There’s actually a thread suggesting that Asian men and Black women start dating each other because Asian women are clamoring for White men and Black men are all chasing White women.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=477729&highlight=asian+black+women
First post for me here…
Is what he talking about pretty much expounding on eugenics and racial differences?
I do not find black women attractive at all, generally speaking, but I don’t buy into his ‘research’…the first reply on this thread had it right…he is setting a very very high bar to clear…
If everybody looked like the “supermodels”-would ugly be beatiful?
Because Posh looks like a praying mantis with boobs?
Well, naturally. That’s what ugly black women do. They not only laugh but really loud.
And go, “Oh no, you di’n’t!”
If you go down to the bottom of the Scientific American post already linked to by Implicit, there’s a statement from Add Health about their data and how Kanazawa used it. Here’s an excerpt:
I’m sure David Bowie doesn’t think his absolute stunner of a wife who I’d love to bone, plus she’s like 50 but looks 30 would take kind to this ‘scientific research’
Thanks, Inbred, I’ll check them out. And I do believe that genes and biology are important, of course, but I think way too much emphasis is put on them. There have been some interesting things done, yes. However, the biological determinists do tend to be awfully loud.
You might be surprised to hear this, Ryan. But for years, I have heard people arguing that Iman doesn’t “count” because it’s obvious she’s got European ancestry. Apparently everyone from East Africa isn’t really African…unless you’re talking about famine and war and stuff. Then they are African.
If black women aren’t attractive, why are there so many black people in the world? I guess we’re like gremlins and just spontaneously generate. Maybe that’s why we don’t like to get our hair wet. 
What I’ve heard is that she looks like a “white woman dipped in chocolate” or something to that effect. Oddly, since there are probably more Africans (and other non-whites) that have Iman’s features than Caucasians do, you would think we’d be describing white women who look like Iman as “black women dipped in vanilla”. The only reason we don’t do that is because we live in a Eurocentric world.
She actually would have been too African, or too British, for Kanazawa’s “study”, since the data he was using was collected in the US. Iman would also be far too old to be interviewed by Add Health, as they were dealing with kids in grades 7 through 12. For those outside the US, that’s roughly ages 12-18.
I point this out to highlight another major flaw in Kanazawa’s work. He drew conclusions about black women based on data about African-American girls, some as young as 12. The data he was using did not include black girls in Africa or other parts of the world, nor did it include adult women past high school age. His original blog post does not at any point indicate the ages of the Add Health study participants, nor does he explain that “Add Health” is the short form used for “The National Longitudinal Study of *Adolescent *Health”. He refers to the participants as “women” and “men”, but they were in fact girls and boys.
Wow. Just wow.
At age 12, I was butt-ugly, with pimples and glasses and everything. If he had used my picture from back then, my ugliness would have gone off of whatever make-believe scale he had used to measure attractiveness.
But at 33, well, let’s just say I’ve come a long way, baby. 
Yeah, that was basically my reaction too. I wouldn’t want anyone judging my level of attractiveness as an adult, much less the attractiveness of all white women, based on how I looked when I was 12!
Here’s what Kanazawa said in his original blog post about how Add Health collected their data:
The statement from Add Health that I linked to above points out that these attractiveness ratings weren’t objective at all, they were the subjective opinions of the various interviewers. It’s not clear to me that each study participant was really interviewed by three different people and not the same person three times, but either way the data Kanazawa had was based on the perceptions of a small number of people. The Add Health statement adds that Kanazawa made no effort to account for how the age, sex, race, etc., of the different interviewers might have influenced their perceptions, even though he had access to this information about the interviewers.
Incidentally, physical attractiveness was not the focus of Add Health’s work. It’s something included in their data because Add Health was interested in how well these children did in school, their friendships, etc., and “there is a long line of research evidence that indicates that perceived attractiveness is related to important health and social outcomes, including access to health care, health education and instruction, job search, promotions, academic achievement, and social success in friendship and marriage.”
The participants were actually the interviewers involved in the study who ranked how attractive they found the children. The age, race, ethnicity, education, geographic location, and life experiences of those interviewers, which would all be factors on how they subjectively judged attractiveness, were not examined at all. How you can draw conclusions from that data I have no idea.
ETA: Lamia beat me to it.
So teenagers are girls & boys? Average age for Waves I & II are 16. When did you first develop an interest in s8x? When you were aged 25?
Well of course black women are less attractive. Really, that’s why African colonialism was met with open arms – the black men were all thrilled that they could stop faking it with their repulsive female partners. Same for those Caucasian GIs in Japan, I imagine, who could save those women from their pathetic excuses for men.
No wait, that’s ridiculous. But not quite as ridiculous as asking the ludicrous (not to mention particularly informal) question ‘What accounts for the markedly lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women?,’ as he did.
I wonder if he thinks black Barbies are less attractive than white Barbies, despite their identical dimensions, because so many kids (of multiple ethnicities) opt for the latter?
I’m sure if caught some 25-year-old horndog growling at your 12-year-old daughter, you’d rejoice that she is now a woman. :rolleyes:
You do understand that average means that approximately half were below that age, right?
The interviewers who assessed attractiveness of those children were adults although their ages weren’t specified, but I doubt any of them were 16.
Something odd but potentially-related:
I’ve noticed that THE most-attractive women (to me, of course, I can’t speak for others) tend to be those of “mixed-race”, and in particular, those who are, pardon the expression, half-Black and half-White. I tend to believe (without any data) that most people are attracted towards, well, those who look like themselves; that said, and this is a wild-ass conjecture, I’ve long had a theory that people find mixed-race (again, apologies for the term, if it sounds offensive) individuals to be highly-attractive because they exhibit both “the familiar” (in terms of physical characteristics), and also demonstrate a clear lack of close-blood-relation (demonstrated by the “other” physical characteristics, present through the “parent of the other race”). At the same time, those who exhibit characteristics that superficially appear wholly-different (ie, those that we use as racial markers – black people’s curly hair, or asian people’s epicanthic folds, or white people’s body hair) tend to signify a potential mate as, perhaps, “TOO other”, and thus don’t elicit physical attraction.
Anyone else see anything in this?
unattractive according to who???