# People's mate preferences are racist. Do we care? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2010, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777 "2010-02-20T17:10:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/81 "2010-02-22T02:23:02Z")
Thats making the argument that because it hasnt been entirely eliminated, the legislation has had no effect at all. Bit of a reach in my view. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/82 "2010-02-22T03:10:11Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > Thats making the argument that because it hasnt been entirely eliminated, the legislation has had no effect at all. > > Bit of a reach in my view. Then likewise, you can use that same reasoning to legislate affirmative-action & anti-discrimination dating even though it will not entirely eliminate our preference for certain races. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/83 "2010-02-22T03:35:21Z")
Well only if you ignore the potential ‘ends justifies the means’ issues or the possibility of other unanticipateds or anticipated consequences occurring outside of the issue you’re trying to adress. Otara ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/84 "2010-02-22T04:56:44Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Do you think we can legislate fairness in the dating sphere like we can in the labor one? Read my [second post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12141874&postcount=3) in this thread. There are relatively unobtrusive ways to partly counteract mate racism, both through government action and social pressure. Yet there’s no move to promote these policies. ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/85 "2010-02-22T05:49:04Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Read my [second post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12141874&postcount=3) in this thread. There are relatively unobtrusive ways to partly counteract mate racism, both through government action and social pressure. Yet there’s no move to promote these policies. Dating-marriage and employment are very different spheres of human behavior. This is a widely recognized principle in US law and the common law tradition. That’s why we have separate family courts to deal with some of these issues. Now if you are proposing the application of employment law to dating and marriage across the board - 8 hour shifts, lunch breaks, the right to unionize, sexual harassment, personnel files, then you might have the basis for bringing EEO law into the dating market as well. That would be batshit fucking insane, but hey, make your proposals. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/86 "2010-02-22T14:50:36Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > There are relatively unobtrusive ways to partly counteract mate racism, both through government action and social pressure. Yet there’s no move to promote these policies. To the extent that it’s socially undesirable to be racist in general, I disagree that there isn’t at least some social pressure to counteract “mate racism”. It’s less socially acceptable to be against interracial dating, for one thing. The number of people being killed, jailed, disowned, or distanced for being with some of another race has declined over the decades. People still have their negative opinions about the attractiveness of other peoples, but they are probably less vocal about it. The problem with drawing comparisons to the anti-discrimination labor policies is there is no way to enforce “equal opportunity dating”. If someone was fired at work and they suspected racial discrimination was involved, they can make a case to the Department of Labor and compel that business to keep them employed. But if someone is rejected by a prospective dating partner, by what means can you force someone to be with someone that they don’t want to be with? An employer doesn’t have to actually like to their employees in order to employ them, but a romantic relationship means nothing if that emotional and physical connection isn’t there. Eliminating racial preference filtering in dating sites doesn’t prevent people from using race as a dating criteria. It doesn’t encourage it either. It just gives people a choice. And as I said earlier, that choice can swing in both directions. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/87 "2010-02-22T15:24:24Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > [Time](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963768,00.html):Of course this is racism, if anything is. But is it _good_ racism? The obvious reason to allow mate racism is that . . . Is that people have to choose their own mates, for whatever reasons seem good to them. That is all, there is no need for further discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/88 "2010-02-22T15:29:43Z")
From the thread over here: [Mac computers - is it mostly just image and status?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12147166#post12147166) > [@Mac computers - is it mostly just image and status?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mac-computers-is-it-mostly-just-image-and-status/529748/97): > > Heck we’re born with a preference to want to look at the attractive over the less-attractive: [link](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces.html) Sounds like babies, to say nothing of Mac owners, could be _born_ racists. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/89 "2010-02-22T15:37:41Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > But you’ve simply restated the way things are by custom (rules for jobs vs no rules for dating which is _arbitrary_) instead of articulating a source of _consistent morals_ to apply to both jobs and sex partners. > > But why not? If I prefer a to hire a Norwegian receptionist instead of a Brazilian one, what difference does that make? The EEOC comeback is that ethnicity should have no relevance to answering the phone and welcoming office visitors. Yes, that may be true, but so what? I still have to interact with her 8 hours a day and maybe I’d prefer to look at Scandinavian vs Latin American skin when I’m talking to her? How’s that different from preferring a Norwegian on a dinner date for 2 hours? It’s all arbitrary, right? > > To be consistent: > > If we legislate anti-discrimination for the job, then we can legislate anti-discrimination for dating and marriage. > > If we allow racial preferences for dating, then we should allow racial preferences for employers. (We already allow employees to racially discriminate against potential bosses.) We have a situation. Why should I defend it when no one has presented a reason to challenge it? Discrimination in housing and employment and retail impedes a person’s ability to survive by impinging on whether they can earn a living or find shelter or puchase goods. Discrimination in dating only limits (to a narrow extent) one’s own choice of life partners and it is a self-imposed limitation. No one but me is harmed by my refusal to date Lower Slobovians. If you refuse to hire me because I am not a Lower Slobovian, you are limiting my opportunity for income. If you do not want to work with Lower Slobovians, then go live in a place where there are few of them or become self-employed. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/90 "2010-02-22T15:46:44Z")
You also have to remember racism shouldn’t be confused with ethnic or national traditons. For instance, I’ve worked with several Korean (having lived in the US for awhile) ladies who have told me they can’t stand Korean (as in women from Korea). Why? Not because of race obviously but because they say, the Korean women from Korea think they are too Americanized and on the flip side, the Americanized Koreans don’t like the way the traditions of the old country rule over the Korean women recently from Korea. I’ve heard the same thing with Latinos and Filipinos as well You also have to realize, racism isn’t an all or nothing thing. Despite claims in the 70s as “there’s no such thing as a little racist,” that’s just wrong. There are degrees of racism. I am a gay white male and I can say “I’m not attracted to Asians.” OK that’s racist, but I am not. In fact I’m sure that given enough Asians I’d find some I do find attractive. Then again, I like black men, which can also be said as I’m racist. But then again, there are lots of black men I don’t find attractive. I grew up around blacks so that probably is the reason for the attraction, but racism isn’t just about how you feel, it’s about what you do. As a gay male or any minority you learn to understand people’s fears of you or hatred of you. You don’t have to like me, you can even dislike me because I’m gay. I don’t care. As long as you treat me with the same politeness that you’d treat anyone else, that’s good enough. You don’t have to be my friend, or pal or even respect me as long as you do me no harm, I don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/91 "2010-02-22T15:57:35Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No one but me is harmed by my refusal to date Lower Slobovians. If you refuse to hire me because I am not a Lower Slobovian, you are limiting my opportunity for income. This is still arbitrary and inconsistent. In your example of dating, the Lower Slobovian is _also harmed_ because of the loss of companionship and/or financial security of a lifelong partner. By refusing to to date the Slobovian, you limit his/her opportunity for the intimacy provided by the support of another human being. The Lower Slobovian doesn’t want to be lonely and yet s/he’s being penalized by his ethnicity which s/he can’t control. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/92 "2010-02-22T16:41:45Z")
This was actually touched on in the Supreme Court’s decison in “Loving vs. Virginia”, the case where bans on interracial marriage was overturned by unanimous decison. Here is part of that decision: “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, **or not marry,** a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” Note the part I put in bold. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/93 "2010-02-22T16:56:25Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > This was actually touched on in the Supreme Court’s decison in “Loving vs. Virginia”, I don’t think the interpretation of today’s laws is in dispute. I believe the spirit of the thread is to examine the moral framework we’ve applied to dating vs employment (regardless of what the law currently says.) Either we’ve put an artificial constraint on businesses hiring, or we conveniently let discrimination take place for dating because it happens to suit us. Either way, discrimination is discrimination and it looks inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/94 "2010-02-22T17:18:38Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > I don’t think the interpretation of today’s laws is in dispute. > > I believe the spirit of the thread is to examine the moral framework we’ve applied to dating vs employment (regardless of what the law currently says.) > > Either we’ve put an artificial constraint on businesses hiring, or we conveniently let discrimination take place for dating because it happens to suit us. Either way, discrimination is discrimination and it looks inconsistent. That “artificial constraint on businesses hiring” is called “the law,” it is applied to \*\*public \*\*(large/medium) businesses; we don’t/can’t apply it to people’s \*\*private \*\*interactions. That’s why we have time magazine, and private discourse to parse out these important issues. The inconsistency does not exist for those who can identify/separate \*\*public \*\*and \*\*private \*\*issues. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/95 "2010-02-22T17:26:44Z")
> [@Belowjob2.0](#): > > Another thing that hasn’t been addressed is the fact that people often lie in online dating. Their profiles, their preferred partners, their incomes and educations are either fabricated or aspirational. What someone hopes to get versus what they actually can get or what they usually settle for. > > When someone says that they would never date a member of group X, I view it with decided skepticism. Good for them if they can make good on their declaration. Not so good if they’re denying desires that either make them ashamed, or are unacceptable to express in their social circle. This. I would _never_ have dated a black girl… until I did. Just as I would never have dated a girl who was taller than me, until I did. In any case, the government has no business legislating sexual preference. Tbhis is in no way analogous to legislating equal employment or educational opprtunity. > [@](#): > > To the extent that it’s socially undesirable to be racist in general, I disagree that there isn’t at least some social pressure to counteract “mate racism”. It’s less socially acceptable to be against interracial dating, for one thing. The number of people being killed, jailed, disowned, or distanced for being with some of another race has declined over the decades. People still have their negative opinions about the attractiveness of other peoples, but they are probably less vocal about it. I am about to be half of an interracial marriage. Several potential officiants and venue reps were uncomfortable with it, and even my partner (who never sees racism) was aware of it. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/96 "2010-02-22T17:32:05Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > “the law,” it is applied to \*\*public \*\*(large/medium) businesses; we don’t/can’t apply it to people’s \*\*private \*\*interactions. > > … The inconsistency does not exist for those who can identify/separate \*\*public \*\*and \*\*private \*\*issues. The public vs private is just another smokescreen that can be applied inconsistently through the clever use of language. Is the parents’ decision about the subject matter being fed into their child’s brain a public or private decision? It can be interpreted either way. However, compulsory public schooling has made it the public’s business. There are all sorts of rationale for this, “an educated populace is better for the country blah blah blah.” Yes, that is fine but the same type of language and connect-the-dots rationale can be used for dating: A reduction in lonely people will increase the productivity of the workforce leading to higher GDP – therefore, dating discrimination must be curtailed by the state. It must become the concern of the public. We can make anything that is “private” a “public” concern if we wanted to. It is not objectively possible to put an activity in one category vs the other. Look at all the debates about abortion. Is it a public or private decision? ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/97 "2010-02-22T18:02:58Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > The public vs private is just another smokescreen that can be applied inconsistently through the clever use of language. It’s not through language, people have a concrete concept of private matters and public matters. Public matters can be legislated; and will be, if there is a need for it. > [@](#): > > Is the parents’ decision about the subject matter being fed into their child’s brain a public or private decision? It can be interpreted either way. However, compulsory public schooling has made it the public’s business. There are all sorts of rationale for this, “an educated populace is better for the country blah blah blah.” What is taught in school, is a public matter; what school to go to, is a private one (you’re even free to home-school). Everyone seems agree with this interpretation. > [@](#): > > Yes, that is fine but the same type of language and connect-the-dots rationale can be used for dating: A reduction in lonely people will increase the productivity of the workforce leading to higher GDP – therefore, dating discrimination must be curtailed by the state. It must become the concern of the public. That is not a reasonable, accurate, nor logically straightforward public concern. > [@](#): > > We can make anything that is “private” a “public” concern if we wanted to. It is not objectively possible to put an activity in one category vs the other. Look at all the debates about abortion. Is it a public or private decision? We \*\*can \*\*make anything into public matters. In fact, many authoritarian countries (like Saudi Arabia) tend to put a lot of issues in the public sphere since it effects the “umma.” That’s why we have time magazine, and private discourse to parse out these important issues like abortion (or as a historic example: slavery). The inconsistency does not exist for those who can identify/separate public and private issues. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/99 "2010-02-22T18:24:33Z")
> [@orcenio](#): > > It’s not through language, people have a concrete concept of private matters and public matters. Public matters can be legislated; and will be, if there is a need for it. You’re using the same rhetorical technique as **tomndebb** : you’re simply restating the status quo. I’m not disputing what the status quo is. Having everyone nod in agreement what that laws currently say doesn’t help dissect what moral framework (if any) we are using. > [@](#): > > What is taught in school, is a public matter; what school to go to, is a private one (you’re even free to home-school). Everyone seems agree with this interpretation. Many folks don’t agree with this interpretation. I won’t sidetrack this thread about education so I’ll just leave it at that. The relevant point is that there is disagreement about what is private vs public. Private vs Public is not objective. > [@](#): > > That is not a reasonable, accurate, nor logically straightforward public concern. Don’t take my shitty example literally. The ingenuity of society to invent a connect-the-dots rationale for political purposes will exceed my wordsmithing skills. You have to use some imagination here. > [@](#): > > That’s why we have time magazine, and private discourse to parse out these important issues like abortion (or as a historic example: slavery). Isn’t that what we’re trying to discuss in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![horhay\_achoa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@horhay\_achoa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/horhay_achoa)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/100 "2010-02-22T18:29:49Z")
There was the same type of “racist” behavior going on before the internet. Just because it is easier to quantify doesn’t mean it should be regulated. Besides, unless you address the actual issue, you are not going to get people to enter into interracial relationships…they will just meet people off-line instead of on-line. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777/101 "2010-02-22T19:00:22Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > You’re using the same rhetorical technique as **tomndebb** : you’re simply restating the status quo. I’m not disputing what the status quo is. Having everyone nod in agreement what that laws currently say doesn’t help dissect what moral framework (if any) we are using. I’m highlighting a clean distinction between how we legislate \*\*public \*\*and \*\*private \*\*matters. > [@](#): > > Many folks don’t agree with this interpretation. I won’t sidetrack this thread about education so I’ll just leave it at that. The relevant point is that there is disagreement about what is private vs public. Private vs Public is not objective. Education is a public sphere (but you are free to make it private) I haven’t heard of major disagreements with this interpretation (minus nutjob libertarians) > [@](#): > > Don’t take my shitty example literally. The ingenuity of society to invent a connect-the-dots rationale for political purposes will exceed my wordsmithing skills. You have to use some imagination here. I can’t stretch my imagination enough to make the point that private relations can/should be legislated. You are gonna have to get a clear, straight-forward and logical example to convince me that i should consider this a rational issue. > [@](#): > > Isn’t that what we’re trying to discuss in this thread? Yes, but you have not given a good example of a situation that would give the government powers to legislate romances. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-mate-preferences-are-racist-do-we-care/529777.md?page=6)