T.I. Expeditiously Goes To The Gynecologist Every Year With Daughter To Ensure Her Hymen there

[DPresidential]

Rosenberg, Bomani and the other host were on point.

 

[Pimpdaddy]

Bootyhole been getting that work. Word to Aurora Jolie

great
no I have to delete my fukkin search history cuz I'm at work rn

 

[Silkk]

great
no I have to delete my fukkin search history cuz I'm at work rn

You couldn’t pick up on the context clues to NOT search that at work breh?

 

[FeloniousMonk]

How is a father going to a ginecologyst with his daughter, bad publicity??

Do you think Jesus ( i mention him cause America is a Christian country) would be mad at this??

Dude is making sure she's a virgin, nothin else concerns him as a father.

Thats like a being a human chasity belt..I shouldnt even have to answer this.

Actually it's funny you named 2 cacs

You could see cacs protecting they daughters but not a black father

Interesting

I named two weirdo fathers.

Thats not being a protective father, my breh.

Okay..devils advocate.

So what was TI gone do if he found out his daughter hymen was broken...better yet she was fukking.

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

"T.I., pass the cake around so everyone can see it."

 

[Swagnificent]

So if your dad would have made you take yearly anal examinations because he wanted to make sure you don't become a homosexual and contract hiv, you would have been ok with that and considered it the action of a concerned parent?

Weird ass analogy but okay I'll answer it.

I would have no problem cause I ain't no fakkit nor do I condone such a lifestyle.

 

[Swagnificent]

Rosenberg, Bomani and the other host were on point.

Bomani's a fakkit. Rosenberg's a jew. And the last nikka just scared to say what he really feels cause he wants to keep that job.

Only black folks that spoke honestly were the callers especially that one lady near the end that cosigned T.I.'s actions.

 

[karim]

If your father tried to play you like that,it would be time for you to take up your mantle as a man and come to blows with your pops. That would be your father disrespecting you as a man. This is a father respecting his daughter,wanting to protect her temple from temple robbers and showing her temple security is important and neccessary. He is doing that by staying vigilant on a yearly basis.

Nah, both are exactly the same type of disrespect and invasion of privacy

 

[karim]

Weird ass analogy but okay I'll answer it.

I would have no problem cause I ain't no fakkit nor do I condone such a lifestyle.

What's weird about the analogy?

 

[Supper]

Yes, but all groups of Americans are still more socially conservative than today's Blacks, especially when it comes to family structure.

Yeah, just like they always were. Nothing's changed in that regard.


I'm posting this here for reference through the rest of my post because you're off on A LOT of the stats your quoting.

Largely irrelevant when you consider that the Black OOW birthrate never peaked above 15% prior to the '50s

Again, not true if you look at the chart it was above %15 for most of the time from the 1930s to 1950s.

It is very relevant to the discussion when you have people claiming that being sexual liberal is some "cac" shyt when really it's the other way around. Obsessions with chastity, sexual purity, and sexual conservatism is and always has been the real "cac" shyt.

and never reached exceeded 24% prior to the '70s.

False again. It was at least %24 percent by the 1965 and at least %35 by 1970 if you look at the chart.

OOW births were considered shameful in Black America prior to the 1970s, hence why only a small percentage of Black children were ever born out of wedlock during that century-long period following slavery.

Whether Blacks had higher OOW births than Whites is irrelevant when you consider that the majority were still socially conservative.

What do you consider a "small percentage"? Because to me a "small percentage" is anything in the single digits, which the oow birth rate in the black community never was by 1930. Anything higher is clearly a very noticeable amount. Unless you of course consider blacks to be a "small percentage" or the US population.

Whether Blacks had higher OOW births than Whites is irrelevant when you consider that the majority were still socially conservative.

It's not irrelevant, because AAs were not consider to be socially conservative at that time just like we aren't now. No one including black people at that time would've said that the black community was sexually conservative.

We were ridiculed as "bucks", "jezebels", "wenches", and deviants by racist back then as well.

It doesn't make sense to take something from history and not put it in it's proper historical context. Social conservatism had a very different meaning and served a different purpose back then than it does now. Especially when you consider the lack mass availability of contraceptives, protection, abortion clinics, and much higher rates of maternal deaths etc etc. It was a completely different world back then. The tangible risk associated with being sexually active aren't anywhere near as great now as they were then.

Yes, but the explosion in Black OOW births from 24% in 1970 to 50% by 1976, then to 60%+ by 1985, indicates a major cultural shift that non-black groups did not experience. This wasn't some natural progression Blacks were having, it was a major breakdown in values and cultural norms.

These numbers are just off. Again, see the chart. And again the effects of the sexual revolution, which was a WORLD wide phenomenon btw, certainly wasn't just limited to the black community in the America. You can see from the chart that all racial/ethnic groups saw in big increase in oow births. Our oow birthrate was as higher than average before it and it's the higher than average now. Nothing has changed for us relative to the wider society we live in. In fact whites saw the most pronounced increase as they went from ~%2-3(very rare) to %28.6.

Black OOW birthrates went from being rare in 1970 to the norm by the end of the decade.

~%39 is not rare.

In no other community, outside of maybe Hispanics, is OOW birthrates considered normal, not even in today's degenerate American society.

Yeah, lets try

Native Americans- %67.8

Jamaica- %86

(Afro)Trinidadians- %66+
Study shows Trinidadian men now more family oriented

St. Kitts and Nevis- %76
SKNVibes | On The Spot (Part IV) Our high unwed birth rate speaks volumes, but what does it actually say? (Part I)

St. Lucia- %85
Here

Antigua and Barbuda - %80+
Alternative Readings: The Status of the Status of Children Act in Antigua and Barbuda on JSTOR

Lets try every country from Demmark and above.

\

No group has embraced the sexual revolution more and paid the price for it over the past half-a-century than Black Americans.

See above.

And what do you mean "paid the price"? We in a comparatively better position now than we were then. If anything we lost our communal structure which led to the shutdown of all of the mutual aid societies and benevolent societies(basically community funded welfare since black people were shut out of most gov assistance programs in the past) that allowed our community to be somewhat self reliant.

We're doing worse comparatively to other groups in the country just like we were back then. Again, nothing's changed. So, how you can attempt to attribute the oow birth rate or our level of sexual conservatism or liberalism to our poor condition is beyond me.

Many(most actually) of those countries in the above chart with a high oow birth rate have a very high standard of living. Vs the British-Pakistani community which has a oow birth rate in the single digits and is plagued with all kinds of social issues similar to the African-American community.

Nearly all people in America had a communal culture. The nuclear family was only the norm among White Anglo-Saxons. All other groups living in this "Judeo Christian Western Society"(Italians, Greeks, Jews, Asians, Polish, Hispanics, etc.) lived in extended families for the most part as late as the mid-20th Century, with Hispanic Americans still living in extended families to a large extent today.

Blacks living in extended families in larger percentages would not have been abnormal in America at the time, it only was when compared Anglo-Saxon Whites.

Feel free to post the stats for those groups. And fyi. most white americans even by the late 19th century weren't of actual anglo saxon(english) stock.

 

[Pimpdaddy]

You couldn’t pick up on the context clues to NOT search that at work breh?

I'm a huge alcoholic
I don't think anymore fam

 

[Silkk]

I'm a huge alcoholic
I don't think anymore fam

I wish you good fortune breh.

 

[FcKuPaYmE]

 

[Swagnificent]

What's weird about the analogy?

Homosexuality is unnatural so no father is gonna assume their kids will be involved that sort of fukkery unless they see questionable behavior. While heterosexual sex is natural and every father knows that around those teenage years is when kids start wanting to have sex so its normal to wanna start safeguarding your daughters around that age.

 

[Swagnificent]

100%

We've conditioned ourselves to protect our daughters, forgetting that boys carry your name forever.

An irresponsible son gets stuck with paternity suits, child support, alimony etc. An irresponsible daughter gets stuck with babies.

There is a double standard and women do play a role in it. Ladies don't value virgin males over a certain age so there's no incentive for guys to hold onto it. Men that are successful at getting the box, tend to get more and more.

Main point is that boys AND girls have a lot to lose by being knuckleheads. We train our daughters but don't always educate our sons.

This has nothing to do with double standards. Its about NATURE. Men and women evolved to be different. And we evolved to be attracted to different things. No matter how hard you try to get women to like virgins they never will. Women like men who gets lots of p*ssy. They like alpha males. They like successful men. They like rich men. You can't change a woman's nature to be attracted to men they're not attracted to.

Same thing with men. You can't change our nature and have us attracted to women we evolved to not like. No matter how hard feminists wanna try to shame us, most heterosexual men will never be attracted to older women over younger ones. Men will never be attracted to women with high body counts over women with lower body counts. You can't change human nature regardless of how much you try to shame people into liking shyt we are not made to like.