Black women aren’t “more masculine”, you’re just cherrypicking one example, and even then, she’s well-muscled but her figure overall is anything but masculine. Masculine = more than just “muscles.” Also, the word “trannies” is generally frowned on unless you’re talking about a transmission, FYI. What you describe about the Asian…uh, transgendered individuals…is true, I guess, but I don’t see how it follows that “some races are more attractive than others.” In any case, what you’re calling “races” are just phenotypes that are correlated in a general sense with geographical regions of the world but which are capable of an infinite number of combinations and indeed have undergone these combinations since time immemorial.
Sure. I don’t really spend any time whatsoever thinking about political correctness. I find it gets in the way of letting my mind run free. Thanks for your sincere reply though and no insults. It’s refreshing and appreciated.
Either way, I think we can clearly say that generally black women do the worse of all women and Asian/Indian/Arab men do much worse than white men in the dating data from numerous sites and study methodologies.
I proposed my ideas for why and what it means. Why do YOU think this happens and what do YOU think it means?
Sure anyone can have weird fantasies. (Or not so weird ones.) But it is interesting to wonder why those particular ones.
Could it be that men, who are supposed to take the initiative, can fantasize about not taking the initiative? (I suspect the women in the fantasies are hot.) Could it be that some women, conditioned into thinking that wanting sex is wrong, can fantasize about getting it without worrying about being called a slut?
I wonder what the incidence is in more sexually open cultures.
Without sarcasm, I do suspect that the appeal is just that, a wish to not feel ‘responsible,’ whether it’s the responsibility of being the stereotypical proactive male pursuing a woman, or the responsibility of a woman picking a male. Instead, in the fantasy, or sometimes perhaps with a paid professional “dom/domme,” control can be handed over and the person can just relax into the fantasy itself without social worries about the consequences of their choices.
But fantasies, much like a rich man hiring a high-priced dominatrix, are fundamentally consensual no matter how weird they get. And I think that the basic lesson learned is still that… well, sexual fantasies are weird in the way dreams are weird, complex mixtures of a lot of personal and social and biological urges. To pick out, say, “Women have rape fantasies” and to conclude it means anything about their biological innate desires is a stretch at best, particularly since men experience similar fantasies.
I’m not sure what pee fantasies are really about. It’s harder even than the lower-stress possibility of ‘no choice’ in a sexual fantasy to try to parse out into some could-be cause. Not to mention the million other weird fetishes and tastes that humans will often delight in or at least fantasize about. (I’d like to apologize if anyone takes ‘weird’ as an insult… I don’t have anything against fetishism between happy consenting adults who are safe in their games. And I think almost everyone is ‘weird,’ or at least goes against the grain, in some form or another.)
I feel sexual desires are so complex and influenced by so many different variables, starting with childhood, that trying to come to any serious, meaningful conclusion based on a statistic with a gender next to it and no other information is pointless. It’s such a complex issue for most humans that even 130 really well-cited, well-researched studies on just a single aspect might seem insufficient to come to a conclusion. And I’d be suspicious of anyone who did call themselves a scientist, and said “Well this is a proven cause and effect based on simple biological programming!” :smack:
TheFuture’s latest musings on online dating are a good example of the kind of nonsense that discredits that side.
Can you tell me what you mean? How do you explain the racial dating trends and what do you think they signify? I asked 3 pages ago, no one answered, so I posted my own answer, then I’m told it’s nonsense, but still no one offers their own answer. 
I just can’t with that one, sorry.
Why do societies with underlying racial biases often express those biases through dating choices? Do you really need this explained?
Yeah, there is zero ev-psych basis for white guys not to be interested in hooking up with black women. I mean, what is the hypothesis?
Why a bias against black women more than black men? As far as culture goes there are loads of sexualized black celebs like Nicki Minaj just like there are loads of black rappers. This has been true back to Salt N Peppa or TLC or Janet Jackson at least. I don’t see a specific lack of black female representation in the media. The new Little Mermaid is even black for example.
Why a bias against Asian men and not Asian women? There are loads of Asian men in the media nowadays - I actually think I see more Asian men than Asian women in most TV and movies I watch. Lost, Walking Dead, Hellboy, Crazy Rich Asians. The Asian guys are playing hero roles. I certainly don’t see a dramatically larger number of Asian women on TV/movies.
Do you believe this is cultural or biological and why? Do you believe it will change over time?
One contributing factor from an ev-psych perspective would be that dark skin is sexually dimorphic and more masculine since skin pigmentation reacts to androgens and even among same race individuals men tend to be darker than women. I’m not saying that’s the only factor or even that it’s a big factor. I don’t know. I’m just saying there are definitely possible ev-psych explanations for almost everything including this. That’s the first off my head. There are others but you guys seem to find this subject inherently offensive so I won’t even bother getting into it. I like evolutionary psychology/biology though. I think most of what we do is just us following our primal instincts and then coming up with elaborate rationalizations afterwards.
Because black persons of any gender (or actual genetic background) are already viewed as ‘lower’ by much of society, and while black men have the dubious association of being considered “extra masculine” based on stereotypes and may get a boost from that, black women are subjected to comments about how they are “manlier” than white women, or accused of being shrill and demanding if they assert themselves. Even black women who are treated as sexually appealing are often degraded at the same time, to a degree not experienced by white or Asian women.
Because historically, Asian men are often treated in the media as lower-sexed and less masculine, whereas Asian women are fetishized as delicate little sex dolls who are assumed to be submissive?
I believe the cultural issues are so powerful that even if there were an underlying biological cause, it’d be impossible to untangle from a lifetime of messages both overt and subconscious telling people which dates are a step “up” or “down” socially. I think it may change, but a few more representative movies in the past few years aren’t going to change generations of assumptions and biases. It’s a process that would probably take more generations to balance out.
That said, I would be interested to see how these trends change over the next few decades, if diverse representation also continues in the media.
I do agree with this. For example, programmed to process black women as “lesser,” people come up with reasons why they might be objectively viewed that way from some biological standpoint instead of looking at more complex, harder to solve social issues. And yes, social behavior is also part of our instincts. We’re a herd animal.
Well let’s look at it from another perspective. Let’s say there is no culture. It is wiped clean. Let’s just look at it from purely evolutionary biology.
Asian men:
- Among the most hairless men in general for facial and body hair.
- Asian faces are reported by researchers as having the most neotenous or baby-like features, and neoteny is a feminine not masculine trait.
- Smaller penises than whites/blacks (condom sizes are smaller in Southeast Asia).
- Shorter than whites/blacks.
- Less able to compete in aggressive sports like NFL/NBA or heavyweight fighting on average compared to whites/blacks (due largely to smaller size on average).
Asian women:
- Hairless again.
- Neotenous faces again which is sexually dimorphic for women.
- Small size is again sexually dimorphic for women.
- Relatively pale skin is again sexually dimorphic for women.
So why couldn’t evolutionary biology/psychology explain that entirely? Maybe culture is reacting to what we feel when we look, and there may be a little feedback cycle. But there’s certainly enough biological indicators to explain why Asian girls would be seen as “little dolls” and Asian men as “weak and effeminate”. I hope people can understand how to talk about biology without having emotional reactions. So far people haven’t showed much capacity for this in the thread so I’m not optimistic … It’s not about lesser or more. It’s just we are designed to instinctively recognize certain things from birth and plenty of our instincts and inborn systems for judging other people are thousands of years older than “culture”.
So you want to base the theory in an impossible fantasy world, then?
Biases also change based on culture. For example, a desirable male in Asia will be different from a desirable male in the United States, including biases between various Asian cultures that may have members who view themselves superior to the others. I’ve had someone earnestly explain to me how Korean men are fundamentally different from, and worse than, Chinese men. I don’t think this is based on some super subtle, genuine difference between the two. I think it’s cultural, yet again.
But it is comfortingly easy to just say, well, culture doesn’t count, so my gut impressions must be a fundamental biological state that cannot be changed. As a result, there’s no need for any sort of real change or self-reflection; things are just as they should be.
Remove emotion? There’s another fantasy idea. Welcome to humanity, we’re pressured by what those around us tell us to believe, and most of the messages we get aren’t “PC” despite the loud protests about it. If there are emotions involved, such as in a long-term relationship, that’s part of fundamental human nature too. Erasing these aspects before thinking about the topic may make it seem easier to get a grasp on, but it also takes these evo-psych games further and further from the reality of human existence and its complications.
I suppose taking away the most complex aspects of relationships to try to pare them down to a set of simple rules that people can declare as sacred law is the whole point of evo-psych dating philosophies. Maybe we should be looking into sex robots, just to help the people who aren’t capable of understanding that human tastes and desires are tied into a number of complex factors, and that even trends are at best loose guidelines to what a group in a specific situation is pressured towards. I’ve said before that the problem isn’t the lack of sex but the sadness and isolation. But if someone finds humanity this challenging, a sex bot might offer just the logical, easy route to pseudo-affection that’s needed.
The fem-cels are going to get sexbots too, right? No fair saying ‘vibrators,’ there are plenty of fleshlights for the lonely men out there already.
Here is the kind of ev-psych research I find fascinating, but which many feminists (somewhat understandably) cannot abide and simply will not accept:
IOW, an instinct for cuckolding emerges from this meta-analysis of 50 studies.
ETA: Both this ESS and the dovetailing ESS of symmetrical “lothario” men are short-circuited by the very recent development of DNA testing. Pop some popcorn and flip on daytime TV!
I’m gay. So I find myself wondering what kind of t-shirts I’d instinctively like the smell of, based on my biological urges. Someone who smells feminine, I suppose. Not sure how that’s going to improve my odds of breeding, but I also have no interest in breeding, so that’s solved itself in a tidy fashion.
Nobody needs to answer it. Science doesn’t have answers to everything. Evopsych is largely unscientific nonsense. No alternate hypothesis is owed after pointing out nonsense.
Did you ever get around to telling us what the rate fantasies and porn is supposed to tell us about anything, and what it means incels are “right” about?
Why don’t you first explain to everybody why your view of human sexuality and preferences is limited to what appears to be primarily Western society? Does the rest of the world not exists or matter in your ‘free running mind’, unencumbered by PC thought?