I’m mostly with you, but I did think of an interesting parallel: free trade. Does free trade benefit all nations equally? Clearly not. Some nations have little in the way of valuable natural or human capital, which are some of the things required to take advantage of unrestricted free trade.

Now think about the dating market and sexual market value. Think about matchmaking websites. The least popular female profiles? Black women, and it ain’t close. So why would black women support the “unrestricted free trade” of an open dating culture when they stand to be the biggest losers?

Same thing goes for men in general. For us, a total open dating market means 80% of women having sex with 20% of men. No intact families, no motivation to provide or advance. Just chads pump-and-dumping all the women while the common man plays video games in his lonely apartment/tomb. That is a bad set of circumstances for most men and (despite their protests to the contrary) most women. So how do you oppose the rise of such circumstances? Oh, no big deal: you just have to explicitly denounce the sexual liberation of women. Because that opinion flies in today’s society. About as well as opposing interracial dating, right?

Protectionism makes sense for those whom it protects. I can entertain arguments for and against such behavior. Certainly, we shouldn’t outright prevent interracial dating. Does a taboo against it, however, arguably benefit certain groups? Should their concerns and interests be automatically ignored?

I’m mostly with you, but I did think of an interesting parallel: free trade. Does free trade benefit all nations equally? Clearly not. Some nations have little in the way of valuable natural or human capital, which are some of the things required to take advantage of unrestricted free trade.

Now think about the dating market and sexual market value. Think about matchmaking websites. The least popular female profiles? Black women, and it ain’t close. So why would black women support the “unrestricted free trade” of an open dating culture when they stand to be the biggest losers?

Same thing goes for men in general. For us, a total open dating market means 80% of women having sex with 20% of men. No intact families, no motivation to provide or advance. Just chads pump-and-dumping all the women while the common man plays video games in his lonely apartment/tomb. That is a bad set of circumstances for most men and, despite their protests to the contrary, most women. And how do you oppose the rise of such circumstances? Oh, no big deal, just explicitly denounce the sexual liberation of women. Because that flies about as well as opposing interracial dating.

Protectionism makes sense for those whom it protects. I can entertain arguments for and against such behavior. Certainly, we shouldn’t outright prevent interracial dating. Does a taboo against it, however, arguably benefit certain groups? Should their concerns and interests be automatically ignored?

I’m mostly with you, but I did think of an interesting parallel: free trade. Does free trade benefit all nations equally? Clearly not. Some nations have little in the way of valuable natural or human capital, which are some of the things required to take advantage of unrestricted free trade.

Now think about the dating market and sexual market value. Think about matchmaking websites. The least popular female profiles? Black women, and it ain’t close. So why would black some support the “unrestricted free trade” of an open dating culture when they stand to be the biggest losers?

Same thing goes for men in general. For us, a total open dating market means 80% of women having sex with 20% of men. No intact families, no motivation to provide or advance. Just chads pump-and-dumping all the women while the common man plays video games in his lonely apartment/tomb.

Protectionism makes sense for those whom it protects. I can entertain arguments for and against such behavior. Certainly, we shouldn’t outright prevent interracial dating. Does a taboo against it, however, arguably benefit certain groups? Should their concerns and interests be automatically ignored?