Why are "racist" guys always attracted to non white women?

BlutWieEisen said:

You wrote all that just to explain basic fraction math, nice work! If my children are 75% ethnic white (and I hate that term, fuck man, but that's a different can of worms) and one of them has relations with an Asian person later in life oops! Their offspring would be majority Asian again. It's a complete strawman and fantasy land take to assume you will eventually selectively breed out species like we're fucking dogs, that just isn't realistic in modern society

which is why i said it's not likely, but it's very easy to have a society where it's possible because we literally had laws of that stuff in the past. Also, yes while i was explaining fractional math, some people dont first realize it works that way because they just assume if you keep dividing a number in half you never get to 0, but obviously the human genome isnt infinitely divisible so you do get to zero with it. i was just pointing that out for some people.

It’s important to note that most genes and alleles relating to pigmentation of phenotypes work under an operation of dominant and recessive genes/alleles. When an genes’ allele that has to do with say the colour of one’s eyes informs the body that they should not add pigment (thus making it blue or some other lighter colour), but the other genes’ allele you inherit tells you to add pigment to the eye (typically making it brown or some darker colour), your body is going to defer to alleles telling you to do something rather than nothing. Therefore the genes/alleles that are often described as dominant are simply the ones telling you do something, rather than not much or nothing at all. So when you inherit two recessive genes that say to do nothing, that’s when you (in this scenario) get eye colour that is less pigmented and thus causes a trait that phenotypically results in lighter eye colour. But if you receive just one dominant allele it’ll override the recessive. This person that has a dominant and recessive allele can still pass on their recessive genes, especially to someone who has those recessive genes more present, it’s just that the dominant genes tend to always pass on.

AryanSuperSoldier said:

It’s important to note that most genes and alleles relating to pigmentation of phenotypes work under an operation of dominant and recessive genes/alleles. When an genes’ allele that has to do with say the colour of one’s eyes informs the body that they should not add pigment (thus making it blue or some other lighter colour), but the other genes’ allele you inherit tells you to add pigment to the eye (typically making it brown or some darker colour), your body is going to defer to alleles telling you to do something rather than nothing. Therefore the genes/alleles that are often described as dominant are simply the ones telling you do something, rather than not much or nothing at all. So when you inherit two recessive genes that say to do nothing, that’s when you (in this scenario) get eye colour that is less pigmented and thus causes a trait that phenotypically results in lighter eye colour. But if you receive just one dominant allele it’ll override the recessive. This person that has a dominant and recessive allele can still pass on their recessive genes, especially to someone who has those recessive genes more present, it’s just that the dominant genes tend to always pass on.

pigmentation is actually one of the least race specific genes. For example, the two genetically farthest apart races, African pygmies and Australian aboriginals, have similar pigmentation despite their genetic distance. The most varying genes across the races are actually the ones related to neurological and the brain. This makes sense evolutionarily because the "human niche" we fall into among animals is our brain's capabilities, thus it is the one that has the most genetic selection for, where as another animal might be it's camouflage or wings. Yes pigmentation does have some evolutionary benefits, like Africans being darker because they have more intense sunlight, but ultimately this isn't as important as the brain as you can adapt to it in other ways, like wearing animal skins to cover your skin that people adapted to do.

fkiblaze said:

pigmentation is actually one of the least race specific genes. For example, the two genetically farthest apart races, African pygmies and Australian aboriginals, have similar pigmentation despite their genetic distance. The most varying genes across the races are actually the ones related to neurological and the brain. This makes sense evolutionarily because the "human niche" we fall into among animals is our brain's capabilities, thus it is the one that has the most genetic selection for, where as another animal might be it's camouflage or wings. Yes pigmentation does have some evolutionary benefits, like Africans being darker because they have more intense sunlight, but ultimately this isn't as important as the brain as you can adapt to it in other ways, like wearing animal skins to cover your skin that people adapted to do.

well yeah, stuff like skin tone and lots of other stuff is determined by like 100's of genes. I was just using the eye example as just that, an example

A white wife is normal. It's a desirable pairing to have kids and a family.

A brown girl is attractive because she isn't a wife. She is a fuck toy cum slut you do weird and dirty sex with.

yarblharbl said:

A white wife is normal. It's a desirable pairing to have kids and a family.

A brown girl is attractive because she isn't a wife. She is a fuck toy cum slut you do weird and dirty sex with.

Sometimes you gotta think with your brain man:/

Never ask a white supremacist the race of his wife