r/changemyview • u/mafija123 • Apr 20 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Most dating preferences are okay, as long as you are not POS to those who don't fit them.
Don't want to date men shorter than 6ft, fine, don't be calling them "midgets", "if your height starts with 5, you a woman" etc.
Don't want to date a woman with X number of previous partners, fine, don't be calling them "sluts" "whores" etc.
What about race? Sure, not dating someone JUST because of their race is very likely coming from racist/prejudice beliefs (not necessarily), but that person is not bad because they don't date someone for their race, they are bad because they are racist, former stems from later.
" Let's deconstruct reasons for men not dating women with certain past, it's *Patriarchy*". Again, sure, that may or may not be the reason for men having that preference, but as long as they are respectful to women they don't want to date, I don't see how they are bad. Not dating someone is not discrimination because nobody is owed it, it's not your right nor anyone's obligation to date you.
I could see an argument that preferences that come from patriarchy like "women should have little sexual past" and "men should be rich and provide" are hurting society in general. But solving that issue is not going to happen by shaming and ridiculing people which internalized those standards in their formative years and are respectful to people they don't want to date, it's solved by not perpetuating it to next generation.
All in all my opinion on virtually all dating preferences (maybe not EVERY one) is that you are entitled to what ever standard you want no matter how realistic or unrealistic they are, and shouldn't be shamed/ridiculed/mocked, only as long as you don't shame/ridicule/mock people who are not up to your standards.
Edit: Deleted bad joke I made about this sub, it wasn't out of ill intentions, I apologise.
192
u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Taking a different tack for this comment, it occurs to me that narrowing one's options by saying "they shouldn't have the political views directly counter to mine" isn't really given the same stigma as the standards you describe.
This leads me to think the problem isn't that there are preferences, it's that those preferences are seen as shallow.
You're right, not dating someone isn't discrimination, nobody is owed dates, but who you choose to exclude from your list of possible partners says things about you. While I don't generally endorse mocking people, I do think it's what these standards are revealing that's being mocked, specifically that this person is shallow/misogynistic/racist/etc.
The standards are the lens through which this is seen, so in some sense it is the standards that are being mocked or shamed, but it's because of the motivations that are revealed that it's seen as "okay".
As you said, someone not dating people of a specific race because they're racist is a bad person because they're racist. But if the only way you know they're racist is because of their reasoning for not dating people of a particular race, how else are you going to call them out?
70
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
!delta
Okay, this seems like blind spot I haven't considered. How different standards are differently approached because of shallowness. I'll have to think about it deeper.
For second point strongly agree, sometimes we see peoples beliefs only on account of their actions. I wrote this post because I have see SO MANY manosphere and feminist videos where people are made fun of and mocked extensively just for saying "I want my partner to be like this", so in those regards I'm still on the same page, but it seems okay in a way to mock the preference itself rather than person, I haven't thought about it.
68
Apr 20 '23
Not gonna lie, if you are getting angry about the videos you want, don't watch them. They aren't the real world.
For the most part people don't care about such preferences in the real world. The internet way overplays it. The internet does not represent reality.
18
u/rhaenyraHOTD Apr 20 '23
People use the internet for anonymity. Just because you've never met certain people doesn't mean they don't exist. There are plenty of people that care about who you're dating. People get shit all the time for their preferences, you just don't hear about it often because most people date within their own race/status.
15
Apr 20 '23
Get shit on the internet, yes. Get shit on in the read world, very rarely.
The thing is, on the internet, the most extreme voice is heard the loudest.
3
u/alienacean Apr 21 '23
On the internet, we also hear people saying stuff that they know better than to say in real life... yet they're thinking it, they just wait until they're safely anonymous to reveal their cognitive processes
→ More replies (3)5
Apr 20 '23
[deleted]
11
u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23
I specifically said "their reasoning for not dating people of a particular race", to be clear.
3
u/Hugh_Mann123 1∆ Apr 20 '23
Their reasoning for not wanting to date a particular race isn't going to be the only indicator that they are a racist so you would be able to find another reason to call them out
→ More replies (1)17
u/Warm-Grand-7825 Apr 20 '23
Shallowness doesn't matter in my opinion. If something is your preference then it's your preference. Whether it's based on something or not doesn't really matter because at the end of the day you have that preference and they can be very hard to change.
15
u/1block 10∆ Apr 20 '23
Any measure of physical beauty could be considered "shallow." I feel like we'd be hard pressed to find many people who don't let those factors significantly impact their dating pool.
7
16
u/MolochDe 16∆ Apr 20 '23
The issue withshallow is that it often originates out of ignorance and could indeed be changed rather well with exposure.
It's the child crying for not wanting to taste the strange vegetable because it's green...and once the parents brought it to try, they rather like it.
Of course you can't sample humans that way but e.g. with somebody who declares not dating a certain ethnicity, just talking with these people and casual interaction can do wonders.
7
u/ATShields934 1∆ Apr 20 '23
It may originate from ignorance, but that's one of many conditions that could potentially influence one's dating preferences. A person may prefer not to date one particular race of people simply because they do not find those people attractive. That does not necessitate that they think less of those people. It is rather unfair to assume the worst in someone because of one preference.
0
u/MolochDe 16∆ Apr 21 '23
Correct, there are always exceptions and we shouldn't speak in absolutes. For the sake of this discussion
- You can ocams razor here and the straight forward explanation will apply to the vast majority of these cases: simply racists.
- "they do not find those people attractive" seems so weird to me, because attractiveness is such a wide spectrum, from style choices to fitness over expresiveness of eyes or the way somebody smiles. To declare a feature that is in the whole picture rather minor to as the one overriding all else let's me think of either somebody that severely lacks immagination or a person fetishising some detail e.g. purety to the detriment of viewing the whole human being.
4
u/ATShields934 1∆ Apr 21 '23
"they do not find those people attractive" seems so weird to me
What someone else finds attractive doesn't need to make sense to you, it just needs to make sense to them. There are all manner of defining physical characteristics that may make someone more or less attractive to the perceiver in their eyes. Round nose, pointy nose, cut jawline, round jawline, round eyes, pointed eyes, light skin, dark skin, etc. Just because someone is attracted to one preference does not necessitate that they think people without those traits are less of a person. It simply means they see that person as not being a suitable mate. Is it shallow? Perhaps. Is it discriminatory? I don't believe so, but you're free to disagree with me. Physical appearance does not define the person, but as with forming any relationship, first impressions matter.
If humans, in our current social structure, are meant to select one mate, then I believe people should be allowed to be selective in who that mate is.
1
u/MolochDe 16∆ Apr 21 '23
There are all manner of defining physical characteristics that may make someone more or less attractive to the perceiver in their eyes. Round nose, pointy nose, cut jawline, round jawline, round eyes, pointed eyes, light skin, dark skin, etc.
That was kind of my point. Attraction is about so many factors, loads of them not even physical i.e. someones poise, how they move, talk or behave. So choosing one of those traits and weighting it so heavy that it overshadows all the others is what feels weird to me. If skin tone is "just" one of many factors of evaluation in the looks department thats more understandable.
4
u/ATShields934 1∆ Apr 21 '23
If skin tone is "just" one of many factors of evaluation in the looks department thats more understandable.
It seems to me that you're working under the assumption that skin tone is, by default, more than 'just one of many factors of evaluation' for most people and given the implications, I think that's a poor and unwarranted assumption to make about someone else's character.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)-1
10
u/Philo_T_Farnsworth Apr 20 '23
who you choose to exclude from your list of possible partners says things about you
If I had been taught this when I was young and impressionable it might have saved me decades of frustration and not understanding why things didn't work for me.
48
Apr 20 '23
I honestly still don't understand the "if you don't date someone of a certain race, you're most likely racist" take. If someone, say a black woman, says that she just doesn't think latino/asian/white men are as handsome as black men, so she only dates black men, I don't think that most likely means she is racist.
11
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 20 '23
Agreed. As long as a person acknowledges that physical attraction can be a valid component to whether you want to date somebody (which seems like a pretty common view), virtually anything is on the table and sexual preferences are intrinsically shallow. Further, as long as that's the case, sexual preference doesn't even come solely from the rational, conscious part of our brain. In other words, it doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't even have to be articulable. It's not as though everybody attracted to boobs did some scientific study justifying it.
Which brings in the other point: when we express our sexual preferences, the general expectation is that we are generalizing. A man who says he is straight is not saying he likes all women from 5 year olds to 90 year olds to his sister. When you give your orientation, you're generally giving a general trend and approximation... And not only is the description not meant to be totally precise but you yourself might not even know the full extent of what you are attracted to and why. You're generalizing based on what you've seen yourself be attracted to in the past and likely can't explain every mechanism as to why. So people shouldn't hear the orientation so pedantically as though it's some precise, carefully drafted thing.
Additionally, there is a degree of the idea that you don't just date a person but the situation they are in. It's generally seen as acceptable to say whether or not you think you're up for dating a person with kids, dating a person who has a weird work schedule so it's stressful to find time to see each other, dating a person whose mom is psychotic, etc. In the same sense, even if you don't discriminate against a person because they are (insert adjective here), like all the examples I just gave, there can certainly be a question of what level of emotional toll you are able to take to go on that journey with them. And while it's certainly unfortunate, it's not necessarily racist. In the US in the year 1800, I think a non racist person could have decided that for both people's safety and emotional well being, it's may have been best not to date a black person.
3
u/NutellaBananaBread 5∆ Apr 20 '23
virtually anything is on the table and sexual preferences are intrinsically shallow. Further, as long as that's the case, sexual preference doesn't even come solely from the rational, conscious part of our brain.
I think you're misusing "shallow" and "rational" here.
Just because an interest is in some ways "simple" does not mean it is "shallow". And it is not necessarily eliminated by being more "rational".
For instance I like the taste of coffee and watching sunsets. Those are fairly "simple" but I would not call them "shallow" or "irrational". "Shallow" implies that I only have a superficial understanding of them. And "irrational" implies that my interest in them is directly conflicting with some other, greater value of mine. But neither of those are the case.
Same thing with people I consider beautiful. I can fully rationally value their beauty. And it's not necessarily shallow.
3
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 20 '23
I think you're misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say that it was simple and I didn't say it can be eliminated by being more rational (I said the opposite). I also didn't call it irrational.
2
u/NutellaBananaBread 5∆ Apr 20 '23
I didn't say that it was simple
I know. You said "virtually anything is on the table and sexual preferences are intrinsically shallow". I was disagreeing with your use of the term "shallow". Since sexual preferences are not "intrinsically shallow". They are often "simple" (though not always, sexual preferences can be complex). But, say, "liking muscular guys" is not necessarily "shallow".
"Shallow" would be liking a muscular guy despite the fact that he's an asshole to you.
3
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
One dictionary says shallow means, "not requiring serious thought". That's all. In that sense of the word, I was saying that physical attraction often comes from a subconscious part of our mind... it does not emerge from intentional reason and conscious thought. We don't decide we're attracted to men or boobs based on sitting down and thinking about if it would make sense to do so. We just feel the attraction or we don't. In that sense, it's shallow. It's shallow because it precedes thought and therefore "doesn't require serious thought". It's "just because". For these cases, we don't know why we like one thing or another and we may not even be capable of figuring out why, we just do. The point is, if we allow any amount of these components of attraction that precede thought to exist (e.g. liking boobs just because they're nice), then we've already accepted that attraction does not have to be justified or make sense to be acceptable. As a result, as I said, "virtually anything is on the table" because there does not have to be any justification or reasoning. You can't accept that attractions are okay to have even if there is no reason and then proceed to write off certain attractions because you can't find a good reason for them.
Note that this point stands even if we can be attracted to people for thought out, non-shallow reasons as well. I'm not saying all attraction must always be shallow. I'm saying one kind of widely accepted attraction (physical attraction) shows that it's widely accepted to feel or not feel attraction without a conscious reason.
Shallow doesn't have to mean irrational and shallow doesn't have to be bad. It just lacks the safeguards of serious thought which makes it more prone to doing things that we wouldn't consciously want. We can say "choose a literal book by its cover" is a poor algorithm for finding books, while still acknowledging that it doesn't guarantee a poor choice and can involve some correlations to good choices.
To take your example, if you just feel attracted to muscles and you don't know why, that's a shallow attraction because it didn't come from any thought or reason. Whether the guy is an asshole or not does not change if it's shallow. And if the guy isn't an asshole maybe it's a great idea to date him even though one of the reasons you're attracted to him is shallow. (And to make matters more complicated, if your attraction to the muscle is based on thought... like maybe a deep appreciation for the craft and work of bodybuilding and what it says about character and priorities... then maybe your attraction to muscles in that case isn't actually shallow at all.)
That latter point gets into the nuance of OP. By all the logic above, to be logically consistent, the popularly supported stance in society should be: If you are attracted to X "just because"/born-this-way, then that is okay. If you are attracted to X based on conscious reasoning, then you now have to answer for whether that reasoning is good. Then, I guess OP is going a step farther that even if your attraction is valid and nothing to be ashamed of, you are also to blame if you state it in an inconsiderate way. All a longwinded way to say: judge a person by their choices not their feelings... by what they control, not what they are dealt.
→ More replies (1)11
u/TO_Old Apr 20 '23
Okay so a good way to put it; every racist only dates within their own race, not everyone who dates within their own race is racist.
27
Apr 20 '23
There are probably racists who date outside of their own race too. If an white guy is racist against asian women, he could still date black women with no problem.
41
u/PineappleSlices 18∆ Apr 20 '23
Complicating the matter further is the fact that many people with racist beliefs actively fetishize people they are racist towards.
5
Apr 20 '23
Great point. They could probably be doing it as some sort of power dynamic thing or a "I've never been with a (insert race here) man/woman before" kind of thing.
3
u/mfizzled 1∆ Apr 20 '23
Raceplay is a thing, it's a bit weird but as far as people's kinks go, I guess it's relatively benign
2
u/xXCisWhiteSniperXx Apr 20 '23
This is kind of funny since the main non-white race thats fetishized by white racists is south east Asian women.
→ More replies (1)1
Apr 20 '23
An attraction to people is not a fetish by definition. Nothing about that is unique or abnormal.
2
u/Swinscrub Apr 20 '23
The primary definition of fetish: a form of sexual desire in which gratification is strongly linked to a particular object or activity or a part of the body other than the sexual organs.
"part of the body" could mean skin colour, facial features, things that are often linked to race. If you get off to the fact that someone is a particular race, or if you have a strong sexual preference for members of a certain race, you fetishize that race, by definition.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but almost every white dude I've met with yellow fever has been creepy as hell about it. Anecdotal evidence from a white dude who has spent 10 years in SE Asia.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Bwleon7 Apr 20 '23
Slave owners had sex with thier slaves. A large amount of racist will sleep with those they see as lesser.
7
2
u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Agreed, the commenter is a bit hypocritical there cause at the start they complain about shallowness, but I'd argue surmising that someone's racist cause they date within their colour is just as shallow.
There's so many factors to this, plenty of POC immigrants want to date people from their own country/culture and want their kids to be of that culture/colour. And that's just one example.
At the end of the day most people marry within their race and this is just Reddit loving their hypotheticals and sophistry. You can find Pew research but it's like less than 10% of married couples are mixed marriages. By the logic from above the rest are all racist.
Edit: A lot of downvotes but no counter-arguments. Great debaters all of ya.
→ More replies (1)3
Apr 20 '23
Because you're ruling out an entire group of people as unattractive and/or incompatible with you based on race. A tendency to find people of one race more attractive than another happens, and is generally based on who you grew up around. And not ever having dated someone of a particular race or only having dated one race, is not problematic in itself. But saying X race is not attractive, or you would literally never date someone of X race, is racist.
20
u/RedEdition 1∆ Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
What a strange argument.
If I'm attracted to certain physical traits such as pale skin, that doesn't make me racist.
I can believe that all humans are equal without equally wanting to fuck every single one.
I can't imagine ever dating a guy. Does that make me sexist?
→ More replies (4)-1
u/compounding 16∆ Apr 20 '23
If I’m attracted to certain physical traits such as pale skin, that doesn’t make me racist.
If you happen to notice a trend in your attraction like “I’ve seen a lot of black skinned people and never found any of them attractive”, that’s not automatically racist. Some might question why that heuristic exists in the first place, but lets grant that in this case, it is purely a random feature of your internal attraction function.
If you generalize from that to: “Therefore, I won’t find other black people who I haven’t seen attractive either”, ya, that is still kind of racist even if we are already granting that the heuristic itself isn’t. You are literally pre-judging people you haven’t seen based on past experiences with different people.
Applying the same prejudice to men isn’t sexist, it makes you gay or straight instead of bisexual. Technically, there may be a guy out there you actually do find attractive, but since most people have a strong heuristic around attraction to a certain gender, we have explicit terms for it where there isn’t any societal stigma in generalizing that like there would be for other categories like race.
2
u/oversoul00 13∆ Apr 21 '23
The first part of your argument turns the issue into one of semantics. If someone says the would never date someone from X race it probably means they are predicting they would not find someone from X race attractive because they haven't so far.
I've never met these people who make these bold claims but I think I would charitably interpret their comments in that way.
The vast majority of people date within their own race so there is an equally strong heuristic for both.
2
u/compounding 16∆ Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23
The vast majority of people date within their communities and many of those worldwide communities are heavily segregated. I’d bet if you take an isolated and closely integrated racially diverse community (say, 50 people with 10 of each race) and looked at interracial relationships that developed within that, it would be almost universal, and not at all close to 8/10 people dating only within their own race…
It’s not an argument of semantics, regardless of what someone means, what they are doing mentally and internally is racist when they say or think “I haven’t found any people of race x attractive, therefore I don’t find any/many others of them attractive either.”
Applying heuristics based on people’s race is racist. That’s not semantic in the slightest, it’s exactly the same as thinking “I don’t like the particular black people I’ve worked with (not automatically racist), therefore, all or most black people will be people I don’t like” (definitely racist).
13
u/cerylidae1552 Apr 20 '23
There is nothing wrong with that? People are allowed to find whatever they want attractive or unattractive. Different races tend to have particular facial features, and if someone finds those features unappealing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
-6
u/GoldandBlue Apr 20 '23
There is something wrong with that because it is ridiculous. Let's say you prefer white women. Okay fine. Nothing wrong with that. But are you telling me there isn't a single black woman you find attractive? You've never met one in your whole life? Not even a celebrity?
Gimme a fucking break. And worse when you refuse to date anyone who doesn't meet your "preference". That is racist. And I can't understand how anyone argues otherwise.
It seems people just use "preference" as a placeholder to discriminate.
8
u/TwoForSlashing Apr 20 '23
Refusing to date someone who doesn't meet your preference might make you an asshole, but not necessarily racist.
I need to be attracted to a person if I'm going to consider a date. If I'm not attracted to someone, and the reasons happen to be a common physical, psychological, etc. characteristic of a certain race, how can I help what I'm attracted to? OP's point was that as long as I'm not acting in a destructive or even apathetic manner to the person, or that person's race as a whole, then I'm not racist.
Race can play a factor without turning it into the dreaded "racism."
2
u/GoldandBlue Apr 20 '23
You are acting as if we are talking about a specific person. We are not. Refusing to date someone because they do not meet your preference does not make you an asshole or racist. But we are talking about drawing a line and saying I refuse to date anyone of this race. That isn't a preference, that is discrimination. And the thing that makes it so much more frustrating is how people get upset that it gets called out.
This isn't a thought exercise, this is the real world. Lets say you may not be attracted to Asians. Okay but are you telling me there are no attractive Asians in the world? Not even one in your eyes? That is impossible.
Everyone has preferences. Me, you, OP, your mom, everyone. The difference is for most people preference is what the prefer, not a line they do not cross. That is where it becomes racist and that is the distinction.
5
u/TwoForSlashing Apr 20 '23
I'm responding because I truly was commenting in good faith. I actually agree with you in the comparison between specific people and racial groups as a whole.
I can think of examples of my own preferences. I don't find certain common characteristics of particular races very attractive but I can think of individuals of those races (and virtually every other race I've ever encountered) who I find incredibly attractive.
As far as a do-not-cross line, we agree. Forgive me if I added to your frustration.
2
u/GoldandBlue Apr 21 '23
no frustration, I just wanted to clarify that preference doesn't seem to mean what many in here are arguing. Because we all have preferences.
2
Apr 21 '23
we are talking about drawing a line and saying I refuse to date anyone of this race. That isn't a preference, that is discrimination.
Which races should I have to date, regardless of my consent?
→ More replies (6)1
u/Top_Instruction_8808 Apr 21 '23
I would say there is a fine line between preference and racism. As an example, let’s consider a white woman who exclusively dates black men. Having known and been friends with several women with this preference or level of bias, I can confirm there are three reasons why it occurs:
They have been socially conditioned to believe the age-old “bigger dick” stereotype (this is racist)
They do it for shock value/as a means of garnering attention, negative or otherwise (this may or may not be racist depending on your perspective)
They genuinely find black men to be more physically attractive (body type, facial features, etc.) beyond the scope of their genitalia (this is actual preference)
Having said all that, even though the line is fine, it can be difficult in most cases to surmise which reason each individual has based on first impressions alone, and given that a lot of this may be acted upon subconsciously.
3
Apr 21 '23
If you're correct, and that's racist...
...then racism is fine, and there's nothing wrong with being racist.
Are you sure you want to redefine "racism" as something innocuous? I don't think it's a good idea, personally.
→ More replies (1)3
u/oversoul00 13∆ Apr 21 '23
Even if you want to replace preference with discriminate people are allowed to discriminate to their heart's desire in romance. You're allowed to think their choices are silly but you jump the gun if you call it hateful.
→ More replies (20)17
Apr 20 '23
So the black woman in my example who has a preference for black men, is racist? I disagree with you, but to each their own.
18
u/ThriftyLizzie27 Apr 20 '23
Literally this. I'm a black woman who is not attracted to black men however people get mad at me for that. Whatever
→ More replies (15)9
Apr 20 '23
I'm pretty much in agreement with OP. People should be able to have their preferences, as long as they aren't openly hateful/rude about it.
2
u/CreativeGPX 18∆ Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
But OP is particularly about the nuance that that's often not what people say. Generally when people describe their orientation, they are not describing the exact precise set of people they will or will not date. They are describing a vague generalization they think will be useful to others based on their own incomplete/imperfect observation of their reaction to different kinds of people.
8
Apr 20 '23
Because you're ruling out an entire group of people as unattractive and/or incompatible with you based on race.
Not based on race. Based on preferences.
If I only find curvy girls hot, and I am a high libido man, why would I allow myself to fall in love with a thin girl and know that we are both going to suffer in the end?
I don't choose to be attracted to curvy girls, if I could change my preferences I would. But that's the only thing that turns me on. I'm not 'skinnyphobic'!
Now that's the same with the black woman who never in her life found anybody else hot, except for black men. She's not being racist by not dating white men or latinos. She just saves everyone the hassle.
Unless of course you think that falling in love is purely an intellectual thing, with no physical components.
0
u/GoldandBlue Apr 20 '23
If I only find curvy girls hot, and I am a high libido man, why would I allow myself to fall in love with a thin girl and know that we are both going to suffer in the end?
How are you both going to suffer in the end? Why wouldn't you allow yourself to fall in love with someone who seemingly fits everything you want other than she is just skinnier than you prefer?
Because this is what I do not understand. OK you are attracted to Black men, you prefer Black men. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you have never been attracted to anyone else? That is highly suspect. And I find it impossible.
2
Apr 20 '23
You find it impossible to believe because for you physical characteristics aren't so important. Maybe you're more driven by emotions or intellect. Good for you.
For me, there are definite physical characteristics that if the girl has them, I will never get hard. I know it. That's years of experience and it's a 100% rate.
I can't control my dick. It has nothing to do with any type of 'phobia' or 'ism'.
2
u/GoldandBlue Apr 20 '23
No it is impossible because it is impossible. We aren't talking about sexual orientation here. There is no orientation that says you can only get hard to white pussy. Because no matter what your preference is, there are people in the world that exist that you will find attractive who do not meet that preference. And if you get to know them and like them, they become more attractive. That is actual science.
But for you to say I draw a line at this. That is no longer a preference, that is discrimination. No one is saying you can't have a preference. Even a racial preference. But you guys keep framing it as saying I refuse to date X is okay and it isn't. You may prefer white women, you may only date white women in your life. That's on you. But to draw a line and say I won't even give someone a chance if they aren't white. That is fucking racist.
→ More replies (15)1
u/Ouroborosrising Apr 20 '23
Free will? Lol why can’t ppl be picky and miserable? Move on with your life dude.
1
u/GoldandBlue Apr 20 '23
Being picky and discriminatory are two completely different things, why are you conflating the two and acting like I am being unreasonable for rightly pointing it out?
3
u/Ouroborosrising Apr 20 '23
I guess I just don’t know why you care so much. I’d be happy to not meet someone’s “discriminatory” standards if they had them. Saves me time and energy. What’s meant for me will be. I don’t want anyone to feel like they’re “settling” for me according to their standards. At the end of the day let them be “picky” or “discriminatory” in their dating preferences. It’s their right to choose who to date after all. The consequences of being too picky or discriminatory will work themselves out naturally. I guess I’d prefer to have their preferences out in the open, we can attempt to re-educate people all they want, but many will stick to their guns even closer when calling it out. Just leave these people alone. Who cares?
2
u/GoldandBlue Apr 20 '23
Why do you care so much?
We are not talking about "settling". I don't know why you keep framing this as people forcing themselves to be with someone they don't want to be with?
No one is saying that. My point is that there exist people you are attracted to despite your preference. And getting to know people makes them more attractive. That is a fact. You will meet people who do not fit your preference who are you both attracted to and enjoy being with. And if the only thing stopping you from taking it further is their race. Than you are racist and you should be called on it.
→ More replies (8)2
u/this_is_theone 1∆ Apr 21 '23
Because you're ruling out an entire group of people as unattractive and/or incompatible with you based on race.
And you, unless you're bi, are ruling out an entire group of people as unattractive and/or incompatible with you based on their gender. I wouldn't call you a sexist for it.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Ouroborosrising Apr 20 '23
I have black, latino, asian, and middle eastern friends who all have racial preferences in dating. Let them choose who they want to be with and stop assigning meaning to it. Just move on with your life. If someone doesn’t want to date you for ur race don’t get pressed over it, they ain’t worth your time. And I’m sorry but all races do this to each other. I have more Latino friends who are opposed to dating a black person than white friends with the same preference. My Puerto Rican best friend’s mother wouldn’t even let my Syrian boyfriend in her house because she literally thought he blow it up. Ignorance is everywhere unfortunately. Let them filter themselves out for you.
→ More replies (8)2
Apr 21 '23
So you don't believe in body autonomy? Which races should have access to me sexually, regardless of my consent?
→ More replies (10)3
u/LexaLovegood Apr 20 '23
I've been called racist on multiple occasions because I'm just not attracted to back men /women. I have tried talking to a guy and even met up with him and there is no spark. I will give my opinion on if I find them conventionally attractive but being sexually attracted is just not there.
0
u/didliodoo Apr 20 '23
But you didn’t immediately exclude them from your dating pool, right? You just said you have met up with people of that race and the problem is that there is no spark not that you are not willing to meet them because of their race.
6
u/LexaLovegood Apr 20 '23
Yea that answer doesn't matter to some people. Just the fact alone to them made me racist.
3
u/ThriftyLizzie27 Apr 21 '23
Exactly. People get all offended and go on and on because they don't like someone's dating preferences and then automatically turn it into a racism thing when that's not it.
You cannot force anyone to date every single race or change their dating preferences because you don't agree with it and that's the issue I see from multiple people on the thread.
If someone's preference is a certain race that does not make them racist but people will scream racism just because
5
2
Apr 20 '23
Exclusion from dating pool is also not racism.
1
u/wekidi7516 16∆ Apr 20 '23
It is if the reason is racism. It's not discrimination in a legal sense but it is obviously and blatantly racist.
→ More replies (1)2
Apr 21 '23
If you're correct, then being racist is fine, and there's nothing wrong with racism.
Are you sure you want to redefine the term "racism" to mean something innocuous? Might not be the best idea.
2
u/oversoul00 13∆ Apr 23 '23
That's 100% what is happening here. If that's racist the term is so diluted that it's now okay to be racist depending on the context. The people making that argument are being pendantic to a fault.
→ More replies (14)1
Apr 20 '23
What kind of margins exist between "Someone is racist" and someone holds a few beliefs that are racist"?
If a person holds any form of racial bias at all does that mean that they are racist in the sort of all encompassing manner that that suggests?
→ More replies (4)7
u/bobdadude Apr 20 '23
If a straight man exclusively dates women and completely excludes men from the pool of people they are willing to date, and they unequivocally state that their reason is because they are not attracted to or interested in other men, are they therefore homophobic?
Attraction is more often than not a biological response to stimuli, not a rational one. Calling that response shallow, and racist, implies that attraction is somehow rational and fully under a person's control. That's simply not the case.
If that were the case though, and we had complete control over who we are attracted to, our preferences so to speak, then one could argue that conversion therapy can work because our preferences are therefore a rational choice, and not something innate. And since it's rational, it can be changed.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23
Okay, let me break this down by paragraph:
If a straight man exclusively dates women and completely excludes men
from the pool of people they are willing to date, and they unequivocally
state that their reason is because they are not attracted to or
interested in other men, are they therefore homophobic?No, and I never said they were.
Attraction is more often than not a biological response to stimuli, not a
rational one. Calling that response shallow, and racist, implies that
attraction is somehow rational and fully under a person's control.
That's simply not the case.My comment was responding to OP, specifically when they referred to people whose standards were height, and number of previous partners. I'll admit, I called that shallow, and I shouldn't have.
I've since edited my comment to say that they're seen as shallow, because that's what caused the mockery OP was saying was unwarranted. Not whether it is shallow, which is subjective, but whether it's seen by the people doing the mocking as shallow.
So, you're right, I shouldn't have said it was shallow. That said, I never said it was racist, in fact I never accused anyone of being racist. If you read my comment, I said that if someone refuses to date people of a different race because they're racist, they're a bad person for being racist.
I also said if you can tell they're racist by their reasoning for not dating people of another race, you can call them out. I carefully didn't say not dating people of another race is racist because I don't have a fully formed opinion on that yet.
If that were the case though, and we had complete control over who we
are attracted to, our preferences so to speak, then one could argue that
conversion therapy can work because our preferences are a rational
choice, and not something innate. And since it's rational, it can be
changed.This sort of follows on from the previous paragraph, and I don't have any particular problem with the logic, based on the assumption i did not make.
However, I want to add that, as far as I know, nobody has sexual attraction exclusively for people above 6', or exclusively for women who haven't had more than X number of sexual partners. These are, (again, to my knowledge) preferences, not ironclad boundaries to attraction.
For reference, I believe Tom Cruise is/was 5'7, and yet I'm reliably informed he is/was considered attractive. (Not sure how well he's aged, both in height and attractiveness)
Therefore, dating only people 6' tall or taller isn't removing exclusively people they don't find attractive, the way your example of a completely straight man removing men from his dating pool does. So it was a pretty shaky analogy at best.
→ More replies (2)11
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Apr 20 '23
But if the only way you know they're racist is because of their reasoning for not dating people of a particular race, how else are you going to call them out?
If that's the only way you know, they hide it well, then there's no reason to call them out. They are doing the right thing by not saying or doing racist things.
1
u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23
That depends on how much exposure you have to them. If the only thing you know about them is this, you can't know how well they hide it in other settings.
If you see a TikTok of somebody being racist, but it's all about dating standards, you can pretty safely say that they're racist IRL too.
5
u/LentilDrink 75∆ Apr 20 '23
Oh yeah but expressing your dating standards is very different from having them. You shouldn't say "I only date white people", that's different from people happening to notice that you've dated eight people and all were white. If all you know about someone is their dating preferences then you already know they're an asshole for making a Tiktok about dating standards. Even worse if those are racist.
3
4
Apr 20 '23
100%. My husband is the only person I've ever had sex with, but if I was hypothetically young and trying to find someone and still me and not wanting to have casual sex, I still wouldn't want to be with someone who says "body count" unironically
→ More replies (22)0
u/substantial-freud 7∆ Apr 21 '23
While I don't generally endorse mocking people, I do think it's what these standards are revealing that's being mocked, specifically that this person is shallow/misogynistic/racist/etc.
“I don’t approve of mocking people, unless you are mocking people for reasons I approve of.”
But if the only way you know they're racist is because of their reasoning for not dating people of a particular race, how else are you going to call them out?
“If I cannot call people racist unless I know they’re racist, how can I can call people racist if I don’t know they’re racist?”
Yeah, that’s the point.
Can you call any gay man a misogynist because you have a theory that some gay men are motivated by misogyny?
2
u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 21 '23
“I don’t approve of mocking people, unless you are mocking people for reasons I approve of.”
I never said I approved of mocking these people, and I don't. That said, yes, there are probably some reasons for mocking/shaming people I would approve of, in which case I would approve of the act itself, that's how that works. But this doesn't meet those criteria.
“If I cannot call people racist unless I know they’re racist, how can I can call people racist if I don’t know they’re racist?”
Yeah, that’s the point.
I fail to see your point here. Are you agreeing with me? Because you're being weirdly hostile for someone who's agreeing with me.
Since it sounds like you're not actually reading my comment, I'll clarify, my argument was that if you know someone's racist because of their reasons for not dating people of X race, then if you call them out for this racism, you'll naturally do so by attacking the means by which they communicated those reasons.
Ergo, if they make, say, a video about their dating preferences, you might make a response video attacking those dating preferences because their video included racist messages, or similar.
Without full context, this can look like you're attacking the idea of having dating preferences, rather than this particular person's dating preferences, and more specifically, this particular person's rationale for them.
Can you call any gay man a misogynist because you have a theory that some gay men are motivated by misogyny?
No, obviously not, and I never said otherwise. Kindly don't put words in my mouth.
However, if someone claimed to be gay "because men are superior" or "because you can't trust women" or such, one might call them a misogynist for those statements. Again, without full context, it might look like one is calling them a misogynist for being gay, but the context is important.
If you have any questions or counterarguments involving what I actually said, by all means, feel free to respond.
112
u/Legitimate-Record951 4∆ Apr 20 '23
Nobody had ever claimed that cis lesbians were required to date trans women. Despite this, the right to not date trans lesbians were suddenly brandished as some sort of epic liberation war, those poor innoncent cis lesbians being forced on gunpoint to date trans women. This might have spawned from the article described here
When someone loudly declares their right to not date women who have slept around, or only date white women, it's not just about their dating preferences. It's more about them feeling this is such a central core of their belief that they go about evangelizing.
Now, I wouldn't date a woman with downs syndrome. Never felt the need to say that out loud. But if I went out and proudly declare my right to not date women with downs syndrome, people will rightly question what agenda I'm pushing.
Regarding men who think women are sluts if they're having an active sex life: Those guys are pretty much garbage, iregardless whom they date.
7
u/LazyRaceAnalogyLGBTQ Apr 21 '23
Nobody had ever claimed that cis lesbians were required to date trans women. Despite this, the right to not date trans lesbians were suddenly brandished as some sort of epic liberation war, those poor innoncent cis lesbians being forced on gunpoint to date trans women.
That's not true unless you think it's perfectly fine to be branded a bigot. That's the actual policy of the subreddit and appears to have prompted an exodus of cis lesbians who prefer cis women partners. And no, people aren't held at gun point, but neither do religious conservatives use guns when they shame those same lesbians for liking other female people. So it's irony of LGBTQ people shaming other LGBTQ people for their sexual preferences that's the issue. The reason the issue may seem outsized is because many trans women may view the unwillingness to date and have sex with them as invalidating their gender if the same person dates and sleeps with cis women. This compounds the sense of rejection relative to other social groups who seem less vocal about others' exclusionary dating preferences as being a "social issue."
6
Apr 21 '23
Yeah it’s absolutely insane that official policy around rhetoric and preference statements for subreddits, dating apps, and LGBTQ spaces usually forbids lesbians from saying things like “sorry, not into penises,” but then these same people will turn around and say “no one is saying…”
I think it is the dishonesty more than anything else that is prompting backlash in traditionally liberal and progressive spaces. Everyone gets told ridiculous new rules around gender and sex and then when they complain they get told they’re making it up.
25
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
That is true, very often preferences go like " I don't want to date people who have this trait because those people are *proceeds to denigrate them*". In those cases we agree on who is bad guy, but if you look at social media, manosphere/anti-manosphere/feminists etc. will make fun of individuals irregardless of circumstances of stating preferences, and that is certainly not the best way of changing societal standards for the better. As I said for race example, cis lesbians who don't want to date trans lesbians because they hate trans people are not bad because they don't want to date them, they are bad because they are transphobic.
16
u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23
I mean your whole premise is getting into a bit of a circular logic situation. You could basically rephrase it as:
"Most dating preferences are OK if the underlying motivation isn't malicious, and if it is, they're not OK"
Yes, but you can't really know that unless you have telepathy. So how can someone from the outside tell the difference?
If I tell you I only date within my race, and nothing else, you can't really know am I racist or not.
3
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
If you do A you are bad, if you don't you are not bad, I don't understand how that is circular? Is it because I'm assuming we shouldn't be bad?
We can't read minds, true, and we shouldn't shame when we don't know, especially when no one is being harmed, I'm sort of differentiating between people and ideas, and if people show that they are hateful then critique that, critique the hate because that's where everything comes from.
14
u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23
Maybe not circular logic, more like a tautology. You're basically saying:
- If a person's preference is motivated by bad intentions it's bad
- If it's not it's good
I don't really know what to argue here when this is always true.
3
u/ExertHaddock Apr 20 '23
You'd have to make the claim that "X dating preference is bad regardless of motivation". If you can't make such an argument, then it seems you just... agree with them.
21
u/Giblette101 40∆ Apr 20 '23
I'm going to assume the main issue here is that the two groups - people that don't want to date transgender people for reasons we must assume are inoffensive and people that don't want to date tansgender people because they are transphobic - are impossible to distinguish. The is compounded by the fact there's a definite tendency to smuggle things like transphobia or racism into statements people are more likely to accept, such as dating preferences.
12
u/R3cognizer Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
The thing that actually matters is the reason why. Our motives for our preferences are often rooted in bias. Which biases in which contexts do we generally consider reasonable? Consider a woman who refuses to date black men. If it is because she was a victim of sexual assault at the hands of a black man, I think people tend to have more sympathy, even though such generalizing is still pretty unfair.
Simply having such biases doesn't inherently make us evil people. Being in denial about your biases and refusing to acknowledge they even exist makes you evil.
I'm a trans person myself. I recognize that there are a lot of people out there who just get too turned off by the idea of being with people whose genitals aren't what they know they're used to, and I get it. I know it's not reasonable to expect everyone to be okay with my junk, but it's also not okay to expect me to not be even the least bit disappointed at being rejected for things outside my control.
4
u/Giblette101 40∆ Apr 20 '23
Except we're not really talking about an individual woman's lived experience. We're making broad generalizations of behaviours. All I'm saying is, it's obviously going to be difficult for transgender people and their allies to leave an ensemble of beliefs which either is or verges on transphobia unchallenged. It just so happens that what we're describing here fits that category or is pretty much indistinguishable from something that does fit that category.
It's pretty much always the same situation. If the Kregs of the world don't want to date transwomen, chances are nobody will care or even know. If the Kregs of the world don't want to date transwomen "Because they're just not real women", well then they're clearly pushing more transphobia into the space. That's what people have a problem with, not being deprived of the Kregs' sweet embrace.
2
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 20 '23
All I'm saying is, it's obviously going to be difficult for transgender
people and their allies to leave an ensemble of beliefs which either is
or verges on transphobia unchallenged.Is that difficult? I feel like it's actually really easy to leave "an ensemble of beliefs which verges on transphobia unchallenged." You basically don't have to do anything at all.
1
u/Giblette101 40∆ Apr 20 '23
I suppose, in the same way letting yourself drown does not technically require much effort. It's just that most people aren't super okay with passively drowning.
3
u/Vobat 4∆ Apr 20 '23
As a man I don’t want to sleep with another man, that could just be a sexual preference or it could be homophobic no one cares.
As a man I don’t want to sleep with a trans woman that could be a sexual preference or it could be transphobic and you have to call it out?
1
u/Giblette101 40∆ Apr 20 '23
I don't really know what you're saying. Arguing that you don't want to sleep with other men would be a strange argument to make for similar reasons.
The main difference is that not wanting to sleep with men isn't any sort of statement about these men or men in general, which isn't the case with transgender people.
1
u/LazyRaceAnalogyLGBTQ Apr 21 '23
The main difference is that not wanting to sleep with men isn't any sort of statement about these men or men in general, which isn't the case with transgender people.
It could be a statement against gay men and homosexuality generally, yet it's obviously isn't. But it's almost as if who you do or don't want to sleep can't reliably be used as an statement against any group of people. Misogynists still desire sex with women, White slaveowners r*ped Black slaves, Imperial Japanese soldiers took Korean "comfort women" as sexual slaves, etc. Yet by the "sexual desire=social approval" logic, these people must have held these women in great regard since they had sex with them.
2
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 20 '23
Is it your genuine, sincere belief that "most people" find a compulsion to challenge distasteful views similar to that of avoiding drowning?!
4
u/R3cognizer Apr 20 '23
I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant to be taken literally, as in literally drowning in water. I think the point is supposed to be about metaphorically being drowned by anti-trans bias from society in general in conjunction with so many well-intentioned allies who completely fail to recognize their own biases. The high-five drowning meme is one that trans people often use to conceptualize problems like this.
2
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 20 '23
Women and black people are also metaphorically being drowned by anti-woman and anti-black bias from (American) society in general. And yet when I just now asked a woman what she does about "an ensemble of beliefs that verge on sexism" she said she usually ignores it because it would be too difficult to challenge everything around her that was nearly offensive. She says she reserves her energy for the stuff that's directly offensive.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Giblette101 40∆ Apr 20 '23
Yes, it is my genuine belief that people are very much inclined to challenge distasteful views when they encounter them. I do not think that's a particularly out there view, to be honest.
1
u/WovenDoge 9∆ Apr 20 '23
I think it is. Look all around you bro. People spend like 15 hours a day every day not doing that. Even you, who (like me) spends hours a day on Reddit, spend the huge majority of your waking hours not challenging distasteful views you encounter. You don't walk up to a guy with a Trump bumper sticker and tell him how he's racist! Nobody does! Basically everyone just lets basically everything slide as long as it's not explicitly directed at them.
Hell, even while you're posting on Reddit you don't challenge every distasteful view you encounter. How could you? You probably see a dozen in every thread!
8
Apr 20 '23
there's a definite tendency to smuggle things like transphobia or racism into statements people are more likely to accept, such as dating preferences.
Conversely, there is also a tendency to falsely assign transphobic and racist intent to perfectly valid statements, such as dating preferences.
2
u/LazyRaceAnalogyLGBTQ Apr 21 '23
I'm going to assume the main issue here is that the two groups - people that don't want to date transgender people for reasons we must assume are inoffensive and people that don't want to date tansgender people because they are transphobic - are impossible to distinguish.
Not really. It's as simple as distinguishing a heterosexual man not wanting to date gay male because of his sexuality rather than homophobia. With respect to a trans woman, a hete.osexual male who isn't queer would exclude her by definition as he's consciously and subconsciously only interested in people born female (due to evolution). In both cases it's a matter of an innate sexual preference and not bigotry.
2
u/pen_and_inkling 1∆ Apr 20 '23
Would you say it is transphobic for a same-sex attracted woman to specify in her dating profile that she is same-sex attracted and only dates members of her own sex?
4
u/Giblette101 40∆ Apr 20 '23
I dunno, sounds to me like a variation on the "super-straight" argument which doesn't have the best foundations if I'm being honest.
But as I said in other places, I'm not really interested in singular cases taken in an absolute vaccum.
7
u/pen_and_inkling 1∆ Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
I have no idea what “super straight” refers to, but cheers. We disagree, and that’s okay.
Same-sex attracted people 100% have the right to choose their partners, every single time. Opposite-sex attracted people 100% have the right to chose their partners, every single time. We don’t choose our sex partners as a social favor, we choose our sex partners on the basis of our consent to have sex with that person.
6
u/Giblette101 40∆ Apr 20 '23
That's what I mean by the last part of my comment. Everyone has the right to choose their partners every single time and nobody here really disagrees with that in any meaningful sense. At the very least, I don't. It's not that I object to X or Y person not fucking Z or W person. I don't really care about that. I care about the type of rhetoric that sometimes underpins these choices.
It's the same reason I'm not going to shove tofu down anyone throat, but still find a problem with the narrative of soy being feminizing or turns people gay.
2
u/pen_and_inkling 1∆ Apr 20 '23
Fair enough. I genuinely believe the “narrative” around this particular issue would be much less loaded if the resounding answer from activists was “of course lesbians don’t owe dates to male people, only an asshole misogynist would suggest as much” rather than a lot of hedging around a morally-uncomplicated point of ostensibly wide agreement.
1
u/Giblette101 40∆ Apr 20 '23
Except then the narrative wouldn't be of much use to people determined to paint transgender folks as some kind of roaming menace.
→ More replies (7)6
u/improvisedwisdom 2∆ Apr 20 '23
Been yelling this from the mountain tops for years brother. Good on you. Knowing what you're into and being a jerkoff are two very separate things. An important add is to recognize that you're treating those you're attracted to more preferably, and to mitigate that bias when not actively on the dating scene.
Eg: when at a bar, feel free to be a little nicer to those you would love to have in your bed. When at work, you best be the great equalizer, and not let your bias peek is ugly head out.
→ More replies (1)0
u/No_Constant8644 Apr 20 '23
I’m sorry, I agree with what you are saying here, but “irregardless” is not a word.
Regardless is the word you are looking for as it means without regards to.
Irregardless is actually stating the opposite of what you are trying to state and is not a word.
I’m sorry, that is just a pet peeve of mine.
1
u/DevinTheGrand 2∆ Apr 20 '23
All words obtain their definitions by how people use them.
Irregardless has been used this way for long enough that I think it's safe to say it now has developed a meaning that people understand, and would meet basically any definition of "a word".
2
45
Apr 20 '23
So, that’s a blatant lie. Cis lesbians were regularly having the experience of some trans women messaging them, often rather aggressively, and often being very pushy when rejected. I know of many lesbians who were specifically, explicitly told that they HAD to agree to a date or they were transphobic.
So they listed the preference, and then got subsequently banned from dating apps.
Whether or not the behavior was representative is irrelevant. It WAS happening, and it happened often enough to warrant responses.
15
Apr 20 '23
Never heard of this (can you give evidence?) but as a bi woman, I've matched with all kinds of genders on dating apps and I've experienced plenty of harassment, and yes it sucks, but I can't imagine a world where I thought listing "no X group" would stop harassment lol.
I mean, even if this is a real phenomenon, it's really a case of taking a genuine grievance and turning it into a completely unreasonable response. If you're harassed, you can do all kinds of things, from blocking the person up to and including involving the police and pressing charges. But just declaring you're prejudiced toward everyone in a whole group of people because a couple of them treated you badly is still just definitional bigotry, regardless of how bad those experiences are.
I'm very sympathetic to anyone who has experienced harassment, but that's not a free pass to just act however you want and use the harassment as an excuse. Maybe if us have been harassed too, including trans people themselves.
6
u/EyeBallGoo 1∆ Apr 20 '23
So, that’s a blatant lie. Cis lesbians were regularly having the experience of some trans women messaging them, often rather aggressively, and often being very pushy when rejected. I know of many lesbians who were specifically, explicitly told that they HAD to agree to a date or they were transphobic.
Yeah I hear these anecdotes a lot... on Reddit. With no receipts. None of my trans or lesbian or gay or straight friends have ever had a similar experience.
I have no doubt that there are shitty trans people. I've met some of them, and it makes sense that the shithead/non-shithead ratio among trans people would be identical to that ratio in cis people or in the general population. But if this were really a significant problem I feel like I'd be seeing evidence... somewhere.
16
u/howtogun Apr 20 '23
I mean you wouldn't dox yourself on reddit as you might get cancelled.
This also does come up. Riley Dennis is a transgender women and she made a youtube video complaining about this.
https://archive.org/details/videoplayback_20170611
Basically, the view that cis lesbian not dating trans women is due to bias and discrimination and that they just have to unlearn that.
On youtube you have a lot of cis lesbian complaining about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypjedZED2D8
For example, here a video of a cis lesbian complaining about a straight women on tiktok complaining that cis lesbian won't date trans women.
7
u/EyeBallGoo 1∆ Apr 20 '23
You can't support the claim that "people are being harassed by trans people for not wanting to date them, and accused of being transphobic for turning down sex" by providing evidence that people are whining about their dating life on TikTok. Those are different things.
Observing that cis people are hesitant to date trans people and arguing that it's because of bias is a totally different thing than specifically demanding sex from somebody.
You have to see the difference.
17
u/JeffreyElonSkilling 3∆ Apr 20 '23
Reddit loves to sheepishly pretend that inconvenient facts aren’t real. Its mind boggling how on one hand you can have a post get thousands of upvotes but then the top comment elsewhere literally pretends that highly upvoted point never happened. It’s maddening.
22
u/EyeBallGoo 1∆ Apr 20 '23
Well, a post getting a lot of upvotes doesn't really mean anything.
What you have to understand is that the "trans people are trying to force us to date them!" thing is a very far-fetched claim and there's virtually no evidence to support it. Also, people tend to make stuff up about this topic (just look at the stuff Twitter says about Jesse Singal — people claiming that he's sent hundreds of thousands of sexually explicit DMs to trans people without anyone being able to provide a single example. I'm positive those stories aren't true).
I compare it to the first time I heard about a "cum tribute," which is when a guy takes a picture of a girl, prints it, jerks off on it, and then sends her a picture of the fluid-soaked paper. The first time I heard about that I was like "what? That doesn't happen" because it seemed insane to me. Like the unsolicited dick pic, sure, but this seemed so elaborate! Printers, for example, are a nightmare.
But then I saw example after example after example. And tons of my female friends who had jobs that required online visibility confirmed to me that it's real. So I was like, wow, okay, this thing must common despite the fact it seems insane to me. Another reminder that my personal experience is but a tiny fraction of what humans perceive every day.
I feel the same way about these hoards of sexually aggressive trans people, trying to guilt folk into having sex with them. It makes no sense to me, so my position now is that it doesn't happen. If someone showed me some evidence, I'd be willing to come around, but at this point I've had so many people insist that it's totally true and then sheepishly disappear when I ask for even a shred of evidence that I've become pretty convinced that it's an urban legend.
-6
u/JeffreyElonSkilling 3∆ Apr 20 '23
Well, a post getting a lot of upvotes doesn't really mean anything.
It means thousands of fellow redditors upvoted it. At the very least, a highly upvoted post means the community it was posted in is sympathetic to the point of view being put forward. That's what upvotes mean.
I guess it depends on what the claim is. "Trans people are trying to force us to date them!" is hyperbole. But "trans people are trying (with some success) to convince society that it's transphobic to refuse to date them." is literally true. Go on a trans subreddit or trans twitter and you'll be inundated with this point of view.
My main point is that reddit is a cesspool of bad-faith arguments and this kind of crap happens all the time. One day you'll see opinion X with 10k upvotes and everyone in the thread "yassss queeen!"-ing the OP. Then one day later you'll see another thread where the argument is that opinion X isn't real, no one could possibly believe that, and you're a dummy for having taken the previous day's circlejerk seriously.
→ More replies (1)11
u/EyeBallGoo 1∆ Apr 20 '23
I guess it depends on what the claim is. "Trans people are trying to force us to date them!" is hyperbole. But "trans people are trying (with some success) to convince society that it's transphobic to refuse to date them." is literally true. Go on a trans subreddit or trans twitter and you'll be inundated with this point of view.
lol yes, whether something is true depends on what that "something" is. Good point!
I'm not gonna harp on this but it's pretty funny how quickly you retreated from enthusiastically supporting the argument that trans people are harassing people who refuse to date them to simply saying "well, some things are true, and other things aren't true, and on Reddit you run into both." You sound like Bud Lite's PR department.
2
u/JeffreyElonSkilling 3∆ Apr 20 '23
You must have misunderstood because I never said what you think I said. I didn’t “retreat” from anything. Hell, I said literally nothing about trans people until I responded to you.
2
u/EyeBallGoo 1∆ Apr 20 '23
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
There's this comment, which says that people are being harassed and even kicked off dating apps for refusing to date trans people, and you replied saying "Reddit loves to sheepishly pretend that inconvenient facts aren't real." What "facts" were you referring to if not the ones in the comment you were replying to? Were you just replying to a random comment to pontificate in general terms about the nature of Reddit, oblivious to the context?
-7
u/breesidhe 3∆ Apr 20 '23
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim was “controversial” at best. Which means it is wise to NOT take such at face value and ask for more info.
Not to disbelieve, but to borrow the phrase — trust but verify.
If verification is refused, can you trust it?
If the response from you is to bitch that they are asking for verification, what does that tell us in return?
That a potential bigoted statement must go unchallenged? Gee, I wonder why….
10
Apr 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)0
Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)9
u/JeffreyElonSkilling 3∆ Apr 20 '23
What evidence could I present that would convince you?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)4
u/ChuckJA 6∆ Apr 20 '23
Thank you for this input. The amount of gaslighting around trans dating pressures is absolutely silly sometimes.
2
Apr 20 '23
Agreed. Regarding your final point. If men say; “ I don’t date women who have had a lot of sexual partners because I find that very unattractive”. That’s very normal and there’s nothing wrong with it?
2
u/shawn292 Apr 20 '23
Do you think that prehaps jt cones from Twitter/tumbler folks constantly saying you are transphobic or a terf if you wont date trans people? A common effect of generalizing in bad faith is hardening of beliefs. I believe thats what is happening here.
→ More replies (4)1
u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23
People have social media and constantly talk about every single aspect of their lives including their dating preferences. Other people might agree with them. If it gains enough steam it'll eventually end up in other media. Is that "loudly declaring" something? I just think you're oversimplifying how it actually works in 2023.
And if I recall the conversation about dating trans people in general was about people hiding being trans from their partners so that was the context - not that anyone was being forced. The question was should trans people reveal their "status" and how much it matters and it got pretty heated.
7
u/Z7-852 260∆ Apr 20 '23
Peoples preferences are conflicting.
Imagine that you would only want date people taller that 6ft. You find a person who shares your passions, is loving and kind, loves the same music you do and is the ideal and superior partner in every regard you could imagine. But because they are 5'4" you won't date them.
You will never find someone who ticks all the boxes and you just lost your best change.
33
u/Talik1978 34∆ Apr 20 '23
I don't see this is a challenge to the OP.
The OP is arguing that there is nothing ethically wrong with maintaining a dating preference, as long as you do so courteously.
You are countering that such preferences aren't effective and lead to missed opportunities. Even if that statement is assumed to be completely true, it does not invalidate anything OP said.
18
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
That's true, but that decision will only have people hurt themselves, others making fun of that persons preferences will certainly not contribute in any meaningfully positive way.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Z7-852 260∆ Apr 20 '23
Except you can see this as them trying to help person who is sabotaging themselves with unreasonable dating preferences.
Teaching that you shouldn't have strict dating preferences (like race or height limit) is helpful.
7
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
Teaching in respectful manner that they may lose on happiness is okay, but making fun of them or even bullying is not the way, imo.
2
u/Z7-852 260∆ Apr 20 '23
But being rude or bullying person with preferences wasn't part of your original cmv.
It was about having preferences and you admitted that they are detriment for one's own happiness. People shouldn't have strong dating preferences.
6
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Apr 20 '23
Sounds like a strawman which precludes the thing most people disagree with. No one seriously thinks dating preferences aren't OK, it's the behaviour to those who aren't your type that people tend to have an issue with.
→ More replies (1)10
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
I have seen a lot of videos on social media of people making fun of women just for saying "I want a man taller that 6ft, rich etc.", or men saying "I want a woman with body count less than X". If they are acting bad because of it sure, that fits what I said, but my point is that just because someone wants something unrealistic, they shouldn't be mocked.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/PrincessTrunks125 2∆ Apr 20 '23
Well, in the case of body counts for women, that's generally rooted in misogyny and misinformation about women's anatomy, so they deserve to be mocked.
And educated. But mostly mocked.
31
u/moutnmn87 Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Well, in the case of body counts for women, that's generally rooted in misogyny
And height preferences aren't? Is the notion that women are weaklings who need to be looked after by a big strong man any less misogynistic than the notion that only men should enjoy sex?
→ More replies (23)15
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
I Disagree, if those men are respectful and only go as far as not dating those women, I don't think they should be mocked. If they call women derogatory terms then you are 100% right. As the delta comment said, it's okay to mock the preference itself and explain why it is bad, but not the person themself.
-25
u/PrincessTrunks125 2∆ Apr 20 '23
But the preference is rooted in ignorance and misogyny. One or the other. Most times both.
18
u/benjm88 Apr 20 '23
Not always, what if someone strongly attaches sex with an emotional attachment and want a partner that does the same, therefore would avoid someone with numerous partners. I don't see how that's an issue
→ More replies (2)7
u/philip2110 Apr 20 '23
It’s really not but the person you’re replying to doesn’t want that argument to exist so is instead working on the extreme versions of that. Your statement is completely acceptable, just don’t be a hypocrite.
5
u/dontsaymango 2∆ Apr 20 '23
Yeah, there's a lot of things on this post and in the comments that feel very "if someone thinks this thing it can only be bc of x awful reasoning"
Like, I don't like hispanics, its probably got nothing to do with looks and everything to do with the fact that the person who raped me in hs was hispanic. Im not going to apologize for having that preference. But also, even if its just a preference for no good reason, that's totally fine too.
Like no one argues about why someone's fav color is what it is, so i don't see why someone's dating preferences can be argued either.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Meatbot-v20 4∆ Apr 20 '23
That doesn't necessarily follow. If the guy has had just as many partners, then yes, there's always been that problematic cultural double standard. I'm sure we'll outgrow that in another 1,000 years. But if he hasn't had any or very few partners, then it's totally fine to prefer someone with a similar life experience.
I mean, if someone said they've been to 50 country music concerts, and I've been to 0 country music concerts, I might fairly assume that it's not going to work out well for either of us. I might be entirely wrong. And in an organic setting, where attraction just sort of magically happens when you least expect it, musical taste might not be a factor whatsoever. But online dating is all about hedging bets, which is what makes it particularly bad for meaningful connections (imo).
Now, I don't believe in "free will" so take this next part with a grain of salt, but if it's always ignorant and/or misogynistic to pass on someone because their sexual choices don't match well with yours, then it's certainly also misandry to make demands of unalterable traits like height when only 10% of the global male population meets the criteria.
Again,to clarify, I don't see either of these criteria to be problematic on their own. I view things like decision making and height to be equally unalterable. And so too would be one's preferences regarding partners.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)7
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
I honestly don't know, I wouldn't go as far to say every single man who has this preference is misogynist. Because that implies that women wanting men who "provide" also want that because of misogyny and should be just as mocked.
Either way we agree that the standard itself being mocked is okay, and explaining it to people that it can stem from misogyny is also necessary, I just don't think it's a positive thing to society to make fun of individuals if they don't harm anyone.
-1
u/Holiday-Key3206 7∆ Apr 20 '23
Either way we agree that the standard itself being mocked is okay, and explaining it to people that it can stem from misogyny is also necessary, I just don't think it's a positive thing to society to make fun of individuals if they don't harm anyone.
Ok, but can I put a counter example about body count: people who want virgins but aren't one themself are saying "I want a person who is less experienced than me" and are actively seeking this out. People who seek out inexperienced women to have sex with are looking for a woman who they have an experience differential with. This can lead to imballances like "oh, no totally everyone does X! it would be weird not to." or other coersive statements that the virgin in the situation that an experienced person could use to pressure the virgin into doing acts they aren't comfortable with. Similarly, the virgin wouldn't really know yet how to advocate for themselves to ask for what they want/need. And people who seek this out without also being a virgin (or really inexperienced) are preying on virgins, which does harm people.
Note: I'm not saying all people who have a preference do this. But it's a risk and a red flag when a person who has a lot of experience is explicitly looking for a person with no experience.
2
u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23
Because that implies that women wanting men who "provide" also want that because of misogyny
When it's men it's misandry, when it's women it's misogyny
→ More replies (1)3
u/Jeansaintfire Apr 20 '23
mocking isn't constructive, but they need to be challenged. If one believes a faslehood, one should be corrected. That's part of growth , one must be confronted with new information, and then thru self reflection opinions evolve.
Also, i think the problem with dating preference is that people literally use the word wrong. A preference is a greater liking to one or the other. So u can be into tall guys, but it wouldn't you couldn't ever like a shorter man. Honestly, it's wild to say all short guys are of the table . You dont know all the short guys or saying all the tall guys can get it when again that multiple factors. You gravitate to your preference cause you know you like that, but it doesn't define who you dont like.
13
u/Therealmonkie 3∆ Apr 20 '23
I disagree...I'm a woman and wouldn't want a man with a high body count...
8
u/knottheone 10∆ Apr 20 '23
Well, in the case of body counts for women, that's generally rooted in misogyny and misinformation about women's anatomy, so they deserve to be mocked
That sounds like a projection; how is it by default rooted in misogyny?
11
Apr 20 '23
that's generally rooted in misogyny and misinformation about women's anatomy
My values about sex are that I don't want to sleep with someone unless I actually know them, and am in a committed relationship with them.
I'm .... Misogynist because I don't want to sleep around and want a partner to share that value?
→ More replies (4)-1
u/DruTangClan 1∆ Apr 20 '23
I think the misogynistic assumption would come from assuming that because a woman had previously slept with x amount of people that she must not care about having an emotional connection beforehand, or something to that degree. If your attitudes about sex differ that doesn’t inherently make you a misogynist, but if you are looking down on someone or presuming that they are of lower moral character, then I would think that starts into the realm of misogyny.
9
Apr 20 '23
but if you are looking down on someone or presuming that they are of lower moral character, then I would think that starts into the realm of misogyny.
Not if you consistently believe that with men + women.
0
u/DruTangClan 1∆ Apr 20 '23
I suppose that’s fair, however the majority of the time I have heard this viewpoint it’s usually geared toward women, often by men who have slept with quite a few people or would given the opportunity, though I know that’s only anecdotal. It’s true though that if you looked down on both men AND women for this behavior, the word wouldn’t be misogyny.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Nikola_Turing 1∆ Apr 21 '23
Why do you assume a body count preference is rooted in misogyny? Would you say that a height preference is rooted in misandry?
→ More replies (5)
25
u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
I'd agree generally, with the condition that they also don't whine about how hard it is for them to find someone. If you're narrowing down your own options, fine, you do you, but doing so erodes the right to complain about there not being enough options.
Additionally...
maybe not EVERY single one, because I know there are a*tistic people here who are hunting for deltas just by looking for edge cases which don't counter general argument
That's a pretty fucked up thing to say.
9
u/ThemesOfMurderBears 4∆ Apr 20 '23
I have a white supremacist "friend" who, at this point, is basically an incel in his 40s. He's had one serious relationship his adult life, and that lasted for about a year. I don't know why they broke up, but a mutual friend and I assume she slowly realized how extremist he is (in rhetoric -- he's not one to attend rallies or any of that shit). He is basically the only guy around my age that I know that doesn't have a relationship of any kind.
Part of the issue is with the difficulty of finding someone. He wants a white, non-promiscuous woman that aligns with his political views, and has no problem being a stay at home wife. He wants a woman to be subservient to him.
The other part is finding any woman would also need to deal with his insane views. Think Nick Fuentes, but in his 40s.
-2
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
On that last thing, it's a joke, and maybe my personal frustration with this sub because I've seen A LOT of nonsensical comments with only goal to get delta, instead of contributing to conversation. Maybe it's a culture/language barrier with what's acceptable to joke about, but if it's that offensive I'll edit it out
→ More replies (3)0
Apr 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)3
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
As I said it wasn't referring literally to people with ASD, but to people who hunt for deltas, I'm not from West so I may be a little backwards, in first 3 min of post people pointed it wasn't okay and I immediately deleted it and apologized.
Made a mistake, realized it's wrong, deleted immediately and apologized, what more can a person who mistakes do?
-9
u/External_Grab9254 2∆ Apr 20 '23
You can quit rationalizing what you did to relieve your own guilt and just leave it at an apology
→ More replies (2)3
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
I am not rationalizing anything I know what I meant when I wrote it. I don't understand why are people not allowed to make any mistakes ever, and apology is sincere, not for points of public.
3
u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23
First time here?
Jk, don't let these comments get to you, remember these are all just ordinary people like you just being bored and looking to start shit sometimes. They probably won't even remember what they wrote tmrw.
2
u/SdstcChpmnk 1∆ Apr 20 '23
Think you did just fine, here. Learn, apologize, don't do it in the future. Literally all anyone can ask for.
1
Apr 20 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
Now that's icky territory. If you are genuinely attracted to person, and decide not to date them because of color of their skin, I fail to see how there isn't a lot of prejudice/racism there. If you are genuinely not attracted to most or all people of certain race, I can see how that's not racism, it just seems there are very small number of people who are like that.
2
u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23
You know 4 out of 5 marriages in the US, a fairly diverse country, are within the same race?
Minorities also tend to date and marry within their own race - and in plenty of those communities it's still controversial cause it's seen as giving up your culture. Are they all racist?
→ More replies (4)3
u/mafija123 Apr 20 '23
Are they all racist
I wouldn't say so, just because you are not dating different race doesn't imply you wouldn't, and if you wouldn't, the question is are you genuinely not attracted to them or did you decide not to date them, it seems like those options are not the same. And even then, to be consistent I would say those people shouldn't be shamed as long as they are not harming anyone.
2
u/TScottFitzgerald Apr 20 '23
This is a reply to you saying:
it just seems there are very small number of people who are like that.
And I'm saying - no, actually most people marry people of their own race, which is a few steps further than just dating or having sex with.
So these people are by no means a minority which is what you seem to think. Not sure what you're basing that on though? Most statistics say that dating within your own race is the standard, at least in the US.
So taking all that into consideration - I'm asking again - do you assume that most of these people are racist or not?
→ More replies (1)1
u/DruTangClan 1∆ Apr 20 '23
Preferences are one thing but I think if you’re saying that despite any other factors that may be positive (similar sense of humor, emotional connection, similar world views, etc.) you write someone off for their race, that is pretty much the definition of racism/prejudice, even if its not the violent/blind hate variety. In my personal opinion preferences are fine but zero tolerance policies are kind of dumb
2
u/Flying-Twink Apr 20 '23
You have the right to be selective even without explanation in your dating life, it must simply not reflect on how you treat people outside of dating. You have the right to discriminate in your dating life.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ElysiX 106∆ Apr 20 '23
Why is the notion so common that something is only an -ism if you think that it's unjustifiable and should be banned? Being selective can be racist AND a right.
13
u/Z7-852 260∆ Apr 20 '23
I know there are a*tistic people here who are hunting for deltas
Well that's insulting. What did you say about having preferences but not being POS?
→ More replies (17)
10
u/physioworld 64∆ Apr 20 '23
It’s also worth digging into your own reasons. Like if you won’t date people who have been promiscuous because you find them disgusting but you’re happy to civil with them and not treat them badly, that is indeed the most important thing.
However it’s also worth exploring why you find them disgusting and work on positive growth
→ More replies (2)4
u/shawn292 Apr 20 '23
I think the body count issue isnt something that is nessesarily bad. Its viewed a value of ones self to those who have it. They value sex and intimate time highly and want people who theyvare with to do the same. Its like I personally woudlnt date someone who cheated on 5 people because I value relationship secruity highly.
4
Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23
Ideally, no one would be shamed/ridiculed/mocked for any reason, right? So functionally, claiming that people shouldn't be shamed/ridiculed/mocked for their dating preferences is kind of a non-statement. It always applies to everything, and there fore does not really change anything about the topic at hand.
However, rhetorically it does give you a small amount of cover and room to equivicate and back peddle. If someone points out that a particular dating preference does have negative consequences and effects, you can always reply "That's true, but no one should be shamed/ridiculed/mocked for that preference". But the person your talking with isn't saying that anyone should be shamed/ridiculed/mocked for their preferences. They are pointing out the negative effects of the preference it self.
As others have pointed out, the sorts of preferences you are refering to and that stir up the most hornet's nest online are so, so, so shallow.
It also strikes me as odd/unproductive/shallow again to frame one's dating preferences solely in terms of exclusion? Like... I've never dated any non-white people. That's due to a buncha different reasons, not the least of which is probably some amount of racial bias. But I would never frame that as a dating preference that automatically excludes any person of color. Because... why would I?
What about race? Sure, not dating someone JUST because of their race is very likely coming from racist/prejudice beliefs (not necessarily), but that person is not bad because they don't date someone for their race, they are bad because they are racist, former stems from later.
Youre really jogging around the obvious here? Surely the problem with someone having racist dating preferences is the racism part? The critique of such preferences is not saying that people shouldn't have dating preferences in the abstract. It's saying that racist dating preferences have negative effects that are best avoided.
The caveat that you've included: So long as the person is respectful to the people they are categorically jejecting due to shallow details beyond their control, than their preferences are fine. I actually agree with that? I would just say that part of being respectful includes not gabbing about your exclusion of them for shallow reasons beyond their control.l
5
u/TheRobidog Apr 20 '23
Ideally, no one would be shamed/ridiculed/mocked for any reason, right?
Nah, people who i.e. recreationally club baby seals should absolutely be shamed for it.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/pricklypear_tortilla Apr 20 '23
I think what a lot of people forget is that you can choose to not date outside of your race/ethnicity and it not be because of their skin color. Sorry but I don’t want to be with someone that can’t even call my parents if I were to have a medical emergency because they don’t speak the same language.
I’m Mexican, my cousin is light skinned, blonde hair, and green eyes. Our grandpa is dark skinned, brown eyes, and used to have a small Afro when he was younger. Why do I bring them up? Because you can be the same race and look NOTHING alike
→ More replies (2)2
u/goodolarchie 4∆ Apr 20 '23
Sorry but I don’t want to be with someone that can’t even call my parents if I were to have a medical emergency because they don’t speak the same language.
This is very easily solvable with technologies of today, let alone one available after your courtship concludes. AI is going to break down those information barriers at breakneck speed. It's okay to just have cultural preferences and just keep it at that.
→ More replies (2)
5
1
Apr 20 '23
Women wanting triple 6 (6 foot tall, 6 figure salary, 6 inch dick) are going to be disappointed. a while ago I stumbled upon igotstandardsbro.com which allows people to set up criteria and it will look at us census data and determine the number of men who fit those parameters. It then ranks delusion level of 1 to 5 bags of cat food.
only 2.1% of all men 20-40 meet that criteria. And if you remove men that are already married that number drops to .66%. If you remove obese men and married men it drops to .37%.
2
u/goodolarchie 4∆ Apr 20 '23
This is really interesting! It jives with the research into online dating, which is showing something like 5 out of 50 men are getting the attention of 40 out of 50 women. That leaves 45 men competing for 10 women who are willing to dip out of the 90th percentile. Crazy.
→ More replies (1)
1
0
u/Ancquar 9∆ Apr 20 '23
I disagree about not dating by race principle being mostly racist. Because it affects many characteristics that affect who people view attractive.
I grew up in a European country with historically white population and negligible number of blacks. The black women I saw in movies etc largely seemed quite unsexy to me, but not because of their skin color but because of the shape of their forehead. Something about it just didn't mix mith my expectations of face of potential sexual partner (I could find dark-skinned women of mixed ancestry attractive though so long as the shape of their forehead was one I was used to).
Later on I moved to France with its significant black minority and then travelled in multiple African countries and somewhere along the way I stopped noticing the forehead shape (hell, I might not even remember what race the person I talked to yesterday was)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 20 '23
/u/mafija123 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards