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 all put together, you can easily get quirks for or against various traits, up to and including traits that are nearly exclusive in some races but not others(natural hair color) or up to even ones that define the race (such as skin color).

What you try to explain here sounds exactly like the same misunderstanding of things that has homophobics telling people they can learn to not be attracted to others of their own gender. It is not so simple and you really insult everyone here trying to present it as such.

K, so which ones are immutable? Also what and how buddy? What biological thing excuses racism? My snipe muscle? I am gay (That is a biological thing) and while you are 100% right that gay conversion therapy is a total load, expanding your tastes to include different colors of the thing you like is in no way the same. It's like saying that a red car is super cool but a blue car? I JUST DON'T LIKE IT AND I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT I'M NOT RACIST!

People just love writing things off, oh I don't think black guys are hot because... im not into muscles, I like straight hair, we just don't have anything in common... it's just a bunch of excuses you come up with to write the situation off as "out of your control/not my problem". Well toooo bad!you can control your attraction to the effect of growing it. I mean, look at your own life, did anything used to disgust or turn you off that now you tolerate or love? YOU CAN CHANGE IT, YOU CAN MAKE IT BETTER. It's not reinventing the wheel or deceiving yourself to the point of mental break, it's just challenging yourself to get better.

I know as a kid I "just wasn't into black guys" until I did something about that, now im into pretty much all guys. All I did was the same thing I did when I first learned about attraction when I was like 12, just think about black guys. Remove the mystery, bridge the false gap!

The point of comparison is in attraction, that you can not force yourself to be attracted to someone, be it because they do not appeal to your sexual preference in gender or in other traits. I am not saying there is a biological justification for racism itself (that of thinking one race is better or worse solely for being a different race), merely that because of biological consistencies within races (hair, skin color), you may run into a situation where not finding some traits attractive (like, say for instance you just never find natural dark hair attractive, or people with it) that would, because of consistencies within the race remove the entire race as possible (which would include people of african ethnic origin if naturally dark hair is not attractive.)

You seem to keep misconstruing attraction and desire with tolerance, acceptance or even enjoyment of. There is a difference you have to be aware. What you try to use here can be turned on its head to homosexuality, which alone should be a warning sign to you, as I tried to explain before. There are traits people are biologically coded to notice, as well as ones inherent due to society. When the two combine to influence people as they develop, you may get something like "I am not attracted to darker tones of skins" or "I am not attracted to dark color hair". And yes, saying "you can change that" is as incorrect as saying "homosexuals can learn to be attracted to women". Because at that point, you are dismissing personal attraction in order to fit a societal ideal of what they should feel rather then what they do. As odd as that may be, it is perfectly normal to not be attracted to some traits. Keep in mind not feeling attraction does not mean they are lesser. I don't feel attraction to half of the population solely because of gender, that does not mean I think I am better or they are lesser, merely I accept I feel no attraction there.
Also, there is the aspect you overlook here. Skin color, hair color and the like do not alone define a race, though can be traits massively predominant to some races. If someone is not attracted to dark color skin, you would easily assume they are not attracted to blacks, which would be correct. But it would not be done because they are of the black race, rather, because the vast majority of blacks have dark skin. Sometimes you may get a Jackson effect going on, or you may get people who overtan or dye their skin darker, and possibility for attraction would respond according to the trait, not the race as well.

To put is more simply.
If they are not attracted because of traits common among some races, but not because of said races themselves, they are not racist.
If they dislike or will not date because of race itself, they are.

 

[Fireaxe]

Let's try "prejudice". It says "an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc." I think that's closest.

Not wanting to date someone is not the same as an unfair feeling of dislike, especially if you just don't find them attractive. It doesn't mean you think they're bad people, it means you're not physically attracted to them.

Formal definitions aside, is what you're doing discriminatory and unfair? Yes. I think the biggest test comes to if you're willing to admit it in public. Generally speaking people don't want to publicly admit to doing something they think is wrong. If a, say, hispanic lady asked you out, would you say, to her face, "I don't want to date anyone outside of my race"? If the answer is no...

Would you tell someone you don't want to date them because you think they're ugly, crazy, or whatever other reason you might have?

Personally I wouldn't want to explain my reasons regardless of what they were.

 

[Breccia]

Not wanting to date someone is not the same as an unfair feeling of dislike, especially if you just don't find them attractive. It doesn't mean you think they're bad people, it means you're not physically attracted to them.

"Prejudiced" might not be the right word, no, but is still far closer to the situation than either "bigot" or "racist". If you read the definitions of the other two terms, you'd see it was a pretty dramatic difference between those three. Think of it as the difference between a traffic ticket, a misdemeanor, and a felony. They're all illegal, but in drastically different shades. Maybe you don't think that this should be "illegal" to continue that analogy, but my point was, it's nowhere near the level of being bigoted or racist, thereby addressing the OP's original question.

Would you tell someone you don't want to date them because you think they're ugly, crazy, or whatever other reason you might have?

It dramatically depends on the reason. If I didn't want to date someone only because of their physical appearance, yes, I'd be as embarrassed as hell to say that, because I don't think that's a good enough reason. Other people disagree, and say things like "I don't feel that chemistry" or other ways of putting it delicately but still being honest about the situation. If I thought they were too crazy to date, yes, I have in fact had to say exactly that once to her face. Yeah it was awkward as hell, but it needed to be clear, rather than "I'm not looking right now" which is an invitation to Stalkerville. If she had been, say, a convicted drug dealer, or abused her dog, I would have used those reasons and not felt bad about it. While the rule "if you think it was the right thing to do, you would admit to it" doesn't cover everything, it covers a lot, and I think this situation is one of those times.

 

[Joos]

Just realised there's a good chance you were taking the piss and I missed that. Oops.

Good to see you are not completely irony-deficient.

 

[mecegirl]

Well what I originally got into this thread about was someone saying having a different post for Black women was inherently racist; I took issue with this for 2 reasons

1) If someone prefers black women, they're going to be scrolling past a lot of a generic "Hottest Chicks" thread to find them (as most posters will probably post white women).
2) I see no problem breaking pictures of women (or men, or cats, or dogs, or whatever else) into categories.

None of that has to do with what actually happened though. No one was saying that it was inherently racist. But in the context of what happened it was. Why debate something that no one was talking about?

For your examples it isn't uncommon for non White people to be attracted to White people. Even ones that grew up in majority non White communities. Of course we have the media to thank for that. It's not hard to consider something attractive when your society puts it on a pedestal. So your inverted example isn't really convincing.

And since anyone can post anything why wouldn't those who would want to see non White women just post non white women?

By that logic, it's valid to post pretty much any woman in a hottest chicks thread, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having a thread full of women generally agreed to be attracted.

As I said before someone not being your type does not equal them being unattractive. It takes a lot for someone to be ugly. Really it does. And since attraction is subjective it would be almost impossible for a diverse group of people to agree on who is attractive. So no one would be posted at all. Pick a well known actress, singer, or model. Most of them are considered attractive. Sure someone may not be the biggest fan of Christina Hendricks. They may prefer a woman who is a size 0-2. The may not like the combination of pale skin and red hair. They may not like her butt chin, or think that her breasts are too large (no lie I have heard all of these criticisms about her). But she isn't ugly. By the same token someone may not be the biggest fan of Janelle Monae. They don't like darker skin tones. Or they don't like how she dresses/how she does her hair. But she isn't ugly. Both women would be just fine to post in a "Hottest Chicks" thread. Folks could debate about why either women isn't attractive to them but it really wouldn't do any good...Better to just post a girl that you think looks better.

Besides, even in a thread dedicated to one type of person not everyone is gonna be attracted to all entries in that tread. Just because a person is only attracted to White women does not mean that they will find Emma Stone as attractive as Candice Swanepoel and both of those woman could be posted in a thread about attractive women.

So maybe they should've just had the original thread renamed "Hottest white chicks" -- which, if we're being honest, on the majority of English speaking internet forums *is* probably what the average male user is thinking about when they think "hottest chicks" in the sense of an ideal (given the majority of internet users that speak English are white men, and white men generally find the ideal to be white women).

Not that I disagree that these people loudly complaining about non-white women in an thread not marked as being for white women were probably at best arseholes and at worst racist arseholes.

I doubt that it is possible to prove that the majority of English speaking internet uses are white men..considering that White women use the internet, that non White English speaking people use the internet, and that plenty of people who do not speak English as a first language but learn it for business use the internet. Yeah... There are probably more of "us" than "you". So I believe that you mean that it is more probable to find a majority of English speaking White men on a website about video games.

Yes, they should have had the original thread renamed if that is what they wanted. They may have not wanted to do it because they did not want to seem racist, but honesty is always the best policy. If that is what they wanted nothing was stopping them from getting it. As it was, there were plenty of White women posted in the tread, so it wasn't as if they would be left wanting for women they felt were attractive. And well, it wasn't as if everyone in the thread wanted to have separate threads. Majority ruled that it wasn't really necessary.

Actually, given it just comes down to preference, it is pretty much the same thing; some things are either attractive or not -- really doesn't matter if it's genetic or not (which is why, incidentally, you won't see many women with a shaved head in such topics either).

It's worth considering that a judgement of "not attractive to me" based on race (or piercing, or hair, or tattooing) isn't the same as a negative judgement about a person as a person based on the same.

That would be great if all "categories" were treated the same by society when it comes to who is or isn't attractive. As it is they are not. White women are not treated like some special fetish in the Western world, other races of women are.

 

[Dogstile]

This actually got to 15 pages? How is it hard to grasp that other races of people have generally different features that you may or may not be attracted to?

 

[greatcheezer2021]

i think its partial to how a person looks, behaves, and your personal/physical/physiological attraction. if there is something you like about this person, and the color of their skin and culture happens to be different from yours, thats just other peoples problems. not yours. unless you really like this person, i dont think you would really be dating them, unless of course. . .

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

okay I don't want to make any assumptions on your opinion and would just like to see it thoroughly, so i'm going to list some things and you can tear it apart or agree with it as you please. (if you even want to respond)

Depending on if a dudes dick goes up or down based off of:
hair color/eyes/body shape(including boob size)/skin color

is that is all learned and not biological?

Also i don't think people literally throw up, they just don't personally prefer/like it in a sexual way is all.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Depending on if a dudes dick goes up or down based off of:
hair color/eyes/body shape(including boob size)/skin color

is that is all learned and not biological?

Yes. It may be learned subconsciously, but it is learned through cultural immersion and personal experience. One need only look at how people from different cultures react very differently to different body types to see that this is so. In Edo period Japan, a hot woman didn't have much in the way of curves- in fact part of the design of the kimono was to hide a woman's curves and make them look like a straight line from top to bottom. I've seen risque magazines from the 1960's in Japan people are praising as the height of allure a rear-shot of a Japanese woman with literally no butt at all. But the moment Japanese people started importing western culture, suddenly great stonking tits and curves that don't stop became what drove the men wild.

Also i don't think people literally throw up, they just don't personally prefer/like it in a sexual way is all.

I used "throw up" as in "make an excuse", not "vomiting".

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). I can't believe that it is 100% learned immersion, i have plenty of friends who have massively different preferences, including skin color, and we are all of different skin colors ourselves, yet we all grew up in the same area, same cultural aspects, and were all exposed to these things at the same age/times (we've been close friends going on 16 years now, and before that we were just kids that didn't even go to school yet to even be exposed to anything)

i'm not saying that cultural aspects (especially depending on how strong communities are, as you pointed to japan, who has/had "over 9000" levels of community strength) don't influence things or can't, but I think it is a bit ignorant to assume it is all learned and not something you just decide upon yourself with no outside bearings or are born with.

plus, if you were put in a gun to head split second decision, i would think the majority (a high majority) would have a preference on just about everything, which makes nearly everyone biased in some manner (yes it's nitpicking, but if you have any slight preference at all, then you're on the same side of the fence as plenty of us.)

 

[Tanis]

I'll just C/E/P what I posted in another thread...

How it is racist?
If you don't want to bang someone because you don't find features that are common to a particular ethnicity, that's your business.
If you don't want to bang someone because you don't find them to be your equal, due to their ethnicity, that's racist.

I'm white/native-american and I don't like white girls or Native-Americans that much.
I'd rather date someone who's Asian or Hispanic.
-Or half-white/half Asian because, gawd yes, I have know some REALLY REALLY hot chicks that were...yowza!

Does that make me a racist?
NO.
It just means my PERSONAL PREFERENCES are towards features that tend to be more common in certain racial groups.

Not to say that I never have/wouldn't dated white girls, just saying I'd rather date Asian or Hispanic (or even mixed-raced).

Because, let's face it, a great personality can only go so far.

If I can't look the girl in the eyes, because her face is so ugly I want to put a paper bag over her head every time we talk...
Then the relationship probably isn't going to last that long.



You people with your 'white guilt' are REALLY getting annoying.

 

[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.