Not being racist. … Seriously guys, not throwing shade.
Race 100% plays a factor here. You mean to tell me that the average Chinese pee pee is 5.5 inches AND the average African tribal DICK is also 5.5 inches?
Come on. There is nothing scientific about this as it’s a measurement of genetic features, based on genetics. Race is also absolutely genetic.
At the absolute least they should corelate it with height.
Considering saying African covers everything from the native tribes to white French men… Specifically pointing out as African tribal dick makes sense. Since even if you say native African that still covers a number of groups some of which have typically much larger dicks while others have smaller. The larger and the stereotypical ones that come to most minds as big black dicks. Being those of the native tribes and their descendants.
It would be like talking about male pattern baldness in America. Which fucking one? North? South? Are we talking the country of the USA?
If so are we talking about those of native African decent? Russian? Chinese? Or native Americans?
Unironically this is a great example of something that sounds racist actually not being racist in context. It could have been phrased or clarified better sure. But yeah… Big African tribal dick also just sounds funny. Lol
Besides the obvious problem of racialised body proportion comparisons (and more so: genitalia focused ones introduced as ‘Chinese pee-pee’ and ‘African tribal DICK’) - the term itself also remains one reliant on reductive exoticism that’s highly othering. Finding humour in stereotypes doesn’t negate harm.
Want to highlight a specific geography? Use the region. Want to highlight a specific population or ethnic group? Use that. Want to talk about your scientific racism and at least sound believable? - at least just use ‘sub-Saharan Africa’ so not everyone spots that you’re a nut instantly.
Not being racist. … Seriously guys, not throwing shade.
Race 100% plays a factor here. You mean to tell me that the average Chinese pee pee is 5.5 inches AND the average African tribal DICK is also 5.5 inches?
Come on. There is nothing scientific about this as it’s a measurement of genetic features, based on genetics. Race is also absolutely genetic.
At the absolute least they should corelate it with height.
… think about what you wrote.
Literally “I’m not racist, BUT”
I trust my scientific assessment from a person who says “African tribal DICK,” yeah okay
Considering saying African covers everything from the native tribes to white French men… Specifically pointing out as African tribal dick makes sense. Since even if you say native African that still covers a number of groups some of which have typically much larger dicks while others have smaller. The larger and the stereotypical ones that come to most minds as big black dicks. Being those of the native tribes and their descendants.
It would be like talking about male pattern baldness in America. Which fucking one? North? South? Are we talking the country of the USA?
If so are we talking about those of native African decent? Russian? Chinese? Or native Americans?
Unironically this is a great example of something that sounds racist actually not being racist in context. It could have been phrased or clarified better sure. But yeah… Big African tribal dick also just sounds funny. Lol
Besides the obvious problem of racialised body proportion comparisons (and more so: genitalia focused ones introduced as ‘Chinese pee-pee’ and ‘African tribal DICK’) - the term itself also remains one reliant on reductive exoticism that’s highly othering. Finding humour in stereotypes doesn’t negate harm.
Want to highlight a specific geography? Use the region. Want to highlight a specific population or ethnic group? Use that. Want to talk about your scientific racism and at least sound believable? - at least just use ‘sub-Saharan Africa’ so not everyone spots that you’re a nut instantly.