Black guys like white girls because they're white

Of course I'm into IR. It's just that at one point in my life I was very skeptical about my motives for being into WW. Then I finally realized it was something I've had since I even had interest in girls. So I decided not to fight my feelings and just go with it.

 

Thanks for the compliments!

Hey sweetie! Thanks for the compliments!

 

I was thinking when I read this about the different reasons stated herein for dating or liking WW by BM..

So then I guess the question for those of us WW is, does it matter to us what reason they want to date us?

How much does that impact whether we date them or not?

 

PREACH ON, PREACH ON, PREACH ON!!!! AMEN LIKE NOBODY'S BUSINESS

 

I can feel you, here.

 

I do not, never have and never will like a woman solely for her skin hue.

 

Re: Overgeneralization

Correctomundo nativerunner!! I think Tyra, Halle, Rihanna, Beyonce, Tamia, Ashanti, etc...are all REALLY, REALLY hot. Just like how i like rosey cheeks and the skin difference with white girls, i also like the golden brown skin that some black and mexican women have. I can find anybody attractive, in any racial category, with great ease (if they are in fact attractive of course :wink: ).

 

Definitely amy....i totally agree. I like white girls who act, well...."white." You know, i just want people to be themselves. I really like the differences.

 

I can definitely relate to what you're saying here SoCal. DEFINITELY.... I was very cautious about it as well because i didn't want to be doing it for the wrong reasons. I wanted it to feel right, and natural at the same time. I'm finally at that point where i realize that i AM into it for the right reasons, and NOT the wrong ones, so i'm really excited about that.

 

Black men date white women ONLY because they are white?

As a new member on this site, I like this discussion thread even though it's pretty dated.My thoughts: I openly admit that I prefer white women because I feel more strongly attracted to them.There is a chemistry I feel, and a sexual excitement.
HAVING SAID THAT: I refuse to date or be with ANYONE who thinks the sole attribute of being white,black,or whatever is enough to keep me interested.I find that stereotype highly insulting. I am attracted to warmth, intelligence, sensitivity,kindness, compassion....ALL of those things regardless of race.
What occured within me was simply an AWAKENING to the fact of my racial preferences, and I realized that I was entitled to be happy and indulge myself per my preferences.But it's absolutely untrue that I'd be with a person that does not fit the other criteria I named above.
I think there are many other black males who would agree, and cringe whenever they hear this tripe. Thanks for letting me express myself.

 

Some of you guys are in the dark about the comment "You are with a WW b/c she is White":

Let's put it this way, if the woman who was not White had all the other qualities you desired, but b/c of your strong preference for WW, you would be less likely to be with the non-white woman. Why, b/c you did not give her the time of day b/c you were not that attracted to her b/c of her skin color. Thus, even though you do not make it the sole reason, you make it the primary numeral uno reason to be with the woman--the skin color. Thus, that is why someone would probably state you are with the woman b/c she is White. It's the most important factor determining if you will approach her or not. If the other characteristics were more important--your dating options would be more open. Everybody has characteristics and qualities that they rank as most important to least important when determining attractiveness and rather you are sexually attracted or not. I am more of a facial feature person and then body type. Skin color and hair texture is irrelevant when I find someone I am sexually attracted to, I don't even pay attention unless they have bad skin and dirty nasty hair.

A person would not be incorrect if they stated you are with a woman b/c she is White. You are with the woman b/c she is White. However, it would be incorrect to think that there is no love shared and etc. between you two. Just like with all couples, you are going to be with that person, I would hope, due to other traits and qualities too. Placing the skin color as a primary or most important attribute to judge whether or not she is attractive or not to even consider her the right person for the relationship you seek with her rather it is purely sexual, dating, or a long-term commitment. That is what the comment really stands for.

In the end, just admit part of the reason you are with her is b/c she is White. If it is true, why get offended and argue about it. You know stun some of the people who say it. Just say damn right plus she is nice, interesting, compassionate, loving, and got good punani too and watch there mouth drop and move on.

Peace.

 

Hello:
If you read the post, you 'd see that the other attributes comes first for me. I recognize what I prefer, but in my past I have found those attributes which are intangibles within all people regardless of race.
Again, it's a bit insulting to act as if that attribute means anything other than what it is; the existence of a racial attribute. If you mean to say that I am attracted to white women because there are certain aesthetics which are unique to the Caucasian culture that I may find attractive that's fine;it's like an appreciation.I may prefer certain characteristics but again-what determines whether or not I actually LIKE the woman is contingent on all those other things.
I guess the source of me taking umbrage is that to say"I like this white girl because she's white," sort of makes her skin color more important than what it is.But perhaps if you mean to say that "whiteness" is in the same category as "tallness" "shortness," or "ticklishness" then less offense would be taken.It's just the above myth and streotype can have poisonous connotations and seems to infer that I'm a bit myopic in my thinking, and makes black men who are attracted to white women appear monolithic. Thanks again.

 

Wedlock,

O.K.

I re-read your entire statement.

I never mentioned that the sole reason a person is with anybody is based on color.

You openly admit to having a strong physical attraction to WW. Thus, skin color plays a very important and major factor in how you determine who you are attracted to. You place importance on that aspect with a woman, when others may not. With others it could be facial features, tallness, body type, and etc... I understand what you mean to actually like a person, there are other criteria you use to judge. I get it. You are separating attraction from liking a person. I know people I was attracted to but I did not like them b/c they lacked certain qualities that would determine if I liked them as a person, dating, etc..

I believe it is the choice of wording that is being used. Many people use the word like in place of attraction and vice versa. Many people who say you LIKE a person b/c they are White, could mean the same as you are ATTRACTED to the person b/c they are White. Now, in the context of attraction, not using it to mean the same as like, then there is truth that part of the reason you are attracted to the person is due to the fact that she is White. Are there other factors that play into attraction, yes. We know this. All I am stating is one of your main or primary reasons for judging the attractiveness of the woman is based on skin color and as I learned recently, the so-called "aesthetics which are unique to the Caucasion culture" (this is broad which could include facial features, hair texture of WW or artisic expression--thus, what is it you exactly mean?), which causes you to initiate "game" to even find out if the woman is likeable or not, excluding, for the most part, non-white women. Again, you mentioned preference, so I understand perfectly well that you may not be exclusive. Also, I have known of many people to have a preference for a paticular type when it comes to attractiveness, but they usually date, mate, and marry those who do not even come close to their preference. Who knows, you may be one of these people, that may explain why you stated "you have found those attributes which are intangibles within all people regardless of race".

Also, just want to note, I must disagree with finding the caucasian aesthetic unique to only them. If you are speaking of facial features and hair texture only. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As I have personally witnessed, there is no such thing as Black features, Caucasion features, and etc... we have been told there is such and our minds have a hard time with processing WW who do not posess them as viewing them as the exception rather than the rule and viewing other non-white women who has these features as exception rather than the rule. The only thing I have found that WW uniquely possess unto themselves is their skin tones--they don't vary to the same degree as women of color--they range from a fair to a medium light, but to the naked eye it is very hard to tell b/c their skin tones pretty much look the same. Maybe you and I have not been seeing the same kind of WW, however, you have WW with full lips, small lips, big wide noses to narrow straight noses, straight and fine hair to curly and sometimes kinky hair--yes, you have many WW who put chemicals in their hair to straigthen it and some are more kinkier than my family members. Best believe me. I noticed these things b/c I see the person more so than the color and therefore do not automatically associate certain features with the person I am looking at. Thus, the "scotomas" are eliminated and I see the individual for how they truly look like. However, that is another debate.

Now, if you were reading my post, you would have noticed that I mentioned there are other factors that come into play when liking a person besides the skin color. Also, you do have individuals that can care less about rather or not they truly like a person based on other qualities such as compassion, kindness, and etc... but are still with them or mainly like them due to what they can get out of them, for example, being a show piece. For instance, some Black folks have been guilty of prancing around their White partners and even their mixed children they have by them as some kind of accomplishment that they are on the come up and have the best in town. Some even going as far as to show preferential treatment to their lighter "mixed race" children vs. their "full" Black children. In this situation, you could safely say they like the person b/c they are White. Or in other words, it is the primary numeral uno reason for liking the person even if it is not the sole reason. Another situation, they could decide to like the person b/c they are compassionate, understanding, nurturing, more responsible, more take charge, and etc... that they view these qualities to only be associated with Whiteness--White culture. Thus, is could be safe to say they like the person b/c they are White--not b/c of their skin color, but what the skin color represents.

Hope you get a better understanding of where I am coming from. I truly believe we are saying the same thing, however, you distinguish the difference between attraction and liking a person, where I interchanged the words. I am simply expressing what I believe the statment to mean and why others would make the claim. Just offering some insight on the stereotypical statement based on what I have witnessed when people say it.

Peace.

Oh, by the way, you are great when it comes to expressing your position. Very direct, to the point, intelligent, rational, and clever.

 

Black men like white women because they are white.

Hello:
Now I think we BOTH have a better understanding of each other's position. You hit the nail right on the head when you were able to see the distinction I was making.
It is unequivocally, uncategorically, 100% CORRECT to say that I am indeed ATTRACTED to white women because of those said features, all of those aesthetic qualities of being Caucasian.That's something grounded in their anthropology that goes backwards thousands of years due to their skills of adaptation to environment as with any race.Migration and eventual miscegination gave way to the mixtures of features you see today, and will continue to see as a trend. Biologically, the sex drive doesn't discriminate in its purest state-the only thing that makes us do so is the amount of choices in given environment coupled with the intelligence of aesthetics unique to each individual.

So, I apologize for not stating YOUR position better in my last post. We are, however,definitely in agreement regarding criteria for LIKING a potential partner.What you said in the latter part of your post was correct in that there are black men who act as if creating a child with a white woman is some sort of status symbol.It's sickening, degrading, and repugnant to see this behaviour and one reason why interracial mingling was once considered a mental illness, believe it or not. That's a stereotype that we black men face simply because there is a balance between a strong preference and a pathological NEED to be with a white woman. From your post you seem to be a well adjusted black male who simply came to an awakening of your racial preferences-the same as myself.
Anyway, I think it was a matter of semantics.I certainly meant no disrespect whatsoever in experssing my views on the subject.
It's simply my hope that those white women subscribed on this list DO understand that I, as a black male, appreciate them as a WHOLE, and not as a status symbol or trophy.Those qualities of intelligence, compassion,kindness, etc, are the main things I seek in a mate.The physical features of skin color are only ancillary; they would enhance what I already feel for my mate given the first set of intangibles were in place.
Thanks for being so articulate and thoughtful in your response.

 

Wedlock,

Love you baby, but I am not a BM. I am a BW. :lol:

Also, I understand your viewpoint and respect it 100%. However, I still disagree that "Caucasian" features are uniquely their own. I have seen too many women with so-called Caucasian features who are not WW and many WW with so-called non-Caucasian features. Also, science is showing that there literally isn't such a thing b/c population groups have always intermixed and has never been isolated long enough to have different features (or different races) that are solely their own and cannot be seen on others. Now, there are features that are specific to a particular region, but not a "race". For example, many men and women in Northern and Western Europe have what we Americans would understand to have "White features"--the keen noses, the smaller lips, light eyes, and the fine hair texture ranging from straight to wavy, and angular body types. Also, having brown, blonde, or brunette hair. However, you have many or majority of those from Southern Europe and even in Eastern Europe who display features altogether different from those I mentioned above. For instance, having bigger and sometimes wider noses, dark eyes, more so have thicker strands of hair that range from wavy to curly to somewhat of a kinky hair type, brunette and black hair, fuller lips, and thicker or curvier body types. I know one beautiful young lady who goes to my university--she has curly/wavy dark brown hair, a medium sort of wide flat nose, full lips, dark eyes, and a curvy body; you would think she is Latina/Hispanic, but she is from Eastern Europe and would be labeled as White. For the most part, most or all of her friends are people of color, mainly BW and BM. She dates BM. She doesn't look out of place and seems to fit in with Blacks just on her features alone regardless of her skin color.

In the history of immigration in the U.S., those who came from Southern and Eastern Europe were not considered "White" when they entered the U.S. and looked at as being part of the "lower" European races due to this contrast in features and differences in cultures from the original European groups who settled in the U.S. --those being from Northern and Western Europe displaying the features perhaps you and many other Americans would consider typical White features. Even today, those who come from Southern Europe and Eastern Europe by many are viewed as European and even White, but less White and having more of an "ethnic" look than those from Northern and Western Europe. Many from Southern and Eastern Europe still will identify with their nationality before they would even say White, and some would get outright pissed and tell you they are not White. I now, very messy, but it happens. At the end of the day, since they have now been socially accepted as White, they get the social and economic privileges of Whiteness today, which they lacked before pre-World War II era.

You have to understand, I do not buy into the concept of race. I understand it to be a social construct instead of a biological reality. I do recognize there are fair skinned people, medium toned people, dark-skinned people. I do know that depending on what region you are from, there is going to be a high prevelence of the same features if their has been little intermixture. When I state region, I am not simply refering to a continent or a country, but actual regions within the continent and the country. Also, even with a high prevelence of the same features existing within the region, they are still not absolute or solely found on those who reside in that region. This is due to populations migrating and intermixing. No place has been totally isolated.

For the most part, in the U.S., Whiteness and Blackness and every thing in between has been constantly redefined to fit the purposes of those who are in power. Now, probably due to fear of the "browning" of America. Who is White, according to the government, is now including those who are fair skinned from Mexico and those who come from North Africa b/c many come close to the traditional definition of what is considered to be White in terms of phenotype deemphasizing the gene definition--meaning regardless if you have indian and/or black blood if you look White and identify as White, you can be viewed White to add and increase the numbers. However, it doesn't mean that these Mexicans or North Africans would be treated as White socially or economically by the average White American. They are only White according to government definition.

Again, great conversation. I truly enjoy reading your thoughts and your position. Have a wonderful day!!

Peace and Blessings.

 

Black men like white women because they're white.

:shock: First off, I owe you an apology because I totally assumed you were another black male while we were hashing over the first point.
Now, I must ask, do you seek white males on this site, or is there another online interracial dating list/service you use?Anyway, let's explore where we agree,or disagree,and if I am even stating the issue correctly.
In the United States race IS a socially constructed tool.All over the world to one degree or another race IS used to differentiate people.On that part of your post we'd agree.
We're all human beings,meaning that we belong to the HUMAN race.So there is no lesser nor greater human being, no one is any more or less human. I would define race as ""a class or kind of individuals with common characteristics, interests, appearances, or habits as if derived from a common ancestor."It's true that skin color ALONE doesn't define a race,but I don't see how you can get around the idea of biological adaptations creating these disctintive features.
You're correct in there being a range of differences among "whites," and "blacks,"(we as black people have about 38 different skin tones)-but there still is a common origin or ancestry which triggered this.That's probably why Mongoloid, Caucasian, and Negroid came to be the terms used to differentiate.There just simply IS a difference-and at least to this date, whether miscegenation over the last thousand years or so took place,there was a point before contact with other races.If nothing else, geography played a role creating a natural iconoclastic state. That would certainly give enough time on an evolutionary time table for the so called "Caucasian," "Mongoloid," "Negroid," to develop.
I guess what I am saying is I see the variations you're speaking of, but is their not a common denominator which still links we as black people together in origin?With the same applying for "whites," "Asians?" etc?
That's why I say such a thing exists, even if I am over generalizing a bit.Your views?
Wedlock.

 

Mongoloid, Caucasion, Negroid was implemented by white racist scientists pushing an agenda of White supremacy and rule. They pointed out differences among groups that were not really there. Again, features can be specific to a region, but definitely not a race. It is a social construct. Do an experiment. Look at the various features of AW, BW, WW, BM, AM, and etc... Take note on the size of their noses, hair textures, lips, and etc... Also, look at the various features among those from the African continent, which has the most diverse features in the world. I believe you will understand where I am coming from. I do believe we have a common ancestor--all of us--from mother Africa. I know of the variations, however, human beings have never been isolated long enough to develop into actual distinct races and have features specific only to them. You know, there was a good program on this topic on PBS called "Race--The Power of an Illusion". It is an excellent educational program that discusses race and race matters. It would definitely explain better what I am talking about. I believe you would love it.

Also, I just love to chat on the forums. However, I do date men of color despite ethnicity.

Here is a little expert on the PBS website from "Race-The Power of an Illusion"

HUMAN VARIATION

Modern humans - all of us - emerged in Africa about 150,000 to 200,000 years ago. Bands of humans began migrating out of Africa only about 70,000 years ago. As we spread across the globe, populations continually bumped into one another and mixed their mates and genes. As a species, we're simply too young and too intermixed to have evolved into separate races or subspecies.

So what about the obvious physical differences we see between people? A closer look helps us understand patterns of human variation:


In a virtual "walk" from the equator to northern Europe, we see that visual characteristics vary gradually and continuously from one population to the next. There are no boundaries, so how can we draw a line between where one race ends and another begins?

We also learn that most traits - whether skin color, hair texture or blood group - are influenced by separate genes and thus inherited independently one from the other. Having one trait does not necessarily imply the existence of others. Racial profiling is as inaccurate on the genetic level as it is on the New Jersey Turnpike.

We also learn that many of our visual characteristics, like different skin colors, appear to have evolved recently, after we left Africa, but the traits we care about - intelligence, musical ability, physical aptitude - are much older, and thus common to all populations. Geneticists have discovered that 85% of all genetic variants can be found within any local population, regardless of whether they're Poles, Hmong or Fulani. Skin color really is only skin deep. Beneath the skin, we are one of the most similar of all species.

Certainly a few gene forms are more common in some populations than others, such as those controlling skin color and inherited diseases like Tay Sachs and sickle cell. But are these markers of "race?" They reflect ancestry, but as our DNA experiment shows us, that's not the same thing as race. The mutation that causes sickle cell, we learn, was passed on because it conferred resistance to malaria. It is found among people whose ancestors came from parts of the world where malaria was common: central and western Africa, Turkey, India, Greece, Sicily and even Portugal - but not southern Africa.



Peace.

 

Black men like white girls just because they are white.

Hello:
Thanks for your response.First off, I don't think that pointing out observed differences is automatically based on any sort of racist agenda.Secondly, I don't think that because a concept or descriptor used IS a social construct, that it invalidates the construct.What other vehicle beside human language is going to be used to communicate the observed differences?
Has history shown that observed differences have been used to justify mistreatment of others via pseudoscience?YES! You can cite Hitler rather easily on this one. But the misuse of observed knowledge doesn't negate the observation.
I haven't seen the PBS documentary you cited, so I can't comment on it.The excerpt you pulled supported your point,but without me seeing everything, I am still in the dark about it.
The most modern ideas on race generally reject the term "race" and refer to "populations".That may be in part where you're coming from.I personally subscribe to the multiregional theory that does grant enough time for the evolution of the races(1993-1995) and that school of thought was supported by fossilization findings/tracings-and finding the traits in common.
As far as the "Africa is the cradle of civilization," theory, I think there's enough support to show the first man did originate on the African continent.However, I would invite you to consider that just as there is misuse and faulty statistical methodologies to support "race theories,"there is also a wave of neo "political correctness"that tends to gloss over or ignore differences, whether we call them "populations" or "race."
I doubt that my attraction to white women would be restricted to a certain regional area;I'd venture to say that it would be those aesthetics common to that race-whether they come from the Mediterranean, Iceland, Greece, Australia, South Africa, or Moline, Iowa.It doesn't matter.
In summary, I don't know that I have proven that race is objective.But are the differences within populations objective?Are physical differences objective? Is intelligence and observed differences in intelligence objective? I just don't think claiming "social construction" as a way of negating these questions is an intellectually honest way to go.So, whaere does that leave us?You have the floor.

 

Well,

I have read up on the multi-regional theory. Nowhere in the theory does it state the possibility of human beings developing into distinct races. They only support one race and that is the human race. As a matter of fact, if you go over the theory again, it does admit and support populations of the different human species traveled and intermixed contributing to the make up of the modern man of who we are today during that 1.8 millon time frame you are speaking of.

We can go over the particulars all day. In the end,

1. The modern man is fairly young, and we have not been isolated long enough to develop into distinct races. Human beings are 99.9% indentical genetically. We are far more alike than we are different. In fact, we are the most genetically similar of all species.

2. These traits of caucasion features can be viewed as regional traits, but it is flawed to think they are autopomorhis to a particular region--meaning they are not considered unique and unfounded in any other region. Furthermore, we are speaking of regions and not races. Looking at a global perspective, features are not limited to a region, and thus not limited to a "race".

But are the differences within populations objective?Are physical differences objective? Is intelligence and observed differences in intelligence objective? I just don't think claiming "social construction" as a way of negating these questions is an intellectually honest way to go.

In response,

1. Races are not populations.
2. Physical Differences has absolutely nothing to do with race, b/c race is
not a biological fact.
3. There is absolutely no difference in intelligences of human beings that
could be linked with a race.

I don't think linking race, to the above questions is an intelligent way to go either.

Peace.

 

Black guys like white girls because they are white

Hello:
I am not sure where you looked up the multi reigonal theory, but the whole basis of the hypothesis was that populations DID in fact have time to develop.In fact, almost a million years.Your theory rejecting this came later, around 2000.
I recognize that you don't think race is objective, but you're not(neo sociologists) answering the questions I posed.The physical features observed in these "populations"(we'll use that term, since that's the politically correct term) had to originate somewhere, and I don't think the question is being answered.
I didn't assume race was the core as to why the physical differences, I asked if race wasn't objective why the physical differences in these "populations?"Why is there an difference in IQ tests? You may not think that race is objective, and ideally I wouldn't either,but no amount of neo sociology can dismiss these observed differences.If race isn't objective, then what would be the purpose of even stating "black," "white," or "other"? Again, what I don't feel you've addressed is the fact that a social construction isn't invalidated merely because it's a social construction, the science behind that construction has to bear out the social construction as false through pointing out fallacies.
If race isn't objective then descriptors about race are useless.We needn't say that "black men" like "white women" because of 'x'. 'y' and 'z.'
You would observe differences in people/populations no matter what what designation you went by;in other words whether Ward Connelly(sp?) has his way or not, statistics are not going to lie when used to point to differences unless they are manipulated.
This is where our discourse seems to have shifted.I hold to the view that indeed the physical traits, customs, habits, languages, etc, are part of a bigger objective category generically and colloquially even, called "race." I hold to the view that if term "race" isn't used,then that doesn't change observed differences.I am not sure where you got the figure of 99.9% similarity, but even if I accept that figure, doesn't there have to be an objective basis to account for the .01%
difference?
I just don't buy into the theory of human beings being that homogenized through miscegination.There was a point historically where so called "blacks" never encountered "whites," or a point before "mongoloids"(if you will) encountered others.Geographical boundaries played a part in this.Yes, the human race is relatively young, that doesn't negate the fact that certain distinctive features didn't originate somewhere in time.Keep in mind, I never said that blacks didn't display "white" features, or vice versa, or that miscegination isn't a trend that will lead to further homogenization.What I purport is that the use of race is a valid descriptor; if it were not, then what other langugae would we use to communicate the ideas we have been exchanging in our posts? What would we call "white women" instead? I am one who believes we are ultimately one race of humanity in an ideal sense;but I am asking you specifically to what do you attribute the differences that are present? Is it just geography?Is it a random evolutionary occurence?
If race isn't objective;then how did we both have an understanding between us regarding the question posed in this thread?
Your turn, and thanks for the information you presented.