'Seeking Asian Female' Takes A Close Look At A Fetish

[MadImmortalMan]

Hey Ide:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/4929385/Do-men-like-you-naked-We-ask-panel-to-rate-six-brave-girls-on-photoshoot.html

NSFW

Nobody said anything negative.

[Caliga]

Yeah, I thought that was kind of BS.

[CountDeMoney]

Never saw a chocolate Michelin model before.

[Ed Anger]

 

[Josquius]

The tall thing is true. Being tall is the number one most correlated factor in attraction for men. I think I saw an OKC trends thing about it. They come up with all kinds of crazy stuff there. Like this. 





Edit: Found it. Seedy's number is right on the money. Pun intended.

Whats with all the midget love from the men?

[Tonitrus]

Spinners, dawg.

[MadImmortalMan]

The tall thing is true. Being tall is the number one most correlated factor in attraction for men. I think I saw an OKC trends thing about it. They come up with all kinds of crazy stuff there. Like this. 





Edit: Found it. Seedy's number is right on the money. Pun intended.

Whats with all the midget love from the men?

I like a girl I can toss around on the bed. What can I say?

[derspiess]

Never saw a chocolate Michelin model before.

Uh, yeah.  And the entire panel was completely full of shit when it came to her.  Anonymous comments would have been more truthful, but of course they wouldn't dare include them.

[Josquius]

I like a girl I can toss around on the bed. What can I say?

Fair enough for preferring small girls (though I like taller ones. Shortness is a huge negative factor) but under 5 foot? On the graph that's not only OK but actually the most desirable.

[Eddie Teach]

Supply and demand. Fewer tiny girls so they get more hits.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Otto, some of your facts were wrong.  For example, the first wave of German immigration to America began well before the American Revolution; nearly all of my German ancestors (and my dad's family is essentially 100% German/ic -- qualifier is because many of them were from Switzerland, Alsace, or Lorraine, but all spoke some Germanic dialect) were in America prior to 1740.  Also, I can't say for sure when "most" Germans assimilated but in the case of my dad's family, they definitely spoke German as their everyday language at least until WWI and I believe my grandfather still spoke it as his everyday language until he went to college, which was in 1942.  My dad grew up primarily speaking English, but his parents tried very hard to get him to learn German but he wasn't interested... my aunt speaks Pennsylvania Dutch German fairly well though.  Despite his lack of interest, when I was a kid he would typically yell at or give stern orders to my brother and I in German, which is probably him mimicing his dad.

Even today some of the Lutheran churches in central PA have occasional services in German, though I believe it's Pennsylvania Dutch which at this point isn't really related to any variety of continental German anymore.  Also, obviously you know that the Amish and some Mennonites still to this day speak German/Pennsylvania Dutch as their everyday language and are quite far from being totally assimilated.

Also, I know less about the Italian-American community but it seems very late to have them 'fully assimilating' by the 1970s.  I grew up in a community of mostly Jews and Irish and Italian Catholics and there's no way those kids weren't totally American even if they ate more lasagna than usual.

You would have some points in regard to "correcting me" if I had made the claims you appear to be refuting. Yes, German American immigration began before the Revolution but the wave that had the most impact on American society and the wave that involved the most raw Germans was from the early 1800s-WWI. Prior to the Revolution I would wager that basically no country in Europe wasn't represented by at least some level of presence in the thirteen colonies. If you study American history from pre-Revolutionary days you hear a lot about the Palatinate Germans who come over, but they really weren't that big of an impact on American life. They mostly lived in small communities in Pennsylvania, and in fact because they predominantly settled in Pennsylvania almost to the total exclusion of other States it limited their impact. The massive wave of German immigration that came later, in the 1800s, saw American society having to come to grips with the presence of Germans basically everywhere (even though again, they faced less discrimination than the Irish in part because they were better equipped to keep to themselves.) The portion of German-Ancestry Americans basically doubled during the 1800s from below 10% right after the Constitution was signed to slightly over 20% by the early 1900s. That's a major deal, the Germans were the single largest ancestry group to come to America during the 19th century whereas English was by far the biggest ancestry group to come before 1800.

It isn't true, but technically German Americans are the single largest ancestry group in the United States today at 17% or 50m people. (I say it isn't true because most likely English is the largest group. But to an American if you're white and can't claim an "interesting" heritage like German/Italian/Irish/etc you tend to mark "American" as your ancestry group in the census. This trend has continued over time as people who might have 6/8 great-grandparents of primarily English heritage claiming "Irish" or "Swedish" ancestry because they think that's the most interesting. From 1980-2010 the number of people reporting English heritage dropped by 1/2 from almost 50m in 1980 to 23m today...almost entirely a by product of people reclassifying their heritage for no real material reason. But either way, German Americans are a significant ancestry group even though they are probably not as large as the English ancestry group.]

As for Pennsylvania Dutch, it's on a list of dying languages and is considered extremely obscure and that was true 100 years ago. The Amish mostly are not part of our immigrant population since they've been here forever and never interacted with "English" society, they're a weird religious anomaly and not part of the American fabric. As for German Church services and German spoken in the home, statistically it died off around WWI--that means you'll find all kinds of anecdotal stories to the contrary but the overall statistical picture shows little common usage of German after that point in the United States.

Even in 1914 the vast majority of older German-Americans attended German language church services but were bilingual otherwise and the vast majority of younger Germans had started to attend English language Church services and while they were fluent in German primarily spoke English in their homes.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Anyway, to respond to Jake's stupid pussy-bleed post.

America has a unique history that has lead to racial groups developing unique communities while also being part of the greater American whole. There aren't any immediate parallels in most other countries. The United States is really the only country I can think of that has had successive waves of immigration in which immigrants in numbers large enough to be a substantial portion of our population have come in and ultimately made up a large portion of the American demographic. I certainly know basically all countries in Asia, and Europe have simply never experienced such a thing. Europe, due to a combination of a declining or stagnant native population and increasing immigration from low income Muslim and Eastern European countries are now getting a taste of it but I think it takes several generations to see how it will play out.

In the rest of the Americas probably the only country with close to an experience like ours would be Brazil.

Canada.  And Australia have had massive amounts of immigration.

What was specific to the US (and Brazil) was slavery.

Honky please. Canada was an English settled and colonized area that also got to keep conquered Quebec, that's about the only real diversity you have. If you add up the percentage of Canada's population (excluding Irish who are not good historically at assimilating with British Protestants) of British Isles origin you get 36.85%, 32.22% in addition identifies as "Canadian" which means most likely persons of either French (Quebec has the highest percentage of residents who identify as "Canadian") or English ancestry. All told 83% of your population identifies as either Canadian, British Isles origin, or French.

Just not comparable. We've absorbed and are absorbing groups of much larger size, disparate religious and linguistic backgrounds and etc. Something like 13% of our current population is Hispanic, 12% is black. That doesn't even account for the much larger share of assimilated groups (17% German, 5% Italian etc.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

And realistically Canada shows what I talk about. Not only are they not heavily marked by any distinctive immigrant group, Canada itself is really nothing. We joke a lot, but the truth is Canada has no real culture or uniqueness at all. It's just a geographic region that for historical and convenience reasons became a politically independent entity. A thousand years from now whatever feature governments and states will have I can be certain of one thing about the United States--history will remember it and there will be as many books about us and our way of life as there are today about the Romans. Canada will be an obscure piece of ephemera, like those short-lived Kingdoms that came and went like dust in the wind after the fall of the Roman Empire that no one other than people who play Paradox Games or history nerds could tell you about.

Canada is basically like Ohio, sizable but insignificant culturally.

[Barrister]

Anyway, to respond to Jake's stupid pussy-bleed post.

America has a unique history that has lead to racial groups developing unique communities while also being part of the greater American whole. There aren't any immediate parallels in most other countries. The United States is really the only country I can think of that has had successive waves of immigration in which immigrants in numbers large enough to be a substantial portion of our population have come in and ultimately made up a large portion of the American demographic. I certainly know basically all countries in Asia, and Europe have simply never experienced such a thing. Europe, due to a combination of a declining or stagnant native population and increasing immigration from low income Muslim and Eastern European countries are now getting a taste of it but I think it takes several generations to see how it will play out.

In the rest of the Americas probably the only country with close to an experience like ours would be Brazil.

Canada.  And Australia have had massive amounts of immigration.

What was specific to the US (and Brazil) was slavery.

Honky please. Canada was an English settled and colonized area that also got to keep conquered Quebec, that's about the only real diversity you have. If you add up the percentage of Canada's population (excluding Irish who are not good historically at assimilating with British Protestants) of British Isles origin you get 36.85%, 32.22% in addition identifies as "Canadian" which means most likely persons of either French (Quebec has the highest percentage of residents who identify as "Canadian") or English ancestry. All told 83% of your population identifies as either Canadian, British Isles origin, or French.

Just not comparable. We've absorbed and are absorbing groups of much larger size, disparate religious and linguistic backgrounds and etc. Something like 13% of our current population is Hispanic, 12% is black. That doesn't even account for the much larger share of assimilated groups (17% German, 5% Italian etc.)

What you talking about Willis?

You realize you're talking to a Ukrainian-Canadian right?  We absorbed enormous non-english-speaking population groups.  You're being fooled by the people who answer "Canadian" on the census.  Since the census allows for multiple answers to the ethnic heritage question you can't just add up the Canadian, British, French and Irish numbers, then ignore the rest.  The numbers don't add up to 100%.

Besides, you also ignore that right now, per capita, we take in 3x the immigrants that you do.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Well you have endless empty land, I'd hope you'd try to fill it at some point. Get back to me when you've got parts of the country where 40-50% of the people with dark skin aren't white dudes who laid out in the sun too long.