Can sexual preference based on race ever be innate?

[poolerboy0077]

Most people I come across hold the view that any preferences of attraction we have based on race are entirely culturally created. But is this because it is impossible to innately find some races hotter than others or does this instead stem from our sensibilities and not wanting to offend others?

Facial bilateral symmetry seems to be something scientists have uncovered to be an biologically fit trait that, on average, most of us seek, possibly because it's correlated with health. But other features of health could be plausible. Many blondes, for instance, get darker hair as they age. It could be that those who either naturally keep their platinum blonde hair into adulthood, or those who artificially change it to look that way, are perceived to be more attractive because they're perceived to look younger, and youth is highly associated with beauty by most of us (only a fringe group of people exhibit gerontophilia). So maybe the pervasive preference for blondes isn't necessarily or entirely due to privileging "Western" beauty out of racial bias but perhaps comes innately.

Or take blue eyes. Blue eyes aren't blue because of blue pigment. We perceive them to be blue due to Rayleigh scattering. Consequently blue eyes tend to be pale and often show a sharp contrast to the iris. Brown eyes, however, are brown because of a high concentration of melanin. Dark brown eyes are dominant in humans. Now, we happen to know that dilation of the pupil not only occurs because of the amount of light it's exposed to but also due to attraction and arousal. So if it's easier to spot someone's pupil dilating in your average blue-eyed person over those with brown eyes, and thereby facilitating your awareness of someone's arousal, then you'll naturally get a preference for the former over the latter.

Finally, take height preferences. Let's suppose that we have data showing that women overwhelmingly tend to prefer men who are taller than themselves when choosing mates. Given that there are average differences in height amongst the races, we could potentially see different response rates to and from each racial group.

None of these examples are definitive facts, but they are certainly plausible, or so I argue. I have not found many people willing to even entertain these as possibilities and I suspect many of you here won't either. This topic is taboo and often gets dismissed as racist without ever grappling with any of the points that get made. Let this thread serve to open discussion on this topic and to allow counter arguments to be made by those of you who think I erred in my reasoning.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think its a complex issue. There may well be no specific gene for "preferring blondes", but potentially things like genetic memory, imprinting on parent figures, peer association instincts etc all have their influence.

 

[Conscious Z]

Most people I come across hold the view that any preferences of attraction we have based on race are entirely culturally created. But is this because it is impossible to innately find some races hotter than others or does this instead stem from our sensibilities and not wanting to offend others?

Facial bilateral symmetry seems to be something scientists have uncovered to be an biologically fit trait that, on average, most of us seek, possibly because it's correlated with health. But other features of health could be plausible. Many blondes, for instance, get darker hair as they age. It could be that those who either naturally keep their platinum blonde hair into adulthood, or those who artificially change it to look that way, are perceived to be more attractive because they're perceived to look younger, and youth is highly associated with beauty by most of us (only a fringe group of people exhibit gerontophilia). So maybe the pervasive preference for blondes isn't necessarily or entirely due to privileging "Western" beauty out of racial bias but perhaps comes innately.

Or take blue eyes. Blue eyes aren't blue because of blue pigment. We perceive them to be blue due to Rayleigh scattering. Consequently blue eyes tend to be pale and often show a sharp contrast to the iris. Brown eyes, however, are brown because of a high concentration of melanin. Dark brown eyes are dominant in humans. Now, we happen to know that dilation of the pupil not only occurs because of the amount of light it's exposed to but also due to attraction and arousal. So if it's easier to spot someone's pupil dilating in your average blue-eyed person over those with brown eyes, and thereby facilitating your awareness of someone's arousal, then you'll naturally get a preference for the former over the latter.

Finally, take height preferences. Let's suppose that we have data showing that women overwhelmingly tend to prefer men who are taller than themselves when choosing mates. Given that there are average differences in height amongst the races, we could potentially see different response rates to and from each racial group.

None of these examples are definitive facts, but they are certainly plausible, or so I argue. I have not found many people willing to even entertain these as possibilities and I suspect many of you here won't either. This topic is taboo and often gets dismissed as racist without ever grappling with any of the points that get made. Let this thread serve to open discussion on this topic and to allow counter arguments to be made by those of you who think I erred in my reasoning.

Why is this in the philosophy forum? This is a biology question.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Does race exist?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think there was once a study that found some Africans preferred bulker women, and this was thought to be because of the "fat storage" facilites for hard times. "A fool and his flab are soon parted."


This may be the link.

 

[Conscious Z]

Does race exist?

Yes, without a doubt. That we can't pinpoint where the line is between each race doesn't imply that race doesn't exist.

 

[abacabb3]

No. There are people into feet, or into certain sexual practices, or certain situations, certain races, certain genders...none of this stuff is "innate."

I think it is so easy to confuse sexual inclinations as innate because the sex drive in of itself is innate, and incredibly hard to control. So, people confuse that to mean that if it can barely be controlled, and they like X or Y and can hardly control that, then X or Y must also be innate.

I am an identical twin, so my brother and I are good examples of this principle.

My brother is really into black women. He married a black women. I'm into asian women (not that I didn't date other races). I married an Asian woman.

My brother and I shared the same womb, same bed room, we even went to the same college. We bought a condo together after marriage and only moved apart when we got married.

It seems rather clear to me that while it may be hard to isolate what random events or brain chemistry occurred to turn on the switch so that we are into different types of women, it is patently obvious there is nothing innate about it.

For what it is worth, for the longest time I hated spicy food. My brother loved it. My wife is Cambodian and she essentially got me into spicy food, something I hated, to the point where I make it very spicy. So, something that can appear innate and unchanging for decades, can change.

For political and philosophical reasons people don't like admitting this, but the facts are the facts.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

@ConsciousZ

What then is a "race"? Gentic variety exists, yes, and hence so morphology, physiology and I suppose behavior too. Due to local geographic adaptation and isolation of sub groups. Adaptive radiation I think. Just like in other species, but are there "races" of spiders, felines or birds? Or is race a concept unique to human biology?

 

[Conscious Z]

@ConsciousZ

What then is a "race"? Gentic variety exists, yes, and hence so morphology, physiology and I suppose behavior too. Due to local geographic adaptation and isolation of sub groups. Adaptive radiation I think. Just like in other species, but are there "races" of spiders, felines or birds? Or is race a concept unique to human biology?

You mostly answered your own question: "Genetic variety exists, yes, and hence so morphology, physiology and I suppose behavior too. Due to local geographic adaptation and isolation of sub groups."

I believe there are race equivalents elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Bengal tigers and Siberian tigers are of the same species, but they exhibit clear physiological differences that are likely due to isolation in differing environments. Many birds exhibit the same sort of phenomenon.

All that is needed for race is isolation, differing environments, and time.

****Edit****
I decided to do a little research, and I learned that "race" and "subspecies" essentially refer to the same concept. In humans, we call it "race." In other animals, we call it "subspecies." So, the Bengal vs Siberian tiger example is very analogous to race.

 

[Roonwit]

Most people I come across hold the view that any preferences of attraction we have based on race are entirely culturally created. But is this because it is impossible to innately find some races hotter than others or does this instead stem from our sensibilities and not wanting to offend others?

Are you asking whether some races are more attractive to everyone, or whether people are more attracted to their own race than to others?

I always assumed that the latter was generally true, based purely on my own experience that I am most frequently attracted to people of my own race. That's not to say I am never attracted to people of other races, just that I find it happens less frequently than being attracted to people of my own race, and there are some races whose people I hardly ever find myself attracted to.

So I just assumed that everybody is much the same, in that we tend to be atracted to people who are most similar to us in race, language, culture, attitudes, etc. There are good biological and sociological reasons why that might be the case. And most people do marry within their own race. Whether that is for primarily genetic or environmental reasons, I don't know (ie. if I had grown up in a different culture from my racial background, would I find myself attracted to people of my host race or of my biological race?) I suspect it is more environmental, since when I have spent a lot of time in other countries, I tend to find that country's people more attractive than I did when I first arrived.

Lest there be any doubt, I'm certainly not saying there is anything wrong with me or snyone else marrying across racial boundaries if they feel so inclined. It's just that I tend not to find myself so inclined.

Roonwit

 

[poolerboy0077]

Why is this in the philosophy forum? This is a biology question.

It's both. Philosophy concerns itself with framing questions and conversations and speculating about what evidence would have to look like if there were any to infer such a conclusion.

No. There are people into feet, or into certain sexual practices, or certain situations, certain races, certain genders...none of this stuff is "innate."

I think it is so easy to confuse sexual inclinations as innate because the sex drive in of itself is innate, and incredibly hard to control. So, people confuse that to mean that if it can barely be controlled, and they like X or Y and can hardly control that, then X or Y must also be innate.

I am an identical twin, so my brother and I are good examples of this principle.

My brother is really into black women. He married a black women. I'm into asian women (not that I didn't date other races). I married an Asian woman.

My brother and I shared the same womb, same bed room, we even went to the same college. We bought a condo together after marriage and only moved apart when we got married.

It seems rather clear to me that while it may be hard to isolate what random events or brain chemistry occurred to turn on the switch so that we are into different types of women, it is patently obvious there is nothing innate about it.

For what it is worth, for the longest time I hated spicy food. My brother loved it. My wife is Cambodian and she essentially got me into spicy food, something I hated, to the point where I make it very spicy. So, something that can appear innate and unchanging for decades, can change.

For political and philosophical reasons people don't like admitting this, but the facts are the facts.

Your anecdote doesn't really foreclose on the idea I'm putting on the table. For one, identical twins are not entirely genetically identical, as most people assume. Moreover, your example overlooks the role of epigenetics -- how these genes are expressed phenotypically. This is why if you clone, say, a calico cat, there's no guarantee that the clone will be physically identical.

But your anecdote overlooks something even greater: the possibility that things can stem from and manifest for entirely different reasons. One can, for instance, get diabetes from genetics, diet, viruses or a confluence of all these factors and others.

The facts may be the facts, but your opinion shouldn't be confused for them either.

 

[variant]

Yes, without a doubt. That we can't pinpoint where the line is between each race doesn't imply that race doesn't exist.

That's a bit like saying fuzzy distinctions exist.

 

[variant]

You mostly answered your own question: "Genetic variety exists, yes, and hence so morphology, physiology and I suppose behavior too. Due to local geographic adaptation and isolation of sub groups."

I believe there are race equivalents elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Bengal tigers and Siberian tigers are of the same species, but they exhibit clear physiological differences that are likely due to isolation in differing environments. Many birds exhibit the same sort of phenomenon.

All that is needed for race is isolation, differing environments, and time.

****Edit****
I decided to do a little research, and I learned that "race" and "subspecies" essentially refer to the same concept. In humans, we call it "race." In other animals, we call it "subspecies." So, the Bengal vs Siberian tiger example is very analogous to race.

If race and subspecies are analogous then there isn't enough genetic diversity in the human population to say there are any.

 

[Conscious Z]

It's both. Philosophy concerns itself with framing questions and conversations and speculating about what evidence would have to look like if there were any to infer such a conclusion.

Right, but you aren't doing that. You aren't asking "What would evidence need to look like in order to conclude that sexual preferences about race are innate?" You are mentioning evidence and asking if it warrants a certain biological conclusion. That is what biologists do, not philosophers.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Right, but you aren't doing that. You aren't asking "What would evidence need to look like in order to conclude that sexual preferences about race are innate?" You are mentioning evidence and asking if it warrants a certain biological conclusion. That is what biologists do, not philosophers.

That's what you say I said. Let's look closely at what I actually said:

"None of these examples are definitive facts, but they are certainly plausible, or so I argue. I have not found many people willing to even entertain these as possibilities and I suspect many of you here won't either. This topic is taboo and often gets dismissed as racist without ever grappling with any of the points that get made. Let this thread serve to open discussion on this topic and to allow counter arguments to be made by those of you who think I erred in my reasoning."
​

 

[Conscious Z]

That's what you say I said. Let's look closely at what I actually said:

"None of these examples are definitive facts, but they are certainly plausible, or so I argue. I have not found many people willing to even entertain these as possibilities and I suspect many of you here won't either. This topic is taboo and often gets dismissed as racist without ever grappling with any of the points that get made. Let this thread serve to open discussion on this topic and to allow counter arguments to be made by those of you who think I erred in my reasoning."
​

That's a biological question. Scientists deal with differences in race all the time. Take a look at the flack psychologists got in the 90s for their claims about race and IQ.

This is the same process that underpins any scientific exploration: observation, hypothesis, testing, etc. The process of reasoning we are doing here is done in the observation and hypothesis phase of almost any scientific experiment.

 

[poolerboy0077]

That's a biological question.

You've never been exposed to much philosophy, have you. I suppose you're the kind of person who would go up to, say, Daniel Dennett and suggest that he stop talking about consciousness in his philosophy department and go to the neuroscience one instead.

I'm not asking whether any conclusion results from specific examples. Those examples were to provide plausible alternatives. I'm simply asking whether innate sexual preferences of race could be plausible -- which many people do not want to entertain at all. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Conscious Z]

You've never been exposed to much philosophy, have you. I suppose you're the kind of person who would go up to, say, Daniel Dennett and suggest that he stop talking about consciousness in his philosophy department and go to the neuroscience one instead.

I've actually presented a paper at a conference where Dennett also presented a paper. I don't appreciate the personal attack. Tell me, have you ever had a paper published in a top philosophical journal? I have, if you want to continue this sword comparison.

Dennett engages in the philosophical issues that arise from science. He answers philosophical questions that surround scientific findings. Yes, philosophy of mind has become very interdisciplinary, but there is a distinct difference between that and this question. This question is literally like any other scientific question: Here's the evidence, what's the biological conclusion?

A key difference between your question and a philosophical question is what the answer will look like. The answer to this question is a statement about biology. The answer to a philosophical question is philosophical.

I'm simply asking whether innate sexual preferences of race could be plausible -- which many people do not want to entertain at all. Therein lies the difference.

Again, that is a question about biological plausibility....which is a science question. The fact that people do not want to entertain it is irrelevant.

 

[abacabb3]

The facts may be the facts, but your opinion shouldn't be confused for them either.

Twins are the best control group available. If you cannot prove your contention among twins, then it simply cannot be proven and it becomes senseless to even bring it up. Your criteria becomes too subjective and intangible.

 

[SuperCloud]

Why is this in the philosophy forum? This is a biology question.

I took a philosophy of biology course (and a separate philosophy of science course too) in university. Which was helpful. A significant portion of the course covered the controversy over whether homosexuality is genetically heritable.

The question of racial preferences is a fair one. It would not be taboo in the sciences or philosophy department. It is unacceptable outside those areas of study because of secular values of right and wrong and what can be asked and what can't be asked.

Any thought or emotion you have is contingent (a term often used in logic department of philosophy) on you having a brain and therefore all these things be they racist or not or a preference for a race or not, can be said to be biologically and genetically dependent. No biological organism or no genes then no emotions and aside from Intelligently Designed A.I., no thoughts.

So, philosophically I would say racial preferences are as biological as homosexuality.

And both are environmentally produced in my opinion. No one makes these philosophical inquires with respects to a thought experiment about a person born blind and deaf. Certainly such a person due to the hormones in their body will eventually become sexually aroused. But over what? And what makes us think sexual arousal requires requires eye sight, sound, and a morphological and phenotypic preference? Nothing but drawing upon are subjective experiences long after our own sexual biases for X, Y, or Z types have been formed.

The ancient Greeks got boys and men to achieve erections over looking at other boys and men the same way cultural transformation in the late 20th century got white American men begin to prefer larger, rounded butt women like Jennifer Lopez over their traditional cultural love affair over large breasted women with smaller, flatter butts.