads" of dogs as you say are completely different, because there are no "breeds of humans". In fact scientists have shown, again, that unlike any other mammal, a remarkable fact about humans is that we are remarkably similar - all of us - and there are no breeds and what not. I took a couple of classes on this and we looked up all of the research and read the studies by the top universities and what not, and I am completely convinced. The evidence is overwhelming. The scientists that have researched this have come to a consensus. I trust them. I am also bewildered as to why THOSE classes aren't taught in school from the age of 5, because they are some of the most important lessons people will ever learn. See, you all on this board don't know about this stuff, yet it's scientific fact. The reason nobody knows these things is that they are not really taught until the college level, advanced sociology and some more updated biology courses. They are not well publicized. I am not sure why. That needs to change, now.

The dictionary is not set. It just isn't. The dictionary is defined *by the usage* of the word. That is how the Oxford Dictionary all started back in ye olden times. That's why there are often 4, 5, 6 sometimes contradictory and conflicting definitions of the word "race" - as in, how it is used. The same thing with "interracial". As an English major at two very good schools if there's one thing I know it's how definitions work.

So essentially now that the scientists have proven that race (as we know it) does not exist and we are all one race (by the original SCIENTIFIC definition of race and in terms of other mammals "breeds" and what not), then it is time to recognize that fact officially. Just because this has not come into practice yet does not mean it isn't true. It's not something we should be "waiting to see if it becomes well known", as I said, it's already been clearly proven, and publicizing it can only improve "race relations" and reduce stigma.

It's one thing trying to get rid of homophobia, but when science has proven that race does not exist and that racism is therefore meaningless, it's definitely time to shout very loudly about that fact, which is what I'm doing.

Sincerely
Fox

You might want to check this [NY Times] article out:

...genetic information is slipping out of the laboratory and into everyday life, carrying with it the inescapable message that people of different races have different DNA. Ancestry tests tell customers what percentage of their genes are from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. The heart-disease **** BiDil is marketed exclusively to African-Americans, who seem genetically predisposed to respond to it. Jews are offered prenatal tests for genetic disorders rarely found in other ethnic groups.

Such developments are providing some of the first tangible benefits of the genetic revolution. Yet some social critics fear they may also be giving long-discredited racial prejudices a new potency.
[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/u...nce&adxnnlx=1194746509-s6poHabgzyIOQHByc3ZYRA

 

[D-rock]

Defining people racially is a very slippery slope it can lead to things like the way race was used in **** Germany or by by the slave trade of the past.

I agree that defining people by race can lead to bad things, and people should be defined by the individual. I wouldn't go as far as pretending no differences exist because some people are evil out there however, and like to do bad things to others because of inconsequential differences like phisical features.

Scientists have proven that all of the so-called "racial differences" actually are completely due to environment and adaptation over time depending on where in the world ancestors lived. So there aren't any set races, but actually a bunch of intermixed intertwined different adapted features, all over the world, that are a hodge podge of everything all of us as one race have been through since we became human beings in Africa, when we first learned to speak and walk upright and all that jazz.

The "breads" of dogs as you say are completely different, because there are no "breeds of humans". In fact scientists have shown, again, that unlike any other mammal, a remarkable fact about humans is that we are remarkably similar - all of us - and there are no breeds and what not. I took a couple of classes on this and we looked up all of the research and read the studies by the top universities and what not, and I am completely convinced. The evidence is overwhelming. The scientists that have researched this have come to a consensus. I trust them. I am also bewildered as to why THOSE classes aren't taught in school from the age of 5, because they are some of the most important lessons people will ever learn. See, you all on this board don't know about this stuff, yet it's scientific fact. The reason nobody knows these things is that they are not really taught until the college level, advanced sociology and some more updated biology courses. They are not well publicized. I am not sure why. That needs to change, now.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I think the difference is just how we are defining the definition of race. I don't find anything wrong about how it is used now, but your right people are basically similar. There are distinct differences that can be seen between them even if similar. It isn't hard to tell if somebody is oriental or black for example. As for the dogs and breads a "bread" is just another word substituted for race and everything you said about humans applies to them. We have just adapted due to environment and selective breeding. The only difference is we haven't gone through such dramatic selective breading like dogs have. I don't see anything wrong with what people are or their differences. In fact I think it's good where not all the same. I don't think I would like a world where we were as well.

 

[BlueBalls]

She was being fucked at the time, he didnt seem to mind

 

[xxaru]

No- no it's not. Interracial merely means, by definition, "Between races or comprised of more than one race".

How is that racist, again?

Exactly... Thus the term itself IS in fact racist because it proclaims the idea that there is a separation of the races (whether there really is or not is irrelevant), therefore making it "racist" in nature.

You don't have to agree or disagree with the idea of there being separate races in order to tell whether a term deals with racial context or not. And the term "interracial" most certainly does.

 

[xxaru]

FYI - I'm not calling you an asshole or a black asshole, I'm just making a point. The point is, it's not the word that's hurtful, it's how it's said.

Not necessarily. This is an assumption that many people make… however it is not always correct.

I don’t care how many different ways you try to say “he’s such a beautiful ******.” It’s never going to come across right.

There is no ignorance on this side.

The fact that you can’t understand how the term “interracial” could be racist in and of itself says otherwise.

Everybody looks at certain words in a different light, so everyone will have their own interpretation on how to "take" them. Bottom line...they're fucking words.

Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

Personally, the words don’t bother me. I don’t use them out of respect for others that take offense to them… but they don’t bother me.

 

[xxaru]

I think his problem is that your assertion that there is only one race or race is non-existent is wrong just by the very definition of what the word race is. It would be like somebody saying the sky is red because that’s how they want to define the color of the sky themselves even if they see the exact same thing everybody else does. Go look in the dictionary and look up the word race as it pertains to this. All those features that are different constitute what makes people a different race by definition. There is definitely no science that contradicts that and it fact it coincides with it. So unless you use a different definition than the rest of the world uses for the word race than the point about there only being one race can't be right. Saying there is only one race of people is like saying there is only one bread of dog. Yet we know there are hundreds of breads of dogs that we quite clearly distinguish between. If you have a different definition of what race is than the rest of the world then be honest with that fact and state it before hand, but I wouldn't try to tell people something different based on it.

What is YOUR definition of the word? This whole post means nothing without knowing how you personally define the word itself.

 

[xxaru]

You might want to check this [NY Times] article out:



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/u...nce&adxnnlx=1194746509-s6poHabgzyIOQHByc3ZYRA

Your article excerpt proves nothing. It even claims Jewish people as their own ethic group. That's enough to discredit the entire article right there IMO.

 

[Roughneck]

The "breads" of dogs as you say are completely different, because there are no "breeds of humans". In fact scientists have shown, again, that unlike any other mammal, a remarkable fact about humans is that we are remarkably similar - all of us - and there are no breeds and what not. I took a couple of classes on this and we looked up all of the research and read the studies by the top universities and what not, and I am completely convinced. The evidence is overwhelming. The scientists that have researched this have come to a consensus. I trust them. I am also bewildered as to why THOSE classes aren't taught in school from the age of 5, because they are some of the most important lessons people will ever learn. See, you all on this board don't know about this stuff, yet it's scientific fact. The reason nobody knows these things is that they are not really taught until the college level, advanced sociology and some more updated biology courses. They are not well publicized. I am not sure why. That needs to change, now.

I would just like add a cautionary note to this post:

1. "Race" is used every fucking day by members of the health care profession. E.g.: "Blacks" (or African Americans if you want to be PC) are more susceptible to hypertension, sickle cell anemia and renal disease.

2. "Race" is used every fucking day by members of the health care profession. E.g.:"Blacks" (or African Americans if you want to be PC) respond differently to treatments regarding high cholesterol, hypertension and prostate hypertrophy.

3. "Race" is used every fucking day by members of the health care profession. E.g.:"Blacks" (or African Americans if you want to be PC) have a different calculated rate of [eGFR] Glomerular Filtrate Rate (roughly estimates how well the kidneys function by eliminating wastes). eGFR is different for different "races".

So on and so forth. I'm not even listing studies that show that certain "races" are more "susceptible" to 'certain diseases or health conditions' (e.g.: Caucasians are more susceptible to skin cancer); just that to entirely dismiss "race" from "all discussion" is being rather obsctructive.



Now, if nothing else - the MOST important distinction you must make from my post is that I've almost always included the word "Race" in paranthases.

Why?

Because "scientific definition of race", versus "medical definition of race" versus "philosophical definition of race" is different from what "the lay/common man understands in terms of "race".

If you think I'm talking out of my ass - just contact any organ or marrow donor agency.
Ask them if "race" might be a mitigating factor at all .... or not.

See, you all on this board don't know about this stuff, yet it's scientific fact. The reason nobody knows these things is that they are not really taught until the college level, advanced sociology and some more updated biology courses. They are not well publicized. I am not sure why. That needs to change, now.

I'm fervently hoping the reverend ********** will enlighten us mere mortals of the advanced science he has no doubt learned in his advanced college level courses - courses us mere mortals are not privy too.

If he shall provide us even a link or two from the college courses he attended in the not too distant past, I'd be ever grateful. His desires state: "that needs to change now" - I'm hoping he shall guide us ignorant masses towards the correct, approved sources of information.


cheers,

 

[xxaru]

I would just like add a cautionary note to this post:

1. "Race" is used every fucking day by members of the health care profession. E.g.: "Blacks" (or African Americans if you want to be PC) are more susceptible to hypertension, sickle cell anemia and renal disease.

2. "Race" is used every fucking day by members of the health care profession. E.g.:"Blacks" (or African Americans if you want to be PC) respond differently to treatments regarding high cholesterol, hypertension and prostate hypertrophy.

3. "Race" is used every fucking day by members of the health care profession. E.g.:"Blacks" (or African Americans if you want to be PC) have a different calculated rate of [eGFR] Glomerular Filtrate Rate (roughly estimates how well the kidneys function by eliminating wastes). eGFR is different for different "races".

So on and so forth. I'm not even listing studies that show that certain "races" are more "susceptible" to 'certain diseases or health conditions' (e.g.: Caucasians are more susceptible to skin cancer); just that to entirely dismiss "race" from "all discussion" is being rather obsctructive.



Now, if nothing else - the MOST important distinction you must make from my post is that I've almost always included the word "Race" in paranthases.

Why?

Because "scientific definition of race", versus "medical definition of race" versus "philosophical definition of race" is different from what "the lay/common man understands in terms of "race".

If you think I'm talking out of my ass - just contact any organ or marrow donor agency.
Ask them if "race" might be a mitigating factor at all .... or not.

I'm fervently hoping the reverend ********** will enlighten us mere mortals of the advanced science he has no doubt learned in his advanced college level courses - courses us mere mortals are not privy too.

If he shall provide us even a link or two from the college courses he attended in the not too distant past, I'd be ever grateful. His desires state: "that needs to change now" - I'm hoping he shall guide us ignorant masses towards the correct, approved sources of information.


cheers,

You're confusing the term "race" with the term "ethnicity". There is a difference.

 

[Roughneck]

You're confusing the term "race" with the term "ethnicity". There is a difference.

I don't think I am... but please do explain...


cheers,

 

[xxaru]

I don't think I am... but please do explain...


cheers,

Rather than try to define the words, I’ll give you an example in the hopes it will make things clearer. Lets use Puerto Rico (for example)… since people just love to claim Puerto Ricans as a race, ethnicity, nationality, and everything else in between; and they almost never get it right.

1. If you’re from Puerto Rico, you could call yourself Puerto Rican. It is a “nationality” since Puerto Rico is a country and its own nation.

2. If you’re from Puerto Rico, you could classify yourself as white, black, Asian, etc. But you’d probably be most correct classifying yourself as Latino or Hispanic if you possess what most Americans identify as Puerto Rican traits. These are “ethnic” or descriptive/classifying traits, otherwise known as ethnicities.

3. Now, most importantly (dealing with our debate)… If you’re from Puerto Rico, you "might" consider yourself as a homo floresiensis or a homo neanderthalensis, but if you are alive and reading this then you are almost certainly a homo sapien. These would be defined as “race”. So if you’re from Puerto Rico, then NO, Puerto Rican is NOT your race.

 

[YMIHERE]

Now, most importantly (dealing with our debate)… If you’re from Puerto Rico, you "might" consider yourself as a homo floresiensis or a homo neanderthalensis, but if you are alive and reading this then you are almost certainly a homo sapien. These would be defined as “race”. So if you’re from Puerto Rico, then NO, Puerto Rican is NOT your race.

You seem to conflate Species and Race. I know they call it the human race but that's because of our hurried life style. Other than that I am confused with your whole analysis.

 

[amale]

i like white
i like black too

so no problem

 

[xxaru]

You seem to conflate Species and Race. I know they call it the human race but that's because of our hurried life style. Other than that I am confused with your whole analysis.

Yes, if you want to get scientifically technical... then "technically" H. neanderthalis, H. sapiens, etc. are "species" in the genus Homo. They are known as "human beings" which we simply define as the "human race".

 

[Roughneck]

xxaru (and the other membership in general): Good - but rebuatable points.

The only reason I'm posting this post is to let you know that I've read your response and I'm prepared to post a reasponse....

.... just not to day! While it may seem like a clumsy "excuse", the truth of the matter is that I just got done finishing 4x16 hour shifts in a row. I'm dog-dead tired!

But I promise that I'll respond to your comments by the end of this week - if I'm done packing that is!

Good debating with you!

 

[woy]

Rather than try to define the words, I’ll give you an example in the hopes it will make things clearer. Lets use Puerto Rico (for example)… since people just love to claim Puerto Ricans as a race, ethnicity, nationality, and everything else in between; and they almost never get it right.

1. If you’re from Puerto Rico, you could call yourself Puerto Rican. It is a “nationality” since Puerto Rico is a country and its own nation.

2. If you’re from Puerto Rico, you could classify yourself as white, black, Asian, etc. But you’d probably be most correct classifying yourself as Latino or Hispanic if you possess what most Americans identify as Puerto Rican traits. These are “ethnic” or descriptive/classifying traits, otherwise known as ethnicities.

3. Now, most importantly (dealing with our debate)… If you’re from Puerto Rico, you "might" consider yourself as a homo floresiensis or a homo neanderthalensis, but if you are alive and reading this then you are almost certainly a homo sapien. These would be defined as “race”. So if you’re from Puerto Rico, then NO, Puerto Rican is NOT your race.

^ ^ Listen to this man, he is wise. He hit the nail right on the head.