‘No Blacks’ Is Not a Sexual Preference. It’s Racism

[Dave-W]

My grandmother used to threaten to cut from her will anyone who married outside their race. She didn't mind Hispanics or Asians so much; she was specifically excluding people of African ancestry.

Wow, that's horrible.

But hardly remarkable, especially in parts of the US South.

Not just the south.

My grandad owned a farm in Michigan and his neighbors and he had an agreement that if any one of them had to sell, the others would band together to buy the farm rather than let a person of color (especially black) wanted to buy it.

 

[Armoured]

This is from my own first-hand observation - I did mention it in my post you quoted.

Many from people I personally know, casual conversations with them, observing people in general in the streets, in the grocery stores, in schools, in the office, in the church, in amusement parks, etc, etc since 2008 when I first travelled overseas and been traveling since for work.

Thus, no citations needed because I am the first-hand source itself. It is my generalized observation. Of course, there will always be exceptions to the patterns I've observed - but if we ask "what are the chances" then my observations are accurate.

...uh-huh...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not sexually attracted to black women. I'm not saying that there are no beautiful black women -- there certainly are -- but I'm not sexually attracted to them. That is not racism.

I would be happy to have a black girl as a friend. I would not judge her by the color of her skin, but by the content of her character. I have no reason to think that her character would have to be less than a girl of some other race.

I'm attracted to Caucasians simply because I am. I don't know how to explain it. Perhaps it's because I am Caucasian myself. Perhaps it's because I grew up in a Caucasian dominated culture. Perhaps it's because I expect more commonality with a Caucasian girl.

I find it domineering to suggest that people who are sexually exclusive to race are being "racist". It's not at all the same thing.

That would be just as stupid as saying that my preference for women is "sexist", and that I should date men -- after all, aren't men human?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I agree. One does not "choose" his or her preferences.

Come to think of it, it might be interesting to see if higher sexual attraction to other races is related to some psychological thingy.

It wouldn't really surprise me to find some character trait that is perhaps more or less prevelant in those who are more attracted to their own race or not.

The "exotic" has always caught my interest, for example.

 

[William67]

I would argue that saying somebody is racist because of racial patterns in his/her dating is itself being racist.

Biological race does not exist. Race is a cultural construct. If we do not like racism then we should stop categorizing people according to race.

Actually, race is an environmental adaptation. Whites have straight hair, thinner noses and lips, etc, because they lived in a cooler climate and that helped them survive. Blacks have tight/curly hair, thicker noses and lips, etc because they lived in a much hotter climate. Those adaptations either let them conserve body heat or dissipate it. Even the tint of you skin is an adaptation. Lighter skin allows you to absorb more sunlight. Darker skin protects you much better from UV damage.

But the myth that race is a cultural construct is false.

 

[DaisyDay]

I guess nature is racist then because lions mate with lions most the time and not tigers, certain breed of dogs mate most the time with there own breed, but in dogs you find variances that you would find in the human race. Maybe the people who come up with this crap are racist.

Gentlemen dogs will mate with pretty much any lady dog in heat, regardless of breed, and vice versa.

I find women of my race and of my country the most attractive, am i predigest against other countries who have the same race? what a joke lol

Inbreeding?

 

[SuperCloud]

[citation needed]

He said "most," Arm, not "all."

For the most part I think he's right. That being more true of Asian, European women, and Latinas than ethnic Black-American women. But the later will have sex with white men and deny it anyways to project the holy martyr status.

I think Asian women are the most enamored of all by white men. Possibly Latinas next. I suspect white women of Europe, Canada, and the USA are less enamored with white men than Asian women and Latinas.

I'm pretty sure a lot of black African women are into white men too. But then... my understanding is they are pretty enamored with mulattos or "half castes" as they call them. Some poor mixed-race Brazilian in a favela is treated like dirt and doesn't think particularly much of themselves per se. But in West Africa that same person reared in West Africa would be walking around with the air of a pampered princess or prince.

I don't know about the womandom of the Polynesians, though.

 

[SuperCloud]

Point understood. My grandmother used to threaten to cut from her will anyone who married outside their race. She didn't mind Hispanics or Asians so much; she was specifically excluding people of African ancestry. She used to argue that she felt sorry for the children of such a union, rejected as they are by both sides, but she didn't realize that she was helping to reject them by saying, "Don't bring them around me!"

I know in the USA "Asian" means East and Southeast looking people with slanted eyes. And "Hispanic" means "Mexican" and the mestizo look or simply with looking people not "pure" to people in the USA.

But I just want to point out that I've walked past Puerto Ricans on Milwaukee's South Side, darker than Obama and thought they were ethnic Black-Americans, until I heard them speaking in Spanish with their Rican accents. There are Latin Americans--Latinos--that visibly have black African ancestry.

Look at what Anthony Bourdain says about the visible racial looks of Colombians in Colombia.

 

[SuperCloud]

Wow, that's horrible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I don't know. There are problems that can result from inter-racial, inter-religious, inter-ethnic marriages.
Not that they can't ever work. But I think it behooves one to go in with eyes wide open.

 

[SuperCloud]

Actually, race is an environmental adaptation. Whites have straight hair, thinner noses and lips, etc, because they lived in a cooler climate and that helped them survive. Blacks have tight/curly hair, thicker noses and lips, etc because they lived in a much hotter climate. Those adaptations either let them conserve body heat or dissipate it. Even the tint of you skin is an adaptation. Lighter skin allows you to absorb more sunlight. Darker skin protects you much better from UV damage.

But the myth that race is a cultural construct is false.

That's not why modern anthropologist--most of whom subscribe to the "Out of Africa" hypothesis--assert that only one race of humans exist among modern Homo sapiens today. The phenotypic differences you speak of they attribute to ancestry (e.g., Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, short Mexicans) and not biological race. Take the thick lips of white Jennifer Garner with her round, plump butt. And not all black people--people denoted as "black"--have "tight curly" hair nor wide noses and big lips.

(Actually, I think Americans would be surprised at how racially and linguistically diverse the continent of Africa is.)

Biological "race" to my understanding denotes a "sub-species."

All that said... "race" is a sociological reality. You also need some descriptive terminology if you want to statitically track x, y, groups as well as allow for more efficient police work when investigating rapes and homicides. The police telling the public they are looking for "a man" is insufficient. They need more descriptions give the public than that.

 

[grandvizier1006]

But hardly remarkable, especially in parts of the US South. It used to be worse, but it's still like that. The pastor of our church is a white man married to a Korean woman, and he talked about how he couldn't get a job in the South because they wouldn't have a pastor who was married to a .... I can't say it. One thing about our church that makes me proud; I think there are at least as many interracial married couples as there are couples of the same race. Our pastor says other clergy have expressed some good-natured envy that our congregation is so racially mixed. They ask him how he does it. Well, he lives it.

I think my church wouldn't mind that, but as far as I know there are white churches and black churches where I live, shouldn't be that way, but it is.

 

[Dave-W]

Biological "race" to my understanding denotes a "sub-species."

Eh - not necessarily. Homo Sapiens have no defined sub-species.

But neither does Canis Canis, yet there are thousands of distinct breeds of dogs. Everything from Chihuahuas to Great Danes are all Canis Canis.

 

[Bluelion]

Gentlemen dogs will mate with pretty much any lady dog in heat, regardless of breed, and vice versa.

Inbreeding?

Yeah that's not true lets look at the wolf they do not mate with coyotes.

Inbreeding? because you prefer women of your own country, oh you don't know what the word means lol ok

 

[William67]

Yeah that's not true lets look at the wolf they do not mate with coyotes.

Inbreeding? because you prefer women of your own country, oh you don't know what the word means lol ok

Actually, Wolves and Coyotes have interbred. Google Coywolf.

 

[William67]

That's not why modern anthropologist--most of whom subscribe to the "Out of Africa" hypothesis--assert that only one race of humans exist among modern Homo sapiens today. The phenotypic differences you speak of they attribute to ancestry (e.g., Halle Berry, Tiger Woods, short Mexicans) and not biological race. Take the thick lips of white Jennifer Garner with her round, plump butt. And not all black people--people denoted as "black"--have "tight curly" hair nor wide noses and big lips.

(Actually, I think Americans would be surprised at how racially and linguistically diverse the continent of Africa is.)

Biological "race" to my understanding denotes a "sub-species."

All that said... "race" is a sociological reality. You also need some descriptive terminology if you want to statitically track x, y, groups as well as allow for more efficient police work when investigating rapes and homicides. The police telling the public they are looking for "a man" is insufficient. They need more descriptions give the public than that.

There is very little genetic differentiation between a hummingbird and a California Condor. However, they aren't the same.

I suggest you study Micro-evolution. Evidence has shown that differentiation can occur very quickly. Not over thousands, or millions of years, but over just a few generations given the right conditions.

It would be more appropriate to say that the "single race" mantra is a sociological one. The human "race" is actually the human "species". Race is actually the different physiological characteristics unique to individual groups of humans. Race isn't a bad thing, but it can be misused.

You should also realize that the races of the human species, especially around the middle east and Africa, have had thousands of years of interbreeding. So those who live in those areas will cover a wide range of physical characteristics. And if you want to talk about "Out of Africa", then here are a few facts. 2%-4% of the European genome contains Neanderthal DNA. Asians about half that much. Europeans and Asians are the only ones with the CCR-5 Delta 32 gene mutation, which offers protection from the Black Plague and, possibly, HIV/AIDS. 10%-15% of people of western European descent carry the gene. That's because the Plague killed off so many centuries ago that the percentage increased dramatically among the descendants of the survivors.

So yes, we are different. And that's a good thing for everyone.

 

[Strathos]

Gentlemen dogs will mate with pretty much any lady dog in heat, regardless of breed, and vice versa.

What about a Chihuahua and a Saint Bernard?

 

[SuperCloud]

There is very little genetic differentiation between a hummingbird and a California Condor. However, they aren't the same.

I suggest you study Micro-evolution. Evidence has shown that differentiation can occur very quickly. Not over thousands, or millions of years, but over just a few generations given the right conditions.

It would be more appropriate to say that the "single race" mantra is a sociological one.

Sociology acknowledges multiple races not one race. Anthropology is the field that proposes one race among humans exists.

The human "race" is actually the human "species". Race is actually the different physiological characteristics unique to individual groups of humans. Race isn't a bad thing, but it can be misused.

You should also realize that the races of the human species, especially around the middle east and Africa, have had thousands of years of interbreeding. So those who live in those areas will cover a wide range of physical characteristics. And if you want to talk about "Out of Africa", then here are a few facts. 2%-4% of the European genome contains Neanderthal DNA. Asians about half that much. Europeans and Asians are the only ones with the CCR-5 Delta 32 gene mutation, which offers protection from the Black Plague and, possibly, HIV/AIDS. 10%-15% of people of western European descent carry the gene. That's because the Plague killed off so many centuries ago that the percentage increased dramatically among the descendants of the survivors.

So yes, we are different. And that's a good thing for everyone.

This is one of those things I really don't get caught up into. There could be multiple races or not. Have no idea. I just currently accept what modern anthropology says about one race, biological evolution, and that only two sexes of humans exists.

People like to argue there are multiples races and 3, 4, 15 different sexes among humans. Take that up with scientists.

 

[William67]

What about a Chihuahua and a Saint Bernard?

Not a good idea to let dogs of such different sizes get near each other.

 

[William67]

Sociology acknowledges multiple races not one race. Anthropology is the field that proposes one race among humans exists.



This is one of those things I really don't get caught up into. There could be multiple races or not. Have no idea. I just currently accept what modern anthropology says about one race, biological evolution, and that only two sexes of humans exists.

People like to argue there are multiples races and 3, 4, 15 different sexes among humans. Take that up with scientists.

My personal belief, based upon a lot of study, is that there are three main races of human. Whites, Blacks, and Asians. I don't like the old classifications. And that among those three main sets, there are a number of sub-sets, which keep sub-dividing until you get down to individual tribes and families.

Each race has it merits and its deficiencies. One isn't any better or worse than the others.

As far as sexes (genders) go, I agree that there are only two. Male and female. The rest are genetic anomalies, such as hermaphrodites.

 

[Bluelion]

Actually, Wolves and Coyotes have interbred. Google Coywolf.

That is not the same like I said early you get variances and you find the same variances in the human race. There also is a liger but most tiger and lions do not mate.

I think you guys arguing want there to be something where there is nothing.

 

[Dave-W]

Yeah that's not true lets look at the wolf they do not mate with coyotes.

Different species. Neither do dogs breed with foxes.

What about a Chihuahua and a Saint Bernard?

They will attempt to breed. But if the chihuahua is the female, the size of the pups will kill her mid-term.