Do black guys do it for you?

[1178303]

One doesn't even need any basis to exclude any group one wishes. Individuals have a right to exclude from dating whomever they wish to exclude.

If you are excluding a whole race, that is racism.

Racism - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

 

[902369]

@malakos

The first line was in response to the large number of posts on here fetishizing black men, the rest of the post addressed those who simply say "I don't find black men attractive". Fetishizing is as destructive as simply saying "no people of color" because it again limits a human being down to some physical attribute or stereotype (usually big cock, or musculature or whatever) and is usually not about anything in a person's mind or personality.

As far as the other aspects, I'm of the standpoint that attraction and what we find attractive is a societal construct. How we are raised, the environment where we are raised, and the people who influence us have vastly more to do with what we find attractive than any biology, because biologically speaking, humans are human.

If attraction is learned behavior, it inherently is going to come with problems attached. The vast majority of American and European media upholds white standards of beauty--fair skin, straight hair, etc. The average fitness magazine has a white man on the cover. The average movie has a white hero, etc. Therefore, culturally, those things that are further towards the white scale are found to be preferable or more appealing to much of society. Why many can say "I find mixed race people attractive, but not dark skinned people".

A dating preference in itself is not oppression, if that dating preference is based on personality traits and choices. People don't date smokers, prefer to date people with similar interests and lifestyles, etc. Denying the possibility of dating someone simply because of race is a symptom of systemic oppression. The ability to boil a person down to the color of their skin and say "that's not for me" makes no sense psychologically. Attraction and lasting relationships are built on personality and human attributes. Just because someone finds a blonde attractive, doesn't mean they can't date and be happy with a brunette, or someone with different colored eyes, etc. It just seems incredibly shallow and vapid to base dating practice and preference on physical characteristics.

I have grown to be attracted to people I was not initially attracted to based off their personality.

And I'm not just concerned about homogenous environments in Eurocentric spaces. I firmly believe diversity is one of the greatest ways to happy, healthy, peaceful communities, and homogeneous neighborhoods, cities, or countries often lead to racism, xenophobia, classism, etc. I lived in Japan for a year and was bothered by the level of xenophobia (and the other side of the coin, fetishizing) that occurred while I was there.

If you are white and you wrote this, I am truly impressed.

 

[alcor972]

*sigh*

…

…

 

[Nudistpig]

The question might as well be 'how far are you willing to go to pretend your racism is preference and why not ask a question that reinforces the idea that it's acceptable to sexually dismiss Black men as a group in public'?

 

[malakos]

If you are excluding a whole race, that is racism.

Racism - The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

I think you're wrong about preferences over traits that concentrate racially being racist, but whatever you want to call it doesn't really matter to me. It becomes beside the point when we start to vainly try to coerce and shame people out of their preferences (btw, this is the same idea, albeit slightly less insane, of trying to shame monosexuals out of excluding transsexuals in their dating preferences). My point stands on the consideration of the right of the choice. Each individual has a right to exclude whomever they want from dating consideration. You asked "is it ok?" No one owes anyone any sort of excuse or explanation for exercising that right. You can have whatever critique you want of the choice, but the question of it being OK or not for one to do it is misguided.

 

[AdamHenry]

Malakos just doesn't get it.

 

[1250563]

People only love black men when their bbc i mean look at thos formun when was the last time u saw a thread for a black guy?

 

[wsnki07]

While I believe that there are issues with racist preferences, I wonder what would happen if fellow black men(and other POC's) viewed those types of people as unfortunate deal breakers?

It might as well be a deal breaker. Someone that isn't attracted to you due to your race will be no good for you in the long haul anyways(even if you find them attractive)

Can it suck? Absolutely, but did you really lose anything?

 

[bigbigdhunter]

I can't help it. I naturally find black men more attractive than white men. Generally. The black man still has to have sex appeal. And there are white guys I find v attractive. But put an attractive white guy next to an attractive black guy? The black guy will make me feel so much more.
It is literally instinctive for me

 

[malakos]

Malakos just doesn't get it.

If there is something in this case I don't get (which I very much doubt), it's likely because no one of sufficient competence has presented a sound explanation of it. Inane blabbering about racism doesn't constitute an explanation of much of anything.

 

[AdamHenry]

If there is something in this case I don't get (which I very much doubt), it's likely because no one of sufficient competence has presented a sound explanation of it. Inane blabbering about racism doesn't constitute an explanation of much of anything.

Been reading through all of your comments regarding this subject. You're spending way too much time trying to justify your position on this. Too much time. Stop telling on yourself.

 

[Nudistpig]

If there is something in this case I don't get (which I very much doubt), it's likely because no one of sufficient competence has presented a sound explanation of it. Inane blabbering about racism doesn't constitute an explanation of much of anything.

It is rude, not to mention racist to openly discuss racial "preference" (race is a social construct developed purely to marginalize and disempower). It's not an appropriate topic for a public forum. Why is it racist? Because it is impossible to have such a discussion without re-creating systemic inequity and it invites a variety of responses that will fall short because the framing of desire in racial terms is never going to produce equitable discourse...ever. The very idea that many folks think this is an appropriate question, especially framed as it is here is itself racist. Note that the question asked is plural, not singular "Black Guys" is "All Black Guys". I get that some folks may have preferences...fine. There is simply no need to broadcast those personal issues nor is it necessary to have the discussion. Or is this really a legitimate topic that we need to seriously consider?

 

[Nudistpig]

While I believe that there are issues with racist preferences, I wonder what would happen if fellow black men(and other POC's) viewed those types of people as unfortunate deal breakers?

It might as well be a deal breaker. Someone that isn't attracted to you due to your race will be no good for you in the long haul anyways(even if you find them attractive)

Can it suck? Absolutely, but did you really lose anything?

Imagine it happens hundreds of times because online platforms provide the means whereby it can happen. Rejection sucks. Rejection for that reason is downright shitty. And it's not the only way in which our society heaps rejection on Black men...

 

[malakos]

It is rude, not to mention racist to openly discuss racial "preference" (race is a social construct developed purely to marginalize and disempower). It's not an appropriate topic for a public forum. Why is it racist? Because it is impossible to have such a discussion without re-creating systemic inequity and it invites a variety of responses that will fall short because the framing of desire in racial terms is never going to produce equitable discourse...ever. The very idea that many folks think this is an appropriate question, especially framed as it is here is itself racist. Note that the question asked is plural, not singular "Black Guys" is "All Black Guys". I get that some folks may have preferences...fine. There is simply no need to broadcast those personal issues nor is it necessary to have the discussion. Or is this really a legitimate topic that we need to seriously consider?

Rude? Any number of important topics of discussion could considered rude. Pretty much any serious topic is bound to rub someway the wrong way these days. Does that mean that we should shy away from discussing all these topics? I certainly don't think so. If someone is disheartened by some having these preferences, it's helpful to have a discussion about it so they can learn that in many cases these preferences are not held as a result of assigning less human value or respect to those they don't find sexually attractive, but are simply the result of the conditioning of passions and aesthetic tastes. And I think if more people realized that, then we might be able to move toward this topic being discussed without a negative charge to it. Ideally preferences in phenotypical groups shouldn't be treated as any more unacceptable than preferences in body types.

Not appropriate? It would seem that the mods don't see it that way. I've been taking this same position on this question for years now and have never been dinged for it. The position I'm taking is not one that promotes the infringement of the right of any group.

Certain systems of conceiving of race are socially constructed, yes (particularly the "White" vs "Black" system), but there is a biological reality of minor differences according to ancestral groupings that is what some of us consider to be race. Often the race realist position is countered with science on clines and the fact that there is more genetic variation between individuals than there is between the mean of each group. But that is not a logically sound argument. Just because there is more difference between individuals doesn't mean there is an absence of difference between the genetically related groups. And if one digs into this question, one will find scientists (such as Dr. Dawkins) who admit as much. When one reads the commentary of scientists on these studies, often the position they take is not that race is completely socially constructed. That contention is really one popular among social theorists rather than hard empiricists. And historically speaking, yes, the "White vs Black" system of race was created in the 16th/17th centuries and developed in relation to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but the notion of race in other senses existed before this, in a less... black and white, more nuanced form. For example, one can read Aristotle effectively discussing race, in some sense.

I haven't the foggiest what you had in mind by "re-creating system inequity". How could dating preferences possibly be a matter in which the notion of equity is even relevant? Dating (relationships) is inherently a discriminatory sport; the notion of equity doesn't seem to belong at all. People have a right to whatever preferences they happen to have. If someone's preference is that they don't want to date someone with any history of mental health issues whatsoever, that would not be to my advantage, and maybe it would be sad, but that would be their right to have that preference and I would respect it. This reality inevitably leads to some groups carrying less favor than others, but there really is no reasonable alternative; nor do I regard it as "bad" for us to have these preferences.

As for your last question... well, I don't know if it is necessary. I know that I've never been the one who has created one of these threads. When I do respond to them to share my preferences, I lean towards responding in a fashion that is not particularly negative nor overly specific (i.e. "I tend to usually to be attracted to members of my own race"). But yes, perhaps you're right that it tends to invite less sensitive and informed responses (ironically on this forum the particularly unfortunate responses are more often from the fetishists). But then the reaction to this is what begs a response in me. If they were simply of the sense of "hey man, not all X are like that, check your stereotypes", I wouldn't have anything to say in objection. But when we get into policing of people's preferences (and start calling them "racist" or "transphobic", or whatever the particular identity issue happens to be) I think that is also gravely inappropriate and needs to be called out.

 

[1178303]

The topic of this conversation is racist. Racism is not just rude it is wrong.

Often the race realist position is countered with science on clines and the fact that there is more genetic variation between individuals than there is between the mean of each group.

This is what I am talking about. It is non-sensical to exclude a whole racial group given there is such variation.

It continually amazes me how gay people can have such a lack of empathy for other minorities.

 

[1178303]

I think you're wrong about preferences over traits that concentrate racially being racist, but whatever you want to call it doesn't really matter to me. It becomes beside the point when we start to vainly try to coerce and shame people out of their preferences (btw, this is the same idea, albeit slightly less insane, of trying to shame monosexuals out of excluding transsexuals in their dating preferences). My point stands on the consideration of the right of the choice. Each individual has a right to exclude whomever they want from dating consideration. You asked "is it ok?" No one owes anyone any sort of excuse or explanation for exercising that right. You can have whatever critique you want of the choice, but the question of it being OK or not for one to do it is misguided.

Such preferences do need to be challenged. It is no different to having a preference to not give a job to people of certain races.

 

[englad]

You're not answering what I asked, and I intentionally italicized the word "phrase" to try to emphasize that the exact phrasing you chose seemed significant to me.



Not obtuse, it's a simple yes/no question, and there is a reason for my asking it. That site never exhibits any examples that are equivalent to what I am wondering about.

"People of color" is a recent construct that refers to a huge swath of the vast majority of humanity (probably 80-90% of it). This group includes all sorts of peoples, which, even comparing the mean traits of their respective ethnicities, don't share any qualities beyond the most basic human ones. Certainly skin color isn't a trait that is shared in common in that grouping; in North Asia one can find many people who are just as fair skinned as Northern Europeans tend to be. Personally I think the phrase doesn't mean very much and is largely just a rhetorical device for identity politics, but that's another kettle of fish.

The examples that takethecurve mentioned are preferences I have seen stated a number of times. However, none of them satisfy the question I asked about "no people of color". That phrase is a very broad umbrella category. "No blacks", "no Asians", "only Whites" all express preferences about specific racial groupings. Saying "no people of color" just wouldn't make any sense because the various peoples lumped into this category are so diverse that the group don't really share any particular traits traits (even on a soft generalization level) other than basic human ones. The only reason such a thought might cross someone's mind would be because they have a preference for those who are "not" "people of color", namely "White" people. Just stating the preference itself makes a lot more natural and fluid sense, hence why we see "only Whites" fairly often, but there is seemingly no evidence of "no people of color".

And we see "no blacks" and "no Asians" but not "no people of color" because the latter is actually not equivalent in meaning to the former two. Again, the latter doesn't really refer to any preference, it would just be a bizarre way of expressing preference for "Whites". However, actual preferences can take either a positive or negative form: there are some traits that one finds appealing and contribute to sexual attraction, and there are others that detract from sexual attraction (there are also often traits that one has little response to one way or the other, but then they can't be spoken of as preferences). For example, one could find wide, open eyes attractive, but slanted eyes with the epicanthic fold unattractive.

Because of this, expressing general positive or negative preferences about specific groups makes sense, where "no people of color" would not. Members specific ethnic/racial groups, as a generality not an absolute, often exhibit specific traits due to their common genetic stock. East Asians very often exhibit notable inheritance of the epicanthic fold, and if one finds that trait particularly unattractive, then it would make sense one would rarely if ever find members of that group attractive.

Malakos saying "only white guys" and saying "no people of colour" is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Usually you see no (insert group a) in areas where they are the most common minority after white people.

Stating publically on a dating profile that you have no sexual interest in an entire group of men is racist and vile.

 

[malakos]

The topic of this conversation is racist.

How does asking about what trips one's trigger incite antagonism? Would you say the same thing if the topic were asking if twinks do anything for one? Or how about shorter guys? Guys with smaller dicks?

Racism is not just rude it is wrong.

Well, I say policing people's sexual preferences is wrong, and I would appreciate it if busybodies like you would cut it out. Seems we're at a bit of an impasse.

This is what I am talking about. It is non-sensical to exclude a whole racial group given there is such variation.

As is typical of commentary on this matter, your own interpretation is extremely over simplistic. There's a whole lot of variation, genetically, between individuals, more than between races. In terms of phenotypes though, there are traits that vary, but also traits that are very common within certain groups. For example, what % of East Asians (who have not mixed with Europeans) would you guess have eye colors other than brown?

It continually amazes me how gay people can have such a lack of empathy for other minorities.

*facepalm* Empathy has nothing to do with what one is conditioned to find sexually attractive.

Such preferences do need to be challenged. It is no different to having a preference to not give a job to people of certain races.

Haha, no. It is very different.

How we choose to treat people socially has many layers of rationality and training of character. Through upbringing, education, and reflection we can realize that all humans are essentially rational and desiring of the same basic sorts of dignities. To choose to discriminate against one race or another in light of that human reality therefore would obviously reflect some particular sorts of values.

^None of that can be said of sexual preferences. Sexual preferences are largely subconsciously and irrationally conditioned without our awareness or choice. Sexual attraction is not a principle that can be reformed by reflection like a worldview can. And it's not like realizing the sharing of basic humanity will contribute to the "reforming" of a sexual preference. There are plenty of people who see the basic humanity in all but are not attracted to all. Human regard is not nearly as linked to sexual attraction as you seem to be suggesting.

Malakos saying "only white guys" and saying "no people of colour" is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

On the most literal level, yes, the latter is just the excluding form of the other. The whole point I was trying to make in that leg of the conversation was that someone specifying they are not into one other racial group is not equivalent to "no people of color", because for all we know it may relate to a particular trait common in that specific group. Maybe a guy doesn't like the epicanthic fold and "Mongoloid" neoteny. It isn't safe to assume that exclusion of one other race indicates exclusive preference for one's own race. Racial preferences aren't always about identity and societal dynamics, but sometimes about passionate aesthetic response to biological variations.

Stating publically on a dating profile that you have no sexual interest in an entire group of men is racist and vile.

I have no sexual interest in obese men. I guess I'm vile and bigoted. Oh well.

*yawn*

At least Nudistpig wrote me something that was somewhat worthy of consideration.

 

[1178303]

@malakos does not want to understand

It’s ok to not be attracted to someone. It’s not ok to dismiss an entire race. It cannot be accurate to say every single person will be unattractive to you.

 

[james hart]

love it, been with 2 black lads best time ever