Poll: Is Not Dating a Certain Race Racist?

[runic knight]

Who you are attracted to is not simply nurture. There are biological aspects that play on what traits people find attractive, as well as social and cultural pressures.

When it comes to sexual orientation, you are right. In fact I'd say the vast majority of the influence is biological. People don't learn to be gay.

When it comes to racial preferences, you are 100% wrong. There are no biological aspects.

Many, many people in this thread have claimed racial preference to be biological like sexual orientation. Not a single person has offered up even a logical argument for what part of the body this supposed biology-based dis-attraction to certain races might exist in. Because it doesn't exist. It's just an excuse for people to throw up so they don't feel they need to examine their biases.

First, and I feel I am repeating myself far too often here, you need to understand that attraction is not the same as tolerance, likeability, personal thoughts on race or whatever else you seem to by tying it to. Attraction is simply an appeal for or desire for, often in relation to sexual or relationship sense. Therefore, at no point does saying "I do not feel attraction" mean, or even imply "I feel this race is better" in any sense beyond the individual appeal to personal taste. Saying "I am not attracted to people of a certain build" doesn't say anything about people of that build, nor imply any opinion about people of that build beyond the individual's lack of attraction. If I look at a a balding person and the trait of them balding is not something I find attractive to a strong enough degree, I could say "I am not attracted to bald people" and it would carry no greater meaning then what I am saying. Inferring more meaning then that is presumptuous, and often unneeded when racist usually will be filling the definition of racism itself by pushing prejudices or trying to explain the superiority of one race anyways. And no, feeling attraction towards certain traits is not an endorsement for the people who have them any more then not feeling attraction is a disparity to them. Now for the second part.

Now, as I said before, people can find some traits unappealing. Weight, hair, certain face shape.. these are aspects that can be found universally among all races but can be the cause of "I am not attracted" feelings to individuals. We all have tastes and some just appeal to us as individuals more then others. More specific traits, such as hair color, would because of how we set up the biological categories of "race", affect some races far more predominantly then others, up to an including almost entire races that have that trait. Skin color is a prime example of a trait that can be nearly 100% limited to race (as it is often how we define race). But keep in mind even those traits are not exclusive to a single race. For instance, some of Hispanic origins may be darker in skin tone then those of African ethnicity.

So, lets wrap this all together now. If we have someone who is not attracted to the trait of dark skin color, then it would be fair to say that any race defined by dark skin would be "not attracted to". But it is obviously not limited to people of only that race, if the trait is what is being unattractive. Furthermore, as some cases show, skin tone of even races predominantly dark skin can be lighter due to various occurrences. Thus if the person was not of dark skin, but still of the race, theoretically, they could still be found attracted, even if they are of the "black" race. It would still be logically consistent with the traits they find attractive and also reveal that the attraction is not based in races themselves, but merely traits that happen to be common in some races more then others.

Or, to put it another way, is it the trait they are not attracted to or the race it is often acssociated with? And if the race is almost entirely defined by the trait, why is it racist to not be attracted to the trait when the use of said trait to define an entire race is itself racist (not all dark skin people are "black", for instance) and relying on a racist perspective to justify labeling others as racist seems to be flawed.

You claim there are no biological aspects (please prove this one), yet agree that sexual orientation is biological. What traits would appeal in a desired sexual partner would have to at least rely on some biological factors though in order to explain why one can't just "learn to not be gay". Attraction is more then a socially learned behavior when applying to what gender you are attracted to, so why is there suddenly a line when it comes to what other traits you find attractive?
Do note, I am not saying this is always the case, merely combating the idea that seems to be presented of complete surety that it is racist.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

ehh...but it is still involuntary, i personally will attest what gets me as stiff as a log down there i have zero control over (hence morning wood being strong enough to hold up a fucking roof).

You're confusing the argument. You learned to be attracted to certain ethnic groups. You don't have to be able to mentally control your erections for that to have been learned. Or that you can't unlearn it. It will just, like all other learning and all other overcoming of psychological biases, take time and effort.

i learned to be attracted to certain ethnic groups? the ethnic groups my parents are attracted to (and grandparents for that matter) are completely different from mine, same goes for plenty of other family members (yes, this had been discussed openly), i don't think home life had any type of impact on that considering we all prefer different things. (this also goes for my friends, idk, maybe it's different here and we talk about that kind of shit out loud, but as mentioned we are all from different races, and we all prefer different things, yet were exposed to all exterior/cultural aspects the exact same.)

just take "time and learning"? as in, getting to know the person and not judging your liking of them based off of physical urges but rather mental/emotional ones then?

"Same cultural aspects"? As in your home lives are exactly the same?

Can you honestly say with supporting evidence that every interaction you and your friends had with members of the sex they are oriented towards was exactly the same for their entire lives? That you all consumed the exact same media depictions of people of different ethnicities? Because unless you and your friends were raised under tightly-controlled experimental conditions, I'm skeptical.

on a nitpicking level, no, they were not EXACTLY the same, but they are about the same as you're ever going to get considering most of us basically lived at each others houses as our second homes most of the time (can't tell you how many times i would stay the night at a friends for 3-4 days straight, then rinse and repeat every week of every summer)

and considering we shared every last bit of media (because, that's what friends do?) with each other, we were exposed to damn near everything at the same time or near same time, and we all reacted differently to things (i have a white friend who actually prefers black women full stop, no one in his family is black and his family isn't racist in the slightest, hell they openly encourage him to date whoever he wishes, yet he has no wish to date anyone but a black girl), so please tell me, where was that "learned"? because no one else among our group has that preference (to that extreme at least)

The body does not recognize race. Race is just a collection of genes that human societies arbitrarily decide are more important than other collections of genes. There is only one organ in the entire body that is equipped to even recognize what a race is- and that's the brain.

"more important"? I am not saying they are more important, not in the slightest, having a sexual preference has nothing to do with me thinking i am superior to anyone because of something i may or may not be attracted to physically.

okay let's turn this word away from race for a moment and instead onto "weight", same argument, but just implanting a different word.

am i a sizeist because i prefer someone of *this particular size/shape* sexually, even though i do not judge anyone based on weight in a non sexual context?(or think i am better than them in any context)

You are right, very likely nearly everyone does have some kind of small racial biases. We all live in cultures where one race is more common than another, where history, culture, and modern socio-cultural realities have overlaps and associations with race, so we all pick up some small biases along the way. This doesn't mean that racial preferences are built into biology, it just means we live in an imperfect world where the human need to recognize patterns in the world leads us to overgeneralize. It sounds a bit like you're playing a lawyer's argument here: "Our attraction to races is somewhat based in biology (even though you don't say how), but even if it isn't true, that's okay because everyone is a little racist!"

If someone put a gun to my head and demanded I choose between two pictures of two different women of two different races, I could. And I may even tend toward pictures of women from certain races over other races. If they put a gun to my head without pictures and said "which race is prettier?" well, they'd have to shoot me (or more likely get a lie, because seriously, the fuq?). You may not give the same answer. I'm not saying you have to. I'm just saying be honest about why you have that answer. Don't just wave your hands and say "I was born that way!" when you have no evidence showing that to be the case. That answer only works for sexual orientation because science has done the legwork.

i'm not trying to argue a fact, i'm trying to get to the bottom of lots of peoples opinions that you are deeming unacceptable because they can't explain what does or does not make their wood blow a hole in their pants. why should they have to give a scientifically explainable reason as to why they "prefer" something sexually? Why doesn't everyone like/dislike extremely obese/skinny girls the same? it's still the same vagina regardless of how big/small the girl is, their is little to no difference to the penis, why should that be any different to skin/hair color then?

 

[runic knight]

I'm not tying it to those things or anything else. Don't put words in my mouth please.

Sorry, that was what I understood when you continued the argument that was started using that line of logic. When you replied to me who was trying to refute that line of thinking, I may have misunderstood your intent.

This has zero bearing on my argument. Whether or not a racial preference for sexual attraction is tied to racism is something I clearly said in my first post on page 1 was something that can only be learned by knowing the person's reasons for that attraction. All I'm saying is that the attraction cannot be rooted in biology.

A claim I challenge, and one that seems important to the idea of the "is this racist" question first raised. Furthermore, as I tried to explain, if the attraction is related to traits that are used to categorize the race and not race itself, then it can't be racist because of how racism is defined in relation to on the basis of race (rather then, on the basis of traits that the race share). This was largely related to the post you initially quoted which was a counterpoint to someone claiming that not being attracted to a certain race was always racist because it was a learned behavior.

This is irrelevant to my argument. I never said that people don't have tastes. I don't really understand why you've chosen to reply to me.

This is necessary points to cover to get the the whole, you can see that when I use these to tie into the rest. I can't simply trust you agree or even know all the points supporting my conclusion, so I will take the time to explain them. As for why I replied, well, 1. you replied to me who was replying to someone else, so dialog there, and 2. I disagree with your claim that it is not biological at all. Also I bring up other physical traits to try and help support the idea of lack of attraction to a race may just be interpeted lack of attraction to certain traits themselves, something I think you may have missed.
And while irrelevant to your specific argument, it is important to the point I was making overall.

I never said anyone who prefers certain traits is racist. I'm just saying they learned that preference.

A claim you would have to prove, naturally. But again, this is all tied into the overall explanation relating to the topic of "is this racist", and to the person I originally quoted.

I already showed more than adequate evidence for my position.

I don't recall when you did in our short discussion. Would you care to give evidence that attraction to traits do not have any biological reasons behind them?

We have evidence that sexual orientation is biological. We don't know precisely which mechanism governs it, but we have several credible candidate mechanisms including genes, prenatal hormone exposure, and brain structure. And we have twin studies, birth order studies (proposing that prenatal exposure to the mother's immune response to carrying the child affects homosexuality), and pheromonal response studies, just to name a few. Likely the biology is not simple- maybe it's a combination of multiple biological factors. But there is ample evidence that the sexual orientation response is governed by biological factors. It can be encoded biologically, and we have evidence that it is. None of that scientific evidence for racial attraction exists. Because it can't. Sex is a biological construct. Race is not.

Firstly, I already agreed that sexual orientation is biological, so the support for that here seems unnecessary. Now evidence to support the dismissal that what we find attractive is not biologically affected would be nice, since that was what I was asking you to actually prove. You claim there are no biological aspects to attraction, please prove. Sorry if that wasn't as clear as I could have made it.
Now, I am saying that because what gender we find attractive is biological, perhaps various traits we find attractive are too. Being that skin color is a trait, could it not be that such a trait could be biologically influenced? At least so far as that what determines what we are attracted to is at least in partial a result to biological aspects, such as perchance to identify patterns or aspects that drive our social nature itself? Not entirely learned behaviors, but ones biology would be designed to and strongly encourage to be learned.
Now I am not dismissing that learned behavior can shape and affect this, merely dismissing that what we learn is solely what affects attraction.

I suppose it should b noted that when you say people can learn to be attracted, it comes off as two ways. First, is that because they can learn, and because racism is bad, they therefore should. I feel you don't intent it this way, but remember the post I was replying to was using it that way. Secondly it comes off as presenting it as though it is like learning a skill such as riding a bike or reading, which just does not seem to fit with how orientation of our sexual drive is inherently driven by biology. I also have to ask if you are familiar with the idea that estrogen levels of the mother while in the womb or what number child it is affect sexual orientation, and if that is a result of biology or environment affecting the biological function of development of the fetus.
And remember, I am arguing that attraction has biological aspects to determine it, and through that attraction or lack there of towards traits that define race. I am not saying there is a biological recognition to race itself. I take the time to type out the distinction for a reason. I take the time to offer examples that are defined by trait alone for a reason.

Because science shows us there is a line.

No. Science showed us that sexual orientation is biological (we both agree there), however as far as I have looked into it, science has not shown traits we find attractive do not have biological roots, which is the main point of contention I am having here. Science showed us the start, but I don't think it has looked into the topic far enough to say that is where it ends. Are there studies into traits themselves done that show contrary? Do we understand what fuels individual attraction itself well enough to say that attraction to traits that are used to define race are solely learned? Hell, could have sworn I read an article about universal body language that suggest highlighting of physical traits, which in turn suggests a biological awareness of those physical aspects (male body language of puffing out one's chest, for instance). I think in the regard of what science shows, you are reaching, as you keep presenting racial attraction as my point, when it isn't. Hell I take the time to explain why it may not even be racial in the first place with every post because it not being racial but instead trait would thereby make it not racist, answering the question of the thread.

I didn't say it was racist. Just because you learned it; that doesn't automatically mean it's racist. Whether or not we can decide it's racist is based on how you learned it, how you react to it, and how you approach the discussion.

I was combating Fenrox Jackson's idea that it was concretely racist. Since you quoted my response to him, I have felt the need to make sure I explained the point as well as I could and the line of logic used to get there. Thus why I belabor points unrelated to your initial ones. And I already gave my two cents on what would make it racist or not, neither of which relate to learning though.

Remember back in my first post when I said there are certain ways that people can approach the discussion which set off red flags that there may be some lurking racism affecting them? Well, this is an example of one of them. People I know who are attracted to particular races and don't have a racist influence don't generally feel the need to pre-emptively defend themselves from accusations of racism that haven't been made. They don't invent scientifically baseless reasons for their attraction- because they know they aren't racist, they just get on with trying to hook up with the people they're attracted to.

Now, I'm not saying that everyone who claims they were "born this way" is automatically a racist either. But the harder they insist it despite having zero evidence to support their claim and a whole lot of evidence showing otherwise, the more they start to look like maybe they do have some issues that they're maybe a little bit aware of but afraid to face. So they invent a biological argument that has no scientific backing as a way to protect themselves from having to confront that little unpleasant part of themselves.

I wasn't pre-emptively defending myself, I was re-explaining myself since I felt you missed the point, both to clarify for you and to make sure anyone reading could follow along. And I do so in a general disagreement of the claim that it is concretely racist that was being made by Fenrox.

The rest of this just seems to be reaching badly. I never said people were born racist, merely that biological aspects could influence what traits are or are not found attractive (which in turn could relate to race due to prominence of traits to different races). I wasn't relying on claims myself, merely countering a claim made, and I find this presumptuousness on your part about being defensive because of that motive to be the equivalent to implying someone arguing about gay rights is actually homosexual themselves. And just as fruitless as too.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

Eh, racism is the belief that someone of another race (or presenting with certain physical characteristics typical of said race, however loose the definition of race may be) is inferior or subhuman because of those characteristics. I've read that racial sexual preference appears to be developed during your youth, depending on the community you're surrounded with. The example in the book I was reading was of asian women brought up in a mostly white community preferring white men over asian men. I don't have any information re scientific studies, so can't comment on whether this is cherry picking.

I'm a white australian (grandparents from scotland, england, ireland) and am not particularly attracted by certain traits (like broad flat noses and curly hair) common to native australians or people from the nearby islands like papua new guinea for example, but I don't consider them inferior in any way. We're similar, while also different, biologically and culturally, but most certainly of the same species and all equidistant from our ape cousins, even if some characteristics like skin color may be closer in general hue to gorillas and chimpanzees. To make something of that rough similarity would be about as meaningful as saying that red headed people are more closely related to orangutans than other white people. That'd be pseudoscience serving a racist agenda like that of the idiot referred to by the original poster.

The important human characteristics of imagination, language, general body structure, compassion, ability to handle tools etc are far more important than the trivial combinations of expressed genes that determine skin color and hair texture etc

The fact that children of people who were effectively living in the stone age in central papua new guinea a generation or two ago learned how to pilot planes and speak english well, operating in the modern world, among many other things of course, is proof they're as human as us, as it's not something an inferior animal could do.

As for people associating certain mental or physical capabilities with people of certain 'race' - these may mostly boil down to just being based on prejudice, whether it's flattering or otherwise. We tend to mistakenly put ourselves and others into little conceptual boxes or procrustean beds.

 

[Jenvas1306]

I find the rsults of this poll shocking...
I guess its typical american thinking to set the freedom of every single person to do what they like above all else that influence this outcome.

If you arent attracted to certain traits that are very often part of the racical traits of a group of people - that is not racist.
If your sole reason to not date someone is their race, that is raceist.
the formulation of the title sounds like the second case which is why i voted yes.
I dont even understand why there is such a discussion about it here.

 

[Samuki Elm]

Look, I get it - attraction is largely physical and race is largely appearance-based - the two will coincide. And I admit, I find that I tend to be attracted to members of a certain race more than another.

Is that racist? Well ... not exactly. It means I'm making a judgment on physical appearance - not strictly related to race.

Where does it cross over into racism?

When you write off the option entirely.

First, there's a basic lesson everyone should learn at some point or else you're in for some hardship - physical appearance isn't everything. Not even in relationships. Yes, it's a big part of things - relationships require contact and communication and the decision to make contact is often based on first impressions, which are largely visual.

But a few months into the relationship, guess what - the physical is really not that huge a deal anymore. You spend all your time with a partner - looking good is not enough if you find everything else about them intolerable. A one-night stand, sure - the first few dates, fine - but long-term? You better like that person for more than their body or their hair color ... or their skin color.

Think of the physical appearance as the cover of a book. It might look like the best book in the world, but when you're two hundred pages in and you discover it's actually "Twilight: The Knockoff," you'd rather shoot yourself than read another page, no matter how well-designed the cover art is.

So, a mature person (should) eventually start to look for more than physical appearance and immediate first impressions when it comes to dating. Otherwise, you're shooting in the dark, gambling that just because someone looks nice, you'll still want to be with them in a few months' time. It's much easier to save yourself that time and trouble by simply looking for more.


Which brings me to my main point:

If you're not attracted to, say, dark skin, that's not in itself racist. But if that point alone is a dealbreaker, now you're in murkier territory. I personally am not really attracted to girls with blond hair - but that alone doesn't mean I won't date someone. If we have great chemistry, shared interests, if she's got a great personality, I enjoy being around her, and when we're together, I have more fun times than not - well, then I don't really care about the blondness. If she can get over my inability to grow a beard, I can get over her carrying the MCR1 gene.

Conversely, I may be attracted to redheads, but goddamn, I've met some boring, stupid, terrible redheaded people in my time and I'm not willing to date them.

But what if I made the blanket statement, "I will never date a natural blond"? I'm making an exclusionary judgment based solely on a few immediate physical characteristics that the other person has absolutely no control over. Maybe it's not racist - but it still makes me a pretty terrible person.


And this is only assuming that the argument "I won't date (so-and-such a race) because I'm not physically attracted to them" can be taken at face value.

Because some people are just racial supremacists, or carry racial hatreds. And there's those crackpot Social Darwinists who think it's all because different races have to "compete" with each other until only one race of humans survives as the strongest.

Others, though, don't share those sympathies ... but the idea of having a mixed-race child shakes them. That brings up questions of identity, family, society that are difficult to address. Partly, this is because our contemporary society places a lot of stock in the idea of "natural" or "biological" identity - that the blood and genes and proteins and cells that formed you at birth are an inextricable part of who you are that is unchanged and unchangeable. Even if it's not phrased in biological terms - often it's spiritual (as in "find yourself/your inner child") - the core idea is that there is a prime version of who you are buried deep within you that is the pure form of your identity. And so what happens if your child is two races mixed together? What's their identity? What's your identity? What is your legacy?

There's a similar argument that's often trotted out, "I don't date other races because we're from different cultures." Which is really a subtle form of the same idea. Because it assumes that cultures are some antediluvian thing that is deeply rooted and can never change or adapt and that all individuals are bound to certain cultures by an ill-specified birth-based bond that asserts itself over all other identifiers.


So is it racist to judge based on race? Well ... that's complicated. Because it may not be strictly about racial hatred or supremacy. And it may not strictly be about race - it may be about culture or identity or children or history or a long-held image of yourself and your future that you don't want to to challenge.

It's a whole big muddle people need to work through. But I will say this - refusing to address these troubling issues and simply making a blanket, shallow judgment is neither cognitively healthy nor particularly admirable. And you'll be limiting yourself for very poor reasons. Maybe you're just not attracted to people with darker skin or a big nose. But maybe they have other attributes you like, if you gave it a chance - maybe it would turn out to be the best relationship you could've hoped for. You're only cheating yourself.

(edit)
A more humorous note - there are some who justify race-based attraction on the very disturbing grounds that we're all sexually attracted to our parents and we're looking for someone who reminds us of them. Based on this idea, if you find yourself only attracted to blond hair and blue eyes, it's because your mom displayed those characteristics (I'm looking at you, Hitler).

Or, a similar idea - we're actually all looking for an idealized version of ourselves. So guys, you're really just looking for yourself in a skirt.

So chew on that

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I find the rsults of this poll shocking...
I guess its typical american thinking to set the freedom of every single person to do what they like above all else that influence this outcome.

If you arent attracted to certain traits that are very often part of the racical traits of a group of people - that is not racist.
If your sole reason to not date someone is their race, that is raceist.
the formulation of the title sounds like the second case which is why i voted yes.
I dont even understand why there is such a discussion about it here.

way to sway everyone in the poll into "american" thinking generalization, how nationalist of you.

if you actually read the posts, you would see that most people are for the former case and not the latter, but you are making broad assumptions by judging everyone who said "no" because of how you interpreted the title.

 

[Jenvas1306]

I find the rsults of this poll shocking...
I guess its typical american thinking to set the freedom of every single person to do what they like above all else that influence this outcome.

If you arent attracted to certain traits that are very often part of the racical traits of a group of people - that is not racist.
If your sole reason to not date someone is their race, that is raceist.
the formulation of the title sounds like the second case which is why i voted yes.
I dont even understand why there is such a discussion about it here.

way to sway everyone in the poll into "american" thinking generalization, how nationalist of you.

if you actually read the posts, you would see that most people are for the former case and not the latter, but you are making broad assumptions by judging everyone who said "no" because of how you interpreted the title.

we are talking about race, not shape of the nose or only color of the skin, we are talking a compleet race with all its different degrees of expression. just saying that you prefer lighter skin isnt racist, saying that you only like whites is kinda racist.

'no, you should have the right to have that preference', lets make sure that that stupid political correctness doesnt interefere with my personal rights.... that seems to be a very typical USamerican concern.

we arent talking about if you should have the right to have preferences, the question clearly is if its racist not to date someone because of their race. the question is not if its racist to not like typical traits of a certain race.

if you dont date a certain race you judge all of its members at once, if you just dont like the traits its still a case for every individual if they display those traits in a manner that isnt attractive to you.
judging individual on individual characteristics vs judging group based on characteristics that can vary greatly within said group.

 

[blackrave]

Yes, totally
How do I know?
I'm a horrible, horrible racist myself
Racist to blacks, purples, yellows, browns, reds, whites, greens, blues, pinks, TO EVERY RACE OUT THERE
Since I don't date (never have seen the appeal)

But in all fairness, NO, it isn't enough to be qualified as "racist"
Yes, it is acknowledging that other person is different, but if that is limited only to requirements to partner, then it isn't racism, it is preference.
Because otherwise if we go further by same logic (that it is racism), then it also means that everyone who don't want to date person of own gender is a homophobe (and that is utterly ridiculous)

Summary- no it isn't racism, it is preference.

P.S. Although truly open-minded person shouldn't care WHAT he/she is dating...
P.P.S. I'm glad I'm not open-minded person

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I find the rsults of this poll shocking...
I guess its typical american thinking to set the freedom of every single person to do what they like above all else that influence this outcome.

If you arent attracted to certain traits that are very often part of the racical traits of a group of people - that is not racist.
If your sole reason to not date someone is their race, that is raceist.
the formulation of the title sounds like the second case which is why i voted yes.
I dont even understand why there is such a discussion about it here.

way to sway everyone in the poll into "american" thinking generalization, how nationalist of you.

if you actually read the posts, you would see that most people are for the former case and not the latter, but you are making broad assumptions by judging everyone who said "no" because of how you interpreted the title.

we are talking about race, not shape of the nose or only color of the skin, we are talking a compleet race with all its different degrees of expression. just saying that you prefer lighter skin isnt racist, saying that you only like whites is kinda racist.

'no, you should have the right to have that preference', lets make sure that that stupid political correctness doesnt interefere with my personal rights.... that seems to be a very typical USamerican concern.

which as i mentioned, you are interpretting the title to face the question at blunt value, which yes, the question in and of itself is technically racist, HOWEVER, as i had mentioned, most people are answering it in your latter statement of "i don't really find dark skin attractive", they aren't saying without a doubt, they would never date someone of *insert race here*

very typical US/american concern? Once again, wonderful generalizations and things you like to throw out there, there is no need for it or the superiority your vibing off of it based off of what nation you are from.

we arent talking about if you should have the right to have preferences, the question clearly is if its racist not to date someone because of their race. the question is not if its racist to not like typical traits of a certain race.

as i said, at face blunt value, yes, it is racist to date/not date someone specifically because of their race, however if you read the thread, most people are posting via typical traits they had experienced personally, and many of them had said they don't think that represents the entire race, but just what they had been exposed to in person.

 

[kingthrall]

Who cares about racism or sexism? I don't I don't encourage it but you cant help to wonder these people meet people with similar tastes, is that not the purpose of diversity. You cant have one side of the coin without the other.

 

[The Wooster]

Considering "black" describes a ton of different women from all across the spectrum, I'd perhaps call it close minded, but it's not racism in the general meaning of the word.

 

[runic knight]

-big snip-

I'll just do a reply to the lot here, and unfortunately most of it seems to be you repeating a point against something I was not arguing directly, as well as reaching for motive, again. There is a ton to sort through and I don't think breaking it down into point by point again and again seems to be working. So instead a smaller reply.

First, your every post is merely you repeating the same insistence of things. There is no biological factor that influences attraction to race. I get it, I understand. You've not proved it, merely repeated it. I get that race is a social construct, though you miss that is NOT what I am arguing here. I agree it is a social construct. I have repeatedly explained how my thoughts on attraction itself work in relation to race. I have explained that my thought here is that attraction to physical traits has biological influences. I've compared this to homosexuality to demonstrate that sexual desire is related to biology in that way, and further supported it by mentioning universal body language that highlights features as a way to demonstrate interest (which because of the universal nature, and the countless examples within other animal species) suggest a more biological root in those cases. So we now have orientation as well as physical behavior that highlights physical traits that can be tied to biology. With me so far?

Now, I have readily explained my stance here in relation to traits, not race, traits. Then explained how traits could relate to races because of how they are a social construct. That you keep arguing biology to race directly sort of shows I am not reaching you on that detail or you are jumping the gun because arguing traits eventually gets to race. But don't, it is bad form to argue the implications of my stance as a problem with the stance itself, which is what you keep doing. Because of 3 failed attempts thus far, I will just be blunt to express this point this 4th time.

Biology affects attraction to physical traits = yes
Biology affects attraction to race on basis of race = no

I am aware race is a social construct. I, in fact, use this as part of my case, because the way races are determined are by physical traits (hair and skin color, eye shape, etc) more so then geographic origin even.

So, the majority of your complaints about race themselves are utterly worthless here. Race is unrelated until we determine the relation of biology to physical traits first.

Is there some hormonal or biological guidance to or against a race itself? I don't know, I can't get you to talk to me on some hormonal or biological guidance to or against basic physical traits first in order to go beyond that. After all, since I am arguing something I don't know concretely against something you don't know concretely, then trying to find common ground in what data we have and can agree on seems a good place to start. So, do you agree or disagree that biology can influence attraction to physical traits? I have mentioned universal body language of attraction that highlights physical features, which in turn suggests that if such features are being highlighted, the notice of them would be biologically influenced (as supported by why the body language itself is hard wired in). I could also mention simple face/mood recognition within humans to reveal an innate biological ability to express and understand others of our race, so much so that people will mistake similar expressions for the wrong intent in other animals. Hell I could talk about the habit of drive to want to protect "cute" things because of their relation to maternal/paternal instinct and the big eye, softness and oversized heads traits are identified.



you know what. I'm just going to go one step at a time because you spend far too much of my presuming motive and arguing a stance that I am not actually making then you do actually addressing anything. Instead, I want you to read above and repeat to me what my stance is. I want you to demonstrate that you understand what I am trying to say and are not just going to, again, jump three steps and dismiss the conclusion because you didn't bother to see the steps there.

 

[runic knight]

I have explained that my thought here is that attraction to physical traits has biological influences. I've compared this to homosexuality to demonstrate that sexual desire is related to biology in that way,

That's not the way science works. You don't get to just declare two things operate the same way when one is totally supported under science and for the other there is not a shred of scientific evidence supporting it. If you want to claim that your attraction to certain features is in your biology, you need to put forward a claim of what exactly in your biology is causing that. Otherwise, you're just in denial and making excuses.

and further supported it by mentioning universal body language that highlights features as a way to demonstrate interest (which because of the universal nature, and the countless examples within other animal species) suggest a more biological root in those cases.

That wasn't really support. That was, "well, I think I read this one thing this one time." You need to be much more specific.

With me so far?

Nope. Not buying it. You need to support your claim with science, not half-remembered magazine articles.

After all, since I am arguing something I don't know concretely against something you don't know concretely, then trying to find common ground in what data we have and can agree on seems a good place to start.

That's not the way science works either. When you make a claim and I don't believe it, the solution isn't to meet in the middle. The solution is for you to back up your claim. Where in your biology is your attraction to traits located apart from your brain? What is the mechanism that carries it?

So, do you agree or disagree that biology can influence attraction to physical traits?

Apart from sexual orientation, 100% disagree. There is no evidence to support that claim.

I have mentioned universal body language of attraction that highlights physical features,

Body language isn't universal. It's learned as a part of culture. That's why often people brought up in American culture and people brought up in Japanese culture demonstrate different body language when they go on dates.

I find it odd that I am now having to prove something when I was the one calling into question the absolute claim of "biology does not affect attraction". Odd how that happened. I mean the whole point of my counter arguments here were and always have been simply possible alternatives rather then concrete claims. After all, you yourself agreed that you have not proved that claim at all, nor done anything to prove it for the person I was originally arguing. Instead you do what you have every time: Insist it is not the case, which is dandy, except when you then keep telling me to prove my complaints, and then try to explain how peer review and the rest work utterly ignoring that A. I was raising possible alternatives and essentially asking "hey, why not if this is the case" and B. the direct topic in question doesn't have any papers on it that I can find.

But what the hell, let build an entire argument that supports what could be turned into an experiment to be tested just for the sake of my post of "I disagree with your absolute, unproven statement"

First, lets set up that recognition of physical traits exists as a biological effect. Not just of the features, but of the features in an interpretive way. Facial expressions which is a measure of body language.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/05/facial-expressions.aspx
Sorry if it is not the studies mention directly, but an overview but I don't care that much and just googled it to find something related to what I read before since I don't recall the actual paper I sorted through last time.

Still, would you agree that the universal nature of facial expressions supported by the study is a sign that our biology can affect behaviors in responses to emotion and make us more aware of physical features that reveal such emotions? Or would the universal facial expressions still be learned?

There is also the mention of biologically driven appeal of "cuteness"
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/2/149.short

That hormones have been shown to make women more aware of "cuteness" and factors that work to define "cuteness" in relation to babies and a case for why that would be. A biological function that affects what we find appealing in regards to "Cuteness" to promote the desire for child rearing.

So between the two a case could be started that our biology can both notice and understand physical traits and relate those to emotional response. Thus because our bodies already demonstrate both recognition of physical traits and features, and underlying emotions connected to them and a biological receptiveness to some features more then others in regards to child rearing, we can make a working hypothesis that what drives attraction to physical traits (or lack there of) may also have biological component encouraging the attraction. And this would not be unexpected, given that such things occur in the rest of the animal kingdom. And it would be evolutionarily supported as explained here.
The Adapted Mind : Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture

The link is giving me crap, just google it yourself. It touches on how women with psychological tendencies to look for mates with certain qualities would be a beneficial trait evolutionarily, and would be more likely to occur.



eh... This isn't worth the effort actually. I'm now trying to set up the start of a paper in order to argue with someone who took 4 tries before they stopped misrepresenting what I was trying to say, and even then I am not sure they understand the distinction. I give, you win. Attraction is completely socially learned and biology has no influence what so ever in affecting what traits individuals would find attractive, up to and including the same traits we use to define races.