Jan 19, 2010 6:51pm

The OKTrends does note the statistics, but they haven't pinpointed any reasons for why black women or asian men are responded to the least amount, 

I hate to point this out for the umpteenth time on the forums, but the pecking order from the bottom of the barrel for males is Indians, AAs, Asians, ...

In the US, Indians are not considered Asians (though they are, in the rest of the world). So, this distinction is important, given the nationality of most OKC people.


Jan 19, 2010 6:59pm

While I agree that many people have preferences that may have a racial bias (more in excluding, than in including), calling it racism is just wrong headed.

Why ?

There is a job opening. Two people apply. They have similar qualifications, and one is selected because of his / her race. That is racism. Why ? You have a right to have an equal chance to any job you are qualified for.

A girl is looking for a guy. (Or vice versa.). The person picks one particular person (or rejects another) because of physical appearance which is racially correlated. That is not racism. Why ? You have no right to have an equal chance to anyone's affections even if the content of your character is similar to that of the person they chose to be with. It is their choice and it is ethically wrong and logically pointless to question matters of personal choice, or to denigrate them with such epithets.


Jan 19, 2010 7:03pm

Race does some role. Not because of any racism. I simply find some races to be more attractive than others. For example, I'm generally not attracted to Asian men.


Jan 19, 2010 7:24pm

@ Silent Male

As per definitions used and applied in Supreme Court Decisions: Regents of the University of CA v. Bakke(1978) and Gutter v. Bollinger(2003), it is not racist if someone compared two equally competitive applicants and had race as a "plus" or factor to the final judegment.  However, it is when one entirely eliminates a potential prospect ONLY because of race.  I have no problem if someone of equal credentials beats me out because of their race...however I DO have a problem if I am not even allowed to compete because of my race.  That is racism.  And that is something that happens quite often.  People eliminate entire groups of individuals, denying them a chance to prove themselves solely because of race.  When blanket generalizations and stereotypes are used as a criteria when judging individual qualifications that's pretty damn racist to me. 

When it comes down to it, I'm not bitching about the accepted zeitgeist.  I've simply accepted it.  I just have to work much harder to get what everyone else is getting.  That's all. 


Jan 19, 2010 7:30pm


Except that being in someone's life is not a job, and someone affections are not a field for an equal opportunity argument.

Further, I think that the SCOTUS rulings are bogus when stated like that. They have the right to rule on what is legal, not what is racist. By definition, affirmative action of any sort is racist.


Jan 19, 2010 7:35pm

a person's personality affects if i am interested or not. even if you are the most beautiful woman, or the hottest of hot super sexy. if you have a shitty personality you are done, ka-poot, finished.


Jan 19, 2010 7:39pm

I have different preferences for different races. There are "kinds" of faces/builds that I like in each one, although overall I think dark skin is just gorgeous. Mixed race is usually just gorgeous as well. It can be hard to escape media's insistence that "beautiful" is white or white-like features since we're absolutely inundated with messages about what looks "normal" but personally I find all different types of faces, skin colors, hair types and body structures to be really exciting.


Jan 19, 2010 7:44pm

Then we simply have a difference in opinion.  Ideally, I feel that a person's affections should be grounds for equal opportunity.  Of course there's no way to legislate/enforce that so I'm not arguing that people change their behavior.  I'm just simply stating the behavior of not allowing people to be considered at all because of their race is a racist practice.  Racial dating preferences is racist, and racism is allowed to exist.  I'm not crying about it, nor am I trying to change it, I just have to put up with it. 

BTW, The SCOTUS cases I cited are cases on affirmative action, a practice I do not agree with. 


Jan 19, 2010 8:31pm

Archer, The expectation that people's affections should be equal opportunity is a fundamentally unreasonable one. Personal choices are by definition, well, personal. If someone finds brown skinned guys unappealing, and avoids Indians and Hispanics as a result, it is their incontestable right and is not racist. However, if someone says (and this is from a real OKC profile) that they want only X-coloured men because they want X-coloured babies, then it is racist as a mother may reasonably be expected to love her children, regardless of who they are. Even in that extreme case, it is their right to make such choices.

Jan 19, 2010 9:03pm

I agree with silent - though we seldom like to admit it we all have types, this isn't racist it just means our eyes work.


Jan 19, 2010 10:09pm

I don't think it's racism either. There are a number of things that affect why we're attracted to the traits that we are & though we might be hesitant to admit it, most of those factors have to do with the environment in which we were raised, society's standards for beauty & the racial demographic of our current surroundings. I think that racism is the belief that your race is superior than another. If I am not attracted to someone because of preference, that doesn't mean I think any less of that person BECAUSE of their race, it just means that I am not physically attracted to them. I think that it's unfortunate that these preferences against other people's because of their race is so common, but there's not much that I personally can do to change it. 


Jan 19, 2010 10:12pm

"If I am not attracted to someone because of preference, that doesn't mean I think any less of that person BECAUSE of their race"

I'll enthusiastically second that.


Jan 19, 2010 10:22pm

^^ Elle - very insightful thread by the "I anally rapped a Smurf...."


Jan 19, 2010 10:34pm

In fact, the racial / non-racial nature of selection for jobs and mates are pivoted agains this very reason.

Racism is prejudice based on some racial attribute. It is inherently a cover-all feeling or attitude against EVERYONE or almost everyone in a group. It is usually false, too, but that's not a requisite for racism; and it is usually derogatory, which is also not a requisite for racism in the modern literature. Any human trait pre-assigned to a race that makes them separable and different is racism. Whether that trait is positive or negative. Thus, to say that all Austrians are antisemites is a racist thing to say, because it's prejudices against ALL Austrians in one fell swoop.

If someone says "all Caucasians are racists", that's a racist statement, because it covers all hapless Caucasians.

The antidote to racism is examining the individual for merit or lack of it.

By definition, and without any proof needed, a mate-selection takes one person into consideration at a time; it deals, ab ovo, with individuals. A typical corollary to support this would be "I'll now srcew all one billion black women, because I racially like their looks." This souds stupid, because it contravenes the notion of sex between an individual and another INDIVIDUAL instead of a whole group. This would be impossible to do, especially all a the same time. But to HATE a group of people by race or something else, is very possible (though not commendable and not recommended), all at the same time, together. So the question of covering an entire nation or race does not even come up when one searches and forays for a mate. This is also supported by the fact that the beauty of person lies in the eyes of the observer, and thus, it's a subjective opinion that cannot be argued for or against.

Hence, sexual or mating preference cannot be racist at all.

But this is defied by the statistical evidence at hand.

I blame the Southern cotton farmers for this.

If you take a sub-Saharan native, he will be less than average height in North America, he will be the height and possessing the strength and muscle structure of an average Eastern European Caucasian.

If you take a Black American, he will be typically (but not all of them) very tall, very muscular, very strong. I would say as tall as North American Caucasians, but stronger and faster on the average than their white counterparts. And you will laugh, because I'm hetero, but I find North American Africans to be very good looking males.

Some argue that the White cotton farmers actually bred the Blacks to be strong and massive. Other way of saying it is the farmers genetically engineered them to be that way.

Of course you cannot engineer a race for the males only; the females cannot be excluded from making a trait dominant and another trait less dominant (ie. giving the advantage to some genes and trying to eliminate some other genes in the process of making men tall, strong and muscular.)

I propose that -- I say this with vacillation and with trepidation -- the Black people in North America had the "good looking woman" trait engineered out of their group. This may have some connection to the fact that strength, physical strength, is connected to the body's testostesone production, and usually testosterone makes men beautiful and women, not--regardless of race. Much like the body's oestrogen production makes women beautiful and men not beautiful -- again, regardless of race.

This of course allows for women to be good looking, because  the relationship between human gene populations and traits have a bell-shape effect of the traits. But I, for one, do much prefer the looks of African Black women from any area of that continent over North American Black women. It is based on observation, and observation alone; my theory of racial genetic engineering is theory, it does not hold water if you scratch it a bit. 

Okay, now you can burn me at the stakes.


Jan 19, 2010 10:49pm

^^ while I can understand your point, slavery was abolished in 1865 - since then, African Americans have been choosing their own partners based on whatever preferences & I think that those features that slaves were bred for are less dominant & hardly, if at all, noticeable now. I think if anything, the stereotype of many black women (as portrayed by BET & Tyler Perry) as loud, obnoxious & strong-willed is what makes many men (including black men) hesitant to pursue a black woman. 


Jan 19, 2010 10:52pm

I'm usually attracted to white and black girls. Am I being a racist? It's unequivocally a yes. I'm _discriminating_ against others based on their race. What else is it? Don't white wash this. Let's call a spade a spade. I know it's not right and I know it's morally wrong, but we are attracted to whoever we're attracted to. I have no excuse (and I've probably hurt peoples' feelings too), but I won't deceive myself by trying to rationalize it away....neither should I have to. Would you ever need to justify to someone why you prefer Strawberry ice cream over Vanilla? I'm sorry for the other person, but you can't force this kind of thing. You can try to change my mind, but that's about it.


Jan 20, 2010 8:39am

Some. I admit freely that I prefer blue eyes and white skin. I like a contrast which they make with darker haircolour. That is what I like, usually. It doesn´t make me a rasict, because I fancy men who don´t fit to that picture. It was a day when a certain blond made me lose my coolness. Or that guy whose skin was kissed by sun to coffee (yeah, only time that I preciate  a thought of coffee) bean brown and sparkling eyes. But I can´t help it , that I have a preferance to  The Victorian Era  Poet, who has a physic of lumberjack. (Monty Python, you can´t beat it...) lol


Jan 20, 2010 8:46am

Everyone is a little shallow in their own way. Some are more shallow than others. And race, certainly does play a part in physical appearances and one's attraction to that race/physical appearance. It doesn't make you racist for liking your own race over another, it's just preference.

Personally, I prefer someone who isn't Asian (Caucasian, Hispanic, etc), or a mixture of Asian and another nationality. This still doesn't rule out Asian guys completely, as long as I do find them attractive, and their personality/demeanor is attractive to me. If I find their personality attractive, the more physically attracted to them I am. And while I'm somewhat generalizing here... I seem to find more black females attractive, than black males though... Perhaps that's a personality thing?

If you like women as a woman, and not men, does that make you sexist? No, it doesn't, it's just sexual preference, much like how race, plays a part in your dating preferences.

Wow. I said the word attracted a lot. I think I need a thesaurus.


Jan 20, 2010 10:00am

I'm usually attracted to white and black girls. Am I being a racist? It's unequivocally a yes. I'm _discriminating_ against others based on their race. What else is it? Don't white wash this. Let's call a spade a spade. I know it's not right and I know it's morally wrong, but we are attracted to whoever we're attracted to.

As others have pointed out, physical attraction is central to the overall attraction in dating. If someone does not find a certain colour of skin, or a certain kind of hair, or even a certain way of talking, attractive, then they do not find it attractive. Of course, those characteristics are happen to be racially correlated, but as long as your rationalization isn't "I hate Indians/ AAs / Asians / Hispanics / whites etc." and hence I will not date one, you are not a racist.

There is nothing morally wrong about having a physical or even a cultural preference.


Jan 20, 2010 10:19am

Yea, that's equivalent to saying that because I won't date men younger than me, that I'm an ageist. It's a preference, it does not mean I hold anything against people who are younger than me in general, just that I prefer not to date them. 

Post a comment