I don’t think this is tricky at all. There has to be some physical attraction for a romance to work. You can’t help what physically attracts you.
Not dating a certain class bc you think they are beneath you is bigotry.
But not dating a class bc they posses some physical trait that turns you off is NOT bigotry.
How so? Most men and women are heterosexual. That applies to all cultures from all time periods. It’s an innate characteristic of most humans. It’s no different than a fear of heights or a preference for sweet foods and aversion to bitter flavors. Most humans are born that way. Preference for a particular skin tone doesn’t have a similar innate biological basis.
ETA. To be clear, not being in the majority in these particular situations is not pathological. Being not heterosexual isn’t a pathology, just like not having a fear of heights and preferring bitter over sweet are also not pathological.
I think it’s clear in that case that the “preference” is not actually for Latin women, but for traits you (erroneously) associate exclusively with Latin women. The stereotype in that case would be bigoted, in my opinion.
~Max
I was describing an unconscious bias (finding men sexually unattractive) as something not based on any amount of reasoning. Acculturation - a new word for me - would be how I acquired that bias, but I was not there describing acculturation.
~Max
That isn’t acquired culturally. It’s an innate biological bias of most humans.
It may also be for the cultural meaning you associate with a group. Like, your racist attitudes toward a group may mean that when you find put someone is in that group, you cease to be attracted.
We’re all bigots of one kind or another.
A preference for chicken (or arugula) harms the beef industry, but generally isn’t something to get worked up over.
What else could it be but cultural? If sexual attractions are acquired and not innate or genetic. The culture I and my sister grew up in is largely heterosexual.
~Max
This is my gut feeling. But I have trouble justifying it.
Not being able to help one’s racism or sexism doesn’t make them any less of a bigot.
~Max
That’s because most people are innately wired to be heterosexual. Let’s consider some more extremely obvious example. When you’re hungry your preference is to eat food. When you’re thirsty you’re preference is to drink water. Those are also innate characteristic, not something you were taught. It just so happens that being heterosexual isn’t necessary for survival (as an individual) like the drive for eating food or drinking water. That allows for some variation that doesn’t affect survival. It doesn’t mean sexual orientation isn’t innate.
Preference for a particular skin tone is different from a preference for a skin tone that matches one’s own. It’s hard to imagine a biological basis for the former, but the latter could be common across all people. People tend to date others of a similar height, too (though maybe there are practical reasons for that).
Is that true?
~Max
I’ve never heard of a culture where this isn’t the case. If one had existed, we probably wouldn’t know about, as they would have likely stopped being minority heterosexual after one or two generations or they would have died out due to not having enough babies to maintain the culture.
I understand that the discomfort of hunger and thirst are innate. But, and I’m not well versed on this, isn’t knowledge of food and drink learned knowledge?
Babies don’t know how to ask for milk, they have a physical reflex to suck when the nipple touches them. I would think the association between milk and saturation is learned.
~Max
Well if we’re going to call someone a bigot over their physical desires, than the only way NOT to be a bigot is to not pursue romantic relationships at all, unless you find yourself attracted to ALL genders and races.
That doesn’t sound reasonable to me. And maybe we should refine how we define bigotry.
Okay, yes that makes sense.
To go back to your first point, where you suggested the litmus test for bigotry could be whether changing information affects whether I am sexually attracted.
If I am attracted to a woman I think is Latina, and later find out she is of African descent, and therefore am no longer attracted to her, that is bigotry. (your example, agreeable)
If I ask a matchmaker to match me with women who have tan skin, and am attracted to one such match, then after some months of relationship her tan wears away and I no longer find her skin color attractive…
Is that bigotry? (I mean I would have real problems if I broke up with someone because her tan wears away in winter months.)
~Max
It may help to consider secondary sexual characteristics that aren’t associated with race, but which have been considered more or less sexually desirable by different cultures. Breast size (large or small), penis size (again large or small), being fat or skinny, curly or straight hair, these are things where attraction is a complex matter. Even in societies where one end of the spectrum is preferred, there are individuals who are attracted to partners at the other end of the spectrum. Where, for example, did the man who prefers women with small breasts learn that if society teaches him that larger breasts are preferable? It’s hard to say. Whether skin color might be such a thing is impossible to separate out in our society. My guess is that it would likely matter a lot less in a society where such matters weren’t so culturally ingrained.
It doesn’t follow, a bisexual or other kind of arrangement would be able to procreate. I remember a history teacher telling us homosexuality or bisexuality was relatively common in pre-Columbian America, not to mention the pedagogy in prehistoric Greece or homosexuality in the upper class during the Italian Renaissance.
~Max
What I’m saying is that I wouldn’t describe something I arrived at via culture as something not based on, and not susceptible to, reason. When someone describes something that no amount of reason or thinking can change, I am inclined to think they are describing a biological phenomenon.
I would have said that the specific mechanism by which things created by culture can be changed is rational thought. I don’t tend to think of the “unconscious” part of “unconscious bias” as a permanent state of affairs.
I think the fact that you can’t reason someone into a different sexuality is the big thing that makes it “not bigotry.” Because you can reason someone out of being a racist - it’s not easy, but it’s absolutely possible. “All races should be treated equally” is an idea that can be transmitted, and if a person accepts and fully internalizes that message, their behavior will reflect that belief. On the other hand, a person can accept and fully internalize the idea that all sexualities are equal, and there should be no disparate treatment based on what gender you find attractive, and still not be sexually aroused by their own gender.
I think that would just be garden-variety shallowness.