Do racial preferences make you a racist?

Post Reply New Topic

Now that's racism, not your preference.

It totally explains my Tinder experiment: viewtopic.php?t=275336

The "Whiter" the country, the way less matches I got.

And I know some might attack me for saying this:

I know that racism exists in all races, including Middle Easterns (and many Middle Easterns living in Middle-East self-identify as "Whites" and have some even have racist attitudes against Asians and Africans; Far-Southern Egyptians are called blacks by other Egyptians while them call them whites) , but I find it most appallingly common among Whites in general and European/American Whites in particular, racism is really an especially White trademark -

Personally, I have NEVER EVER got any racist remarks from Asians, Africans, Indians and Native Americans (online and offline alike) I have yet to meet a POC person saying a racist remark to me even though many of them identify me as White, such remarks always come from Whites' mouths, I am talking from my entirely personal experience over years.

What are you even talking about? The key difference between humans and "many animals" is that we have a moral sense of right and wrong. We recognize that forcefully having sex with another person without their consent is wrong, no matter what other mammals do.



....consent is a HUGE difference. Lust is a factor in both sex and rape, but only one is morally reprehensible and illegal.



If I honestly have to explain to another human being why rape is wrong, then there's really no point in continuing this conversation. This is one of the most horrifying things I've read on this site.

Race doesn't matter. Asian, black, latina, white, etc. this does not matter. I do admit that I have a special preference for natural blonde hair and blue eyes. I would probably not reject somebody who didn't have those qualities, but it's just a special preference. That said, I'm not a racist as I said earlier, but aren't white people (including the blonde hairs and blue eyes women, as a minority in a global white minority) going to become a minority in the US in 2043? It's actually kind of scary.

hmmm according to society, no...as long as the preference is not for whites, if it is, then yes...

No, I wouldn't say so. It's like saying that if you are straight or gay, you're sexist.

He did not say that rape is a nice thing, he said that it's not about misogyny. The fact that it's not about misogyny doesn't mean that it is not a terrible thing. They take what they want, it's not about the gender. I think it has more to do with being like a beast, as rdos said. A guy can rape another guy, is he misandric?
I agree that there is some objectification in it, they use the partner as a mere object of pleasure. As rdos said same happens in one-night stands, what he said is correct. The fact that there is consent doesn't mean that they don't see the partner as an immediate end to their sexual lust.
I don't think he ever said that rape is fine, you might have misinterpreted him.

As long as the REASONS why you attracted to only a certain race aren't inherently racist, then being attractive only to one race is not racist.

If there are RACIST reasons for you to only be attracted to that certain race, then, obviously, it is racist.

If you attracted to white people because you believe they are the superior race, then you are racist.

If you've only been attracted to people of African descent, without any thought as to "superiority," or their "trials and tribulations," or anything else, then you're not racist. It just so happens that the people you are attracted to are all of African descent.

He didn't say that rape is "fine", no, but it's still a remarkably casual tone to take in attempting to compare the primal urges of mammals to how we perceive rape as human beings. I can't help but interpret an almost apologetic tone in attributing a rapist mentality to "potential reproduction" on par with a wild animal...animals don't have our sense of morality nor our legal consequences which define rape as a reprehensible criminal act, and much less do they have the gender hierarchy and institutional sexism which cultivates a rapist mentality...as long as 90% of reported rapes are committed against women by men, yes, I'm going to say that rape is largely steeped in sexism and misogyny, which is of course not to speak softly of male rape, itself a reprehensible act, yet one which - if it doesn't go unreported like a majority of male rape incidents - is inevitably looked upon with considerably less severity by a male-dominated culture, itself a product of misogyny.

This site seems to have a baffling issue with people arguing over the levels of acceptability of rape, and that's one topic I have absolutely zero tolerance for. When someone says "Well, I'm not sayin' rape's right, but...", my claws slowly start to come out, so forgive me for being a bit on edge. There should be no blurred lines between what's considered acceptable or justifiable about rapist mentality. Keep in mind, this is the same person who says that sexual harassment and assault is "feminist junk", so...it's best to take this all of this with a massive grain of salt.

Anyhoo, I mentioned earlier there are varying levels of objectification, but not all of them are inherently negative: I clearly and specifically defined rape as an extreme product of objectification, exactly because it's the lack of consent which boldly crosses over into a negative territory. Consensual casual sex is a mutual objectification of lust, but an acceptable one (except if you're a moral prude). Rape is a one-way assault motivated by lust, and not an acceptable one. I didn't think there was really a need to elaborate upon that.

Well it's not our business the tone he wanna talk with. As for me I don't see anything wrong with his tone. I see that you are a bit on the edge and I really understand you, but he's not bound to be like that too.
I agree that it is an extreme objectification, but not that it is misogyny. I still thing that it is beastly, these guys just have no morality like monkeys. I don't know about the reasons for it is more done by men, but perhaps it is that they are stronger physically and it is usually easier for women to get consensual sex. There may be more factors though.
I agree with you that sexual harassment exists, what he said was plainly stupid. I should have commented on that too.

Does the truth bother you?



Yes, it is the moral code (and other potential averse effects) that keeps most people from committing rape. That's not the "product of objectification" or "misogyny". When that isn't in place, like in wars, then rape is booming.



That's pure BS. Why do you think rape is so common in African conflicts?



Of course it is. A woman doesn't need to rape a man for sex. She can just ask him and probably get it. In addition to that, it's only men that can increase their reproduction with rape. Women will need to carry the baby and take care of it for many years, so has nothing to gain with rape. That's elementary evolutionary theory.



I don't think I argued over the acceptability, rather the causes, which you seem to have completely misunderstood (just like most other feminists).



I only argued for harassment being feminist junk. Never said anything about assault, and initially didn't use the word "sexual harassment" either. IMHO, there are some types of things that should go into sexual harassment, but when guys are afraid of touching girls because they fear being reported, things have gone far too long. Also remember that many neurodiverse guys are unable to tell if a girl is interested or not, and with these kind of sh***y laws about sexual harassment many of them probably decide it is better to do nothing. The guys that thrive on this knows exactly where the limits are, so can get away with a lot. So I don't see how any neurodiverse person of either gender really can defend these laws.



I don't think one-night-stands are acceptable. In my opinion it is disgusting, and if I wrote the laws, it would be illegal. Just as it was in the past. In fact, a much simpler model than the "consent model" is that sexual intercourse is only allowed within a marriage. That makes it easy to distinguish legal and illegal variants. The consent model is full of holes.

You have your own ideas stick with them.

I don't think so. Scientists are discovering morals in primates and other animals. The idea that morals are unique to humans is severely flawed.



No we don't. It's our cultural programming that guides us. In the past, the morals said you couldn't have sex before marriage, and at that time marriage was what guided our morals, and not consent. Just to try to push the idea that consent is natural in relation to sex is crazy. The consent thing was "invented" when contraceptives become prevalent so people could have sex outside of marriage and established relationships, and it is not something that comes natural to humans. If it was natural, we wouldn't see so much rape in wars and conflicts.



In Western culture, certainly, but Western culture is not the epitome of human achievement. Rather, in many aspects it really stinks. Especially the presence of a huge pornographic industry, and the lack of commitment by many people.

In essence, the only group of humans that naturally will not have sexual intercourse with just anybody, are asexual people. For them, you don't need any "consent" laws, and they also naturally work with the "marriage" law. However, this is the exception, and for the rest of humanity, it's the same as for animals, and the only way to stop people from raping each others is through morals and laws. There is no natural "instinct" in sexuals that stops them from having sex, and consent means nothing in the heat of things if there is no strong moral code in place.

No, racist sure is thrown around a lot these days. I remember when I was in the 4th grade and me and one of my friends would sit in the front doorway lobby of the school, he waited for his parents to get him and my mother worked for the school so I had to wait around till 5 or so till she got off. One time I remember a black girl named Jasmine was also in the lobby with us for whatever reason. Somehow the discussion of would she date me came up and she said no because for starters my jeans were highwater. I can only assume the rest had something to do with me being a scrawny nerdy white dirt kid. That's about my only contact with the idea besides the only girlfriend I've ever had in my junior year of highschool. She was Vietnamese. I broke up with her because she was super christian. I still feel kind of bad about it.

i think that south american indians are more tasty than germans, but despite my culinary preferences, i would accord each of them the same rights if i was a legislator.

LOL....kids used to tease me about me having "highwater" jeans all the time! Not racist in this instance. Jasmine was discriminating against you because of your nerdiness.

Vietnamese and "super Christian" are not usually equated--so you're probably safe there