The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Is it racist to be attracted to guys of a particular race?

/\ I suppose, then, we should never ask anyone if they know of a good Indian restaurant. LOL
 
Nude_Dude said:
If you make a judgement or assessment on ANYONE - in ANY area, based on race - it's RACISM, pure and simple.
We are ALL racist - consciously, or unconsciously - and a behaviour we all need to try and keep in check, as best we can.
We can't just write it off, saying racism is unacceptable in any area, excluding dating.
Click to expand...
The universities certainly do not agree with that. Their definition is that racism is inherently institutional, and possible only by the dominant racial group in power, and is part of a system of deprivation. By your definition, a minority race person could post that the majority race members need not apply, and he would be racist, even though universities, and a couple of our most vocal members, have argued that it is not possible for a minority to be racist.

But in the real world, away from academic theorizing, just because people make lists of attributes that they desire in a mate, doesn't mean those qualifying are attractive to that person. It means they are compatible. HUGE difference.

Attraction is attraction, whether it is based on innate genetic origins, cultural norms, socio-economic signals, or racial bias. Attraction is attraction, not a sex screening interview.

By your absolute, men choosing sexual partners only with other men are being sexist.

Preference is not a matter or issue for civil rights when referring to dating and sex. Springboarding from sexual attraction to pretending that person does not enjoy the company of the other race, or treat them fairly, or respect them with equal rights as citizens, is being willfully ignorant of the realities of society. Following your definition, straight men in society can never respect gay men because they are sexist against us. How insipld.

To the OP's question, stating a preference (e.g., "I am most attracted to Arabs, Latinos, and Caucasians" is far different from saying, "Southeast Asians are not attractive to me"), one can state preferences without insulting others.

Perhaps a better question that could be asked is, does expressing an aversion to sexual attraction with racial groups constitute meaningful racism? It seems simple enough to state preferences instead of exclusions, and not actively speak against groups instead of for attractions.
 
What is racist is singling out "race" (or "ethnicity"), and then deciding whether acts and words are tacitly, somehow, shaping racism in a slanted way or not.
 
belamyi said:
What is racist is singling out "race" (or "ethnicity"), and then deciding whether acts and words are tacitly, somehow, shaping racism in a slanted way or not.
Click to expand...
There must be an irony in using tacit to describe unspoken meaning. Overt and explicit expression of racial preference would normally be very explicit racial degradation if it were uttered to impose it.

The question goes to intent. And the thought police that trump all others in evaluating intent step over that messy necessity and assign both intent and blame without the inconvenience of having to prove harm. That is one of the core truths of the culture wars. In a milieu that demands racial epithets be absolute taboos, the term "racist" then becomes the epithet of choice in response. The attempt is to make it tantamount to "pedophile" where the accused must prove innocence rather than the accuser proving guilt.
 
NotHardUp1 said:
There must be an irony in using tacit to describe unspoken meaning. Overt and explicit expression of racial preference would normally be very explicit racial degradation if it were uttered to impose it.

The question goes to intent. And the thought police that trump all others in evaluating intent step over that messy necessity and assign both intent and blame without the inconvenience of having to prove harm. That is one of the core truths of the culture wars. In a milieu that demands racial epithets be absolute taboos, the term "racist" then becomes the epithet of choice in response. The attempt is to make it tantamount to "pedophile" where the accused must prove innocence rather than the accuser proving guilt.
Click to expand...
That's the irony of old same public opinion and two-faced/two-bladed reality: people never care about what you do or are, but about what you say... that is why Biden has failed, in failing to utter his part to his parishioners.
Racists would never call out race today: they would attack their racial object without saying it, and also by attacking everything that opposes racism.

Anything you may build to oppose a party may be retorted against you all the same, with the same inexistent logic, since it amounts to nothing but "me against the others, me against the power"...
Today the left is evil merely by having the upper social hand: the "new left", the new revolutionary commies are the trumpists, voxtrenkos... that is why they try to appeal to the younger clueless (biologically or mentally younger), just like Big Tobac co. used to.
 
Race is understood by scientists to be a social construct rather than a biological reality.
If you fall for one special ethnic group the reason may have to do with who your parents are, where & when and how you grew up.
As long as you don`t devaluate other ethnicities it`s not "racism".


love-to-people-illustration-vector.jpg

Just like it isn´t vegetarian "racism" if you prefer white cauliflower to broccoli.
​
 
But, so what? If someone doesn't want to date you because if your culture or heritage or colour, why do you care? Let them pick from the group they do like.
 
All I'll say is that I"ve noticed when it comes to desires, my sexual attractions refuse to listen when my brain tries to tell them which desires are politically correct. They're hard-wired and don't give a damn what my conscious mind has to tell them about what I "should" like.
 
I am hairy, but not quite a Bigfoot yet (as years go by, hair keeps popping out anywhere), and it gets lighter, even with blondish reflects, under sunlight stress, and likewise have very light skin, showing blue veins, but it can tall very well so; I ultimately can pass for the Mediterranean type I actually am (European, North African, Near East, even Black Sea "Southerner")... am I "white", am I "dark"... if I feel that "my opposite sex" and "my sort of man" is the Central European-Nordic heritage, am I being a white suprematists, of I am a "Viking Queen", or what?
 
Araucaria said:
All I'll say is that I"ve noticed when it comes to desires, my sexual attractions refuse to listen when my brain tries to tell them which desires are politically correct. They're hard-wired and don't give a damn what my conscious mind has to tell them about what I "should" like.
Click to expand...
Indeed, my blood rush reacts more to builts and inner structure and outer massing sways than to their eventual outer colouring. Even general bone structure counts more than particularly boned features.
 
belamyi said:
Indeed, my blood rush reacts more to builts and inner structure and outer massing sways than to their eventual outer colouring. Even general bone structure counts more than particularly boned features.
Click to expand...
Then you’re obviously a bonist
 
Alistair said:
Then you’re obviously a bonist
Click to expand...
No, I would if I were a dawg reacting to silly bone structures, like those loved by 1930s and 1950s photography lighting: I referred to bone as one of the features, along with colour or fleshing out (besides gender, obviously), used to declare someone sexually "appealing".
 
I would be a bonist if I liked that :vomit:

6640f8b528bf9f1e73376fbbd2930a6f-jpg.1379267


I am a "bonist" only in the sense that my woody boner is my radiesthesic indicator.
 
pigface said:
But, so what? If someone doesn't want to date you because if your culture or heritage or colour, why do you care? Let them pick from the group they do like.
Click to expand...
"Who cares if people are racist?"

Once again the gold medal in the Missing the Point Olympics goes to....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top