|
Post by Charlie on May 21, 2017 19:53:26 GMT -5
Just poppin in for a good bit of sex=/=gender
|
|
|
Post by Reba on May 21, 2017 20:07:58 GMT -5
i apologize if i offended any gender dysphoriacs. i primarily used the word as a synonym because it sounded clunky to use the words sexist and sex in the same sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on May 21, 2017 20:18:26 GMT -5
"some people don't necessarily date people that they find attractive [some people disregard physical appearance when they decide to date someone]. in that case [because of people like that], any physical prerequisites for dating [not just race, but anything physical that anyone seeks out in someone else] could be considered shallow." so, you could argue that all physical preferences are offensive to someone in the world population, because everyone should be theoretically dateable no matter what they look like. Yeah well I think I answered that originally: I already said that "having preferences is perfectly normal", and imo everyone is shallow to some extent. I.e. it is somewhat shallow to not date someone solely because of a physical prerequisite, but I'm aware that everybody/most people do/es that to some extent, and it is ok. The moment racism comes in is when somebody refuses to date someone because of a prejudice against their character based on their race (regardless of their attraction to those same people... it's not unknown that slave owners used to sleep with their slaves, to give an example of racist people still being physically attracted to the people they antagonize). And as to my point was that, like a person's sex, there are physical characteristics that are sometimes ingrained in what makes one person attractive to someone else, rather than just being a positive quirk or kink. I can only repeat that it's ridiculous for you to claim that being attracted to only one race and/or unattracted to any race would be a sexual orientation [comparable to] homosexuality; There's no scientific basis in that whatsoever. Guess we'll have to disagree on that.
|
|
|
Post by Cafe SalMONAlla on May 21, 2017 20:18:42 GMT -5
i apologize if i offended any gender dysphoriacs. i primarily used the word as a synonym because it sounded clunky to use the words sexist and sex in the same sentence. ffs. it doesn't work that way because they aren't interchangeable. lemme guess, you're using "gender dysphoriacs" as a synonym for clunkiness reasons too?
|
|
|
Post by Cafe SalMONAlla on May 21, 2017 20:19:40 GMT -5
i don't however have much of an informed opinion on race and dating
|
|
|
Post by Reba on May 21, 2017 20:25:32 GMT -5
ffs. it doesn't work that way because they aren't interchangeable. lemme guess, you're using "gender dysphoriacs" as a synonym for clunkiness reasons too? they had been interchangeable for hundreds of years until one was arbitrarily chosen to mean something else. i said gender dysphoriacs because if i had just said transgender i would have been bombarded with other non-cis identities that i excluded.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on May 21, 2017 20:36:05 GMT -5
I.e. it is somewhat shallow to not date someone solely because of a physical prerequisite, but I'm aware that everybody/most people do/es that to some extent, and it is ok. The moment racism comes in is when somebody refuses to date someone because of a prejudice against their character based on their race (regardless of their attraction to those same people... it's not unknown that slave owners used to sleep with their slaves, to give an example of racist people still being physically attracted to the people they antagonize). of course, if someone said "i'm attracted to you but i don't want to date you because i don't trust your people" then it would be blatantly racist. there are, however, many people who do exclude certain races but would never think that way. that was probably what charlie meant. i guess i don't really think that it's possible for a person to never be attracted to anyone in a given race group, but if your attraction to one race is common enough, i think it's justified to spend the majority of your time seeking out people of that race. not that you would outwardly reject advances from other races, just that you wouldn't bother trying to find someone you were attracted to in a group that you knew wasn't your type.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on May 21, 2017 20:52:19 GMT -5
In that--considerably more loose--situation you describe, I do not think that it's racist, and very common indeed. One could argue, though, that those beauty ideals/physical preferences were shaped by a somewhat racist media, which prefers lighter skinned people; this is unfortunate, but it's still not racist on part of the people whose preferences were inadvertently shaped by those outside influences.
|
|
|
Post by Cafe SalMONAlla on May 21, 2017 21:26:13 GMT -5
they had been interchangeable for hundreds of years until one was arbitrarily chosen to mean something else. i said gender dysphoriacs because if i had just said transgender i would have been bombarded with other non-cis identities that i excluded. i don't want to throw this thread too off-topic or get into a long conversation, but that isn't much of a defence since they definitely aren't interchangeable now, and the obvious way to include all non-cis identities would be to, y'know, say "non-cis" like you did just then.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on May 21, 2017 21:49:39 GMT -5
i think you will find that sex and gender as synonyms has never come close to leaving the vernacular. otherwise, woke people would not be "correcting" such a usage so often. i didn't say non-cis originally because it's not part of my preferred lexicon.
|
|
|
Post by Reba on May 21, 2017 21:54:00 GMT -5
In that--considerably more loose--situation you describe, I do not think that it's racist, and very common indeed. One could argue, though, that those beauty ideals/physical preferences were shaped by a somewhat racist media, which prefers lighter skinned people; this is unfortunate, but it's still not racist on part of the people whose preferences were inadvertently shaped by those outside influences. well, yeah, inadvertent casual racism actually is still racist, but i think it would be hard to prove what is subconsciously adapted from racist media and what is an unrelated preference.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on May 21, 2017 21:57:04 GMT -5
Yes, it would, which is why I'd prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't, however, think it's racist per sé, to have one's physical preferences subconsciously influenced from racist media, as much as it is a part of larger problem.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 21, 2017 23:56:59 GMT -5
Ok but what about ppl being exclusively attracted to a certain racial group?
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on May 22, 2017 0:42:14 GMT -5
Yeah I feel like our discussion included that scenario. Read our exchange if you want our take on it.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 22, 2017 0:46:35 GMT -5
Oki, i thought it seemed to cover both, but lean towards duscussion of exclusion, rather than of fixation. Was wondering if u guys had any partic views on the individual scenarios.
Like, is not wanting to date anyone who is black worse than only wanting to date people who r black?
|
|