|
Hugs
|
|
Getting started |
Registered: January 2016
Messages: 8
|
|
|
Of course, it doesn't apply to all of us, but...
Think about it honestly, isn't there a clear tendency of picking out the european-germanic-nordic-whatever it is features (I mean, white skin, blue eyes, blond hair, etc.) over all of the other?
Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are some hot black and asian fellows out there, but, as far as I know that has something to do with facial symmetry and the Fiboncacci number, rather than a cultural thing.
My point is, we, on average, become racist when it comes to sexual attraction. I'm not saying it's up to us, that we are the one to blame for our tastes (does anybody like things voluntarily, anyway?). But is this a matter of cultural legacy, about what we've been taught by society? If so, would that still count as racism?
What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
|
dgt224
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: USA
Registered: May 2011
Messages: 81
|
|
|
I think "racist" is a somewhat elusive concept, perhaps because it is not entirely well defined. Is it racist to prefer the company of those who look more or less like yourself? I would say it isn't; preference doesn't cross over into racism until you begin to judge or limit others based on their similarity to yourself (or to what you would prefer to be). And as for preferring white skin, blue eyes, and blond hair - speak for yourself! I prefer red hair and freckles, although the college roommate that I fell in love with (straight, mores the pity) had black hair without a freckle to be seen, and I recall a black boy from a martial arts class I taught many years ago who was simply adorable (gay, too, but less than half my age, so I settled for adoring from a distance).
If you aren't even the least bit open to the possibility of being attracted to someone of a different race it's probably legitimate to call that attitude racist. But if you just find yourself attracted to people of a certain appearance and that happens to be Germanic/Nordic or some other European type, I don't think that is necessarily racist, any more than being attracted to people of a particular sex makes you sexist.
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
|
|
|
"Hugs wrote on Sun, 17 April 2016 01:21"Of course, it doesn't apply to all of us, but...
Think about it honestly, isn't there a clear tendency of picking out the european-germanic-nordic-whatever it is features (I mean, white skin, blue eyes, blond hair, etc.) over all of the other?
Don't get me wrong, I do believe there are some hot black and asian fellows out there, but, as far as I know that has something to do with facial symmetry and the Fiboncacci number, rather than a cultural thing.
My point is, we, on average, become racist when it comes to sexual attraction. I'm not saying it's up to us, that we are the one to blame for our tastes (does anybody like things voluntarily, anyway?). But is this a matter of cultural legacy, about what we've been taught by society? If so, would that still count as racism?
What do you guys think?
--
No. Beauty standards are personal. Attraction is personal. The perception of beauty and finding a person beautiful is something we cannot control. Racism is a choice.
Interestingly, we do, when hiring staff, discriminate against unattractive people, and in favour of attractive people.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
ChrisR
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Western US
Registered: October 2014
Messages: 136
|
|
|
Of course they are, depending on the situation and who's staking the claim. Your mention of the Nordic model is indeed a classic, and many people have been brought up with that as the ideal. (Except perhaps in the 1940s when another 'ism' negated that somewhat.) But individuals vary widely in their interpretation.
In this group, for example, there is obvious sexism due to the purpose of the content. There is also ageism, racism, linguisticsism, etc.ism, and so on. After all, we've seen darned few images of naked black men aged 70 in the Total Inspiration category.
On he other hand, if you do it in a way that I can maneuver myself to be offended, or better, to be part of an offended group, I will have what I need to cry racism. But then, I thought most of the Founding Fathers were white dudes until Broadway's Hamilton came along to correct my thought process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for physical attributes, yes, I prefer one type over another, and that type is remarkably similar to my own: red-haired Caucasians - a few freckles don't hurt. The longer and redder the hair the better. Strawberry-blond is nice but not as much so. Then blonds and sandy-blond Caucasions. Then brown-haired and/or black-haired. Eyes are important, but not so much so. Body shape is far more important than hair or eyes or facial features. I like red-heads and black-haired guys more when they are pale, but the others tanned.
As for racial differences, Hispanics rarely do anything for me, Asians as well. Mediterranean and Polynesians not so much either. Blacks can sometimes have appeal. Eastern Indians are not interesting. Northern American Indians are often cute and attractive, but Southern American Indians not so much.
Why? I have no f'ing clue. I just like some and not others.
Another aspect:
I love vintage pornography. The 'feel' of film images is warmer and gentler than digital photography. Is this photogenic racism? I recently went so far as to share what vintage stuff I've found online at an infamous/famous image source site. I've found I'm far from alone in appreciating the vintage look and feel. Not just of the models themselves, but of the actual tone and composition of earlier photography. It's not as clear or detailed, so why do I like it? Rarity? Is it like red-heads? There are so few, so I am attracted to the unusual?
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
|
Ray
|
|
Getting started |
Location: Sydney, Australia
Registered: July 2014
Messages: 26
|
|
|
This one gets me going - hope it doesn't get me banned from this site! I will try to word it carefully.
First, I have a hobby horse that there is no such thing as race. Anyone doubting it should read "Ever since Darwin" by Stephen J. Gould.
I read recently that when people look at others, they classify first gender, then race, then age, then beauty. Race at position 2? Seriously?
Can't agree less - I hate classifying people according to race. Why is Barack Obama the first "black" president when he is 50% white? Why do Australian Aborigines get a pension when they are only 1/16 aborigine? When and where are we going to draw the line? With ever more mixtures between "races" with increasing international travel, all this is getting increasingly silly.
I don't doubt gender as #1, but then I would have beauty and then age before race. Don't you look at boys as to whether they are cute rather than white (seems to be the majority opinion here - at least amongst the vocal ones)? I admit to seeing gender first, but I notice cuteness long before any alleged "race".
But now on to what the issue really seems to be intended to be...
I always liked the exotic - I am (or rather was - don't have much left) one of those red haired kids that Smokr likes, but I wouldn't have been interested in him (nothing personal, S) - I always looked for the dark ones. There is nothing racist in that - they are just the ones who turn my head. I wonder if it is conditioned to some extent by the first one. Can be "black", Asian, whatever - in the 80s it was the Argie footballers, which was somewhat dangerous to admit for a Brit (at the time).
I agree with Timmy; it is just personal preference, but I dislike the impression given on this site that blond or European is preferable - that again is an impression given by the very few here. I have a list of cute Premiership footballers (my preferred premiership team): maybe I should post that, but suffice it to say that the defenders would be Willian (Brasil), Virgil can Dijk and Nathan Ake (both Netherlands) - that ought to have some of you rushing to your search engines!
ChrisR raises the issue of the "Total inspiration" thread. I don't see so much racism as ageism there: it is a good thing that Timmy wrote at the start that there will be no nudity here! As someone who had far too much sex before he was sexually mature, I ask:"Why do stories have to feature underage boys so often?". What is the fascination with prompting "stories" with pictures of kids that are, to a significant extent, not even remotely mature yet?
I don't intend to offend, but it needs to be asked.
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
|
|
|
Banned for an opinion? Highly unlikely unless it is repeated against advice, and incitement to break the law, or personal attacks, or repeated disruptive behaviour. People do, rarely, fail to understand when warned about their behaviour, that they are starting a process of choosing to leave the forum, one that will be enforced by their continued actions.
[Updated on: Mon, 25 April 2016 14:10]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
|
|
|
Assuming humankind to be descended according to the Leaky discoveries in Africa, 'race' is a term that has no intrinsic value.
We did, however, divide into groups, which became tribes and similar. We developed the terms on which race is built, but races, per se, seem absent.
On the basis that, like cleaves unto like, and that we also prefer the familiar to the unusual (most of us, but not all of us) then distinct looks developed, much in the same way that we have chosen to do with dogs, cats, cattle, horses. Since this was free choice those looks are far less rigid than, say, the Irish Setter's breed standard.
Some of us developed darker skin, different nasal types, different hair colour. Modern politics are based on the religious supremacy of the Europeans, a set of people who had the technical ability to conquer the world at the time, and whose innate superiority was unquestioned by them. They despised the alleged primitive savages they found, and killed, enslaved and/or converted them.
Other cultures were ignored. How much do we know today about the amazing city of Pollunarua in Sri Lanka? Have you even heard of it?
Sexual attraction is a peculiar thing, as we all know. So is love. Many historical pairings between cultures were ruined by religion. "Half Caste" was a pejorative title. Other terms abounded: Mulatto, Octoroon, and so forth, all designed to demonstrate white supremacy.
Except that the people of China had gunpowder first, one could argue that the gun created supremacy and racism.
So, where does that leave, eg, me and those I am attracted to? And, are those I am attracted to actually beautiful?
I am blond, blue eyed, and white, though my white ancestry is 50% middle and eastern European. I tan very well, for example, despite having a fair complexion.
I am attracted, mostly, to people like me. I like blond haired and blue eyed people, preferring male over female. By no means all of the people I am attracted to are beautiful. I have rarely been attracted to people who look different from me, but it has happened often enough for me to notice. The first person I fell for had, then, blond hair and blue eyes. There was a seemingly inevitable progression of blue eyes blonds after that, interspersed with brunettes, straw hair and brown eyed, the lot. But most were blond and blue eyed like me
The lady I married almost 38 years ago is a grey eyed redhead.
With regard to beauty, that is different from attraction, though the sets of 'beautiful people' and 'the people I find attractive' may intersect. Ulrika Jonsson was once beautiful, but I have not found her attractive, for example, yet she has blonde hair and blue eyes.
I can assess beauty in all human beings, as can all human beings. My set of beauties and your set will not be congruent, even if we start from the same large sample. (0.9 probability). I should not need to say explicitly that I find some people from all backgrounds to be beautiful. I am more used to my own type, though, so am likely to pick people most closely resembling me.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to stick my head out on the chopping block here.
Well, not that I'd like to, but I'm going to.
Where our preferences come from is hard to determine, but we do end up with them. I don't see any harm or foul in it. We tend to like what we like. We're attracted to what we're attracted to. End of story. Perhaps we simply seek out similar appearances to our own by the fact that we grew up with those same similar types as we matured and developed sexual/physical attractions. Maybe, like some psychiatrists claim, we actually want to marry/wed/bed our mothers/fathers. I don't know. I only know what I like. It's what I like. I didn't pick it. I don't ever remember wondering what I wanted to be attracted to. If I had, I'm almost 100% sure I would have chosen to prefer women. Oh well.
As for the preponderance of Anglo guys in the Inspirational Thread... most of us here are of Anglo/European descent, thus, the Inspirational Thread is mostly just that. But I noticed a new member, from Spain, who posted his own preferential faces, and lo and behold, many are of Latin stock. And what stock, too!
If this board were in Afro-Asiatic languages, I suspect strongly that the Inspirational Thread would contain mostly dark-skinned photos. If the board were in Chinese, there would be a preponderance of Eastern Asians. If the board were in Arabic, the thread would contain mostly Arabic guys.
Anyone want to argue that?
Of course not.
But the board is in English. Thus, the Inspirational Thread is mostly Anglo guys.
We post what is cute and interesting. We're mostly white/Anglo/Europeans, so we mostly post white/Anglo/Europeans. We're gay. So, we post guys. The board is geared toward teen-age romance stories. So most of the white/Anglo/European guys we post are teens. If the board was in Greek and made up of lesbians writing about octogenarian romance, the thread would be full of Mediterranean women with gray hair.
If Timmy had geared this site toward supporting middle-aged gay men, and stories about mid-life sexual and identity crises and romance, the Inspirational thread would be full of mature men with slightly gray-haired chests. If he had used Hebrew for the board language, and had decided on supporting gay Jews who wanted to start working out, the Inspirational thread would be full of beefcake wearing yarmulkes.
Are beauty standards racist?
Yes, mostly.
Are beauty standards ageist?
Yes, mostly.
Are beauty standards sexist?
Yes, mostly.
Gay Anglo men who like gay teen romances are not interested in pictures of scantily-clad Asian women with gray hair.
Well, not much.... I think... right?
But then, again, they aren't. We aren't forcing those tastes on someone else, or requiring anyone else to abide by them. To be truly racist, something must be forced upon or influence others. Same for ageist and sexist. It is sexist to pay women differently than men simply because they are women. If they can do the same job, as fast, as well, as accurately, they deserve the same pay. But we aren't affecting any women's lives or income here. This is an optional encounter. If women don't want to read about gay teen romance, or see teen or young adult images, they don't have to come here.
If I like red-headed dorky guys with lean bodies and a few freckles, it is no one's business and affects no one else. It's not racist, sexist, or ageist.
Now, if I had a company, and all I hired were teen guys with red hair and lean bodies, I'd not only be suspect, but probably jailed.
If I did hire anyone who applied irregardless of looks, gender, or age, but promoted only young guys with red hair, and paid all the women less than any of the men, I'd deserve jail.
I know I just made a perfect circular argument, but then, hell, this is a circular question, anyway.
[Updated on: Tue, 26 April 2016 03:57]
raysstories.com
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|