Welcome to Gaia! ::


Major Lima Charlie
Mei tsuki7
Comrade Kotka
Mei tsuki7
Omorose Panya

.......How did you manage to miss that I just gave you evidence? The entire post explained how it is nonsensical. Or do you not understand the construction of race or how genes work and you're asking for evidence that you do not yet possess the prerequisitory knowledge to understand?

I just explained how it makes no sense. Your job is to refute the points offered.


Do you know how they determine sexuality scientifically in most cases? Arousal based on visual stimuli. I am not talking about race I'm talking about visual stimuli. Yes some people are not attracted to black women due to racist views gained through institutionalized racism in our culture. But there are people who are honestly not physically aroused by certain visual stimuli such as a certain skin color just as there are people not physically aroused by certain visual stimuli such as certain sexual organs. If arousal is biologically determined, which by proving that there is a gene that makes you more likely to be physically aroused by the same sex it is proven it is, then not being aroused by a certain skin color is also biological.

This is my point. That arousal/attraction or lack there of is not based on the false concoction of race but on visual stimuli.

Now there is a difference between saying "I am not attracted to X." vs "I will/do not date X." The first is biological preference for a certain visual stimuli while the second is most likely cultural/social and probably racist.


I don't think you can disconnect those things. Socialisation can inform arousal, not just who one is willing to date.
Perhaps I'm an unusual case, but that has been my personal experience.


I disagree. Socialization can effect expression but not the arousal itself. If it did then those homosexuality cures would work and those who have undergone treatment would no longer be aroused by the same sex. It has been proven that that is not the case.
Which is, of course, and I seriously hope you understand it, an unsubstantiated equivocation.

Care to explain why you're equivocating the two?

Also, would you like to explain how such a thing would be summarily coded in such a way so as to not require substantially different DNA than the next person? Which is to say, there is only so much room for differences between people in coding. If what you're arguing is true, then people must have much more difference than the evidence suggests, which you should probably know is impossible. For the record and all.


Because it's all based on visual stimuli that causes arousal. If you can't help that you get aroused by one type of stimuli then how can you help getting aroused by another type of stimuli?

I don't understand why you would need substantially different DNA if arousal is hard coded into it. After all, there are billions of different people in the world all with different DNA who have substantial physical differences and yet they don't have substantially different DNA. Another thing is, while we have mapped the entire genome we have no idea what most of the code relates to. For all we know your entire personality could be shown in your DNA.

Devoted Explorer

Mei tsuki7
Major Lima Charlie
Mei tsuki7
Comrade Kotka
Mei tsuki7
Omorose Panya

.......How did you manage to miss that I just gave you evidence? The entire post explained how it is nonsensical. Or do you not understand the construction of race or how genes work and you're asking for evidence that you do not yet possess the prerequisitory knowledge to understand?

I just explained how it makes no sense. Your job is to refute the points offered.


Do you know how they determine sexuality scientifically in most cases? Arousal based on visual stimuli. I am not talking about race I'm talking about visual stimuli. Yes some people are not attracted to black women due to racist views gained through institutionalized racism in our culture. But there are people who are honestly not physically aroused by certain visual stimuli such as a certain skin color just as there are people not physically aroused by certain visual stimuli such as certain sexual organs. If arousal is biologically determined, which by proving that there is a gene that makes you more likely to be physically aroused by the same sex it is proven it is, then not being aroused by a certain skin color is also biological.

This is my point. That arousal/attraction or lack there of is not based on the false concoction of race but on visual stimuli.

Now there is a difference between saying "I am not attracted to X." vs "I will/do not date X." The first is biological preference for a certain visual stimuli while the second is most likely cultural/social and probably racist.


I don't think you can disconnect those things. Socialisation can inform arousal, not just who one is willing to date.
Perhaps I'm an unusual case, but that has been my personal experience.


I disagree. Socialization can effect expression but not the arousal itself. If it did then those homosexuality cures would work and those who have undergone treatment would no longer be aroused by the same sex. It has been proven that that is not the case.
Which is, of course, and I seriously hope you understand it, an unsubstantiated equivocation.

Care to explain why you're equivocating the two?

Also, would you like to explain how such a thing would be summarily coded in such a way so as to not require substantially different DNA than the next person? Which is to say, there is only so much room for differences between people in coding. If what you're arguing is true, then people must have much more difference than the evidence suggests, which you should probably know is impossible. For the record and all.


Because it's all based on visual stimuli that causes arousal. If you can't help that you get aroused by one type of stimuli then how can you help getting aroused by another type of stimuli?

I don't understand why you would need substantially different DNA if arousal is hard coded into it. After all, there are billions of different people in the world all with different DNA who have substantial physical differences and yet they don't have substantially different DNA. Another thing is, while we have mapped the entire genome we have no idea what most of the code relates to. For all we know your entire personality could be shown in your DNA.
Except you're begging the question, there. You haven't proven it's based off of visual stimuli (nor is arousal necessary, unless we're going to erase asexuals, and I'm not too keen on erasure), especially considering traits determine attractiveness as well.

Let's do a thought experiment. Say there's this hot person you'd be attracted to, physically. You haven't met them. People prime you, before hand, on one of two points. Point A, they're a swell human being, loves snuggling kittens, and loves cooking with nutmeg. Point B, they suck to all hell, they hate animals, and they overuse garlic and oregano in ******** everything they cook. You'd find Person B substantially less attractive than Person A, despite the fact that they look the exact same.

Because attraction to a dearth of physical traits would be a lot to code for. And we can tell how much of the genome is similar between people. If there's only a 1% difference between people (don't remember the specifics), and we know that a certain allele chain makes up .005%, you can only have 200 defining differences between the two people, and of course this excludes environmental influence (growth can be hurt or hindered by hormones in the food, water, et cetera they drink). Also, a personality cannot be coded for, since personalities are developed. Certain hormonal reactions during development can determine which way things go, but to code for who a person will be later in life is undeniably impossible. Psych 101, that.

Bashful Member

Omorose Panya
Amazing OP that tells it exactly the way it needs to be told

Hi, I sadly don't have much to add to this because i'm just so overwhelmed that a post like this has FINALLY appeared, and on this website and in the ED of all places.
So I will say this... as someone(a black woman) who has been told that:
> "all black people look the same",
>have been told I don't sound black (actual quote: I sound white-washed. Wtf?),
>and had also been told (by a black man) his reasons for specifically avoiding black women, which -no surprise here- amounted to the jezebel and sapphire stereotypes exactly.
>EDIT: AND has a little cousin (family friend's daughter but she's family to me) who regularly hates on her own nose because it isn't straight, even though it's perfect the way it is.. sad

I want to thank you for posting this thread, and I want to thank Vixanna for suggesting that you post it.

Adored Admirer

Nice to know people care about who I wish to date, who I wish to marry, and who I wish to ********.

Devoted Explorer

Pseudo-Onkelos
Nice to know people care about who I wish to date, who I wish to marry, and who I wish to ******** you're not ungrateful. emotion_dealwithit

Adored Admirer

Major Lima Charlie
Pseudo-Onkelos
Nice to know people care about who I wish to date, who I wish to marry, and who I wish to ******** you're not ungrateful. emotion_dealwithit


Ungrateful?

Devoted Explorer

Pseudo-Onkelos
Major Lima Charlie
Pseudo-Onkelos
Nice to know people care about who I wish to date, who I wish to marry, and who I wish to ******** you're not ungrateful. emotion_dealwithit


Ungrateful?
Means unappreciative.

Adored Admirer

Major Lima Charlie
Pseudo-Onkelos
Major Lima Charlie
Pseudo-Onkelos
Nice to know people care about who I wish to date, who I wish to marry, and who I wish to ******** you're not ungrateful. emotion_dealwithit


Ungrateful?
Means unappreciative.


I know. I am an appreciative kind of guy. xp
I'm attracted to men of all ethnicities, because there are attractive people of all ethnicities. I think it only becomes racist when you refuse to date or approach someone because you are bothered by their ethnicity.

12,900 Points
  • Alchemy Level 3 100
  • Megathread 100
  • Tycoon 200
Major Lima Charlie
Except you're begging the question, there. You haven't proven it's based off of visual stimuli (nor is arousal necessary, unless we're going to erase asexuals, and I'm not too keen on erasure), especially considering traits determine attractiveness as well.

Let's do a thought experiment. Say there's this hot person you'd be attracted to, physically. You haven't met them. People prime you, before hand, on one of two points. Point A, they're a swell human being, loves snuggling kittens, and loves cooking with nutmeg. Point B, they suck to all hell, they hate animals, and they overuse garlic and oregano in ******** everything they cook. You'd find Person B substantially less attractive than Person A, despite the fact that they look the exact same.

Because attraction to a dearth of physical traits would be a lot to code for. And we can tell how much of the genome is similar between people. If there's only a 1% difference between people (don't remember the specifics), and we know that a certain allele chain makes up .005%, you can only have 200 defining differences between the two people, and of course this excludes environmental influence (growth can be hurt or hindered by hormones in the food, water, et cetera they drink). Also, a personality cannot be coded for, since personalities are developed. Certain hormonal reactions during development can determine which way things go, but to code for who a person will be later in life is undeniably impossible. Psych 101, that.


Well, for starters, I consider myself to be asexual. In spite of this, I still have preferences in regards to physical appeal. What I find aesthetically pleasing has little to do with that.

If I knew they looked exactly the same, they'd be equally as attractive, namely because I do not judge someone based on what others have to say about them as this may contain bias. I judge people only on how they are around me//how they treat me.

There is much of the human genome that we don't understand entirely. We can't say for certain that it isn't hard-coded in our DNA.
What if you're just not attracted to dark flesh tones? (including tanned 'white' people)

Why are we even making race an issue anymore? the first step to stopping "racism" is by not giving it teeth in the first place.

Greedy Consumer

Omorose Panya
if thats true you are sexist for liking only one gender, if you do. Though thats more of a devil's advocacy because I do see how if you only like white girls, only like asians, etc then you are sexist. If you like one but not another thats fine to me. Does not being attracted to jews mean Im an anti-semite though?

Greedy Consumer

Mei tsuki7
Major Lima Charlie
Mei tsuki7
Comrade Kotka
Mei tsuki7
Omorose Panya

.......How did you manage to miss that I just gave you evidence? The entire post explained how it is nonsensical. Or do you not understand the construction of race or how genes work and you're asking for evidence that you do not yet possess the prerequisitory knowledge to understand?

I just explained how it makes no sense. Your job is to refute the points offered.


Do you know how they determine sexuality scientifically in most cases? Arousal based on visual stimuli. I am not talking about race I'm talking about visual stimuli. Yes some people are not attracted to black women due to racist views gained through institutionalized racism in our culture. But there are people who are honestly not physically aroused by certain visual stimuli such as a certain skin color just as there are people not physically aroused by certain visual stimuli such as certain sexual organs. If arousal is biologically determined, which by proving that there is a gene that makes you more likely to be physically aroused by the same sex it is proven it is, then not being aroused by a certain skin color is also biological.

This is my point. That arousal/attraction or lack there of is not based on the false concoction of race but on visual stimuli.

Now there is a difference between saying "I am not attracted to X." vs "I will/do not date X." The first is biological preference for a certain visual stimuli while the second is most likely cultural/social and probably racist.


I don't think you can disconnect those things. Socialisation can inform arousal, not just who one is willing to date.
Perhaps I'm an unusual case, but that has been my personal experience.


I disagree. Socialization can effect expression but not the arousal itself. If it did then those homosexuality cures would work and those who have undergone treatment would no longer be aroused by the same sex. It has been proven that that is not the case.
Which is, of course, and I seriously hope you understand it, an unsubstantiated equivocation.

Care to explain why you're equivocating the two?

Also, would you like to explain how such a thing would be summarily coded in such a way so as to not require substantially different DNA than the next person? Which is to say, there is only so much room for differences between people in coding. If what you're arguing is true, then people must have much more difference than the evidence suggests, which you should probably know is impossible. For the record and all.


Because it's all based on visual stimuli that causes arousal. If you can't help that you get aroused by one type of stimuli then how can you help getting aroused by another type of stimuli?

I don't understand why you would need substantially different DNA if arousal is hard coded into it. After all, there are billions of different people in the world all with different DNA who have substantial physical differences and yet they don't have substantially different DNA. Another thing is, while we have mapped the entire genome we have no idea what most of the code relates to. For all we know your entire personality could be shown in your DNA.
Tell them dna is not dna expression. Two people with the same genes can look different. And skin color is prolly only one gene, amount of dna difference is highly irrelevant.

Greedy Consumer

Pseudo-Onkelos
Nice to know people care about who I wish to date, who I wish to marry, and who I wish to ******** the ones who wanna date, marry, or ******** you.

Adored Admirer

We Are Organisms
Pseudo-Onkelos
Nice to know people care about who I wish to date, who I wish to marry, and who I wish to ******** the ones who wanna date, marry, or ******** you.


It's best for people to mind their own business.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum