Kinja reply list

Read More
UngratefulDeadHamilton Nolan
1/23/14 4:57pm
While I personally date women of any race (or did, I'm married now [to someone of a different race]) I also would never judge anybody for their sexual preference (so long as it is specific to consenting adults). People don't decide what they are aroused by and I don't think my white friends that only date white girls are racist any more than my straight friends that only date the opposite sex are homophobic.
Reply
- Read More
  MizJenkinsUngratefulDead
  1/23/14 7:24pm
  That is a terrible comparison.
  Reply
- Read More
  UngratefulDeadMizJenkins
  1/23/14 8:05pm
  Why? Isn't the point of the article in question that our mating preferences are at least in part and/or arguably biological? Perhaps other preferences are less immutable than gay/straight (which, to be clear I believe is both perfectly okay and something people are born with) but my point is that none of them are "choices" in the conventional sense. If somebody only finds tall people, or fat people, or black people attractive who are you or I to say that they are wrong? It seems a waste of time to get worked up over which adults other adults like to have sex with and it seems hypocritical to defend the rights of one person to have sex with the people of their choice while demonizing another group for doing the same.
  Reply
Read More
MizJenkinsHamilton Nolan
1/23/14 4:07pm
Assortative mating is the theory that makes the most sense to me, both scientifically and anecdotally. Facial phenotype seems to matter above all else because facial geometry is what humans use most to distinguish one another. Sure, we're tribal by nature (like many animals) but factors like height/weight/skin color are mutuable and thus less reliable.

The fallacy inherent in our cultural conditioning - which is a holdover from the days when international travel was limited to non-existent and most people had no experience of other races - is that facial phenotypes are exclusive to specific races. They're not. You can find the EXACT SAME FACE, geometrically speaking, across a wide range of races and ethnicities.

My favorite example is this one:

Reply
- Read More
  TheWMChoseFluffyMizJenkins
  1/23/14 4:20pm
  My anecdata would support this. I had a huge crush on a dude on the white spectrum (American Indian/Hungarian with very fair skin) until I saw a picture of both our faces side by side and realized, holy crap, I'm a total narcissist. We looked exactly alike from the neck up.
  Reply
- Read More
  DanniellaBeeMizJenkins
  1/23/14 4:21pm
  I am fascinated by this picture and the facial phenotypes info you presented.
  Reply
Read More
emmabrocker2Hamilton Nolan
1/23/14 3:57pm
Is "I only date [race] because that's in my genes" a common excuse? I've heard, "That's the only race I'm attracted to," but I feel like that acknowledges way more agency/ownership than "It's genetics, I can't control it!"

As a sidenote, I find "That's the only race I'm attracted to" to also be pretty icky. Like guys who will only date one body type, or women who will only date one height range.
Reply
- Read More
  ukirathepantheremmabrocker2
  1/23/14 4:01pm
  How is that icky? You're blaming people for having sexual preferences that don't meet a diversity quota now? I guess people who don't date the mentally handicapped are also "icky" then.
  Reply
- Read More
  Grinding My Geertzemmabrocker2
  1/23/14 4:05pm
  Icky and racist. I find racism icky. I find racist preferences without acknowledging said racism even ickier for some reason.
  Reply
Read More
ARP2Hamilton Nolan
1/23/14 4:29pm
Mutts (as in dogs) tend to have fewer health issues because the genetic weakness of a particular breed doesn't dominate. I wonder if there's any genetic/biological imperative to seek out a person that would counterbalance our own genes (e.g. light skinned person seeking out darker skinned or haired persons or vice versa) or if its limited to incest=bad.
Reply
- Read More
  VeronykahARP2
  1/23/14 5:15pm
  Please show me the scientific evidence for your assertion.
  
  Why wouldn't the genetic weakness dominate? Why couldn't 2 purebreds get together and produce an INFERIOR mutt? Genes don't only express positive attributes.
  
  http://animalfarmfoundation.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/a-c…
  Reply
- Read More
  nomadnewyorkARP2
  1/23/14 5:18pm
  Yes, similar to my own comment.
  Reply
Read More
sizor_sisterHamilton Nolan
1/23/14 3:46pm
The "preference" for a particular race probably has a lot more to do with fetishization than with biology.
Reply
- Read More
  Johnny Chunderssizor_sister
  1/23/14 3:51pm
  This is my contention. In these matters, "nature" is far outweighed by "nurture". The fact that beauty standards are constantly in flux is good evidence of this.
  Reply
- Read More
  Grinding My Geertzsizor_sister
  1/23/14 4:02pm
  This. It also has a lot to do with culture and social structure. I think the nature/nurture divide is too simplistic. Our current ideas of beauty are also influenced by class and colonialism. Franz Fanon covers the latter at length in Black Skin/White Masks. Lighter than average skin is over represented among higher classes, and those images are widely reproduced in sexualized media. I'm not trying to be a Marxist, but for the love of god why does no one talk about class?
  Reply
Read More
sui_generisHamilton Nolan
1/23/14 6:13pm
I couldn't get past the headline before blurting the only logical response:

How can there be a "biological reason for sexually preferring a certain race," when there is no biological basis for "race" in the first place?

Ask a biologist or geneticist to define any "race" but homo sapiens for you, if you want to be laughed at.

It's no accident that none of the responses above are from anyone in a position to know, and that the farther removed each respondent's field got from genetics, the worse their answer was.

(For an actual scientific debunking of any and all "racial theory," read Prof. Alland's "Race In Mind", or just about any later work from Jared Diamond, author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel".)

Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms Race in Mind: Race, IQ, and Other Racisms

Amazon.com: $16.00

Buy now 2 readers bought this

Reply
- Read More
  BrickPillowsui_generis
  1/23/14 7:11pm
  I haven't read it in a while but Diamond had some interesting stuff about sexual attraction in Why is Sex Fun.
  Reply
- Read More
  mandatorysunsui_generis
  1/23/14 7:11pm
  It's really obnoxious that here we are, in 2014, talking to each other through beams of light across thousands of miles and we still think humans can be classified into distinct and meaningful races even though science rejects that claim outright.
  
  Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., professor of biology in Arts and Sciences, has analyzed DNA from global human populations that reveal the patterns of human evolution over the past one million years. He shows that while there is plenty of genetic variation in humans, most of the variation is individual variation. While between-population variation exists, it is either too small, which is a quantitative variation, or it is not the right type of qualitative variation — it does not mark historical sublineages of humanity.
  
  Using the latest molecular biology techniques, Templeton has analyzed millions of genetic sequences found in three distinct types of human DNA and concludes that, in the scientific sense, there is no such thing as race.
  
  http://wupa.wustl.edu/record_archive…
  
  Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless." On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discrete types.
  
  http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36…
  
  Also, the first responder put "race" in quotes.
  Reply
Read More
blackintrovertHamilton Nolan
1/23/14 4:00pm
I think where you grew up plays a significant role in who you're attracted to. For the first 13 years in my life, I lived in a predominately white town, so I developed an attractive for white males. Right now, I'm attracted to guys of all races, but I guess you can say I have a soft spot for white guys, and I'm not proud to admit that because some people will put me in the same category as minority women who think white men are better than everyone else, and I am faaaar from thinking that.
Reply
- Read More
  kimchiavengerblackintrovert
  1/23/14 5:24pm
  I'm an Asian-American man brought up in a per-dominantly white east coast suburb and I prefer Asian women. How does that play into your narrative?
  Reply
- Read More
  blackintrovertkimchiavenger
  1/23/14 5:38pm
  I said it played a significant role, but I didn't say that it applied to everyone.
  Reply
Read More
yvanehtniojHamilton Nolan
1/23/14 3:53pm
The question is an interesting one. The short answer is: probably yes [it is determined by evolution] but we don't know for sure. We do know that virtually all psychological characteristics that have been studies [sic] are to some extent heritable.

Evopsych in a nutshell.
Reply
- Read More
  MelUKyvanehtnioj
  1/23/14 4:10pm
  Evolutionary psychology can very, very easily dissolve into 'Just So' stories.
  
  Some of this answer also falls into the 'Nature vs. Nurture' debate, where genes and environment both play a role, but the parents who supply the environment also supply the genes. That's why he emphasised his mono- and di-zygotic twin studies.
  Reply
- Read More
  yvanehtniojMelUK
  1/23/14 4:14pm
  He emphasized his mono- and di-zygotic twin studies without mentioning whether he controlled for the most obvious confounding variable: gender in the pairs. Evopsych is just people coming up with likely-seeming hypotheses, asking someone else if they seem likely to them, and then applauding themselves for confirming their own biases.
  Reply
Read More
N Andrew WalshHamilton Nolan
1/23/14 4:11pm
On the other hand, there is a very clear and well-known evolutionary advantage conferred by selecting for a mate with a different immunity set than yours (since the kids inherit both, and thus have a more robust immune system).

So, sorry racists. It's actually the mixed-race kids who are evolutionarily superior. Suck it.
Reply
- Read More
  sui_generisN Andrew Walsh
  1/23/14 6:27pm
  Indeed.
  
  Hybrid Vigor wins every time.
  
  sez Gregor Mendel, like a boss.
  Reply
- Read More
  CouncilOfShallowOpinionsN Andrew Walsh
  1/23/14 7:36pm
  Yep, well-mixed genes lead to fit (evolutionarily speaking) babies. It's basically nature's built-in incentive program to venture outside your village (gene pool), as it were.
  
  Human diversity: Because we couldn't fuck our cousins forever.
  Reply
Read More
Spider PorkHamilton Nolan
1/23/14 5:54pm
I don't know why, but I find a much smaller percentage of black women to be physically attractive than any other race. I can't make sense of it, it just is. I grew up with a very diverse group of friends and was often the only white dude in the room. I did get beat up by a large black girl in elementary school... Maybe that?
Reply
- Read More
  MizJenkinsSpider Pork
  1/23/14 7:52pm
  Did you grow up with a diverse group of Black friends?
  Reply
- Read More
  Spider PorkMizJenkins
  1/27/14 6:05pm
  Yeah. Always mixed, mostly black and Hispanic.
  
  Sorry for the late reply, was away for the weekend.
  Reply