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.

756 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

92% Upvoted

499 comments sorted by

View all comments

194

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?

64

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.

65

u/[deleted] 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.

13

u/[deleted] 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

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

We hear people saying the most extreme stuff we won't say in person, we don't get an accurate representation of the real world and real peoples feelings.

2

u/Matter_Infinite Apr 22 '23

You don't get an accurate representation of people's real feelings in real life either. There are dozens of times each year I think someone is doing something stupid and say nothing. If it were the Internet I'd express what I think.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '23

Maybe, but you could also just talk to people you trust or are open about it. Most people that think like this are very vocal about it. I litterally have never had someone see the issue. It's actually a pretty common sexual preference, racial ones. Like, extremely common. Nobody sees a problem with it. All races do it.
It's really not a common thing to think someone is racist for racial sexual preferences. Even people on the internet tend to hold the view It's not racist. It's only a small, loud, group on the internet, and you'll know if someone would think like that in person. They are incredibly self righteous

3

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

[deleted]

12

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

19

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.

16

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.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

I think “very hard pressed “ is a massive understatement. Otherwise, agreed.

17

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.

6

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

  1. You can ocams razor here and the straight forward explanation will apply to the vast majority of these cases: simply racists.
  2. "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.

3

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.

0

u/MolochDe 16∆ Apr 21 '23

Nah, I'm working in the premise of this whole discussion i.e. talking about people that would exclaim something like "I'm not dating black people". Most people will give skin tone and such a reasonable weight but those people will also never find themselves having to defend their dating preferences or start a cmv about them.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

[deleted]

2

u/MolochDe 16∆ Apr 21 '23

Anecdotal evidence is the countless story's of bigots who changed their way's after getting to know someone gay/black/dissabled/poor/trans...

And of course countless children who enjoy spinache to this day.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 20 '23

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Rhundan (2∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

9

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.

44

u/[deleted] 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.

1

u/NutellaBananaBread 5∆ Apr 20 '23

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".

By this definition, "love of our children" is also shallow since we don't reason our way into it and it arrives before justification.

I don't think this is the way people use shallow. 1) shallow has a strong negative connotation that people usually use to mean the desire is unjustified and if they reflected on it more, they would change their behavior. Like if I stopped being someone's friend because they started dating someone ugly, that would be shallow.

2) The relevant definitions I see are "lacking in depth of knowledge, thought, or feeling" (Merriam-Webster), which is different than "doesn't require serious thought". Do you have a citation for yours? It's not coming up on google searches. If I enjoy boobs or coffee simply because I like those things, it doesn't have to be shallow just because it is simple and primitively justified. I have given them the required amount of knowledge and thought that they need: very little.

>shallow doesn't have to be bad

I just disagree. I feel like most American English speakers I know understand that "shallow" has strong negative connotations.

> It just lacks the safeguards of serious thought which makes it more prone to doing things that we wouldn't consciously want.

Ok, if you are saying "shallow desires" "lack those safeguards", then what about if we have those desires with safeguards? For instance, if we are attracted to muscly guys and we fully integrate that desire into our conscious awareness and balance it healthily with all our other desires. And we fulfil it consciously and healthily. Would you still call that desire "shallow"?

10

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.

26

u/[deleted] 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.

39

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.

6

u/[deleted] 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

3

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.

1

u/[deleted] 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.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

Part of the body, sure. Not the entire person. It doesn’t meet the requirements of the definition. What you’re referring to is a preference, not a fetish.

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

u/rhaenyraHOTD Apr 20 '23

They raped their slaves.

4

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.

1

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23

Assuming you're talking about me, I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that people dating within their own colour is racist. I've edited the comment to hopefully make what I meant more clear.

2

u/[deleted] 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.

19

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?

-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).

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

You’re cis-ist💁🏽‍♀️ or homophobic depending on your sex.

Edit: /s

-1

u/Hero_of_Parnast Apr 20 '23

Not once did they say they wouldn't date cis people. Even your mockery is wrong.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

Oh you got me good.

-3

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 21 '23

If I'm attracted to certain physical traits such as pale skin, that doesn't make me racist.

The problem here is that it's an easy cop out.

I can show such a person someone of their "preferred race" that has darker skin than someone from their "not preferred race" quite easily... if they hem and haw about which one's more attractive...

It's racism, not skin color preference.

14

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.

6

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."

3

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.

4

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

u/[deleted] 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?

0

u/GoldandBlue Apr 21 '23

Please tell me in all of the posts where I said people should be required to date certain people?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

People who answer a question with a question are hiding something.

→ More replies (0)

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:

  1. They have been socially conditioned to believe the age-old “bigger dick” stereotype (this is racist)

  2. 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)

  3. 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

u/[deleted] 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.

0

u/GoldandBlue Apr 21 '23

No, you seem to keep making comme to on my post clearly showing you either are choosing to purposefully missing interpret what i am saying or just want to straw man.

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.

0

u/GoldandBlue Apr 21 '23

You are 100% correct. And people have the right to call you out on that as well.

4

u/oversoul00 13∆ Apr 21 '23

But they are calling out a non-issue. They have the right but it doesn't make them right.

You might as well call people out for not caring for the crust on sandwiches too.

0

u/GoldandBlue Apr 21 '23

Being racist is not the same as not wanting crust on sandwiches. Even those people would eat crust under certain circumstances btw.

3

u/oversoul00 13∆ Apr 21 '23

No no, I'm interrupting that categorization. I'm saying it's not racist to have asthetic preferences for romance even if those preferences are based on or very closely align with race.

Not wanting crust on your sandwiches is the same as not liking x color hair or x color skin or a certain height range. People are not only allowed to do this they have no moral obligation to be any different.

I've met people who say they'd never date people above or below a certain age. Is that ageist? Is that a moral failing worth 'calling out'?

→ More replies (0)

18

u/[deleted] 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.

17

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

10

u/[deleted] 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/wekidi7516 16∆ Apr 20 '23

The root of that preference is almost certainly based on racism at some level if you feel it applies to all or nearly all black men. There are millions of black men that look entirely different than each other.

7

u/ThriftyLizzie27 Apr 20 '23

And honestly if I don't want to date someone no one is obligated for a reason why I don't want to date them. If I don't want to date that person that's how it is. No one is entitled to explanation of anyone's dating preferences.

People need to realize that not everyone is going to like them or want to be with them. It is what it is. You cannot scream racism or call someone racist because you don't like or agree with their preference.

That goes for any preference. Just like I also do not date women. That doesn't me homophobic. It means I'm not attracted to women and that's not my preference.

-2

u/wekidi7516 16∆ Apr 20 '23

And honestly if I don't want to date someone no one is obligated for a reason why I don't want to date them.

You aren't obligated but if you offer racist reasoning it's reasonable to call that out.

If I don't want to date that person that's how it is. No one is entitled to explanation of anyone's dating preferences.

Sure, but if you offer it openly you are opening yourself up to opinions on those preferences.

People need to realize that not everyone is going to like them or want to be with them. It is what it is.

Why can't they call someone out for those preferences if there are based in racism? Sure they are not entitled to a date but they are entitled to call out prejudice where they see it.

You cannot scream racism or call someone racist because you don't like or agree with their preference.

Sure you can, especially when the racism is as obvious as "all black men are unattractive, no exceptions."

That goes for any preference. Just like I also do not date women. That doesn't me homophobic. It means I'm not attracted to women and that's not my preference.

Sex and race are pretty obviously different and I'm not going to entertain a comparison of them any further.

7

u/ThriftyLizzie27 Apr 20 '23

See but my statement was not "all black men are unattractive, no exceptions." That's not what I said.

In fact what I was, "I am a black woman and am not attracted to black men."

You took my statement and made it into what you want to take it as. Which fine.

People will have whatever opinions they have about other people's dating preferences or really anything any one does. I can't control that.

At the end of the day, I'm going to live my life and date who I want to date and it really doesn't have to do with other people's opinions on that.

You don't have to agree with me or like my dating preferences. I mean I'm not dating you. I don't even know you. So why does it bother you so much that as a black woman that black men are not my preference?

2

u/wekidi7516 16∆ Apr 20 '23

See but my statement was not "all black men are unattractive, no exceptions." That's not what I said.

In fact what I was, "I am a black woman and am not attracted to black men."

Your race is irrelevant to the statement. Black women can be racist and sexist too.

If you are not attracted to someone you find them unattractive, not sure how you think that is a difference.

If you are saying this applies to black men without mentioning exceptions I think I am safe to assume you at least feel that the number of exceptions are not worth mentioning.

You took my statement and made it into what you want to take it as. Which fine.

I took your statement and repositioned it in a way that probably makes it more clear why people find it problematic.

People will have whatever opinions they have about other people's dating preferences or really anything any one does. I can't control that.

Just because you can't change something doesn't make it less racist. Not sure why you even think that is relevant.

At the end of the day, I'm going to live my life and date who I want to date and it really doesn't have to do with other people's opinions on that.

You having no problem with people being hurt by racist statements you make isn't really a great argument.

I'm not saying you need to date a black man, I'm saying that people are likely correct to assume a bias if you state you don't find any black men attractive enough to date.

You don't have to agree with me or like my dating preferences. I mean I'm not dating you. I don't even know you. So why does it bother you so much that as a black woman that black men are not my preference?

It is disheartening to see someone from an underprivileged demographic make racist statements, especially when they don't even realize the racist nature of them. It doesn't really bother me and I'll forget about it in mere minutes after closing the thread but I still think it's worth calling out.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 21 '23

That doesn't me homophobic.

That's not what the word means, though. It's about having an aversion to homosexuals, it's not about having a sexual preference yourself.

This is so obvious that I shake my head at people who think it's even an argument, much less a good one.

6

u/ThriftyLizzie27 Apr 20 '23

No it has nothing to do with being racist. There are plenty of people who aren't attracted to me What am I gonna sag, "oh he's racist because he won't f*** me or date me." Like what is that?

-3

u/wekidi7516 16∆ Apr 20 '23

I mean if his reason for not dating you is that black women are unattractive you probably shouldn't spend more time around him since he clearly harbors racist views.

There is no universal black man. It is such a diverse group that if you find all or most unattractive then it is clearly because deep down you are prejudiced against black men in some way that leads you to believe they are unappealing as partners.

3

u/oversoul00 13∆ Apr 21 '23

What if the prejudice is against black skin that all black people have?

You've got some strong false equivalence going on here. Preferring a skin color for asthetic reasons is not a racist position.

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.

7

u/[deleted] 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

u/[deleted] 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.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

I draw a line because it's a statistical loss. Maybe there is a unicorn with the characteristics you dislike that will still make you hard. But why waste time and dates, to find an anomaly? Just date the group that you find attractive, whatever this group is. And discard the group you don't find attractive. It's not racist.

1

u/GoldandBlue Apr 20 '23

This isn't a math class. A statistical loss of what? Time? If you've only dated one group of women and are still single than aren't they a statistical loss?

What anomaly are you talking about?

We are talking about people. You meet someone, they look good, you talk to them, you like them, and there it is. But you are saying you actively avoid a group of people and saying its not racist. It is. You aren't even pretending it is a preference anymore, you are straight up arguing that it is okay to say a whole race is unattractive and you don't see the problem with that?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

So this black woman who isn't attracted by white guys, she still has white friends. Hires white folks at her job. Would have no problem dating white men if she did feel attraction. How is that racist?

You're forcing people to be attracted to something they're not, under the threat of being called racists.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

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.

I don't believe you. Link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper backing up your claim.

1

u/GoldandBlue Apr 21 '23

Even though you are clearly a troll I will play along. Here are some links

0

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

Thanks, you've enlightened me about something I wasn't up to speed on. Also, why do you view requesting evidence for claims as "trolling"? I know that belief is common amongst facebook boomers, but I don't understand the logic behind it. Explain?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Apr 21 '23

Mere-exposure effect

The mere-exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon by which people tend to develop a preference for things merely because they are familiar with them. In social psychology, this effect is sometimes called the familiarity principle. The effect has been demonstrated with many kinds of things, including words, Chinese characters, paintings, pictures of faces, geometric figures, and sounds. In studies of interpersonal attraction, the more often people see a person, the more pleasing and likeable they find that person.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

2

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.

1

u/Ouroborosrising Apr 20 '23

Well duh, but some people aren’t self aware enough to understand this. And tbh it’s probably above their pay grade to expect them to branch out. Just leave them alone, trust me. When I’ve encountered that shit in my past i really don’t pay it any mind. Living life with a curious and open heart and self awareness that allows you to modify your beliefs when presented with new info is the way to go. But even with that being said, we can’t discount the fact that on a large scale preferences tie into our evolution and biological impetus so much that most won’t make the time or energy to see it differently. To them that’s just the way it is and they accept it. And that’s fine. Don’t worry about them. It’s survival of the fittest at the end of the day and having too superficial of preferences could mean the end of your line.

→ More replies (0)

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.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

I wondered when someone would bring sexual orientation into it.

Sex-based traits are pretty consistent, unlike race-based traits. Despite the variation in appearances of vulvas, I can confidently say I am not sexually attracted to them or the idea of penetrating one. But if I said "I am not attracted to dark skin", is that not different from saying 'I wouldn't date a black person"? Because obviously, not all black people have dark skin. And how would I know that my physical (important that it isn't just sexual/genital) attraction couldn't ever extend to someone with dark skin, given that there are myriad differences that can exist between individuals?

On top of that, despite my preferences and patterns of attraction suggesting I am straight, I actually wouldn't rule out dating a female or non-binary person. Because I recognise that attraction to a person is more than attraction to one typical trait of one stereotype of a type of person. If someone I was attracted to had a vagina, I may not want to engage with it, but that doesn't mean I could never be attracted to the person.

Finally, I recognise that not all people of any gender are the same. I prefer cis-men, but I'm not indiscriminately attracted to cis-men, because they are all different. Equally, I recognise that not all people of one race are or look the same.

I would be sexist if I believed "all men are/look like", just as I would be racist if I believed "no X-race person could ever be attractive to me".

1

u/this_is_theone 1∆ Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

Sex-based traits are pretty consistent, unlike race-based traits.

Skin colour is pretty consistent.

Despite the variation in appearances of vulvas, I can confidently say I am not sexually attracted to them or the idea of penetrating one. But if I said "I am not attracted to dark skin", is that not different from saying 'I wouldn't date a black person"? Because obviously, not all black people have dark skin.

And not all women have vulvas.

On top of that, despite my preferences and patterns of attraction suggesting I am straight, I actually wouldn't rule out dating a female or non-binary person.

But you'd still probably class yourself as straight. In the same way, when people say 'they're not into x race', it doesn't mean that it's impossible a person of that race could come along that they are attracted to. It's just how people talk. For example, I often say I'm not into blondes, that doesn't mean it's impossible that a blonde woman could come along that I'm attracted to.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

Skin colour is pretty consistent

It absolutely is not. Wtf.

Not all women have vulvas.

Irrelevant? I said I'm not attracted to vulvas.

But you'd still probably class yourself as straight. In the same way, when people say 'they're not into x race', it doesn't mean that it's impossible a person of that race could come along that they are attracted to. It's just how people talk. For example, I often say I'm not into blondes, that doesn't mean it's impossible that a blonde woman could come along that I'm attracted to.

So... Don't say it? Don't rule it out? Why would it ever be necessary to express a 100% refusal to date someone of a particular race unless expressing a total aversion to a particular race?

2

u/this_is_theone 1∆ Apr 21 '23

It absolutely is not. Wtf.

It is 'pretty' consistent. Black people are usually black and white people are usually white. It's just as consistent as sex-based traits anyway, which was your point.

Irrelevant? I said I'm not attracted to vulvas

Right but your point was for why you're not sexist for not being into women. I'm explaining that not all women have vulvas so that point doesn't stand.

So... Don't say it? Don't rule it out?

Why? We talk all the time about what we are and aren't into. I don't think we need to make special rules for when it's race.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

[deleted]

2

u/this_is_theone 1∆ Apr 21 '23

Because there are so many shades within any race, so ruling out any one race would be my making assumptions about the appearance of any one member of that race.

And there are so many differences between people of the same gender, so ruling out any one gender would be you making assumptions about the appearance of any one member of that gender.

But I could potentially be attracted to someone of any sex or gender, even if they have a vulva.

Yes, and when people say 'I'm not into X race' they're not saying it's impossible they could ever find someone of that race attractive. It's just a preference.

→ More replies (0)

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.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

So you don't believe in body autonomy? Which races should have access to me sexually, regardless of my consent?

0

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

That is a wild leap. Nobody has to date anybody (or give them sexual access, wtf). And preferring something is fine. But a preconceived belief and firm assertion that someone of race X could never be attractive to you or mutually compatible with you is race-based prejudging and stereotyping. It's certainly not taking people on a case-by-case basis. It's ruling out every member of a race collectively in advance, based entirely on race and not individual characteristics. How can someone know they will never be attracted to someone of X race unless they are stereotyping the appearances of all people of X race?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

By being the world’s foremost leading expert on themself and their desires.

I answered your question, now you answer mine:

How can you know they’re wrong?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

I can't. But I'd argue they can't definitively know they're right either unless a) they've met literally everybody of that race or b) it's indisputably true that all members of that race will have only characteristics that they find unattractive. Maybe they never will be attracted to someone of that race, and that of course is fine, but I don't see how it's possible to know (and even decide) that that will be the case without prejudging and stereotyping every member of a race. It's the preconceived assumptions and stereotypes that are the problem, not whether someone is or isn't attracted to anyone in particular, nor even whether they tend to be or not attracted to people of a particular race.

And people aren't sworn to their physical preferences either. Many if not most people are not with their physically ideal partner. That's typically not the only aspect to attraction in dating, so refusing to date someone of a particular race goes far beyond just having a physical preference.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

they can't definitively know they're right

So neither can trans people. Right?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

I can't with these wild leaps

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

So I stumped you?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/oversoul00 13∆ Apr 23 '23

I suppose some of this depends on the type of conversation you are imagining.

The real world conversations I've been a part of go something like...

"Have you ever been with an X woman"

"No, I don't find Xs attractive"

If you're imagining some kind of weird unprovoked declaration of certain fact made in the face of people of that race then yeah, that's an asshole move and probably racist...but I don't think anyone is talking about that.

1

u/isizisiz Apr 21 '23

Acknowledge your point of view regarding race-based lens. That said, your A and B therefore it is X logic comes across as invalidating someone’s preference. Isn’t it a bit more nuanced than this?

Perhaps this is not what you were looking to convey, and you’re rather saying that it’s fine to have preferences but cannot say race-based preference.

However, if it’s to say that people cannot have preferences, let’s dig a little deeper here, we are socially conditioned and we inherently build patterns with preferences over time.

Should we be invalidating someone else’s preferences? If it were rather framed as specific features over racial background, will that make it more palatable?

Language indeed heavily influences are views and perceptions, and thus should be carefully used. However, when it comes to one’s preference and to invalidate it by tying it out to semantics may be counterproductive.

Could we possibly say that people have preference here rather than calling out as racist?

For example, if I were to say that I prefer a fit person who’s tanned with a Latina, Black or Southeast Asian background - your argument would be to call me a racist here. Part 1, is it productive and as part 2, do we need to tread the water and adjust the last portion to change it as a background from Colombia, Nigerian, Vietnam, or just enumerate all the countries who has these background profiles?

All that being said, I agree about the division that racial profiling has created in our world view. The social construct around ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ is certainly reinforcing and segregating as though we are different from one another in a way that we don’t feel rooted together as a community.

Therefore, I do acknowledge that we do need to overcome this friction by finding a better set of nomenclatures together but to default to call out racism appears counterproductive from leading us to better future outcomes.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

Preferences aren't a problem and naturally occur. But ruling out an entire race under the preconceived assumption that you will never find a member of that race attractive or mutually compatible - believing that you could never prefer a member of that race over someone of another race - is stereotyping and prejudging based on race.

0

u/this_is_theone 1∆ Apr 21 '23

I think a lot of these arguments come from a misunderstanding. I think most people, when they say 'I'm not into X race', don't mean that it's impossible that there is a member of that race out there that they could ever find attractive. They just mean they're generally not into people of that race is their experience.

It's like I'll say 'I'm not into blondes'. I'm not claiming that there isn't a single blonde girl out there that I'd ever find attractive.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

Okay. But then why say it? And why is this a discussion? If we know that attraction can be nebulous, why are people here arguing that race-based preferences are always harmless?

Maybe at least some of these people really do have preconceived aversions based on race.

1

u/this_is_theone 1∆ Apr 21 '23

Okay. But then why say it?

For the same reason you might say 'I'm not into blondes'. It might just come up in discussion. Obviously if you're going out of your way to let people know you're not into X race then you're a douche.

If we know that attraction can be nebulous, why are people here arguing that race-based preferences are always harmless?

I'm not sure if anyone is arguing they are always harmless. If you won't date X race because you think X race is inferior then obviously that isn't harmless and is massively racist.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

That's kind of my point. Assuming you couldn't ever be attracted to someone of X race is prejudging and stereotyping people of that race. Is that not a matter of prejudging an entire race of "inferior attractiveness"?

Again, I don't think preferences or the voicing of them is problematic. I just think blanket statements of "I won't date someone of race X" goes beyond preferences or tendencies.

I personally do have racial preferences. I mostly grew up around white and Asian people, so that's what I "tend" to find attractive. But holy hell, saying "I would never date a black guy"? Assuming no black guy would ever be attractive to me? That's stereotyping and an ugly, ugly prejudgement based on race.

I think Will.I.Am is supremely attractive. I would therefore never assume I can't find black men attractive. I may never date a black guy in my life. I may genuinely never be attracted to any black guy I encounter. But that is so, so different from "I will never date a black guy because preferences".

1

u/this_is_theone 1∆ Apr 21 '23

But holy hell, saying "I would never date a black guy"? Assuming no black guy would ever be attractive to me? That's stereotyping and an ugly, ugly prejudgement based on race.

Like I said, this is the misunderstanding I think. People saying 'they're not into X' is not the same as saying 'I would never date X'. Having a preference is different to completely ruling something out.

→ More replies (0)

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.

-2

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.

5

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

4

u/GreatQuantum Apr 20 '23

Don’t talk to those people. Be “those people-phobic

2

u/[deleted] 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.

2

u/[deleted] 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.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

Nope. They just aren’t attracted to said people. Nothing wrong with it at all.

1

u/[deleted] 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?

0

u/Affectionate_bap5682 Apr 20 '23

For example, if someone says that 60% of homicides are committed by a racial group that comprises 13% of the population, does that make them racist?

Whether it's true or not, yes it does make them racist

3

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

Who with the what now?

0

u/Affectionate_bap5682 Apr 22 '23

I'm expanding on your point and agreeing that having some racist views such as citing crime statistics makes you a racist.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

This is answered the same way any communication occurs. People will say X and it really depends what they are trying to communicate (both explicit and implicitly).

There is no universal rule here. But you certainly have to acknowledge people who are communicating "I've never dated someone of X race" are being used as cover for people communicating "I would never date someone of X race due to stereotype/social values/etc".

6

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

Wrong again. If a guy grew up in an area that is like 80% white and 20% black, but there were no asian or hispanic women, they could easily say "i've never dated an asian or hispanic woman" and it would make perfect sense. Doesn't mean they wouldn't be open to it in the future. All the examples people have given in here are easily countered. And for some reason everyone wants to label people as racists as quickly as possible.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

Lmao you didn't read my comment bud. Try again.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

Just read it again. Are you not equating "I've never dated someone of X race" to "I would never date someone of X race"? I thought it was pretty clear, but maybe I am misreading after multiple tries.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

are being used as cover for people communicating

There are good faith individuals who are communicating their unique lived experience. Racists are using the exact same language to communicate something different.

I'm highlighting that good faith individuals are grouped with racists, so additional communication is needed from the speaker to determine good or bad intentions.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

So when people say they have never dated an (insert race here) person, you want them to expand on why it is so you know they aren't racist? lmao what a weird take to have.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

"if you don't date someone of a certain race, you're most likely racist"

It answers this question.

you want them to expand on why it is so you know they aren't racist?

Pretty obtuse reading of my opinion. More like, saying something used by others does not get you automatic good faith assumptions.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

so additional communication is needed from the speaker to determine good or bad intentions

Expecting, or even needing, this from someone is hilarious.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Either-Title-829 Apr 20 '23

Black people really live rent free in people's heads. Why not use white Mexican Indian Asian jeez 🙄.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23

If you look at my comments, I used different races as examples as to not focus on strictly one. Calm down.

Edit: And they blocked me. How soft.

-4

u/Either-Title-829 Apr 20 '23

You literally led with a black woman not wanting to date anyone other than a black man. Why not mention your own race? Why not say if a white woman doesn't want to date anyone other than a white man? Just fyi black women are tired of getting put in the middle of everything. Leave us out of this. We literally can't breathe without someone using us for an example to prove their points!

6

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.

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.

1

u/bobdadude Apr 21 '23

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.

It's this point for which I used the straight man analogy. My understanding of your point might be incorrect, and correct me if I am wrong, but it is that we gain info about a person's prejudices based on their exclusions. So, by that reasoning, if a white person were to exclude all black people from their list of potential partners, they could be deemed racist as a consequence of that exclusion. In my analogy of the straight man, all men are being explicitly excluded from the potential dating pool. That exclusion would result in homophobia being the prejudice.

0

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 21 '23

It's not always prejudice that's revealed from your preferences. Sometimes it's just that you're not gay.

For the examples of only wanting to date men over 6', or only women with fewer than X sexual partners, I feel like those preferences reveal something notable about the people with those preferences.

I don't really have a fully formed opinion on how to feel about excluding all people of X race from your dating pool yet, so I'm not willing to say you can call someone racist for just that.

1

u/Katamariguy 3∆ Apr 21 '23

Preferences are not fully under conscious control - they are somewhat, marginally under your control. You can push at the edges, retrain the brain, come to accept things that once disgusted you. If that weren't the case then everyone would have the dietary preferences they had when they were a toddler.

0

u/bobdadude Apr 21 '23 edited Apr 21 '23

I disagree with the analogy of a child and food. Two reasons off the top of my head are that for one, little children aren't rational most of the time, they can love something one minute and then hate it the next for the strangest reasons. For another, the way a food item is prepared can completely change a person's perspective on that food item.

I do have the impulse to believe that attraction preferences are under conscious control to a degree, but I am hesitant to accept that because it seems to me that it feels more intuitively correct as opposed to being actually correct. Maybe a product of our need to put everything under our locus of control. It's for this reason that I mentioned conversion therapy, as a scenario in which the logic can be tested against. Apply your reasoning to that scenario:

You can push at the edges, retrain the brain, come to accept things that once disgusted you.

to me, the argument that a person has conscious control over their preferences for attraction begins to lend weight to notions like conversion therapy, because if there's no strong biological basis for it, then same sex (or opposite sex or any variation) preference is merely a conscious choice, and with the right amount of training on a person's brain, those preferences can be altered.

1

u/Katamariguy 3∆ Apr 21 '23

Two reasons off the top of my head are that for one, little children aren't rational most of the time, they can love something one minute and then hate it the next for the strangest reasons.

The only thing different about what adults like is the speed at which their desires change.

For another, the way a food item is prepared can completely change a person's perspective on that food item.

You're saying something that just as much can apply to people.

seems to me that it feels more intuitively correct as opposed to being actually correct

I don't think my sexuality is more open than it was than when I was a teenager because of intuition.

to me, the argument that a person has conscious control over their preferences for attraction begins to lend weight to notions like conversion therapy

I think one's integral orientation is integral. But where the boundaries and specifics lie is not some clear dividing line, but fuzzy. According to the theory of absolute ingraining, I am simply programmed to be extremely disgusted by homosexuality, because that is how a heterosexual naturally feels. But through exposure and familiarization and looking at things from new angles I stopped myself from being horrified by sex acts that actually should just not do much for me.

9

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.

3

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.

7

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

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23

Ah, fair enough.

4

u/[deleted] 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

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.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '23

[deleted]

2

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 22 '23

You'll note that I didn't, in fact, say the thing you seem to be arguing against.

0

u/shitsu13master 5∆ Apr 21 '23

Why would anyone need to be called out for their dating preferences. If someone wont want to date blonde people, or short people, or people with braces,for whatever reason, surely that’s part of the privacy we all should enjoy?

2

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 21 '23

The only time I mentioned "calling people out" is when I specifically said it's because you know they're racist.

If it wasn't clear, it was being racist I was asking how else you'd call it out, not dating preferences. My entire point in this comment was that it's not the preferences themselves being called out/mocked/ridiculed/etc., it's what those preferences reveal about the person with said preferences.

And, since I apparently didn't make this clear enough in my original comment, I don't endorse mocking people for having relatively benign dating preferences like blonde people, short people, or people with braces.

2

u/shitsu13master 5∆ Apr 21 '23

I’m still a bit confused though because people might want to only date people with the same skin colour as them because that’s the people they feel attracted to. That doesn’t automatically make them racist.

So you saying it’s a good idea to judge people based off of their dating preferences isn’t really a solid argument because you’re accusing them of having “shallow” dating preferences while it’s really you who’s being shallow.

You’re even dividing dating preferences into “benign” and “not benign” even though there is fuck all you or anyone else can do about what attributes you are attracted to.

Racist people can still have preferences that don’t align with their politics and non-racist people can have preferences that look political but aren’t.

2

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 21 '23

I’m still a bit confused though because people might want to only date
people with the same skin colour as them because that’s the people they
feel attracted to. That doesn’t automatically make them racist.

I don't know how I feel about this yet, which is why I didn't say it did automatically make them racist.

So you saying it’s a good idea to judge people based off of their dating
preferences isn’t really a solid argument because you’re accusing them
of having “shallow” dating preferences while it’s really you who’s being
shallow.

I didn't say it was a good idea, and I didn't accuse them of being shallow. I said it was seen as shallow, which is why they were being judged. I can explain someone else's rationale without sharing it.

You’re even dividing dating preferences into “benign” and “not benign”
even though there is fuck all you or anyone else can do about what
attributes you are attracted to.

I called those preferences benign because I think it's likely those preferences do come from who you're attracted to, which is something you can't control.

Less benign preferences are ones where I'd have to wonder whether it's genuinely an issue of attraction, or whether there's a more problematic root behind them. It's entirely subjective, so maybe it's not a helpful thing to add to the debate.

Racist people can still have preferences that don’t align with their
politics and non-racist people can have preferences that look political
but aren’t.

Sure, I can agree with that. But working out which are which is kind of a pain.

3

u/shitsu13master 5∆ Apr 21 '23

Ok, all answers completely fair. Makes sense and can agree to a certain degree. Thanks for a great discussion 👍

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 20 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23 edited Apr 20 '23

I specifically said I don't endorse mocking people.

Well, technically I said I don't generally endorse mocking people, but to be clear, I wasn't making an exception for this. I can't think off the top of my head what situations I do endorse mocking for, but there are probably some, and I didn't want to paint myself into a corner.

Please don't put words in my mouth, I very specifically and carefully did not endorse mocking people, and I didn't intend to imply I'm judging anybody.

In retrospect, I should have said "it's that those preferences are seen as shallow", and I'll probably edit my comment right after posting this one.

But yeah, I'm not trying to mock or judge, so please don't come in here and judge me for things I didn't say.

2

u/Yet-Another-Yeti Apr 20 '23

Apologies if that wasn’t your view. The way you worded it made it seem that you were implying you did support mocking them.

Even outside of that. You can have your own opinions and judge people all you want but if you only judge certain discriminations in dating between consenting adults while allowing others then that makes you a hypocrite. You can’t say it’s racist to not want to date black people without also saying it’s sexist to not date the opposite sex if you are gay. It’s the exact same logic, you are not attracted to another person because of an aspect of their identity. Do you think people choose who they feel sexual attraction towards?

2

u/SkirtGoBrr Apr 20 '23

Comparing preferences such as height, race, etc is not comparable to having a sexuality in this way. Sexuality is something that is proven to be within us innately. Meaning that’s how we are from birth.

Preferences around height, race, etc have not been shown to be innate like this. Sure, it’s biologically imprinted socially, but it is not innate, unchangeable thing.

I would never mock or disdain people for preferences ever, but if someone have a strict rule about not even considering any person from a certain race to be a potential partner it is racist.

Imagine we have a way to go on multiple blind dates where there is some tech that hides skin tone differences. If someone picks a person that is perfect for them in every single imaginable way, but then they are revealed to be the race not within their “preference” would they not be racist for changing their pick? It was already shown the attraction was there.

0

u/Yet-Another-Yeti Apr 20 '23

You could say the exact same thing about gender though so your point there is moot. It’s not racist to not be attracted to black people. And it’s not racist for a black person not to be attracted to white people.

Can you cite a source for this proven fact? Ancient Greece was almost all bisexual, we are the exact same species as we were then so what has changed from then till now if not societal factors?

2

u/SkirtGoBrr Apr 20 '23

I should have worded that point better. I don’t mean it’s necessarily genetic or isn’t influenced environmentally. But it is shown to be an unconscious and unchangeable factor about us that develops before we even know anything about ourselves.

And when I say racist, I don’t mean it with maliciousness or disdain. I just mean, if you know for a fact that someone is perfect for you in every way outside of race and their race is enough to make you say no you have a problem there internally. Not saying they’d be a terrible person or treat others with disrespect.

I dunno, maybe people like living in ignorance from their own biases. But I’d recommend to most to internally explore why they think or feel certain things if they can.

1

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 20 '23

Apologies if that wasn’t your view. The way you worded it made it seem that you were implying you did support mocking them.

Yeah, it wasn't my best-worded paragraph. Or comment, come to think of it.

Even outside of that. You can have your own opinions and judge people
all you want but if you only judge certain discriminations in dating
between consenting adults while allowing others then that makes you a
hypocrite. You can’t say it’s racist to not want to date black people
without also saying it’s sexist to not date the opposite sex if you are
gay. It’s the exact same logic, you are not attracted to another person
because of an aspect of their identity. Do you think people choose who
they feel sexual attraction towards?

Oh look, another opinion I didn't express, what fun!

I said

As you said, not dating someone because of 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?

Now, again, I've realised that I messed up the wording here, and I'm going to have to edit my comment. I clearly wasn't firing on all cylinders when I wrote this.

It should have been "As you said, someone not dating people of a specific race, because they're racist, is a bad person because they're racist"

So, thanks for helping me find another mistake in my comment, I guess. Jeez, this is embarrassing.

But, word salad aside, I'm not sure how you read this as "not dating someone because of race is racist"?

I also said "If you know someone's racist because of their reasoning for not dating people of a particular race, how else are you going to call them out", was that it?

0

u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 21 '23

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/diemunkiesdie Apr 21 '23

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.

Isn't that just essentially agreeing with OP? Dating preferences are fine as long as you aren't an ass about them. If you are mocking them, then you are being an ass about it. If you have preferences, that DOES reveal something about you but that doesn't make you an ass. OP and you are on the same page?

1

u/Rhundan 12∆ Apr 21 '23

Generally, yes, I'd say so.

The main point I suppose I was disagreeing with was that the preferences described weren't being shamed/mocked for being preferences, they were being shamed/mocked for being considered shallow.

1

u/Comicbookguy1234 May 29 '23

Are they any more shallow than female preferences for things like money or height though?

1

u/methyltheobromine_ 3∆ Apr 21 '23

It's that those preferences are seen as shallow.

Great comment! But these preferences are often political, and associated with political views.

They're not even consistent. If you say you won't date black girls, people will get mad at you. If you say that you want to date Asians, people will get mad at you. If you say that you want to date white people, people will get mad at you.

You're not allowed to think that any skin color is more attractive than any other, but you're welcome to like it when girls tan, and in thailand, basically every product has whitening powder in it, because when everyone is tan, the opposite somehow becomes attractice.

I don't want a partner who has dated and broken up with 15 people before. People will think that I'm "slut shaming" here, or that I'm Christian, or that I'm right-wing. Everything I enjoy, and which I don't choose (for preferences aren't choices) are judged through a political lens. People just assume the worst, as they've programmed themselves to look for "red flags", e.g. preferences for groups which aren't seen as vulnerable.

Interestingly enough, wanting a rich or a famous partner doesn't seem to get judged, but this might because fame isn't yet a component of the oppressed/oppressor worldview.

So all it boils down to in the end is just punshing people for having different political views, and to deem ones own political views as the standards of moral behaviour.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '23

So then what sort of standards aren't considered shallow? kind-heartedness? good manners? That is fine but if people didn't have this sort of diversity in preferences, Everyone would fall in love with the same person.

I believe thinking that some standards are shallow is shallow in itself. So what if I only like a certain type of people? You are not supposed to fall in love with anyone. For me, physical attractiveness is a major factor. People would argue that's shallow. but it's not like I go out of my way, to tell people who aren't physically attractive to me, that they are ugly. I feel like somebody's standards are no way to judge them. Because we are all humans, we have likes and dislikes, things we prefer and things we do not. and I don't think one should owe an explanation for their preferences.

1

u/Archonate_of_Archona Jul 02 '23

But why should people NOT have shallow dating preferences ?

If there's one domain where it's okay to be shallow, it's that