Is it Racist to Not Date a Particular Race?

Author: Stronn

Posts

Total: 169
#91
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
"Equally, I do not see the negative correlation between (the absence of) dating a particular race and being racist"
You have agreed with me then -  recall:

"Furthermore - no - you happening to not date white or black people is not what makes somebody racists - "

Let's review some more of your claims:
appeal to emotive TYPE IN ALL CAPS TO MAKE A POINT SEEM IMPORTANT strategy,
No, I type in all caps to emphasize - whenever you seem to not comprehend a point I TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS - for example:
"CORRECTING YOUR SCIENCE"
You remember that whenever you claimed - quote:
"Now you're just flat out lying about scientific facts"
Whenever I, in fact, had several scientific studies to back up my claim: RECALL post#86 - no - I am not "lying about scientific facts" - yet in post #88 - you COMPLETELY DROPPED IT! Why? You call me toxic, yet you make a blatant attack on me without even bothering to correct yourself after I show you are wrong. So - these so called "emotional appeals" are to get it through to you that don't know what your talking about. And unlike you I can actually back up that claim. 

I said - IF you refuse to date them SOLELY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE - then you are racist. Are you actually reading a single thing I post? Are you gonna respond to the fact that I have actual science which proves you wrong? Are you gonna respond to the fact that YOU are perpetuating racism - even according to your definition? YOU Are the one who is insisting on stereotypes that are empirically INCORRECT!! Rhetoric? that's fucking rich coming from you - please give me a SINGLE CITED ARGUMENT you've made in this thread! GIve me a SINGLE point which you've stuck on long enough to PROVE. CITE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF YOU REBUTTING MY POINTS! Cite a single example of not dropping a subpoint a post after! 

I want you to PROVE that you are actually not being the biggest hypocrite here - because I have the proof that you ARE. 
#92
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
Perhaps I came off as hostile - apologizes that happens whenever you piss off by acting like a hypocrite. I'll give you the same choice - admit you were wrong - actually ARGUE back - or leave me the hell alone. You blocked me, and I just wanted to get the point across that you were acting according to sterotypes, then you asked me a question, now you've just pissed me off. So - now thats off the table. 1 - admit your wrong, 2 - argue back without dropping points, or 3 - leave me alone. Any more of this bs and you'll be blocked back. 
#93
FourTrouble
FourTrouble's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 204
0
2
3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
0
2
3
-->
@RationalMadman
Sexual orientation is immutable & part of our evolutionary design. Aesthetic preferences (especially with respect to race) are neither immutable nor part of our evolutionary design (i.e. they're entirely cultural). These are the only relevant distinctions (and there aren't any relevant similarities).

You can clearly see this distinction at play in nature, where there's a diversity of sexual orientations in the animal world, yet no animal making distinctions based on the socially-constructed category of race. Yes, animals might express aesthetic preferences, but those preferences aren't ever based on illusory nonsense like "race."

As for interracial dating, it has a strongly "anti-racist" effect because it promotes a color blind view of the world, which resonates outward from the couple to their families, friends, and communities. In general, people underestimate the impact that individuals can have through simple acts, as simple as dating someone from a different race. 

To be clear, I'm not saying we have an ethical duty to engage in anti-racist dating practices. But I certainly think that "race" shouldn't be considered at all when dating (or anywhere else), and therefore we should strive to make dating decisions on the basis of other stuff.
#94
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@FourTrouble
The entirety of your post had a logical contradiction present in the first two sentences.

When you say:
 Aesthetic preferences (especially with respect to race) are neither immutable nor part of our evolutionary design (i.e. they're entirely cultural). 
Culturalism itself (the idea it even exists and we should preserve and participate in it) is itself evolutionary. Everything about attraction and genuine dating is involuntary and passion-driven AKA impulsive, not capable of being rewritten unless you spent time planning how to manipulate and brainwash people to be less or more attracted to a type you intended them to be (and with 'gay cure therapy' that churches and the like offer, this hasn't been proven to have much success unless we talk CIA level of brainwash that are using during interrogation).

I do not for a single second believe you when you say:
 I'm not saying we have an ethical duty to engage in anti-racist dating practices. 
In fact the very sentence that follows it makes crystal clear you do indeed say and want that.

I don't care much about this thread's topic, to be clear, the reason I posted was I found an interesting angle that doesn't allow the progressive agenda to be violated while also using it against itself, regarding homophobia, transphobia and other things.

It is not transphobic to actively and consciously avoid dating trans people if you truly don't enjoy them in that way any more than it is to do the same with a particular gender if you're homosexual or heterosexual. It is also not racist if you have preferred race(s) and ones you have bad experience with or just don't like. What is racist is when you start preaching about it and trying to spread it as a commonplace no-go-dating-zone for others of your race. 

There's many people of ALL races, including black Africans and Carribeans that are very ethnocentric with who they date and want their children and siblings dating. Is it ethnocentric? Yes. Is it a problem to fix when it's widespread? Yes. However, when we use the term 'racist' it very clearly has more attached, it implies more specifically to if the majority race that's wealthier refuses to integrate and accept the (not necessarily first-generation) immigrant, minority people as viable to date. If this becomes widespread and the animosity doesn't ease up, that is when there is indeed racism involved with the dating choices.

Racism is systemic and individuals perpetuate it when it's spreading and truly excluding. I'm talking about giving funny looks at a table when a mixed race couple sit down, scowling at them. This was the norm as recently as the 80s and 90s even.

I loathe racism, real racism, with every bone in my body. You don't understand where I am coming from if you think I think it's 'okay' when it's actually done. It's about how severe the impact is and how 'spread' the opinion is becoming. If this individual isn't 'infecting' many with their dating preference and accepts it's their own preference, that is absolutely fine. We need to accept that everyone is entitled to have a type, if acting onthat 'type' harms people, or animals in some outlandish cases, then we need to step in and stop that preference from being acted on. If noone is being harmed overall by the impact, we need to stop wieldingthis word 'racist'. I have seen articles about making it taboo to admit you won't date other races (ironically they called it 'the final taboo in dating' meaning they see it as taboo to call people out on it and want that to change).

I know what racism is, I am not saying I totally understand and have been victimised by every form of systemic racism, of course not. However, I know what it is due to both actively researching as well as knowing actual people who have been victims of it. I know refugees from the civil war in Sri Lanka, that involved extreme racism against the Tamils from what looks like the same race to many outsiders, the Sinhalese. This systemic racism inspired deep rage and pessimism with the nation's direction that led to movements that ended up being terrorists, such as the Tamil Tigers, and I am not here to say that's okay but you need to understand what led to it and how many up-and-coming militias of Tamils there were at the start of the civil war.

If you are curious about that particular thing, this is a brilliantly to-the-point article/piece on the matter:

Systemic racism isn't something simple as one individual having a certain preference in dating, it's about if  you truly stop them having upward mobility and equal rights. That's where the line has to be drawn, what's the impact and how does it affect their ability to be as free and accepted of a citizen of that nation or county (not country, county) as others. If it's not impacting on that level, we need to start dropping the term 'racism'.


#95
FourTrouble
FourTrouble's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 204
0
2
3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
0
2
3
To be clear, people are free to do whatever they want within the confines of the law, and that includes holding racist beliefs and even enacting those through their dating practices. Don't confuse my analysis of what something is with whether I think we should regulate a behavior through legal means.

The issue I'm addressing is whether racial preferences are racist in dating. They are. Why? Because they reflect our society's deep obsession with the illusory category of "race," an obsession that both stems from & perpetuates racism. Aesthetic preferences don't exist in a vacuum; they're tied up with the way our society views everything.

The dream of a color blind society (i.e. a non-racist society) is possible only if we stop expressing racial preferences. Anything that perpetuates our society's obsession with race is racist. But if we stop expressing preferences on the basis of race (in dating or elsewhere), then race as a concept wouldn't even be intelligible. That's a world in which maybe you could hold an aesthetic preference for darker-skinned dating partners without being racist, because in such a world, racism wouldn't even be intelligible as a concept. And this is the world that ginger haired people live in -- there's simply no social or conceptual framework for classifying people on the basis of their hair color.
#96
FourTrouble
FourTrouble's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 204
0
2
3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
0
2
3
-->
@RationalMadman
There's a distinction between immutable preferences (e.g. sexual orientation) and mutable preferences (e.g. liking or disliking coffee). 

While "evolution" and "culture" influence each other, that doesn't mean they're the exact same thing. 

You say "everything about attraction" is "involuntary" and "not capable of being rewritten." I strongly disagree that "everything about attraction is involuntary and not capable of being rewritten." While some romantic preferences don't change at all (e.g. sexual orientation), others shift profoundly throughout the course of one's life (e.g. hair color, weight, height, etc.). We still don't fully understood how these change occur, though it's clear that we have more personal control over some areas than others. Exposure seems to be key, which isn't surprising as this is the key to changing our palate (e.g. you can go from disliking coffee to loving it by simply drinking a lot of coffee). 

You mention brainwashing the gays. As I've already said, you can't. Sexual orientation is immutable. The fact that some types of romantic preferences are immutable doesn't mean all romantic preferences are immutable.

You say that I'm lying. Is there some reason you question my integrity? 

You say racism is systemic, but I don't think that's a useful way of analyzing the issue. I look at racism on two levels: policy, and individuals. An example of racist policy would be something like Jim Crow laws. An example of racist individuals would be someone expressing a racial preference in dating. Systemic effects, while plausible in some contexts, isn't what I'm talking about in this thread. 

Your comments on dropping the term "racist" aren't clear. I don't know what you're trying to say there. 
#97
FourTrouble
FourTrouble's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 204
0
2
3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
0
2
3
-->
@RationalMadman
Maybe you misunderstood this:

 I'm not saying we have an ethical duty to engage in anti-racist dating practices. 
To clarify, we don't have an ethical obligation to date people of a different race. The problem is racial preferences in dating, and those preferences could include a rigid preference for someone of a different race. Thus, we should make dating decisions on the basis of stuff other than "race."

If we happen to date someone of a different race, it'll inevitably have anti-racist effects that resonate across society. The point of my statement above -- the one you said was a lie -- is that we shouldn't consciously attempt to date someone of the opposite race.

#98
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,347
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@FourTrouble
Well, I get that you're not advocating for a governmental 'law, 'forcing people to date colorblind.
#99
FourTrouble
FourTrouble's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 204
0
2
3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
0
2
3
-->
@Lemming
From what I understood, you are okay with people choosing not to date blacks. That's the equivalent of saying you're okay with racist behaviors. In contrast, I think we should condemn racist dating preferences. 

Notably, it's virtually impossible to know if someone's making racist dating decisions, so I don't think this sort of social condemnation runs the risk of "cancelling" anyone. Rather, it subtly encourages people to reshape their dating preferences in ways that benefit society as a whole. 
#100
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,347
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@FourTrouble
Again, it's a wide paintbrush to say I'm "okay with racist behaviors."

I 'am fine with people choosing to not date blacks,
I'm fine with people choosing to 'only date blacks,
I'm fine with people choosing not to date fat people,
I'm fine with people choosing to 'only date fat people,

I prefer 'not living in a society where the drinking fountain is separated by skin color.
I prefer 'not living in a society where the bus or school is separated by skin color.
#101
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@FourTrouble
> There's a distinction between immutable preferences* (e.g. sexual orientation) and mutable** preferences (e.g. liking or disliking coffee). 

*Characteristic, not preference 

**mere
#102
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Here is you - to summarize - trying to justify a broad brush by quoting outliers; furthermore - specifically - the case of escort - the DIFFERENCE is the case of the contract - which is that they have the ability to refuse anyone BECAUSE the service is talking about the agency of the women, such a thing IS NOT the case of workers - as the difference is one's autonomy and one's doing dishes, or making cakes, or selling clothes. Their is an ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE.
What is this essential difference? Why is it "essentially" different for example for an escort to deny service to a patron of a different so-called race/ethnicity than let's say for a chef to deny baking a cake for someone who's homosexual? Or for a so-called White employer to deny employment to a prospective so-called Black candidate by reason of his/her so-called race? Remember that I asked you to remember this:

you still need to put in labor of some sort in exchange for resources - which is, practically speaking, what work is. 
Does an escort not put in some "labor" in an "exchange for resources"? Why can she deny this exchange for resources? Why can an employer not exercise his/her discretion--regardless of how sexist or racist it is---when entering an arrangement to exchange labor for compensation?

The same is the case of ROMANTIC and SEXUAL relations - I have ENTIRELY NON_SEXUAL romantic relationships. You are entirely conflating the two - but romantic feelings are feelings of pleasure from experiencing another mental company - the same is not necessarily the same for SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPs, while the two CAN intertwine, they are not ALWAYS so - see: Asexual people who have romantic relationships. 
Nope, not even in the slightest. You've described at best a "platonic" relationship, which can involve intimate connections for non-sexual reasons, but romantic relations are defined by sex--whether it be coitus or mere sexual attraction. I've conflated nothing; I've only identified.

While you are right that they do not need to be be 1 to 1 comparisons - the THING you are comparing MUST have the same consequences for both sides of the analogy.
No, that is YOUR standard. Analogies require no such thing.

Finally, the entire "majority versus all" is negligible, as the amount of people NOT in this specific majority ARE EXTREMELY SMALL.
That does not matter. It provides exceptions to your alleged rule.

Not to mention that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, as a MAJORITY of wealthy and RICH people still do have to work in order to maintain their wealth and therefore their lives.
So one does not need to work in order to live, right?

Also... people who steal ARE working, illegally?
How so? And make sure it meets your description of work.

You've also just agreed to some points - like denying someone on the aspect of race is racist.
I've never even attempted to deny it. My point is: so what if it's racist?

And this is the point of my analogy. We can accept that an escort, for example, can deny interaction of any sort with whomever she pleases because we respect the fact her body and time is hers to behave however she wishes. So even if she is being racist, this does not disqualify her control over her labor, time, body, and resources. So why is it that an employer who has resources cannot exercise the same discretion--racist or not, sexist or not--when it concerns exchange compensation (employer's resources) for labor?

Now we can pretend and continue your pretext that there's an "essential" difference, or we can identify the purpose of this pretext, which is to justify an inconsistency.

Finally - no - it doesn't mean FIRING people - it means that whenever looking for new workers you don't have a BIAS against certain people.
And if they do have a bias, so what?

Furthermore, the case is because they were discriminated, but the difficulty of an action does not mean that it should not be done. Which matters more, the ease of doing something for companies, or the case of people unable to find work because they are being DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, for something they have NO CONTROL over. 
So, I'll ask again: what is to be done about racists parents who won't hire so-called Black babysitters?
#103
FourTrouble
FourTrouble's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 204
0
2
3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
0
2
3
-->
@coal
You're right. I actually wrote "immutable characteristic" first, but changed it because I wanted to emphasize immutable vs mutable rather than characteristic vs preference. Perhaps wrong. 
#104
FourTrouble
FourTrouble's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 204
0
2
3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
0
2
3
-->
@coal
Do you disagree with me about this? I'm guessing you do lol. 
#105
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@FourTrouble
When we're talking about "preferences," we're implying that there's a question of agency involved in sexual orientation.

Up until the late 1990s-2000s, a common argument was that gay people weren't denied equal treatment under the law because they had the same marital options as straight people: to marry, or not to marry (women).  Or that gay people just chose to have sex with other men.  Etc.  So no gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws were somehow ok.  

This argument is, of course, absurd; for reasons that we now more or less take for granted in society now.

But the history is not so far gone that I've forgotten it.  I've seen families torn apart over their misguided belief that somehow their son who came out "chose to be gay," or their daughter was "inflicting" the fact that she was a lesbian on them. 

As for your points on race, I don't pass judgment on what other people do with their lives so long as it's between consenting persons and doesn't intrude on anyone else's liberty.  On that, I think we mostly agree. 

I also agree excluding people from even consideration based on race is a lamentable behavior.  While I make room that some people just aren't attracted to some races (just like some people aren't attracted to some body types), saying something like "no latinos" or "no asians" or "no blacks" is cruel.  

On the flip side, race-fetish play is something I strongly oppose.  It's become more of an issue among gay guys than you might think, as well.  Probably not proper to discuss in detail here, but saying you only want "big black dick" or want to be a "slave to master" based on "master's race" is a whole mess of fucked up.  
#106
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@FourTrouble
Note for the record my post 105 is replying to your post 103, not 104. 
#107
FourTrouble
FourTrouble's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 204
0
2
3
FourTrouble's avatar
FourTrouble
0
2
3
-->
@coal
I see your point.
#108
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
How is it any more fucked up than saying you only want males and their cocks as opposed to vagina?

Yes, when I say 'you' I am asking you. You probably have a type, we all do, that goes beyond just the biological sex of the person you're fucking as well (I say sex, not gender, intentionally here, as I am alluding to sexism if you are alluding to racism). You may even have kinks that are inappropriate but very pleasing to you in a roleplay or general fetish-friendly scenario.

There is absolutely nothing more discriminatory about refusing to date a race than there is to not date a certain sex.

What is true, however, is that in today's day and age admitting you have the former preference is more taboo because people get emotional. The proof it isn't equivocal to racism is the fact that all races, black-Africans, black-Caribbeans brown-asians, 'yellow' Asians, Arabs, all variants of Latino, so on and so forth, do this.

I have never come across a race or ethnicity that has a majority of its members whom actively seek to date outside the race, I have seen the opposite plenty of times. Individuals may begin more and more (in melting pot nations) to interracially mate and form loving relationships, absolutely but how do you know some interracial couples aren't racist towards other races?

As I said to theweakeredge:
To many who propose this forum thread's topic, there is a notion that dating someone proves you 'approve'. I am sure you blatantly can see that sexist men can date women and male-loathing women at times can date men (but often can be abusive during the relationship and it tends to stem from some kind of trauma if it's not pure anger issues or narcissism).

With regards to racism, I have seen Wylted himself flexing "I have fucked black chicks" to justify his 'I can't be racist' stance. I am also certain there are people with fetishes for fucking a race they hate (it could also be done by blacks to whites, an 'envy and rage' hatefuck and short-term passionate dating type thing). This thread says dating, not lifelong marriage, so you can't say this is an uncalled for Kritik and line of questioning.

I do not see the direct correlation between dating a specific race and 'proving' you don't have underlying racism. You could date a black male/female/genderfluid as a non-black and be racist in other ways to that exact race. It doesn't necessarily need to be to that person, you could genuinely 'love' the person and certainly lust them but by no means does this correlate with direct proof you are absent of racism in and of itself unless you long-term live with them, produce offspring with them and show well past the 'dating' stage that you enjoy that race. Even then, a minority can still be racist elsewhere in their life and attitudes.

Equally, I do not see the negative correlation between (the absence of) dating a particular race and being racist. Sure, the 'trend' will exist as at least a 60/40 type thing but I am certain there are many non-racists who in no shape or form have proven they aren't racist via their dating, especially if we include all races in the measurements.

#109
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@coal
Interesting to come back to this debate and see how it has evolved into a discussion about sexuality and sexual proclivity.


Sex....No matter how one fantasises or what one's  preferences are....Still the same old internal drive.....Modus operandi largely irrelevant.


Big black dick master.....Whatever floats ones boat.......It's only a "whole mess of fucked up"  if you constantly worry about how other people  choose to operate.


It always amuses me, that the morally self-righteous are usually the ones with sexual depravity constantly on their minds.
#110
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
You have made claims of such, but you are simply empirically wrong - just because you do not ACCEPT romantic relationships as nonsexual does not mean that they AREN'T:
"While sexual orientation is the tendency to feel sexual desire toward people of certain genders, a person may have the tendency to fall in love with certain people. We might call this romantic orientation—the desire for intimate and emotional relationships with people of particular genders or sexes" [LINK]
Again - SEXUAL AROUSAL can be, and often IS a part of the equation, but it is simply untrue that it ALWAYS IS. Now - this IS in contrast to the  popular triangular theory of love perspective; however, I, and several other researchers, would contest the inherent connection of sexual attraction to romance - it is simple not always the case. While this is not the full study, it does provide some insight into the issue I think would be useful here:
"The processes underlying sexual desire evolved in the context of sexual mating, whereas the processes underlying romantic love--or pair bonding--originally evolved in the context of infant-caregiver attachment. Consequently, not only can humans experience these feelings separately, but an individual's sexual predisposition for the same sex, the other sex, or both sexes may not circumscribe his her capacity to fall in love with partners of either gender. Also, the role of oxytocin in both love and desire may contribute to the widely observed phenomenon that women report experiencing greater interconnections between love and desire than do men. Because most research on the neurobiological substrates of sexual desire and affectional bonding has been conducted with animals, a key priority for future research is systematic investigation of the coordinated biological, behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes that shape experiences of love and desire in humans." [LINK]

Furthermore, the actual study which popularized the triangular theory of love did not actually PROVE that romantic and sexual love are not separate, they simply concluded that because there was no evidence, and because of the high correlation there is likely not:
"Is there evidence that differentiates brief occurrences of romantic love from those of sexual desire? To our knowledge, the answer164 GONZAGA, TURNER, KELTNER, CAMPOS, AND ALTEMUSis no. Select studies have assessed romantic love and sexual desirewith self-report scales, treating romantic love and sexual desire asglobal sentiments that generalize across time and context. Subscales of the Triangular Love Scale (Sternberg, 1997) that measureintimacy and passion commonly correlate at .60 or higher" [LINK]
I would like to draw your attention to the publish date, 2006, in other words, while one cannot fault the researchers for coming to their conclusions at the time, as new evidence emerges, we cannot simply default to the position we "proved" in the late 90s and early 2000s, it is simply outdated research. Do not mistake my insistence for ignorance, I have done the research here. 


Furthermore, to address your question - the key difference is the SORT of labour being performed - in one instance you are giving up some energy and general physical work; which, unless abused, has little effect on one's mental health. In contrast, sex-work requires an extremely intimate level of physical labour, which - regardless of outcome - has profound effects on mental health. As I briefly explained earlier, there is an essential difference here. 


Perhaps you are confused by insistence on this matter, or find me hypocritical, but do understand that there are impacts to sex, ones which do not exist for most forms of work - social, physical, mental - while there are of regular jobs they are so too a much lesser extent. Its the same reason why some jobs are required to provide more legal protection or physical protection for workers than others - in this case - these people are getting more physical protection. You did go on about analogies and how there are exceptions to my rule - there are exceptions to every rule - the fact that you can point out a couple does not change the fact that it applies to the vast majority of the populations - and yes - by the fact that you have attempted to come to very specific conclusions with these analogies and did not take into consideration the actual portions which dictated the things you are discussing, your analogy still fails. You are trying to compare a sex-worker refusing sex to a worker refusing labor because of characteristics, but fail to realize that consenting to make someone a burger is different from agreeing to have sex due to the affects of such labour on individuals. 


I've tried to be much more level-headed here - I want to stop leading discussions into a fire, so here's my attempt - I apologize for any previous slights.
#111
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Smithereens
If it's racist to not want to date people of a certain race, is it sexist to only want to date people of a certain gender(aka being straight)?  No, it's just a preference.
#112
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
Again - SEXUAL AROUSAL can be, and often IS a part of the equation, but it is simply untrue that it ALWAYS IS. Now - this IS in contrast to the  popular triangular theory of love perspective; however, I, and several other researchers, would contest the inherent connection of sexual attraction to romance - it is simple not always the case. While this is not the full study, it does provide some insight into the issue I think would be useful here:
You're beating a dead horse. Even by your description, romantic relationships are defined by sex. You left this little tidbit out:

It's about who we feel affection for and may include who we seek out to build a life or family with.
I'm not excluding any platonic elements from romantic relationships, but you're suggesting that you bear relationship(s) absent of any sexual element which contradicts romantic relationships being romantic relationships.

Do not mistake my insistence for ignorance, I have done the research here. 
It's not ignorance; it's denial. Platonic relationships suit your description far better than romantic relationships do. You're suggesting that romantic relationships can be conducted without a sexual element, and that's simply not the case.

Perhaps you are confused by insistence on this matter, or find me hypocritical, but do understand that there are impacts to sex, ones which do not exist for most forms of work - social, physical, mental - while there are of regular jobs they are so too a much lesser extent. Its the same reason why some jobs are required to provide more legal protection or physical protection for workers than others - in this case - these people are getting more physical protection. You did go on about analogies and how there are exceptions to my rule - there are exceptions to every rule - the fact that you can point out a couple does not change the fact that it applies to the vast majority of the populations - and yes - by the fact that you have attempted to come to very specific conclusions with these analogies and did not take into consideration the actual portions which dictated the things you are discussing, your analogy still fails. You are trying to compare a sex-worker refusing sex to a worker refusing labor because of characteristics, but fail to realize that consenting to make someone a burger is different from agreeing to have sex due to the affects of such labour on individuals. 


I've tried to be much more level-headed here - I want to stop leading discussions into a fire, so here's my attempt - I apologize for any previous slights.
Yes your arguments are hypocritical. The reason for  my analogies is to highlight the inconsistency in those who argue that it's okay for the government to interfere when some corporate employer discriminates on the basis of so-called "race," but on the other hand argue that the government has no prerogative when a sex worker discriminates on the basis of so-called "race," or when parents refuse to hire a particular babysitter on the basis of so-called "race." And it's not because of these "essential" differences you're attempting to explain. It's contingent on the institutions you respect:

1. You respect that an escort's body is her own; you respect that she can choose whomever she decides to engage. And that the social consequences of racism do not supersede the social consequences of undermining one's bodily autonomy.

2. You respect a parent's authority over their children. You respect the parent's discretion in choosing whom he/she believes is best to surveil his/her children even if it is so-called "racist." Because the social consequences of racism do not supersede the the social consequences of undermining a parent's authority over their children.

3. You DO NOT respect an employer's discretion in selecting candidates which best suits his/her operations even if it's racist because you believe the social consequences of racism supersede an employer's prerogative to dictate with whom he/she enters a professional relationship.

It has little to do--if anything--with "mental health," "working to live," or that other rigamarole. Because this can easily be applied to the other two. And that's the thing, the reasoning which informs the third hasn't been substantiated. You're arbitrarily selecting that which falls within one's discretion and that which does not, even if the premise for all are the same.

So when I state that a person can dictate the extent of his or her participation in an association even if "racist" considerations were made, that applies just as much as to sexual interaction as it does to professional relationships (i.e. employment.) And what one party "needs" is not the responsibility of the other. This is a consistent line of reasoning. The line of reasoning which informs your argument is not.



#113
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
It's about who we feel affection for and may include who we seek out to build a life or family with.
I'm not excluding any platonic elements from romantic relationships, but you're suggesting that you bear relationship(s) absent of any sexual element which contradicts romantic relationships being romantic relationships.
I'll get to the rest later, I just wanted to bring this to your attention, did you notice that one word there? In the middle of the sentence? "May"? Because I did - I ALREADY agreed that romantic and sexual love does typically align, but they do not ALWAYS align. You are seemingly deliberately misreading texts now so they agree with your conclusions, can you please take your time to analyze things? Because its apparent you don't - if this is representative of the level of thought you put into these replies I'm starting to think I should just leave you to your own head - because you clearly aren't taking this seriously enough to comprehend words correctly.
#114
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'll get to the rest later, I just wanted to bring this to your attention, did you notice that one word there? In the middle of the sentence? "May"? Because I did - I ALREADY agreed that romantic and sexual love does typically align, but they do not ALWAYS align. You are seemingly deliberately misreading texts now so they agree with your conclusions, can you please take your time to analyze things? Because its apparent you don't - if this is representative of the level of thought you put into these replies I'm starting to think I should just leave you to your own head - because you clearly aren't taking this seriously enough to comprehend words correctly.
Answer me this: how is a romantic relationship distinguished from a platonic relationship? Is it possible to have a romantic relationship with a family member which isn't necessarily incestuous?

#115
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
A platonic relationship is different from a romantic relationship in several regards. The most easily explained would be to degree - for example - you can have physical contact with just friends, in a lot of cultures hugging, kissing, and even cuddles is considered friendship - it has to do with how much of a connection you have to a person while also having dominating feelings towards them - or feelings that have you do things without you necessarily meaning to do so. To a degree of feeling physically uncomfortable by not spending time with them. It also has to do with companionship in general - being dependent on another for steadiness and other emotional needs. Finally its a possessive emotion, even in forms of polygamy. 

Familiar love is different from romantic, but not very different from strong platonic love - familiar love is essentially the strongest form of platonic love. You don't typically find pleasure from the other's personality, it is a type of love that is formed through connections made by experience - so yes - it is possible that a familiar love can become romantic - it does not usually happen because those feelings aren't usually deriving pleasure from another personality or company, if you do start to feel happiness spending time with them it is usually the difference of inherently and externally feeling that pleasure (and no I don't mean anything regarding sexual urges) - familiar and platonic relationships are fundamentally built on social and biological connections, mothers have an internal feeling (typically) towards their offspring. Friends find things in common that they can share, partners have an internal non-biological feeling for each other- usually from the subconscious - though if you consider the the effects of the brain biological and neurological that can technically be the same thing - to put it better - mothers feel an evolutionary connection to their offspring - this is not the case with romantic partners. 
 
#116
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
A platonic relationship is different from a romantic relationship in several regards. The most easily explained would be to degree - for example - you can have physical contact with just friends, in a lot of cultures hugging, kissing, and even cuddles is considered friendship - it has to do with how much of a connection you have to a person while also having dominating feelings towards them - or feelings that have you do things without you necessarily meaning to do so. To a degree of feeling physically uncomfortable by not spending time with them. It also has to do with companionship in general - being dependent on another for steadiness and other emotional needs. Finally its a possessive emotion, even in forms of polygamy. 
And what do you believe informs the possessive emotion in non-sexual romantic relationships in contrast to the possessive emotion in sexual romantic relationships?

Familiar love is different from romantic, but not very different from strong platonic love - familiar love is essentially the strongest form of platonic love. You don't typically find pleasure from the other's personality, it is a type of love that is formed through connections made by experience - so yes - it is possible that a familiar love can become romantic - it does not usually happen because those feelings aren't usually deriving pleasure from another personality or company, if you do start to feel happiness spending time with them it is usually the difference of inherently and externally feeling that pleasure (and no I don't mean anything regarding sexual urges) - familiar and platonic relationships are fundamentally built on social and biological connections, mothers have an internal feeling (typically) towards their offspring. Friends find things in common that they can share, partners have an internal non-biological feeling for each other- usually from the subconscious - though if you consider the the effects of the brain biological and neurological that can technically be the same thing - to put it better - mothers feel an evolutionary connection to their offspring - this is not the case with romantic partners. 
What would a non-sexual romantic familiar relationship be/look like?

Also, keep in mind that you stated that a mother's attachment to her offspring is "evolutionary."

#117
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
The difference is that in one instance, their is sexual desire fueling possessiveness, and the other simply desire for them - as a person in all - while the latter can also be attuned to the former, that is the basic answer. 

Furthermore, I believe you would have to separate a mother from their child to see a relationship like that happen nonsexually, the fact of biological evolutionary drive is strong.
#118
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Athias
@Theweakeredge
Answer me this: how is a romantic relationship distinguished from a platonic relationship?
Romantic - you are having sex.

Platonic - you are not having sex. 


Is it possible to have a romantic relationship with a family member which isn't necessarily incestuous?
No.

#119
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@coal
You are simply wrong, and I have already provided the evidence to back that up - simply asserting your views is hardly convincing. 
#120
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
What am I wrong about?