the ch!cktionary

    26 Jul 2010

    Why You Shouldn’t Date A “Type”

    “Do you have a type? Because I don’t. I know it’s hard to believe. People like to declare that they’re type-less and then they tack on the criteria of ‘as long as he’s not a Republican.’ Me? I’ve dated a Republican.” —Sex and the Ivy (October 29, 2007)

    Following up on last night’s discussion of racial preferences in dating, I thought it’d be interesting to examine the concept of dating “types”. Like many a gal before me, I grew up on women’s mags that offered specially tailored advice to girls looking to snag a certain “type” of guy. Want a “bad boy”? There’s a patented formula for seduction. Into “artsy” dudes? You should follow the game plan written by a very qualified magazine editor. It all sounds incredibly reductive, doesn’t it? But for a good number of years, I was successfully fooled into buying (quite literally) these stereotypes about men. And then I went to college and encountered a lot of different types of guys with totally different background and interests and realized that I’d been brainwashed. The Republican I dated turned out to be not so conservative in the end. Some of the supposedly liberal suitors were members of all-male elitist Harvard final clubs. And then there were all the types I thought I would be so into: the philosophers, the English majors, the tech geeks and the like.

    At one point, I essentially wanted to date the hipster version of Sartre, but minus the open relationship, because my fragile ego wouldn’t be able to handle that.

    But seriously, I’ve hooked up with and dated a lot of people and never have I ever felt the inclination to say, “So-and-so reminds me so much of so-and-so!” Because beyond very basic attributes like a generally ambitious nature, they’re all pretty different, and I’m better for having met such a varied bunch in my few short years of dating. If I were single tomorrow, I wouldn’t think, “This is the type of person I’m looking for”. I simply wouldn’t know! And if I did have a specific type, I’d likely be ruling out a ton of great guys or more likely, change my mind upon meeting the right person.

    Take my relationship with Patrick, for example. Before we went on our first date, I was on some kind of streak with bespectacled college boys who shared my waist size and liberal sympathies. And then I wound up with a German dude who bench presses me for fun and espouses views that make most progressive Americans seem downright reactionary. How the hell was I supposed to know this was going to happen? And even if I did, could I have willed this into happening? I don’t think so. You can’t really predict these things. And you shouldn’t try. Love (and life) turns out much more nicely when you leave things up to chance.

    25 Jul 2010

    Anonymous asked: You've dated white men and you've dated Asian men. Would you ever consider dating Latino or African-American men (assuming that you haven't already)?

    Already have, though nothing serious has come out of those non-lationships (but then again, I’ve only had two-and-a-half long-term romances, and yes, I’m counting high school). But even if I haven’t, of course I would consider dating someone who wasn’t white or Asian. It’s not like having dark skin is a character flaw.

    I’ve made the interesting observation that some of the most frequently asked reader questions I receive on The Chicktionary concern interracial dating. Roughly speaking, there are two groups of “askers”: girls who want to know about my personal experience with such relationships and guys who want to know how to effectively hit on Asian chicks. (I jest, but seriously, I can’t speak for all Asian women, so don’t submit questions like that.) It seems like there’s a lot of interest in this topic, but my totally non-expert opinion on the matter is rather simple.

    I think racial preferences are completely senseless. Of course, certain factors (like the demographics of your college, for example) might make it more likely that you date a certain type of person, but controlling for that, race should never be a reason to not date someone. Given my extensive and sometimes cringe-worthy dating experiences, I can tell you that there are often bigger dealbreakers than the color of someone’s skin.

    Usually, someone with a racial preference will cite an explanation like “physical attraction”, but I think this is mostly nonsense. Why? Because unless you have incredibly stringent and unreasonable criteria for potential partners, race alone is not going to make someone unattractive to you. Most of us are at least moderately shallow (which I wholeheartedly accept) and might like certain physical attributes, such as height or build, but when people say things like, “I’m never attracted to Black guys”, my alarm bells go off, and I think, “You’ve never ever seen an attractive Black guy? Like not even in a rap video?” Sorry, but I don’t buy that. You’re probably not trying hard enough and clearly have not experienced the magic of D’Angelo asking you “How Does It Feel?”.

    And on the flipside, when someone says something like, “I’m only attracted to Asian women”, I’m equally skeptical, because are you seriously telling me that you can only be happy with a slanty-eyed, black-haired partner? Obviously not. And given that there are so few of us slanty-eyed, black-haired gals running around, it is not probable that you “accidentally” wound up dating five in a row.

    So why is it then that so many people profess or exhibit some sort of racial bias in their partner choice? Here are a few basic theories:

    All of this said, many people have a preference (confessed or not) when it comes to race, and these people include Ivy Leaguers, my blog readers, and my mother. So while I remain slightly judge-y, I am also curious and apparently, so are the people reading this. If you care to share, please enlighten us in the comments.

    More burning questions? Ask them here.

    Related posts on race and dating:
    Does Lena Chen Date Asians? (The Chicktionary)
    Is Sharing Family Background and Life Experiences Essential To A Successful Relationship? (The Chicktionary)
    Checking Your “Type” At The Door (College Candy)

    12 May 2010

    Anonymous asked: http://community.livejournal.com/ucb_anoncon/3065.html?view=14558969#t14558969

    Lena, above is an anonymous thread full of UC Berkeley students procrastinating for finals. AnonCon (Anonymous Confessions) is put up every semester during finals season. This thread is about Asian girls dating white guys. It's pretty crude. As an Asian girl who has dated white guys, I was pretty irritated after reading it. I wanted to see if you had any opinions.

    Reader-submitted inquiries are fun to discuss, but half the time, they make me sad, because they ask me about my opinion on something shitty that happened, and then I feel compelled to bluntly respond, “People are assholes”. Which, let’s face it, a lot of people kind of are. Especially on the Internet.

    First of all, before I default to the “people are assholes” explanation, it’s rather telling that this is question is about Asian-White interracial relationships in particular. (Because what about other interracial pairings — don’t they exist?) I was born in the Bay Area/grew up in LA and considered attending Berkeley for a while (until I realized I wanted to get the hell out of California). One of the things that really turned me off about the school was the lack of diversity. At Berkeley, the Black, Hispanic, and Native American population make up 15 percent of the student body combined. And this is a public university in the most diverse state in America. So, before we even get into discussing what a travesty it is that people can’t date who they want to date, we should recognize that there are more pressing issues, like entire groups who are structurally disadvantaged and expected to compete on an uneven playing field (which is never adjusted, because that would be unfair). My public service announcement of the day: we live in a country where we are sold the idea of meritocracy from birth and it is frankly bullshit.

    Okay, rant over.

    I’ve actually written before on the “Why aren’t you dating an Asian dude?” topic, which gets brought up from time to time and is usually more indicative of other people’s prejudices than my own. When I blogged at Sex and the Ivy, I always used pseudonyms (with varying degrees of success) and it was pretty difficult to figure out who I was actually hooking up with or dating unless you personally knew me. And yet! There were always accusations that I was a self-hating Asian who only dated White dudes. People could just SEE through their computer screens that I was banging Caucasian cock. Clearly, that is what one does at Harvard which is admittedly a land of privilege, the close cousin of whiteness.

    But surprise, Harvard is actually really rather diverse, and so is Boston, if you are one of the very few undergrads who are willing to venture beyond Cambridge in search of love, drugs, or authentic Chinese food. There’s a whole world out there, kids! And not all of it is white or rich or concerned with finishing that problem set!

    I digress.

    My point is that these prejudices are real, and yeah, there are definitely some women (both Asian and not) who refuse to date Asian guys and will only date White guys and will not even consider those who fall on the darker end of the Crayola spectrum. That is lame and close-minded, and obviously, those people should seriously reconsider how their sexual preferences are socially constructed (because um, they are!) but honestly, anyone that makes assumptions about my entire dating and sexual history based on my current partner is equally close-minded and needs to get a new hobby.

    Preferably one that does not involve the Internet.

    More burning questions? Ask them here.

    19 Apr 2010

    Do we place too much importance on romantic relationships?

    “My Date With Lena” is currently (and inexplicably) the fourth most-read articles on The Harvard Crimson website. If you haven’t had the chance to read this article, Avishai writes a little bit about the part in our conversation where I told him that I didn’t think it was necessarily healthy for people to place so much importance on their romantic relationships. There’s a tendency elevate romantic love above everything else and to elevate partners above friends and family. (Just think of the concept of the “soul mate” for example.) Here is my reasoning, on the other hand: I am crazy in love with Patrick, but I would go nuts without Jason or my other friends, and my relationship would probably suffer as a result because I’d be completely over-dependent on my boyfriend. And as great as he is, no single person can entirely fulfill my emotional needs. I don’t have any friends who do that, so why should I expect my partner to? Isn’t that just setting yourself up for disappointment?

    Granted, Patrick is in many ways the most significant person in my life in that his choices have the biggest impact on mine, but largely, that is because we live together and are partners. By partners, I mean that we make decisions about major life-altering issues, such as career plans, with the other person in mind. Does that make his preferences and choices more consequential than those of other people in my life? Certainly. But if we weren’t together and I had instead hitched my wagon to Kennedy’s star, then I’d probably feel the same way about her. My point is this: if my relationship ended tomorrow, I should mourn but I shouldn’t feel as if I have nothing else left. And if someone doesn’t have a romantic relationship, that shouldn’t invalidate the rest of their life (whether they’re 22 like me or 50).

    The fewer people who place their partners on pedestals, the healthier relationships will be.

    (Little-known fact: when people asked me a couple years ago what I’d be doing after graduation, I often said that I planned on following Kennedy to Europe or wherever she went abroad. I was half-serious, but essentially did just that when I lived with her in Heidelberg for six weeks after my junior year of college.)

    16 Feb 2010

    Overcommitted

    • Zac: my date is already an HOUR late
    • Me: uhh, who has a date at FIVE??
    • Zac: someone who has another date at 10?

    6 Feb 2010

    Hooking In, Not Hooking Up: Friendship and Intimacy as the Foundation for Fidelity and Strong Marriages

    Follow me on Twitter and keep up with this live-blog for comments from the Rethinking Sex conference:

    Crisis In Marriage And Family

    • Over last four decades: increases in divorce, separation, non-marriage, cohabitation, out-of-wedlock births, single-parent households, and domestic violence & decreases in marital quality, father involvement, family extendedness
    • “Some mistakenly think that we suggest single parents do not or cannot do a good job raising their children. The point here is simply that the research shows marriage matters and healthy marriages matter even more. If you look at the population at a whole, those who are not married — and their children — are at greater risk overall.” Malone-Colon cites her own granddaughter, raised by her son, as an example of a child in a healthy single-parent home.

    Consequences Of The Weakening Of Marital Relationships

    • According to Malone-Colon’s work at the Institute for American Values, married couples are better off physically, psychologically, socially, and economically than co-habitating couples.
    • My question: is there something inherent in the act of “getting married” that creates these effects, or is getting married an indication that a couple is better off to begin with?
    • African Americans are disproportionately affected when they do not marry. High rates of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households. As Katie from the Harvard Dems points out, this is undeniably a consequence of high incarceration rates of black men (which is probably due to socioeconomics). In other words, it’s not lack of marriage itself that causes problems, but the various structural factors working against blacks in America.

    Hooking Up vs. Hooking In

    • Hooking up: a physical or sexual encounter that does not necessarily imply any ongoing commitment or future relationship between the two participants
    • Hooking in: going within and reflecting on what one hopes their most intimate relationship will satisfy emotionally and perhaps spiritually within them
    • Friendship: enjoyment, acceptance, trust, respect, interests, support, confidence, shared power
    • Malone-Colon asks if hooking up prepares you for future relationships or sets up a pattern of emotionally detached relationship. She says hooking up disallows connections that are intellectual, emotional, and spiritual.

    How True Friendship & Intimacy Is Essential To Creating Loving And Lasting Relationships

    • Malone-Colon claims there is no inclination or time to develop these friendship qualities when hooking up. From my personal experience, I know that this isn’t true — and that further, hooking up does not just happen with strangers.
    • She encourages people to realize intimacy and friendship through self-awareness, integrity, self-respect, values, personal fortitude, social responsibility. I think all of these qualities can be realized in a hook-up relationship and wouldn’t settle for anything less if I sought a fuck buddy.
    • Suggestions: Communication and conflict resolution skills. Practice self-respect. Being aware of and honoring your own desires. Structured environments to share relationship fears and dreams.
    • A couple gender/hetero-normative comments: Malone-Colon says that men benefit from accepting notions of manhood such as responsibility and should reject notions such as prestige. In her class, her female students “honor” the male students, and vice versa. Each group says what they “love” about the other. She says that everyone gets to be acknowledged for special qualities. But the way this exercise is explained, it seems like people are being praised for gender-normative attributes. What about those who don’t conform to or identify with typically feminine/masculine behavior?
    • Audience members asked about how to change the dominant culture: “There’s a tendency of the media to change the conversation to same-sex marriage and not to the general trend in marriage.” Malone-Colon says that they should stay on message, continue to hold conferences like this one, and intentionally garner media attention.
    • “It’s so political. We don’t want to make people who are divorced feel bad. We can’t point out that it makes a difference or it’ll make them feel bad. We want everyone to feel empowered. When you talk about marriage, then you have to talk about same-sex marriage.”

    Dr. Malone-Colón is Chair of the Psychology Department at Hampton University, a Senior Fellow at the Institute for American Values and the former Executive Director of the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC).  She is also the founder and Executive Director of the new National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting at Hampton University.  The Center brings together Black Churches and Black Institutions of Higher Education to help strengthen the institutions of marriage and family in African American communities.

    Dr. Malone-Colón is a noted scholar and national speaker, and consultant on African American marriages. Currently, she is conducting a ground-breaking study on “the Quality of African American Marriages”.  She also designed and teaches a premier course on Black marriages for college students that has been featured at the annual Smart Marriages Conferences and in Essence magazine.

    Dr. Malone-Colón earned a Ph.D. degree in Personality Psychology with a minor in neuro-psychology, and a M.S. degree in Clinical Psychology at Howard University.

    6 Feb 2010

    How To Avoid Falling For A Jerk (Or Jerkette)

    Follow me on Twitter and keep up with this live-blog for comments from the Rethinking Sex conference:

    Funny introduction from the first speaker at the conference:

    • “Jerk” has no gender. To illustrate, Van Epp showed a clip from Jerry Maguire to show the unchangeability of a jerk. He asks, “Love can motivate you but is love going to fix you?”
    • After Van Epp announced that he’s been married for 30 years, the entire audience clapped. “But she died 25 years ago … just kidding!”
    • Van Epp on meeting his wife: “I was obsessed. I would just watch her. For like six weeks.”

    Why is love blind?

    • Van Epp says it’s because of “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge”
    • According to him, the head and the heart should work together.

    First theoretical construct: Partner Selection (Character Development)

    • For most of history, arranged marriages were commonplace. Families had economic interests in mind.
    • Dating didn’t exist a century ago. The term “dating” was first used in the 40s.
    • “When you marry someone, you’re not just marrying an individual. You’re marrying their family.”
    • Individualized decision-making, without family guidance or principles. Van Epp: “Now the basic taboo we have is that there are no taboos.” Hmm … not sure I agree. As far as I know, being a jerk is still a taboo!
    • Van Epp just said mockingly, “This is no place for morals or convictions.” As someone who eschews sexual stigmas, I don’t agree. Sex radicals (whatever you want to call them) may not conform to the idea of marriage as an end goal or to virginity as a virtue but that doesn’t mean a complete dismissal of ethics. Who says we can’t have morals re: how we treat each other in bed? I’m pretty sure people continue to judge others for behaving irresponsibly in sexual situations.
    • “I think the good-hearted person are the most at risk. If someone does something wrong in a relationship, what do you do?” Audience answer: “Forgive them.” Um … no. That’s not being good-hearted; that’s being delusional.
    • “We need to give people a grid for partner assessment.”

    Second theoretical construct: Relationship Development (R.A.M.)

    • Relationship Attachment Model, which you can read more about here. Discusses how you pace a relationship, are there healthy and unhealthy ways to have or develop a relationship?
    • Five sources of love/closeness: know, trust, rely, commit, touch.
    • The level of each relationship link should not exceed the level of the previous. (That is, you should not  touch more than you can commit more than you can rely more than you can trust more than you can know.)
    • “One of the most common ways people are set up to get involved with a jerk is by accelerating the pace of a relationship.” Epp blames this for date rape. He suggests a 90-day probation period.
    • Van Epp notes that people are pushing marriage back further and want to marry at a later age than ever before in the past. There may be a smaller pool of prospective partners.
    • Van Epp says people don’t necessarily learn from their relationship mistakes. “Been there done that does not always make you do it differently or give you better odds.”
    • Oh god. Van Epp just brought up Lori Gottlieb’s “Marry Him”.
    • Van Epp says when you’re single, you may “engage in more relationship activities known to heighten risks in marriage.” Now he’s citing stats demonstrating that the number of sexual partners is the strongest predictor of future divorce. Which doesn’t strike me as necessarily a bad thing. Maybe those who have had more sexual/romantic experiences are more aware of what kind of relationship they want and what kind of relationship doesn’t satisfy them.
    • According to one study, the more premarital partners a man has, the more likely he is to engage in extramarital affairs.
    • He says that we have the mentality that “Until we get married, we live in Vegas. This is very misleading. When we look at research, there is a pervasive myth that relationships have no continuity. Research has shown that if someone has drug abuse, once they’re married, they will probably have continued drug use. Patterns that have occured in my single years will program my future patterns. This is just the reality of life.”

    On dating around and the “hook-up” culture:

    • The entire concept of the hook-up is that “touch” has nothing to do with know/trust/rely/commit (the Relationship Attachment Model, see above). Van Epp says, “We don’t have any evidence of that in the sciences. We know from biological studies that the brain operates. You can’t just get involved and have the brain not produce chemicals. When you go into a hook-up, you take all of you, not just a part of you. Just bouncing around in hook-up relationships can be just as detrimental and getting into a relationship right away.”

    • Again, I don’t agree. Just because the brain produces chemicals does not mean that hooking up is detrimental. There are a lot of non-sexual activities, like hugging or stroking someone’s back, that produce similar chemicals. You can’t say that just because there is some sort of reaction that there is justification for not hooking up.
    • Apparently, a woman once had sex with Jeffrey Dahmer without knowing it was him because she met him in a bar and had a one-night stand. Clearly, this means that no one should ever have casual sex.

    John Van Epp, PhD, President/Founder of loveThinks, LCC (www.nojerks.com), is the author of How to Avoid Falling in Love with a Jerk, published by McGraw-Hill, which blends in-depth research with humorous stories to provide a map for making healthy relationship choices. His twenty-five years of clinical experience and extensive research in premarital, marital and family relations have paved the way for his programs to be taught in thousands of churches, singles organizations, educational settings and social agencies in all fifty states, ten countries and by more than 2,500 military personnel. His book and relationship courses have been featured in The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Psychology Today, O Magazine, and Cosmopolitan; and he has appeared on the CBS Early Show, the O’Reilly Factor, Fox News, and Focus on the Family. He has been happily married for over thirty years and is the proud father of two daughters.

    6 Feb 2010

    Rethinking Sex: Building Healthy Relationships In A Hook-Up World

    I’m live-blogging from the Rethinking Sex conference at Harvard. Sponsored by the Love & Fidelity Network and True Love Revolution (the campus abstinence group), the conference was advertised with the following description:

    “Do what feels right.”

    “Just be yourself.”

    These are the most common pieces of advice young adults receive when approaching relationships. Casual sexual relationships dominate the dating scene, break-ups and heartbreaks abound, marriages dissolve, and young adults struggle to know where to learn the skills needed to build healthy, stable relationships.

    We recognize a great need among young men and women for practical education on how to build and sustain healthy, stable, and meaningful relationships.

    “Rethinking Sex: Building Healthy Relationships in a Hook-up World” aims to inform and educate young adults about how to approach interpersonal relationships in a healthy and meaningful way, with an eye towards laying a foundation for strong marriages in the future.

    The conference will feature an outstanding line-up of prestigious psychologists ready to share their expertise. The sessions will focus on what the psychological sciences and clinical research have to teach us about human intimacy, love, mate selection, and friendship and the relationship skills needed to find success in these areas.

    I’ll be live-blogging this throughout the day. The opening remarks, made by TLR co-president Rachel Wagley, included a quote from Professor Leon Kass (University of Chicago):

    “The very terms wooing, courting, suitors are archaic [and even TLR doesn’t use those words] but today, there are no socially prescribed forms of conduct . lack a cultural script for marriage. the privileged, college-educated - Today, there are no socially prescribed forms of conduct that help guide young men and women in the direction of matrimony…. People still get married — though later, less frequently, more hesitantly, and, by and large, less successfully. For the great majority, the way to the altar is uncharted territory: It’s every couple on its own bottom, without a compass, often without a goal. Those who reach the altar seem to have stumbled on it by accident.”

    This comes from an essay that also includes the following:

    “Once female modesty became a first casualty of the sexual revolution, even women eager for marriage lost their greatest power to hold and to discipline their prospective mates. For it is a woman’s refusal of sexual importunings, coupled with hints or promises of later gratification, that is generally a necessary condition of transforming a man’s lust into love. Women also lost the capacity to discover their own genuine longings and best interests. For only by holding herself in reserve does a woman gain the distance and self-command needed to discern what and whom she truly wants and to insist that the ardent suitor measure up. While there has always been sex without love, easy and early sexual satisfaction makes love and real intimacy less, not more, likely — for both men and women. Everyone’s prospects for marriage were — are — sacrificed on the altar of pleasure now.”

    Courtship? Maybe it’s overrated.

    23 Feb 2009

    I completely forgot about that time I dated a blonde.

    Needless to say, it didn’t work out.

    I must have completely repressed the memory of our short-lived relationship, because when I started seeing Patrick, I definitely thought, “Wow, this is the first blonde I’ve dated.”

    He was not the first.

    Almost exactly two years before Patrick was this mildy angsty, self-important Francophile who also lived in Beacon Hill. He was, um, eccentric, and that’s being generous. He barely ate anything. Everything he wore was as branded as a cow. I think we spent Valentine’s Day together but I can’t be sure. We definitely watched Amelie together. Our first date was at Cafe Vanille, where Patrick and I regularly grab breakfast when the weather is warm enough to sit outside. He was obsessed with Paris in the most bizarre way. I don’t recall if he actually knew how to speak French. I do recall that I felt as if he were arrogant … but dumb. Which is the worst kind of arrogance. The first and only time we had sex, I actually stopped the action about thirty minutes in. Neither the sex nor the dating was working for me. And since that was the last time I saw him, I assume he felt the same.

    Three years later, I’m pretty sure we live within four blocks of each other.

    2 Jan 2009

    “Does Lena Chen date Asians?”

    “Does Lena Chen date asians/has she ever?”, asked an IvyGate commenter. “If she does/has, I will save my vitriol-laden ‘self-hating asian’ spiel for another day (and another year). If she doesn’t, well, what a tool she is.”

    Just to clear the air on the topic, Asian guys are totally part of my repertoire, though commenters have often attacked me for only being interested in white men. Any regular reader of my blogs can probably deduce that I have no motivation for limiting my pool of potential bed partners. My sex life would be approximately 50% less interesting for it.

    I think the reason so many people are under the impression that I exclusively date white guys is because I go to Harvard, the supposed playground of the privileged white male. So though I don’t reveal the identities of the guys I blog about, it’s just assumed that they’re 1) Harvard students and 2) not racial minorities. I actually don’t have a type. My last real crush was on a non-Harvard Asian guy, who I obsessed over for weeks (a fairly painful experience for my friends), and besides his lack of interest, the only reason I forgot about him is because I met Patrick. Of course, no one realizes that because I don’t give physical descriptions of my blog subjects (nor do I blog about everyone I’m interested in), so people extrapolate from public information and make yellow fever/Nazi jokes about the guy they do know I’m dating.

    It’s a little insulting, because race is so insignificant a factor in compatibility that I get pretty outraged myself when people express any preference for it at all. Class (and education) is more of a factor than race. Political affiliation, religion, even nationality matter more. (Patrick being German, for example, does make a difference in how we relate). To be honest, I don’t even necessarily put a lot of emphasis on looks so skintone is totally irrelevant. Previous to Patrick, my friends openly lamented that some of my interests were simply unpresentable (think: geeky) or were too lazy to make themselves presentatble (think: slackerish). And it’s true, many were just not conventionally attractive by any standard, but that’s not why I was into them. Ironically enough, the only physical preference I’ve noticed over the years is my lack of attraction to blondes and men with lighter features. But since I’m currently dating the physical epitome of all that is Aryan, I’m clearly open to making exceptions.

    Obviously, I’m not advocating that we all begin dating people we can’t bring ourselves to kiss. I think “types” are fine if you’re flexible about them and aware of why your preferences are what they are. However, I continue to find it strange when people claim that a certain race “just isn’t [their] type”. It’s even weirder when they make that claim for members of their own race (black men who refuse to date black women, etc). I’ve come across a lot of people, even Harvard kids, who as a rule, do not consider “x” group of people attractive. You do realize that your preferences are not organic but socially ingrained, right? We don’t magically exit the womb with a natural inclination to pursue those who look like Abercrombie models. To say that you simply can’t help your lack of interest in one race is to say that you fully accept the extent of your media-assisted brainwashing. So, the completely non-introspective statement “not my type” is not an acceptable excuse to rule out an entire portion of the human population. Maybe it’s not exactly a racist attitude, but I still think it’s extremely close-minded.

    ss_blog_claim=2e43b69a85ddf3d9e1b2923415211607