Printable View
[QUOTE=NC Transplant; 1206180]I am wondering, what does a 38 EEE feel like?
[url]http://charlotte.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/n-e-w-t-o-c-i-t-y-m-a-s-s-i-v-e-b-o-o-b-s-eees-a-l-l-y-o-u-r-s-23/5721493[/url]
No reviews or any history or I would be calling to find out? [/QUOTE]Southwestern Missouri, Oh! Maybe she's a real cow-girl? I saw that too, came up with nothing for research and skipped it. The girl in the photo is cute too.
Senior members (& Regulars who have shared w / me in PM) can PM me for more details. For everyone else, this is a safe bet. I know the motorcycle photo is real, she's got a few tats. A whole lot of fun. Haven't done her friend. . . Yet. Don't ask me which one goes by which name.
[url]http://charlotte.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/local-and-reviewed-oo-2-intoxicating-brunettes-oo-ready-to-play-27/4059103[/url]
Actually if you remembered your high school biology class you would know cats and dogs are different "SPECIES" not different "RACES", Race is referring to different genetic variation WITHIN THAT SPECIES. So a valid distinction woudl be that dogs and cats are different SPECIES, while German Shepards and Pit Bulls are different RACES within a SPECIES. Now that thats out of the way there is really no point addressing the rest of what you said because it was based on your initial false facts.
By the way here is the definition of race I copied from biology-online. Org (the first one is a general defini9ttion the second pertains specifically to humans) :
1."A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation"
2."A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair).
[QUOTE=Johnjohn 30; 1206120]Race implies the "inability to breed". Canine and Feline are different races. They can't make babies. Race when pertaining to Humans are a misnomer, perpetrated by supremacists and fascists the world over. What they are really talking about are breeds. Instead of Cats and Dogs, you're now talking about poodles and terriers. So, yes, I stand by my words.
Sure, if you're on a dating sight and say something like,"Interested in meeting someone from the Asian Pacific Rim" cause you dig Asian chicks, more power to you. But you don't say,"No chinks!" That's just rude.
If some girl is asking you to shell out $$ to bend her over and tickle her fancy sure, she's allowed to be picky because it's her preference, fine. All I was saying was she should have some class and not say it so she looks like a total ass-rag.
This reminds me of an ad I saw that said the provider wanted a photo of the john because she was picky. I replied to that and told her to go on Adult Friend Finder, that the escort section of backpage was not a dating service. Maybe she had class and that was her way of avoiding 90% of the pimps and hagglers. Cause from what I read before that a provider said."all pimps and hagglers have black skin."
Guys, by definition. Linguistically. It's racist. Here's my take on it. I like non-smokers. Smoking's a choice. If you want to do the horizontal shuffle with me, you can stop. Skin color. Oh, damn Michael Jackson. Whatever!
I'm also grumpy because I had a date with a really awesome girl today and she called in sick. I was so looking forward to it too. [/QUOTE]
LOL thats what restarted this debate.
[QUOTE=Solarmta;1206157]How about the black providers that have in their ad no black men.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ThumpUSA;1206215]JJ is on point. Race is a modern construct (500 years or so) of people who wanted to humiliate and dominate other humans. Before that, people were considered French, English, Egyptian, etc.[/QUOTE]Right. Why can't we simply turn the clock back to time of the conquistadors when everything was hunky dory?
Sorry, couldn't resist. "Race" is just a newer term for age-old biases. Now that I've had the last word, can we PLEEZ move on?
This is totally untrue, race goes back 1000's of years, as does the inclination for humans to "humiliate and dominate" each other. As soon as man learned how to make weapon he attacked other humans and took the woman and children as slaves. At one point just about every race on earth has been both the slaves and the slave owners, for some reason many black poeple seem to think slavery started and ended with them, but anyone ever heard of the roman empire? It was built on slavery, anyone every see the pyramisds in egypt? Those were all built by slaves too (jews owned by black africans to be precise) And even regarding the african races, it was other africans capturing and selling their own kind to the white slave traders, and slavery exists to this very day when you consider all the indentured servants in debt bondage in many coutries. So no one is really innocent.
And yes while 500 years ago people were considered "french, english, egyptian, etc" but how is that different from today? Most people still consider themselves French English Egyptian etc, it's only in the US where so many RACES mix that we have blurred the lines, (but then again ask anyone what they are and they will tell you "french english German or a mix of them all so thats not even lost in this country) race does not only mean skin color, Jews and Germans are both Caucasian but the Germans considered Jews a different race (and technically by definition they are correct) The Spaniards consider themselves a different race than the English who consider themselves a different race from the french etc. And this again also pertains to blacks as well, in the US they pretty much just get labeled "African american" but go to Africa and they will separate themselves, the Ethiopians don't consider themselves the same as the Nigerians who don't consider themselves the same as the Sudanese etc.
[QUOTE=ThumpUSA;1206215]JJ is on point. Race is a modern construct (500 years or so) of people who wanted to humiliate and dominate other humans. Before that, people were considered French, English, Egyptian, etc.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ConcordGuy;1206249]LOL thats what restarted this debate.[/QUOTE]Sorry I missed a few post and started on the middle.
[QUOTE=ConcordGuy; 1206248][. . . ]
1."A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation"
2."A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair). [/QUOTE]Except those various sets are qualitative and not quantitative. It's not science, it's pseudo-science, concocted to perpetrate bigoted notions of superiority and subjugation. And that's from my fancy graduate level anthropology and sociology classes.
I do stand corrected though. I didn't convey my thoughts succinctly. My apologies. What I was trying to say is that race was ORIGINALLY devised as a new word for SUB-SPECIES in HUMANS specifically. There are no "races" of birds. There are no "races" of dogs. The concept is late 19th to early 20th century and was heavily used by the fascists of the early to mid 20th century. Race is more akin to Breeds. And as many can attest to the new breeds in dogs that have cropped up in the last 20 years, there are an infinite number of possibilities and characteristics to choose from.
But I'll listen, show me show me how SCIENTIFICALLY a child from a 1/2 Korean and 1/2 Irish Father and a 1/2 Brazillian and 1/2 Nigerian Mother is quantitatively classified in this new-fangled racial classification science please.
Until then, Pseudo-science I say! Whipper-snapper! And I'm relying on my not so recent, modern, state university learning to base these here arguments upon.
[QUOTE=ConcordGuy;1206264]This is totally untrue, race goes back 1000's of years, [. . .][/QUOTE]Linguistically speaking, Race is a modern construct that was devised for a plethora of bigoted reasons. There are no ancient writings that classify people by the color of their skin or the width of their nose. They were classified by their national origins, Spartan, Egyptian, Roman, etc. And slaves could be of any nationality from neighboring countries. They weren't just Africans.
JJ,
My readings lead me to agree with you, though will no longer argue the matter so that we can return the discussion to the search of good pu pu.
[QUOTE=NC Transplant;1206042]A woman has a right to see who she wants and share her body with who she wants just like we have the right to see who we want. This is a personal choice when you are talking about having sex with someone? I personally find a lot of tats a turn off and piercings as well. Some guys may prefer blonds or redheads. Too many things get turned into a race thing these days? You would think we would be past that by now? How many times have guys been rejected solely on personal taste or appearance without getting to know what someone is about inside? How many people men and women alike get rejected because of their weight? How many guys on here shun BBW providers? If a woman don't want to see someone, that is her business and if your business if you want to see her or not.[/QUOTE]NCT, I couldn't have said it better! I'm surprised this has become such an issue. I have seen that disclaimer on alot of the escort's sites. I never really gave it much tought as to her being racist. If the provider is a good one, then there is a certain level of intimacy that should be involved in the session. It should be her choice what type of person she gets that close to.
There are alot of the escorts that are in the surrounding area, that I've never even considered seeing. Their race never figured into it. There is a specific type of girl that I like, so I don't call the others. With the girls it's the same, but they aren't the ones doing the calling, so they post it in their adds to save everyones time, and maybe an awkward moment at the door of her incall.
[QUOTE=Johnjohn 30; 1206357]But I'll listen, show me show me how SCIENTIFICALLY a child from a 1/2 Korean and 1/2 Irish Father and a 1/2 Brazillian and 1/2 Nigerian Mother is quantitatively classified in this new-fangled racial classification science please.
[/QUOTE]Does this refer to a local provider? I would like to see that combination. It would either produce a beauty queen, or a butt ugly individual, LOL!
If it produced the beauty queen," I'd hit that ", no matter what race, religion, or nationallity. No matter what kind of " tag " she was labeled with!
There is no such thing as a BLACK man and there is no such thing as a WHITE man. I can say with total truthfulness, we are all BROWN. Yes, that is absolutely right, we are all brown! Just different shades.
Depend son what you mean by ancient, I mean if your talking cave painting yeah your right, but the texts form the bible are well over 2000 years old and it has references to different races, (Jeremiah 13:23, Numbers 12:1-16, Exodus 34:10-17, Deuteronomy 7:3-4, and Luke 10:25-37) The romans had texts thats referred to different races as well, and so did the Greeks going back to Alexander the greats time. (it is well known that the Macedonians who followed Alexander thought themselves above the other races they encountered while Alexander was conquering his empire) Is that ancient enough for you?
As for your statement about ancient people using "national orgins" inmstead of race that is totally invalid, for ancient people national origin was race. You can see racial differenced between pure blooded italians and pure blooded sweeds and pure blooded Spaniards etc, different nationalities fit the definition of different races (A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation; A group or population of humans categorized on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics (such as color of skin, eyes, and hair))
Again race has been around for 1000's of years the main difference is many "modern" people have boiled it down to Mongoloid Caucasoid and Negroid (thats white black and yellow in case you didn't know) the difference in the past was people saw MORE racial differences not less, many modern "white" people especially americans would look at a Frenchman, or an englishman or a german and think "oh well he is white so we are the same race" but thats actually a false premise. Frenchman are technically a different race that and englishman or an italian. Agian this is a very new concept not even as old as your arbitrary 500 year time line, in the early 1900's many people in this country considered anyone of a different nationality a different race, Irishman were considered a "lower race" when they started migrating to the US, Jews got it maybe the worst out of the "white races" poeple even believed they had horns and thats why they wore thei beanies (sorry don't mean to offend anyone jewish, I just forgot what the beanie is called)
Agian I already proved your statement wrong before you posted it, read my other post different breeds of dogs are by definition different races, you say there are no "races of dogs" but again by definition a german sheppard would be one race and a pitt bull would be another etc. Any animal that has more than one breed that "develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species," has different races inside it's species.
As for what race a person is if they have four different races in their family tree, now I think your just playing dumb because this is not a hard question to answer, they are technically of no true race. Again ill use the animal analogy, if you mix a German sheppard a golden retreiver a pitt bull and a rottweiler that dog is no longer belongs of any of those "races" or breeds it is a mutt or a mongrel, Humans have rarely been referred to as "mutts" (I have even refferred to myself half seriously as a "mutt" at times because its easier than going through all the different RACES I belong to.) but people of mixed races have often been referred to as mongrels as well. Other terms have been "half breed" and "Mestizo" for mixed native americans, Mulatto for black / white mixed, Zumba for latin / black mix,"pardo" for brazilaian mixed, and "Metis" for Canadian white / native mixes, and then of course for the politically correct there is "biracial" and "Multiracial" (do you need more examples I haven't even touched europe or asia yet)
Last but not least, while you are sort of right about race being only 500 years old, thats only referrs to the word race not the meaning behind it. Yes the english word race is approximately 500 years old, but there are word in many other languages dating back 1000's of years that have the same meaning as race.
[QUOTE=Johnjohn 30; 1206357]Except those various sets are qualitative and not quantitative. It's not science, it's pseudo-science, concocted to perpetrate bigoted notions of superiority and subjugation. And that's from my fancy graduate level anthropology and sociology classes.
I do stand corrected though. I didn't convey my thoughts succinctly. My apologies. What I was trying to say is that race was ORIGINALLY devised as a new word for SUB-SPECIES in HUMANS specifically. There are no "races" of birds. There are no "races" of dogs. The concept is late 19th to early 20th century and was heavily used by the fascists of the early to mid 20th century. Race is more akin to Breeds. And as many can attest to the new breeds in dogs that have cropped up in the last 20 years, there are an infinite number of possibilities and characteristics to choose from.
But I'll listen, show me show me how SCIENTIFICALLY a child from a 1/2 Korean and 1/2 Irish Father and a 1/2 Brazillian and 1/2 Nigerian Mother is quantitatively classified in this new-fangled racial classification science please.
Until then, Pseudo-science I say! Whipper-snapper! And I'm relying on my not so recent, modern, state university learning to base these here arguments upon. [/QUOTE]