User 73706
Banned
/ / / READ THE OP BEFORE YOU POST / / /
Since I know certain triggers do certain things to certain folk, I'm going to go ahead and lay down a couple of rules before I even get to discussing the article - which shouldn't even be a necessity at this point, and yet, here we are.
If you really have a problem with reading the rules, at least read the stuff in bold.
1. This thread is not about any one individual. As such, this is not calling you in particular out. Do not start your argument by immediately throwing up a deflection. "oh well I'm not racist, it's just preference," "i've banged like six Laotian dudes i'm chill," "i'll have you know i took the 'no portuguese' bit out of my dating profile," responses etc. ad nauseam are unnecessary. Unless you happen to say some dumb shit within the confines of this particular thread or the broader confines of GAF in general, nobody's trying to start out this discussion by saying you, the reader, are racist / are a racist. This is about tackling an element of racially-charged perception, inclusion and exclusion that ultimately contributes to the larger problems of institutional racism.
2. If you happen to disagree with the article, you better be willing to back up your argument with sources beyond simple personal anecdotes and confirmation bias. Just like it was mentioned above, "having preferences doesn't make me racist" is a little at odds with having preferences based on specifically excluding other races.
3. While the article particularly focuses on gay men within social networking circles (e.g. dating sites / apps like grindr), these practices are as old as dating itself and are by no means exclusive to one demographic. It's totally counterintuitive to come in here and accuse any one particular demographic of being the worst about this: "gay men have got to be the most racist people on the planet," "I've noticed the ones doing this in my area are always French," and so on. Sharing personal stories about how someone wronged you are fine. Pointing fingers at a lone group for being most guilty of this is not and diminishes the whole purpose of this discussion. Speaking of which...
4. Do not attempt to derail by blowing this out into some larger abstraction that's impossible to discuss in corporeal terms. Re-aligning the discussion toward "people can't choose who they're attracted to," "we can never discuss this without at least one group getting hurt," etc. have a modicum of interest in discussions like these, but attempting to constantly force the thread in that direction and allowing for only "purely factual" objective reasoning more or less tie threads like these to the railroad tracks. It's happened on several occasions on GAF, such as with "would you date a transgender individual" threads.
Now for the article itself:
"No Blacks" Is Not A Sexual Preference, It's Racist
There's more in the article including a supplement from Project Q Atlanta wherein this article got some of its information, though two other big points stuck out to me:
This one in particular has been increasingly troublesome (even on this very board!) due to a reluctance to acknowledge racism unless the perpetrators are adorned in full Grand Wizard garb and are starting racist chants, and even then not everyone's always on board with the idea of racist actions done with racist intent explicitly defining any given individual(s) as being racist. This one in particular generally serves as a guaranteed way to slash the tires of any conversation involving race relations because of the swaths of moderates that are unwilling to acknowledge something so "innocuous" as being unhealthy.
Tying in to the above, there's issues on the other end where people with "just preferences" are willing to look past the horrible ugliness of being a given nationality just as long as their partner "looks the part," which should be more than enough to drive a stake into the heart of most "purely preferential" folks' notions of having pure interests.
This issue in particular has remained especially prevalent with the relatively recent advent of social media and online dating making it so much easier for people to show their (proverbial) asses and completely alienate people that would have otherwise been totally compatible for them if not so unwilling to acknowledge something about themselves may have been a little (or a lot, in some cases) racist. Back when I was using online dating frequently it was easier to find bios with "no Xs" than ones without them, but I'm glad someone made the effort to compile some concrete evidence into a concise and cohesive article like this.
Since I know certain triggers do certain things to certain folk, I'm going to go ahead and lay down a couple of rules before I even get to discussing the article - which shouldn't even be a necessity at this point, and yet, here we are.
If you really have a problem with reading the rules, at least read the stuff in bold.
1. This thread is not about any one individual. As such, this is not calling you in particular out. Do not start your argument by immediately throwing up a deflection. "oh well I'm not racist, it's just preference," "i've banged like six Laotian dudes i'm chill," "i'll have you know i took the 'no portuguese' bit out of my dating profile," responses etc. ad nauseam are unnecessary. Unless you happen to say some dumb shit within the confines of this particular thread or the broader confines of GAF in general, nobody's trying to start out this discussion by saying you, the reader, are racist / are a racist. This is about tackling an element of racially-charged perception, inclusion and exclusion that ultimately contributes to the larger problems of institutional racism.
2. If you happen to disagree with the article, you better be willing to back up your argument with sources beyond simple personal anecdotes and confirmation bias. Just like it was mentioned above, "having preferences doesn't make me racist" is a little at odds with having preferences based on specifically excluding other races.
3. While the article particularly focuses on gay men within social networking circles (e.g. dating sites / apps like grindr), these practices are as old as dating itself and are by no means exclusive to one demographic. It's totally counterintuitive to come in here and accuse any one particular demographic of being the worst about this: "gay men have got to be the most racist people on the planet," "I've noticed the ones doing this in my area are always French," and so on. Sharing personal stories about how someone wronged you are fine. Pointing fingers at a lone group for being most guilty of this is not and diminishes the whole purpose of this discussion. Speaking of which...
4. Do not attempt to derail by blowing this out into some larger abstraction that's impossible to discuss in corporeal terms. Re-aligning the discussion toward "people can't choose who they're attracted to," "we can never discuss this without at least one group getting hurt," etc. have a modicum of interest in discussions like these, but attempting to constantly force the thread in that direction and allowing for only "purely factual" objective reasoning more or less tie threads like these to the railroad tracks. It's happened on several occasions on GAF, such as with "would you date a transgender individual" threads.
Now for the article itself:
"No Blacks" Is Not A Sexual Preference, It's Racist
If youre a gay man, phrases like no blacks and no Asians arent just words that youd find on old signs in a civil rights museum, they are an unavoidable and current feature of your online dating experience. On gay dating apps like Grindr and Scruff, some men post blunt and often offensive disclaimers on their profiles such as no oldies, no fems, and no fatties. Among the most ubiquitous are racial disclaimers like no blacks and no Asians, which are most frequently posted by white men but, as Edwardss case proves, not always.
Those who deploy these disclaimers defend themselves from accusations of racism by claiming that they merely have preferences for certain races over others. Wrote one gay blogger, Dont tell me I cant have a preference! I dont want to have sex with women. No hard feelings. Does that make me a misogynist? Others have argued that it is impossible to separate the language of so-called sexual racism from racism in other spheres of life. There is a reason, they insist, that men of color are most often pushed to the sexual wayside. No whites is a much less popular slogan.
Debates around sexual racism, as researchers have labeled it, are particularly heated within the gay community, although it is certainly a source of controversy in heterosexual circles as well. It is also an argument that could soon be settled by emerging sociological research.
After putting these two data sets together, the trend was clear: Sexual racism is closely associated with generic racist attitudes, which challenges the idea of racial attraction as solely a matter of personal preference.
Sixty-four percent of the men said it is acceptable to state a racial preference on an online dating profile and 46 percent said these preferences do not bother them. Men who had experienced racial exclusion in the past were, predictably, more likely to report being bothered by it than men who hadnt but, still, a staggering 70 percent disagreed with the argument that sexual racism is a form of racism. A majority of them perceived racial exclusion as a problem but were reluctant to attribute it to racism.
While society is generally pretty comfortable condemning racism, there has been a surprising reluctance among peoplegay or otherwiseto challenge racialized sex and dating practices, Callander told The Daily Beast.
Like the sexual racism survey, the QDI asks respondents to agree, disagree, or remain neutral in response to certain statements. In this case, the QDI included items like Overall, I think minorities in Australia complain too much about ethnic discrimination, and I would feel OK about my best friend having a relationship with someone from a different ethnic group. Lower QDI scores indicate a lower level of tolerance for multiculturalism and racial diversity.
With both sets of survey results in hand, the researchers ran two regression analyses to test for any correlation between them. The results are bad news for anyone who still believes that a disclaimer like no blacks is just a preference.
Almost every identified factor associated with mens racist attitudes was also related to their attitudes toward sexual racism, the researchers reported[...] Men with more positive attitudes toward racial diversity and multiculturalism (on the QDI) tended to view sexual racism less positively.
This correlation strongly suggests that racial discrimination on gay dating apps can be attributed to racist attitudes and not, as so many maintain, to benign aesthetic preferences. Sexual racism, it turns out, is probably just plain old racism disguised in the language of desire.
There's more in the article including a supplement from Project Q Atlanta wherein this article got some of its information, though two other big points stuck out to me:
While it may feel like our desires are our own, in reality they are influenced heavily by social norms, explained Callander. For me, the findings of this study are a reminder that even though society and individuals may actively reject racism, racial prejudices are increasingly subtle and they can find their way into even the most private and personal corners of our lives.
This one in particular has been increasingly troublesome (even on this very board!) due to a reluctance to acknowledge racism unless the perpetrators are adorned in full Grand Wizard garb and are starting racist chants, and even then not everyone's always on board with the idea of racist actions done with racist intent explicitly defining any given individual(s) as being racist. This one in particular generally serves as a guaranteed way to slash the tires of any conversation involving race relations because of the swaths of moderates that are unwilling to acknowledge something so "innocuous" as being unhealthy.
Eric, who is mixed-race, told The Daily Beast that some men who list no Asians on their dating profiles have messaged him anyway, explaining that he is white enough for them or that he is attractive to them because he can pass as white. Eric confronts these men by asking them to explain in detail why they think he passes, a question that would require them to talk about his physical features in uncomfortable detail.
I usually end up with a version of I dont know, you look kind of white, or You seem white, he said.
Tying in to the above, there's issues on the other end where people with "just preferences" are willing to look past the horrible ugliness of being a given nationality just as long as their partner "looks the part," which should be more than enough to drive a stake into the heart of most "purely preferential" folks' notions of having pure interests.
This issue in particular has remained especially prevalent with the relatively recent advent of social media and online dating making it so much easier for people to show their (proverbial) asses and completely alienate people that would have otherwise been totally compatible for them if not so unwilling to acknowledge something about themselves may have been a little (or a lot, in some cases) racist. Back when I was using online dating frequently it was easier to find bios with "no Xs" than ones without them, but I'm glad someone made the effort to compile some concrete evidence into a concise and cohesive article like this.