Interracial Sex, taboo or natural.

[crazycatz]

the reality is, ANY generalisations made on the basis of race IS racism - be they negative generalisations or positive ones....and there is evidence of both in this thread.

[havefuninsun]

Originally Posted by NumbskullsX2

"WE no longer play with interracial couples because in OUR experience, they've all been druggies, criminals, and nut cases" Even if it didn't make us sound like racists, it would make us sound like IDIOTS.

Dude ... I think this is the issue. They didn't say they weren't going to play with white men for any other reason but their experience(s) have been that sexually, they just don't do it for her. If they cum too quickly, have a difficult time staying hard, whatever -- her experiences have been that the white guys she has met in the lifestyle have more of these issues.

Do *I* think you should group everyone together from some bad experiences? Nope ... but if that is their reality, and you personally think it's idiotic, who cares what they think. I think they may be missing out, but who cares? It's their playtime, not mine.

It's about sex, right?

Their experiences are their experiences.

I have a white friend who really digs on being with black men. Why? Her experiences have been good ones. She has had less positive experiences being with white men, so she finds herself more attracted to black men.

There is a quasi-local profile in our area from a white couple that says they do not play with other races, and they even go as far as to say they're not interested in playing with couples who are certified by other races. Now, that sounds more racist to me. In their profile, even though that is in your face and you can't help but think, "wow" when you read it, the next sentence says, "this is our preference - we know it's not everyone's preference - if it bothers you, just move on to the next profile." At least you know where these people stand.

I've also seen profiles that have flat out said "we're looking for well-hung black men only." Again, we can just move right on by because we would not be filling their preference.

I'm just so surprised this has hit such a nerve.

[Greg & Sheryl]

Originally Posted by NumbskullsX2

A policeman in a large city could easily say that 60% of the black people he meets are criminals, or that 60% of the interracial couples he pulls over are holding drugs, and be telling the absolute truth. A person who works in an inner-city health clinic could say that 60% of the interracial couples she sees have one or more STD's A psychologist could say that 60% of the women he sees in interracial marriages suffer from low self esteem. All of these statements could very well be "facts." He could then use these "facts" to justify discrminating against ALL black people, based only on the color of their skin. Would he be right or wrong?

We would argue that he would be RIGHT! He obviously couldn't discriminate in regard to schooling, housing or hiring, because that would be illegal, but if he used those facts to justify not socializing with black people, that would be HIS CHOICE, and he would be completely entitled to it.

What I care about is that somebody else used "her" words and "her" decision to insult an entire race.

We don't understand this at all. It sounds like you're suggesting that our statements are insulting coming from Greg, but not from Sheryl. The substance of the message, rather than the messenger, is what should matter.

Saying that you're not attracted to somebody doesn't give you a right to insult them.

Perhaps you should have kept that in mind when you made unflattering remarks about Sheryl's weight and hair.

There are nice ways to say a thing, and ways that are going to cause trouble.

Goodness knows you've provided us with a lot of examples in this thread. There is a reason why your post rating icon is currently red.

[Cerberus]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

More risk for HIV in some races. So that could a limiting factor for play

Hey guys hope you all dont think this is my POV. Its a comment i have heard with sex in general.

I would say per capita it may be true. But i have no facts to back this up.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/res...tsheets/aa.htm



ah here are some from the CDC

HIV/AIDS in 2005

According to the 2000 census, blacks make up approximately 13% of the US population. However, in 2005, blacks accounted for 18,121 (49%) of the estimated 37,331 new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the United States in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting [2].*
Of all black men living with HIV/AIDS, the primary transmission category was sexual contact with other men, followed by injection drug use and high-risk heterosexual contact [2].
Of all black women living with HIV/AIDS, the primary transmission category was high-risk heterosexual contact, followed by injection drug use [2].
Of the estimated 141 infants perinatally infected with HIV, 91 (65%) were black (CDC, HIV/AIDS Reporting System, unpublished data, December 2006).
Of the estimated 18,849 people under the age of 25 whose diagnosis of HIV/AIDS was made during 2001–2004 in the 33 states with HIV reporting, 11,554 (61%) were black [3].

*See the box (before the References section) labeled Understanding HIV and AIDS Data for a list of the 33 states.

Race/ethnicity of persons (including children) with HIV/AIDS diagnosed during 2005

[Spoomonkey]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

I would say per capita it may be true. But i have no facts to back this up.

True... But let's all keep in mind that ANY TIME you have sex with a stranger you are at risk for disease. You have to be wise enough and discerning enough to make a "judgment" about the person - not the statistics that might somehow relate to them.

But isn't that ultimately the point? Make your judgments based on the person?

I think when we forget that point, we are being racist, elitist, narrow-minded... Whatever fits...

We have come up with a new term around here (mostly to describe Mrs Spoo's "slight bisexual interest) and I think it fits pretty well: "Person-sexual". Just judge each person as an individual. If they fit your prefences - great! If they over come your preferences - even better!!!

Spoomonkey

[NumbskullsX2]

Originally Posted by Greg & Sheryl

Perhaps you should have kept that in mind when you made unflattering remarks about Sheryl's weight and hair.

I didn't make those comments, my wife did. I did not agree with her, of course, but "to convince her otherwise would be tantamount to forcing her to “take one for the team,” which is something that neither of us believe in" which is something I'm sure you understand.

Originally Posted by Greg & Sheryl

There is a reason why your post rating icon is currently red.

So that's what that is! Well, if my "post rating" is red because I call bullshit when I see it, then I'll wear my red one with pride. The only "rating" that I care about is the one I get from my family and my friends. Currently, it's pretty good, maybe because I try to treat ALL people with respect. Even racists and bigots.

[Greg & Sheryl]

Originally Posted by NumbskullsX2

I didn't make those comments, my wife did. I did not agree with her, of course, but "to convince her otherwise would be tantamount to forcing her to “take one for the team,” which is something that neither of us believe in" which is something I'm sure you understand.

As we've said twice before in this thread (but you have failed to acknowledge thus far), the source of the statement doesn't matter. An insult is an insult regardless of who it comes from, so the source is irrelevant.

...I try to treat ALL people with respect. Even racists and bigots.

...except online.

[NumbskullsX2]

Originally Posted by VegasLee

She did not insult an entire race.

I am part of that race and I was not insulted by what she said.

Yep. La-La land.

Now that we know that you're "part of that race", which, according to Sheryl, "has consistently underperformed in bed" I'm curious as to which you are - one of the ones who "cums after only 4 or 5 strokes", or one who "can't have an erection at all?" Just asking, that's all

[NumbskullsX2]

Originally Posted by JustAskJulie

I hate to say it but it's all still too alive and well in the south. I know there are even still (swinger) clubs around that don't allow people of certain races to attend.

Maybe that's because all of their experiences with people of "certain races" were negative. If so, banning people of "certain races" from their club isn't racist, it's just their "preference"

Originally Posted by Greg & Sheryl

An insult is an insult regardless of who it comes from, so the source is irrelevant....except online.

That's what I've been saying all along.
Don't be lookin' around, the bite marks on your ass are your own

[Greg & Sheryl]

Originally Posted by Cerberus

Hey guys hope you all dont think this is my POV.

HIV/AIDS in 2005

According to the 2000 census, blacks make up approximately 13% of the US population. However, in 2005, blacks accounted for 18,121 (49%) of the estimated 37,331 new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the United States in the 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting.

It may not be your point of view, but it's a legitimate point of view. It's an undeniable fact that African-Americans have the highest rate of HIV infection in this country, which is enough to make some people uncomfortable about having sex with black people (and it may increase the "taboo" factor for others).

Originally Posted by Spoomonkey

True... But let's all keep in mind that ANY TIME you have sex with a stranger you are at risk for disease. You have to be wise enough and discerning enough to make a "judgment" about the person - not the statistics that might somehow relate to them.

In a perfect swinging world, it would be nice if everyone chose playmates on an individual basis. However, there are risks associated with this lifestyle, so each couple must decide how they are going to conduct themselves in order to reduce that risk. The statistics on the second pie chart posted by Cerberus are a reason we don't play with bisexual men. Others may decide they don't want to play with us because of the statistics on the first pie chart, and that's perfectly fine with us. As Pepper & Drew said earlier, that's just weeding people off of our dance card.

[Greg & Sheryl]

Originally Posted by NumbskullsX2

Now that we know that you're "part of that race", which, according to Sheryl, "has consistently underperformed in bed" I'm curious as to which you are - one of the ones who "cums after only 4 or 5 strokes", or one who "can't have an erection at all?" Just asking, that's all

Perhaps the reason VegasLee doesn't take offense is because he knows he doesn't fit into that "underperforming" category. While it may sadden Greg if someone doesn't want to know him because he/she thinks most black men are thugs, he doesn't take personal offense because he knows he doesn't fit into that "thug" category.

[Greg & Sheryl]

Originally Posted by NumbskullsX2

Maybe that's because all of their experiences with people of "certain races" were negative. If so, banning people of "certain races" from their club isn't racist, it's just their "preference"

That's a perfectly fair statement. Whatever their motive is, if they don't want certain races at their clubs, they are entitled to that preference. But our beloved Julie, even though she described it as racist, certainly wasn't popping a blood vessel over it, was she? We're pretty confident she wasn't sending them pointless, vicious emails, either.

That's what I've been saying all along.
Don't be lookin' around, the bite marks on your ass are your own

We are genuinely perplexed by this statement. You've been quite clear in stating that a major part of your problem with us was that you felt statements attributed to Sheryl were actually statements from Greg. Now you're saying it didn't matter?

[crazycatz]

Originally Posted by Greg & Sheryl

That's a perfectly fair statement. Whatever their motive is, if they don't want certain races at their clubs, they are entitled to that preference.

i'm sorry but are you for real? i cant believe anyone would think it would be ok to ban admission to a club based on race!

[VegasLee]

Originally Posted by crazycatz

i'm sorry but are you for real? i cant believe anyone would think it would be ok to ban admission to a club based on race!

Crazycatz,

You may be surprised that there are many clubs in the U.S. that will not allow you in if you are not pretty enough, rich enough, skinny enough or not part of a couple. Just because it is the U.S. does not mean that all get to have everything. People that own the clubs set the rules for who and who can not come into their clubs.

Does not mean that we all agree with it or disagree with it but bottom line is a private club owner makes his own rules, his club, his money, his party. If we don't agree we just don't go to that club.

NumbskullsX2:

Your name says it all. Truth in advertising.

[Spoomonkey]

Originally Posted by Greg & Sheryl

In a perfect swinging world, it would be nice if everyone chose playmates on an individual basis.

Rather than based on race? Yes... It would

Spoomonkey