Poll: Is Not Dating a Certain Race Racist?

[Battenberg]

Being racist makes you not want to date people of a certain race, not finding people of a certain race attractive doesn't make you a racist.

If you treat and behave equally/ fairly to all races then you're not racist, regardless of sexual preferences. Just because a certain skin colour isn't attractive to you doesn't mean you're racist (although obviously people who are racist would very likely not be attracted to other races). It's like calling someone hairist for not dating brunettes.

 

[Olas]

I can't wait for the day to come when we can talk about skin color the same way we talk about hair color or eye color, as merely a physical attribute without loads cultural baggage tied to it.

"I don't like black hair"

*All black people become included in this catagory*

Suck on it.

Side note: the picture I picked however, may be unintentionally racist given the subject matter.

No, it's ok... that picture is sexist not racist!

Chess is racist and sexist. White always goes first and kings are more important than queens.

 

[LetalisK]

"Racial preference" is malleable in that it's a learned prejudice and not a preference. As infants we seek parity in features to help with recognition, but after that there's really no excuse. I guess you could say "I'm not attracted to anyone who looks different from my general features" and it would mean you just hadn't grown up. My point is that racial preference is not the same thing as having a preference for a specific sex, and should not be treated the same way.

And how is this unique from any other physical preference? Is someone born with a preference for blondes over brunettes? Tomboys over classically feminine women? Or was it learned? Also, just because a preference is learned does not necessarily mean it's malleable, particularly consciously malleable. Our physical preferences can change, but how do we consciously control that?

Note: While I think racial preference and sexual preference are different, I don't think they are in such a way as to be treated differently in this situation. However, for the sake of this discussion, I won't even consider that and leave sex out of the equation entirely.

They're making a racist statement regardless of intent. Yes, I understand that in most cases people are just being lazy when they say things like "I'm not attracted to X race." when they really mean "I haven't found a lot of people of X race that I find attractive, but there are surely exceptions.". The problem is that lazy dialogue like that fuels things like sexism or racism. By making a statement such as "I don't find x race attractive" when you don't really mean that adds support to the people who do mean it and are racists. Making a racist statement does not make you a racist, but it certainly helps those who are and builds a case towards you being one.

So in other words, you are consciously choosing to put the racist implications behind it even though you recognize and admit you know that's not what they're talking about? So why is it lazy dialogue as opposed to lazy reading? I get the "Hey, this could be misinterpreted, so you may want to rephrase this," because god knows I'm anal with people, but from where I'm sitting it looks like you're knowingly misrepresenting what they're saying to make them appear to be something you know they're not. That seems so much worse than simply misspeaking or misinterpreting what they're saying.

Edit: I feel it's prudent to point out there is a big "IMO" pasted over this so as to avoid the idea that I'm trying to belittle you rather than simply giving my perspective. Because I'm trying to be nicer to people.

"Having black skin" is a physical feature, one that black people tend to have (yes, I know, there are exceptions but that´s what they are - exceptions). Silly as it may be, someone may happen to be not attracted to it. That hypothetical someone should be able to say "I´m not attracted to black people" without being judged harshly for it.

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

I´m adding all these "hypotheticals" because a person saying things like this will, I think, more often than not, be racist; but not because of just saying this but more because of the thought processes behind that, i.e. they will usually refuse to go out with black people because they think they are all stupid, or junkies or fat or whatever which, of course, is racist.

This would be where we disagree, then. Kind of like what you said, someone might not go out with someone else because they hold racist attitudes toward their race. Or they might not because it just doesn't get their blood pumping. But I don't think it would be right to assume the former based simply off the statement "I'm not attracted to black people." There are certainly additional things you could bring in to support such a claim, but I don't think the aforementioned statement is sufficient.

 

[Sunrider]

It's no more racist than being a homosexual male is sexist.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Depends really. If person A doesn't date members of Ethnicity B because they aren't sexually attracted to them then no I don't really see the problem.

If person A won't date members of Ethnicity B because it's a sin to lay with the mud races...well then yes Person A is a racist, bigoted douche and should rightly be called out on their bullshit.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Chess is racist and sexist. White always goes first and kings are more important than queens.

But queens are better than kings, dun dun duuuun.

 

[baarserik]

No. It's not racist. Unless preference in the looks of your mate is somehow discriminatory now. Hasn't been for thousands of years at least.

Yes it IS. Choosing or not choosing SOLELY because of RACE is the very definition of RACISM.
It's just that maybe it doesn't matter that much. He can date whoever he wants. Primitive way to go about it, but hey, it's his private life.

I'm sorry, but isnt that kind of like saying that gay men hate women because they're not physically attracted to them?

No. Not once have I mentioned hatred. People can like and dislike whatever they want for themselves, obviously. That their tastes are based, in this case, on race, is very, very technically racist. Just not that a big deal. Because, again, people can like and dislike whatever they want for themselves. I'm just defending the use of the word "racism" as technically accurate, in this scenario.

Fine, you can nitpick over what words you choose, but lets call gay men 'genderists' then, because they're not physically attracted to that gender. You do not choose what qualities you find attractive, whether those qualities are eye size, hair length, skin color or gender. Now if you ARE physically attracted to people of a certain race, but still choose to not date that particular race, THAT would make you a racist.

 

[GeneralFungi]

Why would you even include a criteria like 'no blacks' on your preferences? I would find it prejudiced on the grounds that they are already convinced that a black person couldn't capture their fancy in any way shape or form. If you meet the person and sparks don't fly for you that's fine. I wouldn't raise issue with it. But the man on this site already has his mind set on the idea that he would not find a black woman attractive.

I don't know if I would outright call him racist though. Maybe he has previous experiences with black women and he didn't really feel attracted to them and is basing his assumption on previous experience. It's just the fact that he's outright dismissive on those grounds. It bugs me.

 

[LetalisK]

Chess is racist and sexist. White always goes first and kings are more important than queens.

But queens are better than kings, dun dun duuuun.

You're right! Despite how much better she is, the queen is still kept down by a glass ceiling. <.<

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

No. It's notaroused Unless preference in the looks of your mate is somehow discriminatory now. Hasn't been for thousands of years at least.

Yes it IS. Choosing or not choosing SOLELY because of RACE is the very definition of RACISM.

what if someone has never been turned on by a certain race. Would that be racist? No choice just not arroused

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

No. It's notaroused Unless preference in the looks of your mate is somehow discriminatory now. Hasn't been for thousands of years at least.

Yes it IS. Choosing or not choosing SOLELY because of RACE is the very definition of RACISM.

what if someone has never been turned on by a certain race. Would that be racist? No choice just not arroused

I guess probably not, that wouldn't be racist.

 

[Flowen]

And how is this unique from any other physical preference?

Because race is a massively broad brush and things like blue eyes or curly hair aren't nearly as massive.

Is someone born with a preference for blondes over brunettes? Tomboys over classically feminine women? Or was it learned? Also, just because a preference is learned does not necessarily mean it's malleable, particularly consciously malleable. Our physical preferences can change, but how do we consciously control that?

That's true, those preferences are learned. They just don't (generally) contribute to discrimination (except in your tomboys vs classically feminine example but that's a different tangent.) in the same way that "I'm not attracted to X race" does.

Note: While I think racial preference and sexual preference are different, I don't think they are in such a way as to be treated differently in this situation. However, for the sake of this discussion, I won't even consider that and leave sex out of the equation entirely.

Cool. I'm glad to see you being nice for the sake of discussion. There are a ton of tangents we can go off, and if we were having coffee I'd say let's do it; but since we're on the internet I appreciate you sticking to the topic at hand.

So in other words, you are consciously choosing to put the racist implications behind it even though you recognize and admit you know that's not what they're talking about? So why is it lazy dialogue as opposed to lazy reading? I get the "Hey, this could be misinterpreted, so you may want to rephrase this," because god knows I'm anal with people, but from where I'm sitting it looks like you're knowingly misrepresenting what they're saying to make them appear to be something you know they're not. That seems so much worse than simply misspeaking or misinterpreting what they're saying.

Not quite. I'm saying there's a difference between being racist and making a racist statement. You can make a racist statement without being racist due to ignorance, laziness, or a number of other reasons. I'm saying the person saying "I'm not attracted to black people" MIGHT not be racist, but the statement itself is racist.

Edit: I feel it's prudent to point out there is a big "IMO" pasted over this so as to avoid the idea that I'm trying to belittle you rather than simply giving my perspective. Because I'm trying to be nicer to people.

Nah, it's cool. Thanks for being nice about everything. This is a really heated topic, and I can get why people would get upset or worry about upsetting folks in cases like this.

 

[Flowen]

what if someone has never been turned on by a certain race. Would that be racist? No choice just not arroused

It's a matter of contribution. You can't separate the discussion from the impact. Saying "I don't like tomatoes" could be the same as saying "I've never found a tomato that I like, but it could possibly happen" which is the argument you're making. If there were no racists, that would totally be a fine argument to make as it would just be a linguistic shortcut. The problem is that there are racists who use that kind of language to be racist, so people who care about that kind of stuff need to be a little more careful in how they phrase things.

 

[DrOswald]

Not quite. I'm saying there's a difference between being racist and making a racist statement. You can make a racist statement without being racist due to ignorance, laziness, or a number of other reasons. I'm saying the person saying "I'm not attracted to black people" MIGHT not be racist, but the statement itself is racist.

I got a quick question: In your opinion, is the statement "I find dark skin tone unattractive" racist?

Just to be clear, I am not trying to start a fight here or anything, I am just curious where you would draw the line. If you would find the above statement racist how would you phrase it so it would not be racist?

 

[Rewdalf]

Is not dating a member of your own sex sexist?

 

[Musette]

Not experiencing attraction to people of a specific race is as racist as not being attracted to a certain gender is sexist. You can't help attraction, and while it's a little eyebrow raising to say "I'm not attracted to this race" because the wording is probably tying in race more than it should, it's ultimately pretty harmless in its own right.

Granted, it's possible for someone to be racist and not attracted to people of a certain race, but I'm pretty sure the opposite can happen as well. I would much prefer to work with someone who believes in equal rights and treating everyone equally while never experiencing attraction to Asian people than someone who can be attracted to anybody but advocates white supremacy or something like that.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I don't believe in race. I find the very notion of human sub-races to be racist.

It is. That's the point. How can you not believe in race though? Black skin is black. White skin is white. And like reproduces like. We classify sub-species of plant by color of their flowers or slightly differing leaf shape, so why not the same principle with people?

Well, sub-species of plants tend to have relatively static gene pools, right? Whereas humans of once-secluded populations have been mixing for centuries or more. So human "race" tends to be more about defining people by cherry-picked aesthetic traits; usually ignoring the actual genetic history involved.

Also, "black" skin usually isn't black, and "white" skin usually isn't white. "Black" skin can be a variety of brown shades, while "white" skin can be a variety of lighter shades of brownish/orangeish/pinkish. (Imagine if all flowers that came in shades of blue or red were referred to as "purples"?)

And, at the end of the day, I find the idea of defining people by simplified and assumed genetic heritage to be entirely useless. (Being able to map actual genetic heritage within fields like genetics and medicine, however, is both infinitely more useful and infinitely more complex than referring to people as "black" or "white".)

Lastly, people are people, and plants are not people. If nothing else, I'd say that should be of emotional and philosophical relevance.

No two organisms are the same, I know that much. I don't know what you mean when you say race isn't useful, the fact that we have used it as a concept indicates its use, doesn't it? Politicians have found it useful to segregate and incite hatred, geographers and anthropologists have (in the past) used it to describe groups of peoples from different parts of the world. But you are probably talking about what you deem useful, as fitting within one side of your own value system. Which makes the classification rather pointless. I don't see any emotional or philosophical relevance anyway. We've moved from racial concepts to genetics ones as descriptor of populations, and that's a historical matter now. There's no "proper" way to define groupings of organisms, just what's in fashion according to use. Maybe something else is to come after genetics and we will then call that a better way of defining life? Who knows.

 

[Flowen]

Not quite. I'm saying there's a difference between being racist and making a racist statement. You can make a racist statement without being racist due to ignorance, laziness, or a number of other reasons. I'm saying the person saying "I'm not attracted to black people" MIGHT not be racist, but the statement itself is racist.

I got a quick question: In your opinion, is the statement "I find dark skin tone unattractive" racist?

Just to be clear, I am not trying to start a fight here or anything, I am just curious where you would draw the line. If you would find the above statement racist how would you phrase it so it would not be racist?

I'd say that's toeing the line. I'd be really cautious if someone used that around me, and I'd ask them what their definition of "dark skin tone" is.

 

[Syzygy23]

No. It's not racist. Unless preference in the looks of your mate is somehow discriminatory now. Hasn't been for thousands of years at least.

Yes it IS. Choosing or not choosing SOLELY because of RACE is the very definition of RACISM.
It's just that maybe it doesn't matter that much. He can date whoever he wants. Primitive way to go about it, but hey, it's his private life.

It only counts if it's voluntary racism. If heavily pigmented skin turns you off or does nothing for you, you can't help it, that's developmental.

 

[LetalisK]

And how is this unique from any other physical preference?

Because race is a massively broad brush and things like blue eyes or curly hair aren't nearly as massive.

What makes it broad? The number of people that do or do not have X quality? Because if that's the case, I'd say not only is it relative to the place you live, but something like eye color could actually be even broader that something like skin color.

That's true, those preferences are learned. They just don't (generally) contribute to discrimination (except in your tomboys vs classically feminine example but that's a different tangent.) in the same way that "I'm not attracted to X race" does.

I think this is where I have the problem. Racist behavior could lead to having a preference of race. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is that the inverse is necessarily and absolutely true, basically making a false cause and effect. Finding Asians sexier than whites does not mean you must look down on whites and making that assumption would be too hasty. To follow up on this...

Not quite. I'm saying there's a difference between being racist and making a racist statement. You can make a racist statement without being racist due to ignorance, laziness, or a number of other reasons. I'm saying the person saying "I'm not attracted to black people" MIGHT not be racist, but the statement itself is racist.

And there is a difference between a racist statement and a racial statement. At least in this case, you can't know which it is without knowing any other context behind such a statement, as "racist-" doesn't mean drawing just any distinction between races.