Your body-shaming and misogyny microaggressions are showing. It’s offensive and unnecessary.
You are right, sorry. If the person of color tries to persuade the white person that colored skin is attractive, and the white person refuses to change his/her opinion, that would be obstinateness. Without the attempted persuasion, as you point out, it isn’t relevant.
Just thinking out loud, don’t feel obliged to respond if you don’t want to.
I asked, or at least meant to ask, why is aesthetic preference a legitimate reason to discriminate in romance, where a team leader’s being uncomfortable working with women is not [a legitimate reason to discriminate in the workplace]?
Your response implies that I do not know why intimate relationships are a different sphere of engagement from work life (and you think it’s common sense / don’t want to explain it for me, fair enough). Hmm… you are saying the answer to that question could answer my question.
So, I think, sphere of engagement means the social context (the sphere) when people participate in some activity (of engagement). The sphere of engagement for intimate partnerships would be the social context when people participate in intimate relationships. The sphere of engagement for work life would be the social context when people participate in the workplace. Your question then becomes, why is the social context different when participating in an intimate relationship, versus the workplace?
My answer would be because people (usually) participate in intimate relationships for different reasons than they participate in the workplace. As with most voluntary actions I think people choose to participate in intimate relationships to satisfy personal desires: first and foremost being the desire for romance and/or libido, but also others such as the desire for acceptance or to have (start) a family. The desires behind participation in the workplace are generally different, in my opinion: the primary desire for working is to acquire means (money) by which to satisfy baser desires, such as for eating or to support family or social status.
The major relevant point here being that people generally do not participate in work life to directly satisfy a desire for romance or libido, yet those desires often underlie the decision to participate in intimate relationships. Therefore social context will be different at work than for an intimate relationship.
- In so far as aesthetic preferences are part of one’s desire for romance or libido, aesthetic preferences are usually highly relevant in the context of intimate relationships, therefore the social context when people are in intimate relationships will be more accepting of aesthetic preferences.
- Aesthetic preferences are not usually relevant in the context of work life (with notable exceptions such as actors and actresses). Therefore the social context when people are in the workplace is usually less accepting of aesthetic preferences.
The hidden premise in the above logic is that the social context of aesthetic preferences when engaged in an activity depends on the relevance of said preferences to the purpose of engaging in that activity. Less relevant means less acceptable - this is because I think aesthetic preferences cause harm to people who are not necessarily at fault, and I think (and I think society agrees) it is generally wrong to harm people who are not at fault. The less fault, the more wrong it is to cause harm. If the discrimination that causes harm is relevant to an activity, that’s a bit of an exception to the rule - but the less relevant discrimination is to the purposes of that activity, the less the exception applies.
I hope that makes sense to anybody reading it… I wouldn’t consider workplace discrimination against people who have tattooed their skin to be nearly as bad as a brown paper bag test.
Now to my question. Does this
people generally do not participate in work life to directly satisfy a desire for romance or libido, yet those desires often underlie the decision to participate in intimate relationships
answer this?
why is aesthetic preference a legitimate reason to discriminate in romance, where a team leader’s being uncomfortable working with women is not a legitimate reason to discriminate in the workplace?
I don’t think it does, for the same reasons given before.
- Both the person discriminating on the basis of skin color (aesthetic preference) and the person discriminating on the basis of gender will admit it is not the fault of the people being discriminated against. A person with colored skin is neither at fault for their crush’s aesthetic preferences, nor for their own skin color. A woman is neither at fault for her prospective employer’s inability to work with women, nor for her own identity as a woman.
- Both the person discriminating on the basis of skin color (aesthetic preference) and the person discriminating on the basis of gender are doing so because their preference is relevant to the activity being engaged in, at least in the extreme case. The white person may be unable to satisfy a desire for romance and/or their libido if colored skin is involved. The team leader may actually be unable to work with women, and thus unable to satisfy the desire to acquire money in that workplace.
~Max
You couldnt be more wrong. The poster was responding to a post that claimed that men will chose almost any type of women and he wrote that most men he knows are like this. This is ridiculous. Very few people have a preference for obese people. Its the reality of the world. Misogyny? Women and men have about the same preference. Gay men are even worse.
Its not just appearance that factor into dating heavier people however, the condition also affects lifestyle choices and health effects of the condition will have consequences for the relationship. Its not that people never date outside their preferences but other factors have to override them. I dont remember anyone mentioning personality or intelligence in this thread but they can override physical preference.
Sure, until it’s 2:30 in the morning and it’s last call in the bar. Then, “usual” preferences seem to disappear.
Any single guy? Sure. And not “anyone with a vagina”. Looking like a woman is a big factor. But again, none of that has to do with gender.
Also, based on “documentaries” that I’ve seen on glory holes, they don’t contain vaginas.
Well, no, when I was single I would not have had sex with just anyone. You’re taking this to pretty silly extremes.
Well, you are a rare person then. Why not? When you were single, did you ever turn down sex?
Perhaps not. Just because it was your experience or the experience your acquaintances shared with you doesn’t make it common. If you have objective data, do share.
I agree with RickJay. Sex isnt the end all be all. I need to have some kind of a connection.
That’s fair. No, I don’t have studies or anything. But do you know of any single guys that have turned down having sex? If so, why did they?
Of course. How many times in your single life did you turn down sex?
Not often but then strange women in a bar asking me for it is a very rare occurance.
Not often? Does that mean that you DID turn down sex when you were single? If so, why?
Either not in the mood or a lack of attraction/chemistry.
Well, like I said, that’s rare for single men in my experience. But did your lack of attraction have anything to do with gender (to bring it back to my point)
If I understand the question, kind of. Im not into men and I have turned that down but politely. But I would turn down anyone if it didnt feel right.
Well, my understanding is that you don’t know what gender someone is unless they tell you.
In a one on one social/sexual situation ill trust my instincts. In a conversation ill let them tell me if they choose.
I’m cool with that, because I don’t care what gender a person is.
Yes, of course. Come on, get real.