Senate Race and Sexual Attraction

This is to continue a discussion that began with this post in the Hollywood Sexual Predator thread.

You can use the link I provided to follow the discussion that has already happened there, or maybe a mod can shift the discussion here. I recommend checking it out, there are some good posts there.


One thing I keep running into is the rate at which people, of all "races" (quotations to emphasize the problems with that word), all over this Earth, tend to date and marry within their own race. I guess being common isn't much of a defense or explanation (bigotry is hardly uncommon), but it seems that some sort of identification often plays a role in attraction, selecting a mate, etc. Seeing yourself in them. Seeing a face that is like your own. Not just skin color, but other physical attributes like height and weight. People tend to go for those that are physically similar to themselves. So is it really all that notable for attraction to be strongly connected to skin color for some people?

Another thought I can't keep out of my mind is how much of attraction is unconscious. For most people, it's not like they're choosing to be attracted or not, it's more like stimulus response. The problem is, so much of racism/prejudice is also unconscious, so it's hard for me to clearly see a distinction there. One can easily see a black person not seeing black as beautiful as an example of internalized racism. Another example would be fetishes, desiring certain races as exotic or taboo. One can see how that can be dehumanizing.

What's the difference between valuing large breasts and valuing a certain skin color? Is attraction to large breasts innate or cultural? What's the difference between any valuation for sexual attraction (no need to go to self-explanatory extremes like pedophilia)? For example, why is not being attracted to skinny people okay but not being attracted to X skin color is not? Why is preferring brown eyes over blue eyes okay? I guess what I'm asking is, can attraction or lack thereof to skin color be "innocent"?

Do you think sexual preference based on race or skin color is necessarily "racist", or a negative prejudice or form of bigotry? If it is, just how "wrong" is it? Do you think people or society have any business criticizing a person's sexual preferences in regards to race?

 

I think one’s choice of sexual partner can be based on racism but have nothing to do with sexual preference based on sexual attraction. Sexual preference based on sexual attraction on the other hand can never be a form of racism as we understand that term to mean as you can’t really have a victim. There is no breach of fundamental human rights, of social and political equality and dignity if somebody doesn’t find you sexually attractive and so acts on that preference by excluding you from his/her sexual advances.

I have reviewed the international body of laws on fundamental human rights and can find no precedent for the right to be sexually desired (and believe me I have looked!!)

 

It depends upon what is driving the sexual selection/attraction, or prohibiting it. Is one limiting ones sexual partner choices based on race because of what one was taught or indoctrinated or is it just how they are "wired". Very important distinction. I don't view the LGBTQ members of the human race as heterophobes.

Identification has played a role in recent history as sexual selection other than "your own kind" was such an oddity. Most things new are received negatively particularly when they clash with generations of norms. Societal evolution has not kept apace of the introduction of rapid worldwide travel, immigration/migration. The increase in mixed race couples is a testament that this is changing but it will take some time to overcome those generations of old guard thinking and racism. Some may prefer genetic commonalties to themselves along with commonality of culture, experiences and difficulties shared but may not rule out partners from other segments of the human populace.

I think the same distinctions as to what is driving this is the important question that needs to be answered. Large breasts, thick hips etc. may be base instincts/preferences left over from evolutionary drivers such as precursors to health, reproductive ability etc. You can go farther down the rabbit hole on the male side with jaw lines, musculature etc. This only gets you so far though as we are one of a few species who engages in sex for merely the joy of it so not all selection may be consciously based upon reproduction/provider wiring but still lurking beneath the surface.

If one rules out a type of people as a partner because " X people are gross" or attribute a set of pre-conceptions about them with no evidence then that would smack of racism. Having a preference of type that is not predicated on the aforementioned would require qualification of so many differing parts of your make up that it would be dangerous to paint it with the brush of racism or go the easy route of being labeled unconsciously racist and would have to be compared against the totality of your interaction with the species as a whole.

To me, attractive is attractive, I don't care where she falls on ROYGBIV.

 

I think what would be racist to me is making a declaration that you're never going to date someone of a certain race.

Just not typically being attracted to certain physical types is probably less prejudiced. As long as you don't outright decline to even consider a person of another race as a partner, that to me is fine and natural.

To me the definition of a racist action is when you apply a stereotype or expectation to all members of a group. So to me saying "I would never date someone [insert race or ethnicity" is racist. Not usually being attracted to a certain look is not, as long as you keep an open mind and realize there could be exceptions because not all people of the same race or ethnicity look or act the same (the things that determine attraction).

 

I don't think it's inherently racist, @CT-867-5309. Attraction is innate, and cultures and societies have differing standards of beauty depending on where you are and what you're used to. The real challenge for you would be how you'd react if you found someone who was outside your normal type and were still attracted to them. Would you see if they were also interested and pursue a relationship?

If so, or if not, you're probably racist.

 

@Ender Sai: Attraction is not innate, or else it would not be modifiable by culture.

 

Personally, I have dated ten white women, two Mexican women, and one Apache woman. I've been involved with several African American women. I do not care what the color of a woman's skin is. I am a demisexual lesbian who's been with several cisgender women and one transgender woman. I am drawn to women on the basis of their personalities, intelligence, assertiveness, etc. Otherwise, I am attracted to people who are neutrois or intersex, but that's about it.

All women are beautiful and filled with potential. All humans are beautiful and filled with potential. However, people give into their pasts, depraved natures, insecurities, etc., and they became cruel.

 

Fair point, I stand corrected.

 

This is easily a topic that's gonna get people upset but that's never stopped me before! I certainly do think that people should example why they are attracted to what they're attracted to, but at the same time, you're not entitled to their reasoning. If someone tells you they aren't attracted to you, ****ing deal with it.

I don't think it's an either/or thing. Attraction certainly comes from within, and it can be affected by outside sources as well. I don't see why it can't be both tbh.

 

Are you perhaps confusing different normative notions of "attractiveness" with attraction? I guess you can say that normative qualities of "beauty" change over time and are modifiable by culture, including attire, hairstyles, etc but I think it's fair to say that the process in the brain which affirms your attraction to somebody is something you are born with.

 

Vivec: Yeah, I don't think literally anyone has spoken at the levels of individuals until you just did. The discussion has all revolved generalizations and broad-based preferences.

LostOnHoth: No, I wouldn't say that either. What are you proposing? There's not some "attraction center" in your brain in the sense that certain areas control speech or vision. It's not like people with strokes or head trauma can specifically lose their ability to ever feel attracted to other human beings again. I would heavily doubt there is any uniform mechanism that drives when someone feels attraction to another individual. It is likely as culturally specific and modifiable as are norms around beauty themselves.

I think what most of you mean to say is that it is non-conscious. Which, fine. Many things are. But there's a wide gulf between that and "innate."

 

But how would you define "attraction" Wocky? To the extent that "attraction" can be processed as a sense of smell, a shape, a sound or a combination of these things which triggers sexual arousal or some other pleasure receptor - it is a function of the brain. As mammals we are also essentially hardwired to mate and reproduce. The brain receives signals from external stimuli which we understand as a signal to go forth and populate the earth or which we articulate as being "attracted" to someone. I guess I see sexual attraction and sexual orientation in the same way, but agree that both are inherent and also subject to social forces.

 

I don't see how that makes any sense as an argument, LOH. You've basically argued that because it is mediated by the brain, it must be innate. But that is true of all thoughts and perceptions. Unless you're going down the "Free will is an illusion/biochemical robot determinism" road, that really doesn't make sense. You are proposing that literally everything that happens is innate.

External stimuli I processed by our brain's sensory systems, yes. And they are innate insofar as we can't see something that looks beautiful on the ultraviolet spectrum. But that's about the extent of it. There is nothing that really automatically or necessarily triggers pleasure in us. Even if there is some predisposition to do so--eg, cocaine or heroin--those responses can be overriden, as their mediated by our perception, experience, and integrated worldview. There's nothing really "automatic" about this process and it is quite distinct from sexual orientation.

 

No Wocky I am agreeing with Vivec in that attraction is something innate, in the same sense that language I guess is innate, i.e. we are born with the ability to invent language and speak, but is also formed by cultural/social forces. I don't think we decide what we find attractive solely on the basis of social norms in the same way as we do not like or dislike certain foods or smells based upon social norms - we just like or dislike certain foods and smells for reasons we cannot explain. I think you are right by characterising it as "non-conscious" but I think the factors that trigger sexual arousal are things that we are born with and so can be described as being "innate".

 

There is not really any evidence for that.

And by the way, our ability to like, dislike food is hugely influenced by the food exposure we have and the order in which they come. We very much do like and dislike foods based on social norms. To pick the lowest hanging fruit, that is explicitly the idea behind both "acquired tastes" and "comfort foods."

 

Even if who you are attracted to is based, at least somewhat, on outside societal factors, what then? We can fix that somewhat by changing popular media and our own societal standards of beauty, but we can't just tell people to be attracted to people they aren't attracted to.

 

**** me I just remembered why I gave this place a miss. I really hate cabbage- please explain the social forces at play which explain my dislike for cabbage. I understand that social forces can make one want to be seen eating certain foods to achieve social acceptance, same with wearing certain clothes, but 'comfort' foods are just that - food we like to eat to make us happy when we are miserable. Pleasure receptors in the brain can be measured you know.

 

As I said above. Had your parents fed you enough cabbage as a child, and done so before feeding you sweet foods, you would almost certainly have developed a “taste” for it. Or at least a tolerance. That’s not innate.

And again, endorphins are just the mechanism by which your brain expresses pleasure. That doesn’t make something “innate” or not. If I like the smell of collard greens because they remind me of happy memories with my now deceased grandmother, those chemicals will be released in my brain every time I smell collard greens. And not a single one will have to do with any “innate” favorable disposition towards a food I don’t particularly even like.

Your brain expresses thoughts through biochemical reactions. That’s not evidence for anything except how a brain works.

 

There are probably at least some social factors, though. Maybe you were forced to eat it as a kid when it tasted worse (since our taste buds change). I don't know about you specifically, but food preferences are absolutely at least partly cultural. Most westerners love cheese, while in some African cultures, everyone hates it because they grow up with a notion of fermented milk being disgusting. As disgusting to them as, say, balut is to us. All kinds of tastes are cultural.

So Wocky is absolutely right that there's a cultural component to sexual and romantic attraction as well. All you need to do is look at what beauty ideals were in Renaissance Europe (pale and plump) or Ancient Greece (small penises) to see that. Likewise, people growing up today in different cultures and subcultures do absorb preferences from those around them.

As for whether we can change media to help change beauty preferences... Well yeah. We can. Many people try to and talk about this constantly. Portraying different types of women as attractive, besides just skinny little white girls, can absolutely have an impact.

 

I agree with wocky on the biology. I think he has some claim to expertise on the subject, anyway.

It's not racist to say that a white person will never, ever understand what it is like to be a black person in America, it's simply true. If a black woman told me she doesn't date white guys for that reason, I'd shrug. I wouldn't be offended or consider the person bigoted or prejudiced.

Isn't it okay, or "not racist", for black people to have the mindset of never dating anyone other than their fellow black people, because they desire the shared experience of being black in America?

One might also question if there's a significant difference between staying within one's race and staying within one's religion.

Why do people have to keep an open mind, though? It kinda sounds like people telling women to "give (Nice Guys) a chance", even though they don't want to.

I guess we've gotten into dating, which isn't the same thing as basic attraction. Still good for discussion, though.

 

I don't think it's wrong to prefer dating someone who will understand your personal background more. That's a bit different, though, than saying you are just never going to be attracted to someone of another race, though.

I think you hinted at this yourself. Dating, especially seriously, isn't the same as pure attraction. And while I think there would be other men of color who might understand being black better than a white man, I wouldn't begrudge someone who only wanted a long term relationship with someone who shares values and experiences. It's similar to how I don't date outside my religion, because for long term I want shared values and at least some shared beliefs. But that doesn't in any way prevent me from being attracted to people outside my religion. I would never say, "I don't find atheists hot. I am never attracted to them." And frankly I think putting it that way, to me at least, clarifies how silly it is to also restrain your attraction based on something way more arbitrary like race.

I want to keep in mind the context where this discussion started... Because I said the false accuser who laughed about how he'd never be into Asian guys because they aren't good looking was racist. And I maintain that that sort of blanket statement about attraction is racist. Especially when the guy contrasted it with saying he was a young white surfer dude, which automatically made him hot and desirable to all.

To me, those kinds of blanket statements about where people of different races rank on some kind of supposedly objective societal scale are definitely racist. Because they are tied to societal notions, which are heavily Influenced by a racist culture.

 

Interesting piece in follow up to the biological workings at play:

https://www.livescience.com/24593-brain-love-dating-decisions.html

 

Wocky, this has always been an individual level topic. This was an individual level topic even back when it was about Takei's accuser.

This can absolutely be about an academic analysis, but I don't think for a second some of you aren't about to start judging people for their sexual preferences here. Let's call it a...lack of trust in some of you.

 

But that would be a political choice , when it comes to attraction people don't think like that .

 

You're goddamn right you wouldn't