Why do women, particularly White women, have an instinctual racial bias against dating outside their race? Common sense tells us that a woman thinks with her hindbrain when choosing a mate, and one subconscious calculation she runs is how much her potential children with any man will resemble her. People, believe it or not, prefer to bear and raise children who look similar to themselves.
Now a study has uncovered that there is a biological basis for women’s racial bias against miscegenation. (h/t Dick Whitman)
Although a considerable body of research explores alterations in women’s mating-relevant preferences across the menstrual cycle, investigators have yet to examine the potential for the menstrual cycle to influence intergroup attitudes. We examined the effects of changes in conception risk across the menstrual cycle on intergroup bias and found that increased conception risk was positively associated with several measures of race bias. This association was particularly strong when perceived vulnerability to sexual coercion was high. Our findings highlight the potential for hypotheses informed by an evolutionary perspective to generate new knowledge about current social problems—an avenue that may lead to new predictions in the study of intergroup relations.
When women are at their most fertile, they are especially racist against outgroup men. Ovulation means Othering. (Would love to see this study controlled for race of woman, too. I bet ovulating White women are the most racist.)
It’s almost as if Nature doesn’t much care for the supposed benefits of “hybrid vigor” and prefers that kind mates with kind.
***
Wrong Side of History writes,
Wonder how much of a role birth control has played in the rise of mudsharking?
Good question! I bet it has played a role. Birth control coupled with relentless antiWhite cultural propaganda are possibly responsible for a YUUGE part of that 28% rise in interracial perversions. BC shuts down women’s ovulation, perhaps robbing them of their innate ability to discriminate in favor of men from their own race.
***
betamaxx oh-so-innocently asks,
But its not bad if she’s been with 20 white guys?
False premise. (For those new to the logic fallacy universe of devious haters/trolls, the false premise fallacy is often deployed by feminists and dindus, as these two groups seem to be the most certain that their shucking and jiving will go unnoticed by their betters.)
No one claimed it’s great if a White woman has slept with 20 White MEN, but there are levels of badness. The proper question to ask is whether 20 White cocks is not as bad, as bad, or worse than 1 black cock.
Commenter -A answers betamaxx,
Never has one been so transparent with their handle. No, when one must choose between twenty White men and nineteen White men and one nagger (or worse) it will always be the former that wins out. Chances are, if she is worth the arousal, those twenty men were not immediately consecutive and were at least bordering alpha. If she is not hot, who cares? Her only choice is mudbirthing anyway.
This is actually the basis for a life-affirming thought experiment.
How many White cock carousels can a White woman ride before it taints her as badly as riding one black cock?
Personally, if I found out a girl I was dating had JUST ONCE burned the coal, I would write her off as an investment vehicle for long-term love. (I would continue to plow her until the bloom fell off her rose, which you could say is a sort of karmic payback for her race denial treachery.) The risk-reward equation would be skewed uncomfortably toward the risk side. White women who ‘shark invariably have personality tics and temperaments that make them ill-suited to be loyal lovers and, if it’s your thing, doting mothers.
The equivalent number in White cocks sufficient to turn me off to her as an LTR prospect would reside somewhere in the 10-15 range. Which is to say, black cock is a White vagina pollutant 10-15 times more corrosive than White cock.
[crypto-donation-box]
