To think I am NOT being racist if I say I am not attracted to a Pakistani person?

[funkypigeon]

I am newly-ish single after a long marriage to a man from the Middle East.
I had a conversation with a few friends today, over coffee we got talking about types of men that we are attracted to. I said Mediterranean, Middle Eastern. Then I said I am not usually attracted to Asian men, and my friend said that was being racist.

I am shocked tbh. Am I? I've got loads of Asian friends, and colleagues. Just because I don't fancy them doesn't mean I would ever be rude or treat them differently.

Opinions please!

I wouldn't say no
But I do think it's just personal taste. I'm not keen on blokes with blonde hair generally. I don't think I could rule out every blonde though, I haven't met them all, and attraction is a funny thing.

Your friend is an idiot.
You fancy who you fancy, who cares what other people say.
I dont fancy women, does that make me homaphobic?

MrsLouis, Her title states "Pakistani". I don't understand why she's changed that to "Asian" in her opening comment, when she means Pakistani.

Asian men could mean Chinese or Nepali or Bangladeshi too. Tbh, I've seen a lot of Pakistani/Asian men/women who could be mistaken for Middle Eastern men/women.

However, I have never met anyone who used the word "Pakistani" as a blanket term who wasn't a racist.

This.

Also alarmed at the amount of not very bright people on here who are mixing up sexual orientation with finding a whole race of people unattractive.

I dont fancy women, does that make me homaphobic?

Case in point.

And Samandi - WTF?

LittleSporks Some people will actively seek a partner of a particular race to fulfill an unrealistic fantasy based on racist stereotypes and some will avoid potential partners of particular races also due stereotypes. Not always, but the idea that personal preferences never have anything to do with racism ignores a lot of people's experiences of these people as well as how powerful social systems can play in personal ideals

Wow, haven't seen this ^^ before. Great point.

"MrsLouis, Her title states "Pakistani". I don't understand why she's changed that to "Asian" in her opening comment, when she means Pakistani."

Because she didn't specifically mean Pakistani- she meant men from the Indian subcontinent, and used Pakistani, as many racist people do, as a blanket term. Either she is not a racist, but unaccountably used the word in this racist way, or she is a racist, and realised that using the word like that outed her. Take your pick.

Peaceful Optomist Here we go. Cultural stereotypes creeping in. So this is not about physical attraction to certain physical attributes its turning in to stereotyping men of a particular background of having a certain culture which is even more offensive

That doesn't make sense. Culture is not race, they are not the same thing. Race is determined by what DNA a person inherits from their ancestors, which determines their phenotype. Culture is not inherited from DNA but is partly a matter of upbringing, social facilitation and personal choice. So if statistically it is proven that a particular country has laws which others would see as discriminating against women, and an individual's experience of that country's citizens is negative, then that is not necessarily a racial choice, as people from that race in that country may also demonstrate those behaviours. And others from that country may not.

Women have to be very careful whom they choose as sexual partners. In biological terms, we are probably programmed to pick up on all sorts of minute inferences as to suitability of sexual partners, some more than others.

To criticise women for demonstrating these traits and suggest that they are in some way ignorant because they have not toured the world experimenting to widen the males they are more socially attracted to, is extremely sexist. But in the UK, its sexism is pretty much tolerated outside the workplace, whereas any kind of racism, even deemed political incorrectness, is cracked down upon.

Describing people from Pakistan as Pakistani is not racist. Describing Asian people as Asian is not racist. Describing people from Britain as British is not racist.

Some posters on here seem rather confused as to what racism constitutes, and in their confusion have included any reference to nationality whatsoever.

lessmiss I dont see the point of your post. AFAI can see, Optimist IS talking about culture, not race and I think she has made that distinction clear.

Your post seems to be rehashing what she said.

World Citizen And I think lots of things play a role. I myself see a huge difference between an Irish, and English, a Dutch, and a German man.
To some they might look Caucasian/White and sort of similar, and they do I agree, but immediately language, accent, behaviour, mannerism etc. will distinguish these men and I know where my preferences would be

A lot of people think white people are all one race. They are unaware of the existence of the Saami, the Celts, and so on and of course if you mention the Nordic race that is racist because of associations with Aryan superiority.

I'm half Dutch and I see a huge difference between British and Dutch physically. Statistically this is borne out because Dutch men are the tallest in the world. And Northern Germans and Danes tend to be different again. I don't find dark haired dark eyed men attractive, but I also don't find the typical Celtic phenotype of blue eyes, dark or red hair and pale skin that attractive either. I would probably find a very good looking man from the Middle East more attractive, but the attraction would probably stop at looking (a) because I'm married and (b) part of attraction for me also insists on similarity in levels of outlook, education, shared values and wealth. (b) applies to any man, regardless of race or culture. I wouldn't shack up with a handsome blond Norwegian who had little education, no job and no motivation!

But according to mumsnet, you have to shag every man you find remotely attractive man who is nice to you, otherwise you are racist!

OFGS. What a ludicrous post.

Lweji - Yes it is - people seek a partner that think is sexually attractive and some sexual attraction, and lack there of, is about stereotypes rather than reality. Many within my Metis community have come across people who are attracted to them purely because we're seen as more in touch with out sexual side (mostly due to overly sexualized imagery in popular culture) and with nature and other stereotype bollocks that has nothing to do with an individual. Others say they might find a person pretty/handsome, but wouldn't be attracted because they think we're all dirty, alcoholics, and so on. They weren't born thinking that, it's not inate, but their ability to fancy someone is still being affected by racist ideologies perpetuated by popular media and social systems.

You said sexual attraction had no choice in it. You view it as purely biological, I disagree, I view that society around us gives us a lot of references to what is and is not attractive, view of self has a lot to do with who we will attracted to, and people are able to expand who one sees as fanciable. I myself have done this - I only dated quite light skinned men until I actively chose to seek why I did so, why society prefers that, and expand what I found attractive and desireable. We lust after people whose attributes we see as desirable - this is biological - what attributes we see as desirable can be quite social. Biological outlook makes sexuality seem very fixed whereas I see it as fluid.

And while race has no biological reality, a person has far more genetically in common with a random person of another race than a random person of one's own, race has a very strong social reality that very much exists and denying it's social impact as real because it has no biological reality not only ignores how it was invented centuries ago for the benefit of a White elite and spread by through systems and force (and ignoring it means it can not be deconstructed), but it also ignores how powerful social concepts are (money is entirely a social concept, it still exists and is important for daily life, no one tries to deny that).

I'm alarmed when posters are so thick they don't realise some posts on this thread are tongue in cheek.

However to pick a specific group of people based on race to be unattracted to is an unnecessary exercise and that you have thought it out and vocalised it in my eyes makes it clear you think in racist terms.

Yes peaceful, this sums it up perfectly for me.

Genuinely astounded at the ignorant attitudes on here.

And Samandi's post...jesus there are no words.

lessmiss are you a very bored anthropologist?

And I am hazarding a guess that Samandi is part of the race/nationality that she despises. Its quite alright to diss someone if you are part of the family, see? bloody stupid idea, if you ask me

(I'll make an exception for the Asif joke upthread. That was soooo cheeky!)

LittleSpork And while race has no biological reality, a person has far more genetically in common with a random person of another race than a random person of one's own, race has a very strong social reality that very much exists and denying it's social impact as real because it has no biological reality not only ignores how it was invented centuries ago for the benefit of a White elite and spread by through systems and force

Could you explain how that works with regard to inherited alleles from DNA? Without including politics?

I think I know what you are getting at, in that Africans from the "cradle of humanity" area have far more varied DNA than their migratory offshoots. However that also means that those offshoot peoples are far more closely related to each other due to more recent common ancestors than Africans. e.g. Apparently there is something called the "Finnish bottleneck" which stemmed from a loss of Y chromosome diversity 4000 years ago (2 male lines only) which manifests itself in a number of genetically inherited diseases more common in those of Finnish descent due to founder effects and genetic isolation.

Stunt However to pick a specific group of people based on race to be unattracted to is an unnecessary exercise and that you have thought it out and vocalised it in my eyes makes it clear you think in racist terms

Not necessarily true, in my profession (social work and mental health counselling), we have thought a lot about these things, we had and have to on a constant basis....

We don't know about OP's private life and how self-reflecting plays a part in all this.

I don't think it is racist, just a bit odd

I have never really had a "type" - how boring I accept that I'm programmed to find some people attractive and some not. It matters not to me what race/culture/gender they are.

LessMissAbs - You are mixing race with ethnic groups, they are two different concepts. White people are one race because White elites invented race by skin colour as a social concept and social divider and perpetuated the concept of pure Whites as superior to the others and used science, religion, education, law, media, and other systems to enforce this ideology upon the world to excuse their treatment of others (which is where the term Caucasian comes from, to make the superiority of pure Whites sound more scientific). Who is and is not White is not only skin colour, history has shown that groups of people have become so over time by elite gatekeepers with power. It is to an individuals and groups benefit to join those in power even whilst in poverty. Race, as a social dividing system to gain and maintain power, is only 5-600 years old which is very little in the course of human history. Ethnic groups have been around for thousands of years.

Ethnic groups can include people of multiple races but have a similar culture and agreed upon attributes (this changes from group to group, age to age) where as race does not have any real connecting feature other than agreed social definitions. This is how race was invented, to include and exclude at will. This is where it gains it's social power.

The Saami are not considered racially White, even those with light skin, see their history of forced sterilization by Nordic nations and continued persecution of their lifestyle and lands. Even within the Nordic nations and the UN, the Saami are defined as indigenous with all the issues that holds. The definition of Celts changes, but the Irish have only been seen as racially White for about half a century. There are several books on how the Irish became White, it was a long initiation mostly involving the elite White groups using the Irish as enforcers for other groups (much as poor Whites came into the fold with the elites through forced guard duty of other groups). In America now, some Latin@ groups are in the process of becoming White by enforcing on other groups. It's a system. A powerful system, but a created system that can be deconstructed.

I consider this policing of females sexuality - even when they are saying No - astounding.

It is interesting.

We live in interesting times.

LittleSpork I am not too sure, about it being about white skin only...Folks from the Middle East are White part of the White race as well.
Look it up folks from Tunisia and Algeria for example are also White shouldn't they are Arab and not Black Africans.

Also, I usually find this concept of race being more typical of U.S. American and British vocabulary and world view. Others think in nationalities, ethnic and cultural groups.

I think you raise something there world re: the framing of language regarding race/ethnicity etc - especially if you speak/listen to small and large groups of mixed/multi-mixed race people.

While some light skinned Arabs may be able to pass as White, and some are pushing for Arabs as a group to become racially White, it is not happening at this time as a whole. While they have more social power than Black Africans, through Arab's own colonizing history, they are still would not be considered White on a world stage.

Race was enforced by all European colonizing powers - Britain was not the only one. The Belgians were quite the most vicious about it actually, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, the Dutch all enforced the racial system and brought it to the international stage. Sweden enforced it upon the Saami and the Finns, but brought the Finns into the fold. Nationality, ethnic, and cultural groups have more importance within some regions - East Asia particularly with the colonizing histories there - but European colonial history had global affects and still maintains influence in global institutions like the IMF, the UN, world media, production and so on.