Welcome to Gaia! ::

Soraanki's avatar

Invisible Vampire

13,200 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Way Too Many Pies 300
  • Pieversity 200
Everyone's a little bit racist.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,350 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Annata Cannata
Trollzors Vader
Vixianna
Trollzors Vader
Comrade Kotka
Trollzors Vader

I'm not even the slightest bit attracted to Mexicans, if that makes me racist I really don't care.

Cool. In that case, you are. You honestly don't see a problem with writing off AN ENTIRE ETHNICITY? Really?
That's cool. I don't care that I'm a racist. That's just the thing, it really doesn't matter if someone is or isn't. It's not really hurting anyone to dislike something.
Being a racist in that you dislike any one race is not really an issue to anyone except the racist, and these things should probably just be embraced rather than avoided, or lied about. Acting on racial hatred in a dangerous manner is an entirely different thing.


The amount of ignorance in this post...where I start?


>Not really hurting anyone
>Not really an issue to anyone except the racist.
>Should be embraced.
>pretending that your interpretation of "dangerous" is all that matters.


Good lord man.

Differences will always occur. Realizing your own flaws and embracing them is healthy, realizing your own physical preferences and embracing them is healthy. Be this a flaw, or just a preference is up to the one with it to determine, but embracing it as reality is valuable regardless. You cannot hide from who you are, why would you lie about it?
So you really cannot tell how racism can harm others? Its not a regular flaw like being shy or too talkative, this can actually kill people. neutral


racism doesn't kill people, people kill people.

and hippos. hippos kill people, too. and tornadoes . . . well, ok, there are a handful of things that kill people, but racism isn't one of them.
Omorose Panya's avatar

Wheezing Prophet

7,350 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Mei tsuki7
Vixianna
Joan Darr

And for bisexuals that lean or, prefer one way or the other? They're sexist, right?


I've never done any research into bisexuals biological basis, but offhand I'd say their preferences would have a higher chance of being influenced by our societies preference for heterosexual pairings. That is, they might not be sexist just for being so, but because our society as a whole is sexist.

Like I said, it could be hard wired into their biology as much as any other sexuality, since it exists on a scale and therefore they might be naturally attracted to one gender more than another. On the other hand, because they are attracted to both genders, does not mean they will equally express such interests in a society that has social pressure to behave in a certain manner.

To be more succinct, I'd have to do more research, but from what I know of human sexuality I'd assume their so called "leanings" were as hard wired as anyone else's sexual gender preferences. (but that choosing to express their feelings or not is related to their cultural upbringing).


You do realize that the reason most people do not find black women attractive is due to our society saying they're ugly right? If you can let off bisexuals for going with societies sexist views then you need to let off people who do not find black women attractive as well.

I would like you to prove that sexual orientation is hardwired but other preferences are not.
Um, no dear. You prove that the other preferences are. Because, you know, that's how this kinda thing works.

Provide evidence that 100% artificial social categories that were created in America during slavery to differentiate slaves from slave owners are biological, and then provide evidence that people are genetically inclined to prefer certain artificial social categories that are incredibly diverse in physicality (in other words, that are nonspecific). And don't forget to explain how this relates to genotype, considering that race is based on phenotype, and that phenotypes are not indicators of genotypes. (Let's not forget that the genotype is the point.) And don't forget to account for the vastly different racial classifications between the 1600's to now, and how other countries have come to understand and apply race. Lastly explain how it makes sense to lower the prospective mate count for purely phenotypical reasons.

And take pride once you do, because you will have accomplished something race "scientists" haven't been able to do for centuries, and not for lack of trying. Or are you unaware that a persistent effort to prove such a thing has existed for centuries?
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,350 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Jessi Danger
Comrade Kotka
Joan Darr
Yeah. Men's penises can be real fussy jerks.

Because penises too are utterly disconnected from the socialised brain. D: You're probably being facetious but whatever.
BTW, vaginas can totally have preferences informed by racism too.


Are peoples sexual preferences completely socialized? Could we socialize people for example to find only handicapped or other people sexually attractive? Or people with severe health issues?


arguably, the number of people attracted to these super-skinny celebrity women would suggest that not only can we, but we have
Omorose Panya
Mei tsuki7
Vixianna
Joan Darr

And for bisexuals that lean or, prefer one way or the other? They're sexist, right?


I've never done any research into bisexuals biological basis, but offhand I'd say their preferences would have a higher chance of being influenced by our societies preference for heterosexual pairings. That is, they might not be sexist just for being so, but because our society as a whole is sexist.

Like I said, it could be hard wired into their biology as much as any other sexuality, since it exists on a scale and therefore they might be naturally attracted to one gender more than another. On the other hand, because they are attracted to both genders, does not mean they will equally express such interests in a society that has social pressure to behave in a certain manner.

To be more succinct, I'd have to do more research, but from what I know of human sexuality I'd assume their so called "leanings" were as hard wired as anyone else's sexual gender preferences. (but that choosing to express their feelings or not is related to their cultural upbringing).


You do realize that the reason most people do not find black women attractive is due to our society saying they're ugly right? If you can let off bisexuals for going with societies sexist views then you need to let off people who do not find black women attractive as well.

I would like you to prove that sexual orientation is hardwired but other preferences are not.
Um, no dear. You prove that the other preferences are. Because, you know, that's how this kinda thing works.

Provide evidence that 100% artificial social categories that were created in America during slavery to differentiate slaves from slave owners are biological, and then provide evidence that people are genetically inclined to prefer certain artificial social categories that are incredibly diverse in physicality (in other words, that are nonspecific). And don't forget to explain how this relates to genotype, considering that race is based on phenotype, and that phenotypes are not indicators of genotypes. (Let's not forget that the genotype is the point.) And don't forget to account for the vastly different racial classifications between the 1600's to now, and how other countries have come to understand and apply race. Lastly explain how it makes sense to lower the prospective mate count for purely phenotypical reasons.

And take pride omce you do, because you will have accomplished something race "scientists" haven't been able to do for centuries, and not for lack of trying. Or are you unaware that a persistent effort to prove such a thing has existed for centuries?


Actually no. She has the burden of proof since she said it. I am asking her to back up her position.
Omorose Panya's avatar

Wheezing Prophet

7,350 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Mei tsuki7
Omorose Panya
Mei tsuki7
Vixianna
Joan Darr

And for bisexuals that lean or, prefer one way or the other? They're sexist, right?


I've never done any research into bisexuals biological basis, but offhand I'd say their preferences would have a higher chance of being influenced by our societies preference for heterosexual pairings. That is, they might not be sexist just for being so, but because our society as a whole is sexist.

Like I said, it could be hard wired into their biology as much as any other sexuality, since it exists on a scale and therefore they might be naturally attracted to one gender more than another. On the other hand, because they are attracted to both genders, does not mean they will equally express such interests in a society that has social pressure to behave in a certain manner.

To be more succinct, I'd have to do more research, but from what I know of human sexuality I'd assume their so called "leanings" were as hard wired as anyone else's sexual gender preferences. (but that choosing to express their feelings or not is related to their cultural upbringing).


You do realize that the reason most people do not find black women attractive is due to our society saying they're ugly right? If you can let off bisexuals for going with societies sexist views then you need to let off people who do not find black women attractive as well.

I would like you to prove that sexual orientation is hardwired but other preferences are not.
Um, no dear. You prove that the other preferences are. Because, you know, that's how this kinda thing works.

Provide evidence that 100% artificial social categories that were created in America during slavery to differentiate slaves from slave owners are biological, and then provide evidence that people are genetically inclined to prefer certain artificial social categories that are incredibly diverse in physicality (in other words, that are nonspecific). And don't forget to explain how this relates to genotype, considering that race is based on phenotype, and that phenotypes are not indicators of genotypes. (Let's not forget that the genotype is the point.) And don't forget to account for the vastly different racial classifications between the 1600's to now, and how other countries have come to understand and apply race. Lastly explain how it makes sense to lower the prospective mate count for purely phenotypical reasons.

And take pride omce you do, because you will have accomplished something race "scientists" haven't been able to do for centuries, and not for lack of trying. Or are you unaware that a persistent effort to prove such a thing has existed for centuries?


Actually no. She has the burden of proof since she said it. I am asking her to back up her position........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.
Annata Cannata's avatar

Profitable Gatekeeper

7,400 Points
  • Profitable 100
  • Tycoon 200
  • Millionaire 200
Keltoi Samurai
Annata Cannata
Trollzors Vader
Vixianna
Trollzors Vader
That's cool. I don't care that I'm a racist. That's just the thing, it really doesn't matter if someone is or isn't. It's not really hurting anyone to dislike something.
Being a racist in that you dislike any one race is not really an issue to anyone except the racist, and these things should probably just be embraced rather than avoided, or lied about. Acting on racial hatred in a dangerous manner is an entirely different thing.


The amount of ignorance in this post...where I start?


>Not really hurting anyone
>Not really an issue to anyone except the racist.
>Should be embraced.
>pretending that your interpretation of "dangerous" is all that matters.


Good lord man.

Differences will always occur. Realizing your own flaws and embracing them is healthy, realizing your own physical preferences and embracing them is healthy. Be this a flaw, or just a preference is up to the one with it to determine, but embracing it as reality is valuable regardless. You cannot hide from who you are, why would you lie about it?
So you really cannot tell how racism can harm others? Its not a regular flaw like being shy or too talkative, this can actually kill people. neutral


racism doesn't kill people, people kill people.

and hippos. hippos kill people, too. and tornadoes . . . well, ok, there are a handful of things that kill people, but racism isn't one of them.
ok, let me spell it. A lot of people through out history have gotten killed because someone else did not like their skin color. Don't compare that to tornadoes because tornadoes do not care about your skin. Its not relevant.
tumblrs tumble's avatar

Liberal Fairy

if "just a preference" means "sorry, I really like you but you're ____" then yeah it's racist.

if they're just saying they haven't seen/met anyone from said race that they can say they've been attracted to yet, I can understand.

Race or not, some people have features that look unappealing to others based on internalized, self-made prejudices and life experience.

like if someone happens looks like someone you personally hate, you're going to be that much less likely to see past that, and if you're an idiot you'll just tell yourself to avoid everyone from that race.

tbh I see black people do this all the time on chatroulette... so many angry men just waiting to talk a bunch of rude s**t to white girls.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,350 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Annata Cannata
Keltoi Samurai
Annata Cannata
Trollzors Vader
Vixianna
Trollzors Vader
That's cool. I don't care that I'm a racist. That's just the thing, it really doesn't matter if someone is or isn't. It's not really hurting anyone to dislike something.
Being a racist in that you dislike any one race is not really an issue to anyone except the racist, and these things should probably just be embraced rather than avoided, or lied about. Acting on racial hatred in a dangerous manner is an entirely different thing.


The amount of ignorance in this post...where I start?


>Not really hurting anyone
>Not really an issue to anyone except the racist.
>Should be embraced.
>pretending that your interpretation of "dangerous" is all that matters.


Good lord man.

Differences will always occur. Realizing your own flaws and embracing them is healthy, realizing your own physical preferences and embracing them is healthy. Be this a flaw, or just a preference is up to the one with it to determine, but embracing it as reality is valuable regardless. You cannot hide from who you are, why would you lie about it?
So you really cannot tell how racism can harm others? Its not a regular flaw like being shy or too talkative, this can actually kill people. neutral


racism doesn't kill people, people kill people.

and hippos. hippos kill people, too. and tornadoes . . . well, ok, there are a handful of things that kill people, but racism isn't one of them.
ok, let me spell it. A lot of people through out history have gotten killed because someone else did not like their skin color. Don't compare that to tornadoes because tornadoes do not care about your skin. Its not relevant.


the "tornadoes and hippos" thing was a joke, though admittedly not a very good one.

my point is that a racist thought has never killed anyone, only racist actions carried out by people. blaming it on the racism detracts from the fact that a person committed a conscious act, and that as a direct result of that conscious act, another person is no more.
Vixianna's avatar

Beloved Genius

7,450 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Full closet 200
Mei tsuki7


You do realize that the reason most people do not find black women attractive is due to our society saying they're ugly right?


Yes I do. And?

Mei tsuki7

If you can let off bisexuals for going with societies sexist views then you need to let off people who do not find black women attractive as well.


I have done no such thing. I wish people would stop knee jerk straw-manning me because this subject makes them uncomfortable, and actually goddamn read what I have written. Here's it again in green text so you don't miss the important point


>To be succinct, I think their so called "leanings" are just as hard wired as any other person on the human sexuality spectrum, but I have done enough research to be entirely sure.
>I do know that whether they EXPRESS these interests is related to the culture they grow up in.
>Refusing to express homosexual interests because it has been socialized out of you is sexist, but they aren't inherently so.(that is what he was arguing that being hetereo or homosexual is INHERENTLY to engage in sexism)
>Their refusal is based on the fact our society is sexist AND homophobic and therefore so is everyone else inside it.


Is that more clear? They aren't being let off any hook. I suggested that leaning one way or another is likely natural, just from what I understand of the human sexuality curve, but that acting on any sexual impulse is partially a product of your socialization, and therefore distinctly has the possibility to be sexist.(though in this case the conversation we're having is less about sexism and more about homophobia.)

Mei tsuki7

I would like you to prove that sexual orientation is hardwired but other preferences are not.


Lol. Let's start with this informative post by Washu:

washu_2004
There is experimental evidence that suggests that gene Xq28 is strongly linked to the incidence of male homosexuality. Other studies have indicated that gene markers on 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26 have some linkage with homosexuality, with the presence of the 10q26 marker showing a high statistical correlation to expressed homosexuality.
Link
Link
Link (Full text)
Sorry but some of the links are to abstracts only, as is often the case current research is often published to the web on a subscriber only basis. There is not much I can do about this, but most public libraries and all college worth their name should have an account you can use to view the articles.
If you really must have a free source use this Wikipedia link as a secondary source that has a very small digest of the research. (but as usual do not take wiki as a primary source, I am only including it as a courtesy since people have complained in the past when I use my journal subscriptions to get material that they can not view)


Alright that's for homosexuality. Now let's move on to the point that "white", "black", and "asian" or not genetically based categories. That is, there are no black genes, white genes, or asian genes, especially not to the scale that people are organized. So until YOU find me a "I don't like blacks" gene the same way there are "I don't like the opposite sex" genes that we've found? STFU about "racial" preference being "hard wired."

The same with weight and height. We have some biological impetus to avoid the extremes in either.(super tall and super short, or super skinny/fat ALL are related to disease states, genetic ones.) However, all of these judgements we apply to these groups are frankly a product of society at large.
Vixianna's avatar

Beloved Genius

7,450 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Full closet 200
Joan Darr

I actually couldn't tell that from "So. You're one of those people, huh? Someone who is not attracted to black women/any other racial group in any other country."
It is like a whole other accusation entirely. So what is X in OP's scenario?


If you'd been reading through the thread, both she and I have stated multiple times that we are talking about excluding a whole ethnic segment on the basis of being part of X group, OR those who say they are willing to date X group, but then rationalize(make every excuse in the book) when the perfect match in that ethnicity shows up.
Vixianna's avatar

Beloved Genius

7,450 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Full closet 200
Aurion Maverick
Vixianna

Yeah but which mate we like doesn't have anything to do with "sameness". In general, we are attracted to the biologically novel, that is especially, those whose immune system is most dislike our own. We are most likely to get the best mix of genes from someone outside of our ethnicity(not race), and so it makes biological sense for you to be more attracted on a purely instinctual level to someone with whom you share the fewest genes in this regard.
This is not necessarily on a racial basis, and in fact, has very little to do with "race" in preference as we understand it. The same reason mixed race individuals have such a hard time getting transplants is the same that drives people to , supposedly on a biological basis, prefer mates of a different ethnicity in the first place. Unusual, unique combinations of exterior cell makers that make up the immune system.

I was in no way disagreeing with you. Just pointing out that the last bit of what you said wasn't fully accurate. 3nodding

Why people like what they like really is different from person to person though.
As I somewhat touched on in my earlier post, I tend to prefer girls of Nordic descent, namely for the aesthetic appeal of their bone structure. It wouldn't be inaccurate to say that I like "skinny, white, blonde girls with blue eyes", or that I'm "not attracted to black girls" as a generalization, because, in large, that is true. Though, there have been a few rare exceptions. For me, it isn't usually about skin color, or hair color, or eye color, but about bone//facial structure.


Yeah that's great, but if you were compatible to those exceptions on a personal level, you wouldn't go out of your way to think of excuses to NOT date them, or just still say, despite meeting your expectations, that you won't date them.

That's the point here, that seems to be lost.
Vixianna's avatar

Beloved Genius

7,450 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Full closet 200
Ranallo Jenner
Vixianna
Ranallo Jenner
are we talking disliking a certain ethnic group in terms of dating, or holding a light preference for one ethnic group over another, yet finding other ethnic groups attractive all the same?

'cause i relate these things on some level to the superficial or quality-based nature of dating and relationships (in how some type of value system is placed in dating, because let's be honest, people don't usually just date anyone), albeit this particular matter is grounded in something racial.


We are talking about refusing out right, to date anyone of a certain ethnic background. "I don't date Asians/Blacks/Whites/ ect."
Not liking one ethnic group more than another while holding the rest to the same level. That's something else entirely from an EXCLUSIVE rule on what ethnicity you'll date.


ok, then yeah i would consider that to be racist. another poster brought up homosexuals and heterosexuals being sexist in some way due to their preference. how does that factor into sexism, assuming it even does?


*sigh* I've responded long and hard about this point, and my point is, it typically does. IF someone is attracted to both sexes, but chooses to completely ignore one sex they are being sexist, but unlike with other preferences, sexuality is far more hard wired.

That is, choosing to completely ignore your attraction to the same(far more likely) sex to avoid social sanctions or because you've been taught X is sexist.(more homophobic really.)

Honestly, I think this is one of those situations when the word we are looking for is homophobia(because let's be frank that's how this problem manifests in this society) than sexism.
Vixianna
Mei tsuki7


You do realize that the reason most people do not find black women attractive is due to our society saying they're ugly right?


Yes I do. And?

Mei tsuki7

If you can let off bisexuals for going with societies sexist views then you need to let off people who do not find black women attractive as well.


I have done no such thing. I wish people would stop knee jerk straw-manning me because this subject makes them uncomfortable, and actually goddamn read what I have written. Here's it again in green text so you don't miss the important point


>To be succinct, I think their so called "leanings" are just as hard wired as any other person on the human sexuality spectrum, but I have done enough research to be entirely sure.
>I do know that whether they EXPRESS these interests is related to the culture they grow up in.
>Refusing to express homosexual interests because it has been socialized out of you is sexist, but they aren't inherently so.(that is what he was arguing that being hetereo or homosexual is INHERENTLY to engage in sexism)
>Their refusal is based on the fact our society is sexist AND homophobic and therefore so is everyone else inside it.


Is that more clear? They aren't being let off any hook. I suggested that leaning one way or another is likely natural, just from what I understand of the human sexuality curve, but that acting on any sexual impulse is partially a product of your socialization, and therefore distinctly has the possibility to be sexist.(though in this case the conversation we're having is less about sexism and more about homophobia.)

Mei tsuki7

I would like you to prove that sexual orientation is hardwired but other preferences are not.


Lol. Let's start with this informative post by Washu:

washu_2004
There is experimental evidence that suggests that gene Xq28 is strongly linked to the incidence of male homosexuality. Other studies have indicated that gene markers on 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26 have some linkage with homosexuality, with the presence of the 10q26 marker showing a high statistical correlation to expressed homosexuality.
Link
Link
Link (Full text)
Sorry but some of the links are to abstracts only, as is often the case current research is often published to the web on a subscriber only basis. There is not much I can do about this, but most public libraries and all college worth their name should have an account you can use to view the articles.
If you really must have a free source use this Wikipedia link as a secondary source that has a very small digest of the research. (but as usual do not take wiki as a primary source, I am only including it as a courtesy since people have complained in the past when I use my journal subscriptions to get material that they can not view)


Alright that's for homosexuality. Now let's move on to the point that "white", "black", and "asian" or not genetically based categories. That is, there are no black genes, white genes, or asian genes, especially not to the scale that people are organized. So until YOU find me a "I don't like blacks" gene the same way there are "I don't like the opposite sex" genes that we've found? STFU about "racial" preference being "hard wired."

The same with weight and height. We have some biological impetus to avoid the extremes in either.(super tall and super short, or super skinny/fat ALL are related to disease states, genetic ones.) However, all of these judgements we apply to these groups are frankly a product of society at large.


Ahhh alright. I understand your meaning about bisexuality and sexism now that you explained it more.

I'm actually not talking about racial preference, I'm talking about visual preference and arousal due to said visual preference. If it is hardwired for us to be physically aroused by certain types of visual stimuli, physical sex, can it not be hardwired for us to be physically aroused by certain types of of visual stimuli?
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.

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