Who says it’s based on sale hatred? Like most forms of unconscious bias, it probably comes from various biases and inequalities in media, culture, and society. If the media usually portrays lighter skin as more attractive, then that will affect the way viewers, especially younger viewers, view skin color and beauty. Just as if the media portrays skinny as more attractive, then many people will be attracted to thinness.
There’s absolutely no need to include biology of evolution, especially when there’s no evidence and even contrary evidence.
I was thinking that myself, but that doesn’t seem to be a universal thing, more a Western fad. And frankly, it only seems to look good to enthusiasts, much like that other skin-darkening fad, tattooing. I mean, is there anyone who finds tanning salon enthusiasts attractive? Having a bit of a tan is a good thing, but it’s not like it’s hard to get one naturally. It’s called “go outside”.
I read something once that claimed that heterosexual women of all studied ethnicities most often preferred darker-toned men, within their own group. I don’t have a cite, and it may well be BS, but to me at the moment that puts it even with your claim that,
The dating website data from earlier in the thread is contrary evidence – black men get more responses than Asian men. And IIRC, there’s plenty of historical evidence that various native cultures, which were usually darker skinned than European explorers and colonizers, expressed some revulsion at the very light skin (which they may have associated with illness and weakness) of the newcomers.
When so many preferences with regards to appearance are so obviously driven by culture and media – like the most attractive weight/thinness – and when Western culture and society is absolutely replete with biases that were negative towards black people, why would it be logical to assume that colorism is based on some inherent biological fact of humanity, especially when there is contrary data?
The Asian vs. black men thing is not contrary data, since you also run into height issues and views of what constitutes masculinity. Women seem to have a serious complex about dating men shorter than they are.
It’s contrary data – it shows that women on dating websites are more likely to respond to black men than Asian men.
In any case, there’s plenty of evidence for colorism, but none that it’s driven by evolution. That just seems like an excuse to dismiss the very obvious media-driven European-centric standards of beauty (especially female beauty – notice how there are plenty of dark-skinned black male celebrities touted as sex symbols as compared to how few dark-skinned black female celebrities are media sex symbols) as somehow reflecting biology rather then still-existing racial biases in media, culture, and society.
When we have such clear examples and evidence of media and cultural/societal bias towards lighter skin (especially for women), why would we dismiss those as the reason for colorism in favor of biology?
There’s a clear path for the social development of colourism in certain cultures, independent of biological evolution: lighter skin = no field work = higher status individual = more attractive.
No need to postulate some theoretical “Fear of the dark” (which makes me laugh, BTW - clearly those guys never been outside in Africa at night. You can read by the light of the Milky Way on a moonless night. I read one study, it was clear it wasn’t fear of the dark they were testing so much as fear of surprise.) Personally, I’m always suspicious of evo-devo explanations for things.
Also, if you’re looking for a non-colourist culture, look no further than the Dynastic Egyptians. They presented themselves as a range of colours, but portrayed themselves mostly as mid-red-brown, and also as superior to both their dark Nubian neighbours and their lighter Libyan and Canaanite neighbours. They certainly didn’t have a darker=worse, lighter=better hierarchy.
This is a hugely broad topic, but I’d say that “social evolution” is perhaps one of the least useful phrases I’ve ever heard to describe the myriad forms of racial oppression, brutality, discrimination and bias in American history (much less the rest of the world’s history).
Historically, societal and cultural norms for attractiveness have been driven by efforts (both conscious and unconscious) to reinforce class and other hierarchical differences – for example, only wealthy women of leisure in medieval Europe could afford to stay inside all day, and therefore very pale skin became a visual signal of wealth and high class, and therefore associated with more desirability. The same thing in reverse may be happening, to some degree, in white culture in America and Europe – wealthier women on average have more leisure time to be outside (or in tanning beds), since most jobs nowadays are indoors, so tan skin is now considered desirable.
There are plenty of reasonable explanations rooted in history, media, and culture – it seems absurd to me to assume biology is involved.
Just think about it this way – if something is related to historical racism, are you more likely to believe that history, media, and culture are involved, or biology is involved? I can’t think of a single thing related to racism that is tied in any way to biology. It’s all culture (and history, media, etc.).
EDIT: MrDibble ninja’d me on part of my explanation.
I think one can have any damn personal preference in a partner he or she wants. If I can like only thin, brown-haird athletic women with masters degrees and a sense of humor, I can like a certain race.
Is it going to be sexist to only want to date the opposite sex next?
I think this was covered in a handful of posts. I agree with Manda JO that (for example) if someone is attracted to a person when they meet them, assuming that they’re Hispanic or Mediterranean, but changes their mind and is no longer attracted when they discover that the person is a light-skinned black person, then that response is racist.
I find certain races/ethnicities downright unappealing (on a purely physical-aesthetic level): Australian Aborigines, Mongolians and South Pacific islanders come to mind. I’m not ideologically opposed to them or the little I know of their cultures, it’s just that whenever I see photos of them they register in my mind as ‘not very pretty’. No doubt many of them would say the same thing if they saw a picture of me. Presumably, this is because I have grown up with a normative western idea of where the acceptable boundaries lie in terms of what can be considered good-looking (in terms of facial structure, body shape, etc.), and peoples such as they frequently lie outside of such boundaries. In a similar vein, I find gamelan music really tough to stomach; I have nothing against the people of Java, I just wasn’t brought up to be able to appreciate its rhythms and tones and what-have-you.
