White men probably didn't rape slave women as much as modern liberals like to claim.

[nonvir_1984]

Guys are capable of immeasurable depths of grossness in the quest for orgasm. They most certainly fucked those women en masse. They fuck vegetables, fruits, raw meat, livestock, their own genetic offspring, exceptional individuals, the elderly, the morbidly obese, other men's hairy assholes, trach holes.

The list of stuff they won't try to fuck is really short.

Sorry.

No need to be sorry. Just don't go near Walmart with a gun. I do not know the relative proportions of grossness and depraved sexual practises vis a vis gender, but suspect males take the prize. Nevertheless, I've met some girls who are pretty goddamed depraved in their search for an orgasm. And power.

 

[Providence]

No need to be sorry. Just don't go near Walmart with a gun. I do not know the relative proportions of grossness and depraved sexual practises vis a vis gender, but suspect males take the prize. Nevertheless, I've met some girls who are pretty goddamed depraved in their search for an orgasm. And power.

Oh? Got any swollen, itchy anecdotes?

 

[nonvir_1984]

This is an a priori argument.... and can't really be applied to what went on - or be used to draw conclusions. We don't really know 'cause there is not a lot of documentary evidence, until later. The other problem is that what folks regarded as "consent" is a whole lot different from now. And in any case, the owners views were that you own them so you can do what you want. I saw one letter, I think it was where this owner said "can animals consent?" because they regarded slaves as lacking will and choice. And in any case, God placed you superior to them, and that gave you the right to fuck them, irrespective of whether they consented.
The view of the Islamic state towel heads was just that: you own the slave, so you can fuck her, Allah says so.
Slavery is such a fucking absurd practice. It is grievious then that T Jefferson has slaves - and took one as his de facto wife and had children with her. And Jefferson in so many other respects is such an amazing person.

 

[Easterling]

In the Caribbean, raping a slave to produce more slaves was called nutmegging, the French revolutionary wars general Thomas-Alexandre Dumas was the result of a similar union from his homeland of Haiti. His son went on the write the three musketeers. Your assertion that it didn't happen much is exceptional because many historical sources, primarily diaries suggest the opposite to your claims. I agree its a really politically charged topic at the moment but the distinction i make is that in the early most part of the slave trade, rape was more common than the later stages.

 

[ES 195]

It's hard not falling for the liberal propaganda on this since whites love fucking animals.

 

[nonvir_1984]

Oh? Got any swollen, itchy anecdotes?

Yeah, I do. But it was the girls telling me in my professional capacity, you will understand, rather than my, as it were, sampling the goods.
But the number of really successful, powerful women who have domination and rape fantasies, including using vegetables, Blacks and so on, was shocking. And wanting their partners to do to them all sorts of degrading thing,s and the partners - males and females - refusing.
There was this coven, about half a dozen women, whose big thrill was to put on their expensive stillettos and dance around the floor, crushing cockroaches and mice and small animals. That one stuck in my mind.
DIY artificial insemination is also big, but often preceded by a wild time. And the number of women whose marriages fell apart when they confessed a preference for various vegetables to their partners thing. There was this other bunch of girls who used to smear honey or butter or stuff on their twats and then get their dogs or cats to luck it off.
I could go on for hours.

It the Caribbean, raping a slave to produce more slaves was called nutmegging, the French revolutionary wars general Thomas-Alexandre Dumas was the result of a similar union from his homeland of Haiti. His son went on the write the three musketeers. Your assertion that it didn't happen much is exceptional because many historical sources, primarily diaries suggest the opposite to your claims. I agree its a really politically charged topic at the moment but the distinction i make is that in the early most part of the slave trade, rape was more common than the later stages.

I did not say it did not happen much, I said "not a lot of documentary evidence, until later". My own view it that it went on all the time, but I have not seen a lot contemporary evidence. It happened where ever you have a dominant population overlording another. It happened in Australia (there is a lot of documentary evidence - and now, DNA). And in New Zealand. And the Belgian Congo. And South America. The problem was proving it. And, the other issue is that of consent. But my main issue with the argument was that it was a priori.
The other point in the argument was that, "The thing is, I'm pretty sure that your average man doesn't want to rape anybody". Again, in the modern West (not that I like that adjective) it may well be true; but there is a reasonable amount of documentary evidence that in the British Isles, the Continent and the Italian states, sex without consent was more common than today. I'm recalling that from a college course I took a few years back. [And the instructor was a rad-fem lesbian.]

 

[Lemmingwise]

It the Caribbean, raping a slave to produce more slaves was called nutmegging

Any source for this claim? Can't find anything on it.

 

[Easterling]

Any source for this claim? Can't find anything on it.

It was on a documentary I saw, I'll try to find the link.

Any source for this claim? Can't find anything on it.

watch it around 11:05 fam

 

[Lurkio]

This thread is dumb, but I'm dumb so I'm gonna leave my opinions here anyways.

Where there white slave owners who rape their slaves? Of course. Though rarely the mustache twirling villains that media often portrays them as, I'm sure a good amount of slave owners weren't good people. That being said, I think everyone's forgetting why people own slaves in the first place:

CHEAP LABOR

One payment and you got a person who works for free so long as they belong to you. I think we all know what happens to someone after they're raped? They don't just bounce back from it the next morning, no, that shits going fuck them up and screw with their work production for months, years, maybe even their whole life. Southern Plantation Slave Owners weren't like Egyptian slave drivers serving a Pharaoh, they were business men, and guess what happens to your profits when a some of your works production takes a drop because you couldn't be bothered to spend two cents to rent a hooker for the evening? Yep, you start loosing money. Most Plantation owners (the savvy ones anyways) whipped slaves rarely and only as the highest form of punishment, because after you whip some poor bastard half to death, they're going to be out of commission for a bit, and that means you're losing money. That's not to say these slaves had it great, they were still slaves after all, but it's not like someone brought out the whip every time a slave spoke without being spoken to first.

That aside, if a Plantation owner really wanted to get it on with some black women it's unlikely they'd have to resort to rape. They could probably find at least a few female slaves that at least would begrudgingly comply with it, if only for the chance to get a few benefits as a"concubine". As one there's a decent chance you're probably not going to have to do much hard labor, if any at all, because you know he's going to show some favoritism, he'll probably see your logging are a bit better off or at least that you get some nicer food. It would suck if you had a husband, because being forced to commit adultery sucks, no two ways about it. But at the same-time I do believe there are a few records of owners having "mistresses" that they treated better then there own wifes, so I guess it depended on the owner.

Again, this is not to say slaves getting rape didn't happen, it did, and that's terrible, hell, I don't need to do a google search to know there are many records of abuse, rape, and various other levels of brutality towards slaves. I'm sure some dumbass inherited daddys business and didn't know shit about running it and everyone, including himself, knew it. So he ended up doing something fucked up like that to make himself feel like a big man when really he was some limped dick loser ridding on daddies success. But most plantation owners where business men first, slaves were expensive, and you'd end up going broke quick if you were abusing your slaves to the point they could barely work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, 12 Years a Slave would have been a better movie if it had Solomon spend the movie in the first plantation where the owner wasn't a moron and actually had some character and morality. Even the wikipedia article says something like that would have been more accurate to the actual accounts of Solomon Northup, if nothing else it would have been different then the "typical slave story" with the slaver being a borderline cartoon villain. Idiot making his slaves dance in the middle of the night for his amusement, they got work to do in the morning dumbass, how are you going to meet quota's if your workers are all dead tired!? Freaking stupid.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

All that European DNA in the descendents of slaves had to come from somewhere

And I don't disagree with what you're saying, @Lurkio, but I'd argue that any sex with a slave is essentially rape by coercion even if it's not violent rape

 

[Lemmingwise]

snip

Kinda reminds me of the research some did into whether there was knowledge of something like PTSD in pre-first world war trench warfare.

They hit upon the fact that Romans considered essential information about a slave whether they've ever survived a bear attack and that that might be an indication of something similar. Why would it be necessary to include that information unless it affected the value of a slave? And how else could being a previous victim of bear attack (or perhaps in the colloseum) than that it permanently jostles your psychology up?

I found it somewhat a convincing case.

 

[Idiotron]

At the height of slavery in the US, only 1.4% of whites owned slaves.
Even if there was a lot of rape, it was done by the rich and powerful, not the ordinary citizens.

 

[Stoneheart]

the number of Rapists was much lower than they wanna make you believe, but the number of rape wasnt. there are some people who like that stuff, and the chances that they worked in jobs they had the power they needed is pretty high.
you can find this pattern in almost every society.
the only time normal people rape is after they sacked a city. the blood rush will make them lose their inhibitions.

They hit upon the fact that Romans considered essential information about a slave whether they've ever survived a bear attack and that that might be an indication of something similar. Why would it be necessary to include that information unless it affected the value of a slave? And how else could being a previous victim of bear attack (or perhaps in the colloseum) than that it permanently jostles your psychology up?

or it was just a way of impressing the buyer.

 

[Lemmingwise]

or it was just a way of impressing the buyer.

If it was marketing it's unlikely for the information to be available for all those who hadn't been part of bear attacks, it seems to me.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

At the height of slavery in the US, only 1.4% of whites owned slaves.
Even if there was a lot of rape, it was done by the rich and powerful, not the ordinary citizens.

That’s based on very misleading data. Within the South, the number of white households that owned slaves tended to vary from a quarter to half of all households.

Of course white women, white children, blacks themselves, and Yankees did not tend to have slaves, even though the first two categories were present in almost every family that did own slaves.

 

[Niggernerd]

Who tf would fuck niggers lol
1800's hwyt muhfuggas ha no standorts n shieeeeeet

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Who tf would fuck niggers lol
1800's hwyt muhfuggas ha no standorts n shieeeeeet

I brought up modern dating patterns because I think they’d be much more permissive than older breeding patterns. If nobody I know would consider screwing a Black, racist Whites from back then should be even worse.

 

[Syaoran Li]

If you're going to go down that rabbit hole there are few things that might help to make sense of it all.

1. Kinsey is the father of the sexual revolution. He gave the intellectual and study backbone to get people to believe such claims as that 10-37% of men engaged in homosexual activity. A lot of people trying to figure out what was normal or average have been using his stats for 7 decades. You yourself did so in this thread. I'm saying this just to emphasize the influence and value that these stats have. In terms of influence it's hard to overstate how influential it has been. His work has been used for Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, MPC, SIECUS. I'm not voicing my moral position on any of these (it might surprise some people if I did), just a note for how influential his work was and how it helped build many of the things we take for granted now.

2. Kinsey was deeply fascinated with Aleister Crowley. When Crowley died, Kinsey travelled to Europe to search for Crowley's notebooks in both Britain and Sicilly. Crowley is a deep rabbit hole in itself. This is relevant particularly for Crowley's role in sexual magick and satanism.

3. He was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Kinsey institute still is, as well as by Ford Foundation, Playboy Foundation and George Soros.

4. Hugh Hefner was inspired by Kinsey when he was in his twenties and was part of the inspiration to start Playboy, including the pedophiliac material that was published in it. Hugh Hefner started by saying "I will be Kinsey's pamphleteer!"

Judith Reisman is perhaps the best known person to expose flaws in Kinsey's research. She has written plenty of books and you can find plenty of youtube videos of her. She was also sued by playboy for saying they had promoted pedophilia as well as published pedophilic images, but she proved in court that they did.

Judith Reisman, Ph.D. - Institute for Media Education

I wouldn't take everything Reisman says without a grain of salt either. She believes the Kinsey report to be responsible for sexting, for example, which to me seems a natural result of technology. But most of it seems very credible and some of it is even proven in court of law.

Now I'll stop hijacking the thread. We can talk about it in another thread or pm if you want to.

See, I always viewed Alfred Kinsey in the same manner as Sigmund Freud. He got the ball rolling when it came to the study of human sexual behavior in a clinical context, but at the same time, his data and methodology was very faulty and his findings have since been largely discredited.

Both also had very fucked-up personal lives and Freud was a literal cokehead.

However, both Freud and Kinsey opened up a new field of study and allowed for more competent scientific minds to learn more factual information and take a better scientific approach to psychology/psychoanalysis in Freud's case or sexual behavior in Kinsey's case.

 

[Lemmingwise]

However, both Freud and Kinsey opened up a new field of study and allowed for more competent scientific minds to learn more factual information and take a better scientific approach to psychology/psychoanalysis in Freud's case or sexual behavior in Kinsey's case.

The next most prolific person to run with that "new field of study" was John Money, who ended up completely wrecking the Rheimer family until two committed suicide, forced twins to pretend to copulate until they cried and didn't want to go to him anymore, and convinced parents to raise their son as a daughter, despite Rheimer saying that he always knew, from a young age. When the parents kept him from seeing John Money, Dr. Money continued to falsify research that things were working out great.

But I do suppose things got somewhat better after that with Masters and Johnsons, though I'm just going by wikipedia on them. Supposedly they had 80% succes rate in dealing with sexual dysfunction, through simply a short series of talk therapy (previously people would go into years of ineffectual therapy). They also apparently had a 71.6% success rate with gay conversion, but that was controversial even then and the press wrote only bad things about it.

Any specific researchers you think I should look into?

 

[Syaoran Li]

The next most prolific person to run with that "new field of study" was John Money, who ended up completely wrecking the Rheimer family until two committed suicide, forced twins to pretend to copulate until they cried and didn't want to go to him anymore, and convinced parents to raise their son as a daughter, despite Rheimer saying that he always knew, from a young age. When the parents kept him from seeing John Money, Dr. Money continued to falsify research that things were working out great.

But I do suppose things got somewhat better after that with Masters and Johnsons, though I'm just going by wikipedia on them. Supposedly they had 80% succes rate in dealing with sexual dysfunction, through simply a short series of talk therapy (previously people would go into years of ineffectual therapy). They also apparently had a 71.6% success rate with gay conversion, but that was controversial even then and the press wrote only bad things about it.

Any specific researchers you think I should look into?

I'll be honest, I'm pressing X really hard on the 71.6% success rate with gay conversion.

Gay conversion therapy is pseudo-scientific bunk and rarely if ever works, just ask the Evangelicals how well their attempts went. Most of those gay kids who underwent conversion therapy either committed suicide or became bitter euphoric atheists and SJW's.

But then again, I'm more of a history nerd and I have little to no interest in sexology, so who knows?

However, I do agree with you that John Money was a sick son of a bitch and was worse than Kinsey in every regard.

He's also responsible for the myth of "gender is a social construct" so yeah, fuck him!