Study suggests Dating Apps can stop "Sexual Racism" because people shouldn't be allowed to date who they like?

[Kamina]

I'm hispanic and my sexually preference mostly leans towards Latina/Hispanic women.

 

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that psychologically I'm attracted to the people I'm familiar with?

 

I feel like these people really want to control the lives of white people out of spite.

[asus killer]

6 hours ago, LAwLz said:

No, we are both agreeing with each other and saying the same things.

He said thwt you can't help what turns you on or doesn't turn you on. 

I said that people can't control what they find attractive and shouldn't be shamed for it. 

 

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You don't choose to be more or less attracted to certain ethnicities either. 

People who "choose" to only date blacks, or whites do so because of their preferences. Just like a homosexuality "choose" to sleep with their own gender because of preferences. 

 

Homosexuals prefer to be with people who share their gender. 

Some people prefer to be with people who share their ethnicity. 

 

Exactly the same thing. 

if you say homosexuals PREFER to be with people who share their gender, you're saying people can control it, it's a choice, that's what prefer means.

[mr moose]

It's alright everyone, Dominoes has come to the rescue with a pizza based dating app.  The Psychology behind this is sound, don't like stuffed crust? then your potential match won't either.

https://tendaily.com.au/lifestyle/love/a181107qzo/dominos-is-releasing-a-dating-app-so-we-never-need-to-leave-the-house-again-20181107

 

[asus killer]

9 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

No, I wouldn't tell you reeducation centers work. I would tell you that statistically speaking a lot of people lie to others and themselves about their sexuality though.

 

Obviously not directly related, but still relevant, in some Ancient Grecian and Roman societies, a hyper majority of individuals practiced at various points in their life both homosexuality and heterosexuality, and it was almost never looked down upon to have bisexual relations as an adult. And yet, those people were not different 'humans' than modern ones, we have very little to no evidence suggesting anyone saw issues with those practices at the time, which (along with other evidence) really puts strong dampers on the 'biological' arguments for binary sexuality. Cultural ones still remain, of course, but for understandable reasons, many people don't like thinking that their sexuality could be culturally shaped (because then they feel like that means cultural actions can change them somehow, which isn't strictly accurate). 

 

Of course, it should be noted, that just because one says true binary is rare, doesn't mean that most people don't have very strong preferences. It can be dual-modal instead of normal or uniform in distribution.

they were both societies of slaves. In Rome the homosexual act was tolerated as long as they were dominant, women were not so open to sex as today, so it's not a perfect example. You could also bring up the pirates or the sailors, long time at sea no womens.

 

The Greeks i have no idea, i looked it up and this came out "The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys, known as pederasty (marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their thirties commonly taking wives in their early teens", so it seems it was more a pedophile thing and most pedos like boys, i have actually no idea what was going on there.

 

human beings are mostly monogamous, but in certain times and specific cultures it was not so, that does not make the rule. There are cultural an time specific cases i don't think we can make it more than that. We can as much take way from the Greeks that we are sex binary as we are all pedophiles. 

[Taf the Ghost]

3 hours ago, Kamina said:

I'm hispanic and my sexually preference mostly leans towards Latina/Hispanic women.

 

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that psychologically I'm attracted to the people I'm familiar with?

 

I feel like these people really want to control the lives of white people out of spite.

It's more a combination of deep-seated Envy and Lust for Power & Control. Non-metropolitan Northern Europeans have been extremely difficult to "control" for a couple of millennia. See: Roman Empire, Germanic Tribes, Failure. So it's really a coalition action to ruin Western Civilization, but, of course, they're going to damage everyone else in the process. They won't stop even when they set off wars, which will end up consuming them in the process, plus many, many innocents. (War is Hell for a reason.)

 

But it's also normal to be attracted to those that you identify with and are physically healthy. It's both deeply genetic and utterly necessary for survival of the human race. Have a mentioned that most of the "foot soldiers" in these things are militant atheists? 

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's more a combination of deep-seated Envy and Lust for Power & Control. Non-metropolitan Northern Europeans have been extremely difficult to "control" for a couple of millennia. See: Roman Empire, Germanic Tribes, Failure. So it's really a coalition action to ruin Western Civilization, but, of course, they're going to damage everyone else in the process. They won't stop even when they set off wars, which will end up consuming them in the process, plus many, many innocents. (War is Hell for a reason.)

 

But it's also normal to be attracted to those that you identify with and are physically healthy. It's both deeply genetic and utterly necessary for survival of the human race. Have a mentioned that most of the "foot soldiers" in these things are militant atheists? 

It's just good old fashioned survival instinct.  We trust what we know, we know our own race and culture better than anything.

 

Like the old saying goes, who do you save first,   Family (blood line) > Friends (support) > community (extended support) > nation > other.  Just replace save with procreate.

 

 

[LAwLz]

39 minutes ago, asus killer said:

 

if you say homosexuals PREFER to be with people who share their gender, you're saying people can control it, it's a choice, that's what prefer means.

No, that's not what prefer means. 

Prefer is defined as: "like better or best". 

Nothing in the definition of prefer dictates that a person has to be in control of their preferences. I prefer the color blue over the color green on clothes. Does that mean I have made an active choice to like that color? No, it doesn't, and I have no control over it. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I prefer the color blue over the color green on clothes. Does that mean I have made an active choice to like that color? No, it doesn't, and I have no control over it. 

You hueist, colorphobic, uneducated hater of chromatic difference. 

[Taf the Ghost]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You hueist, colorphobic, uneducated hater of chromatic difference. 

I laugh, but I'm pretty sure I've seen something similar yelled at a guy that was partially color-blind when he commented on some work.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

I laugh, but I'm pretty sure I've seen something similar yelled at a guy that was partially color-blind when he commented on some work.

Only an art student would accuse a man with a disability of being social irresponsible rather than acknowledging that existence of a genuine disability.

[Taf the Ghost]

Just now, mr moose said:

Only an art student would accuse a man with a disability of being social irresponsible rather than acknowledging that existence of a genuine disability.

There's a reason why Poe's Law rules the internet.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

There's a reason why Poe's Law rules the internet.

Art student jokes from the 80's.

 

 

[asus killer]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, that's not what prefer means. 

Prefer is defined as: "like better or best". 

Nothing in the definition of prefer dictates that a person has to be in control of their preferences. I prefer the color blue over the color green on clothes. Does that mean I have made an active choice to like that color? No, it doesn't, and I have no control over it. 

i was starting to think this was a me not getting a English word thing. It is not:

 

from the dictionary: 

 

preferverb [ T ] 

UK  /prɪˈfɜː^r/ US  /prɪˈfɝː/ -rr-like, choose, or want one thing rather than another:

[LAwLz]

13 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i was starting to think this was a me not getting a English word thing. It is not:

  

from the dictionary: 

 

preferverb [ T ] 

UK  /prɪˈfɜː^r/ US  /prɪˈfɝː/ -rr-like, choose, or want one thing rather than another:

Notice how the definition you're quoting says "choose OR want"? Even the definition you're quoting does not say that a preference has to be something you actively chooses to have. It just means that you like something over something else.

Homosexuals prefer to sleep with members of their own sex.

Some people prefer to date members of their own ethnicity group.

 

The word "prefer" does not mean that they have made an active choice to have those preferences. It just means that they want one over the other.

 

"Homosexuals prefer to be with people of the same sex" means exactly the same thing as

"Homosexuals wants to be with people of the same sex". Even the definition you quoted agrees with that since it says OR between the "choose" and "want".

 

I generally prefer blue clothes over green clothes. Does that mean I have actively decided that I think blue is a prettier color than green? No, it just means that I like blue more than green. That preference however, might mean that I actively choose blue clothes over green ones. My natural preference for blue is dictating my actions though, not the other way around.

 

But I feel like you're really arguing semantics here. If your entire point right now is that I tried to say being homosexual is a choice then you misunderstood me, or maybe I did not make myself clear enough.

Read my other posts and I think you will without a shadow of a doubt understand that I meant that people have no control over what they like/feel attracted to, so shaming them for that is wrong. That goes for gender, ethnicity group, age, body shape or anything else.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i was starting to think this was a me not getting a English word thing. It is not:

 

from the dictionary: 

 

preferverb [ T ] 

UK  /prɪˈfɜː^r/ US  /prɪˈfɝː/ -rr-like, choose, or want one thing rather than another:

I think you are forgetting that the choice it refers to here does not define a driving motivation.   In context of sexual preference, I choose woman over men because I don't find men attractive sexually, not because I choose to be heterosexual.   The choice to have one over another is due to the intrinsic nature of that preference, it does not start with a choice, the choice is part of the preference.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, asus killer said:

they were both societies of slaves. In Rome the homosexual act was tolerated as long as they were dominant, women were not so open to sex as today, so it's not a perfect example. You could also bring up the pirates or the sailors, long time at sea no womens.

 

The Greeks i have no idea, i looked it up and this came out "The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys, known as pederasty (marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their thirties commonly taking wives in their early teens", so it seems it was more a pedophile thing and most pedos like boys, i have actually no idea what was going on there.

 

human beings are mostly monogamous, but in certain times and specific cultures it was not so, that does not make the rule. There are cultural an time specific cases i don't think we can make it more than that. We can as much take way from the Greeks that we are sex binary as we are all pedophiles. 

Japan also has a very detailed record of primarily bisexual populations going back millennia and as recent as the 19th century. (And similar, if not quite as well documented or dramatic patterns have been seen in China, Arab countries, the aforementioned Greek and Romans, some Native American tribes.... etc.)

 

I would suggest that those statements on roman and greek sexuality are dramatic oversimplifications of the nuanced truth, but it sorta refers to both broadly enough. In Roman society for example, subs of important people (same-sex or not) was considered a fairly well respected position if publicly displayed. Wealthy women would be more free in their pleasures, but yes generally speaking your statement was often valid.

 

Yes, we can make appeals to exceptionalism based on any number of different factors, but either way, it still indicates a very strong cultural aspect to reported sexuality beyond (or rather in addition to) biology. Which is sometimes conflicting for people to accept. I would suggest that appeals to exceptionalism in this fashion are unlikely to be particularly true given the utter lack of change in any fashion for human behavior and psychology (controlling against the cultural in-group acceptance of various eras) at least as far back as we can find written word on any various subject. 

 

After all, until midway through the 19th century, the US was a slave-society as well.

 

 

As a counter note (talking about arguably biological factors), porn site data mining indicates that the percentage of female viewers that watch violent porn is dramatically higher than male viewers, and this does not vary by country or by the rates of violence towards women in those societies. Sort of a scary truth for me personally, but hey the data doesn't lie.

 

Towards monogamy... well lets just say that there are a LOT of sociology papers out there arguing about this exact topic (if majority monogamy is a cultural imposition or an actual natural tendency of human beings). If you would like to, you can winnow enough research to claim either side very strongly, but clearly the implication is that we don't really know if human beings are intrinsically monogamous, and it doesn't seem particularly likely. 

 

We do know that almost none of the nearest living species of humans are monogamous in any serious capacity. We also know that around 80% of all early human societies (the genus in addition to the species) were polygamous. One of the more popular theories is that monogamy spread (culturally) mostly in concert with 'civilization'. (in particular the different things human sapiens in particular have imagined up to allow us to exist 'relatively peacefully' in groups larger than any other mammal (current theory puts maximum stable size of groups based on primitive individual contacts at around 60-100 people).)

 

[The pedophilia question/discussion is probably one for a different forum...]

[asus killer]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Notice how the definition you're quoting says "choose OR want"? Even the definition you're quoting does not say that a preference has to be something you actively chooses to have. It just means that you like something over something else.

Homosexuals prefer to sleep with members of their own sex.

Some people prefer to date members of their own ethnicity group.

 

The word "prefer" does not mean that they have made an active choice to have those preferences. It just means that they want one over the other.

 

"Homosexuals prefer to be with people of the same sex" means exactly the same thing as

"Homosexuals wants to be with people of the same sex". Even the definition you quoted agrees with that since it says OR between the "choose" and "want".

 

I generally prefer blue clothes over green clothes. Does that mean I have actively decided that I think blue is a prettier color than green? No, it just means that I like blue more than green. That preference however, might mean that I actively choose blue clothes over green ones. My natural preference for blue is dictating my actions though, not the other way around.

 

But I feel like you're really arguing semantics here. If your entire point right now is that I tried to say being homosexual is a choice then you misunderstood me, or maybe I did not make myself clear enough.

Read my other posts and I think you will without a shadow of a doubt understand that I meant that people have no control over what they like/feel attracted to, so shaming them for that is wrong. That goes for gender, ethnicity group, age, body shape or anything else.

ok i may be just misunderstanding the word and therefor what you meant. I do read that definition of "prefer" as having a choice. Like, choose or want... one thing over another. Still not a english native so i will just say it was me not getting the word.

Never ming all that if you agree is not a choice. 

[Brooksie359]

14 hours ago, Kamina said:

I'm hispanic and my sexually preference mostly leans towards Latina/Hispanic women.

 

Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that psychologically I'm attracted to the people I'm familiar with?

 

I feel like these people really want to control the lives of white people out of spite.

I know someone who is white and generally doesn't find white people attractive. It is really is diffrent from person to person. 

[Brooksie359]

9 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

It's more a combination of deep-seated Envy and Lust for Power & Control. Non-metropolitan Northern Europeans have been extremely difficult to "control" for a couple of millennia. See: Roman Empire, Germanic Tribes, Failure. So it's really a coalition action to ruin Western Civilization, but, of course, they're going to damage everyone else in the process. They won't stop even when they set off wars, which will end up consuming them in the process, plus many, many innocents. (War is Hell for a reason.)

 

But it's also normal to be attracted to those that you identify with and are physically healthy. It's both deeply genetic and utterly necessary for survival of the human race. Have a mentioned that most of the "foot soldiers" in these things are militant atheists? 

 

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's just good old fashioned survival instinct.  We trust what we know, we know our own race and culture better than anything.

 

Like the old saying goes, who do you save first,   Family (blood line) > Friends (support) > community (extended support) > nation > other.  Just replace save with procreate.

 

 

I think you are getting this all wrong. There are a lot of people out there who prefer a certain race more than others and it isn't the same as their own so I don't see how what you are saying makes any sense. 

[Brooksie359]

6 hours ago, asus killer said:

ok i may be just misunderstanding the word and therefor what you meant. I do read that definition of "prefer" as having a choice. Like, choose or want... one thing over another. Still not a english native so i will just say it was me not getting the word.

Never ming all that if you agree is not a choice. 

I think a simply way to explain it is that I hate fish so I choose to not eat fish. I don't choose to hate fish. In the same way someone who is homosexual isn't homosexual by choice but they do have the choice over there actions. They could sleep with people of the opposite sex but again most wouldn't because they prefer not to. 

[MoonSpot]

7 hours ago, asus killer said:

ok i may be just misunderstanding the word and therefor what you meant. I do read that definition of "prefer" as having a choice. Like, choose or want... one thing over another. Still not a english native so i will just say it was me not getting the word.

Never ming all that if you agree is not a choice. 

 

If someone is giving you a back massage and you ask them to focus on a particular spot is it because its a choice on your part, or simply you being aware of your preference?

If you really would prefer a lower back massage, do you hate shoulder rubs and are taking a stand against them by 'choosing' lower back massage?

Prefer does not necessarily mean choice, nor does it mean that it isn't a choice.  It is simply stating the option of the greatest perceived utility.

 

For someone who isn't a native English speaker, you're quite good at it.  Could have fooled me anyways.

[Canada EH]

Quote

Study suggests Dating Apps can stop "Sexual Racism" because people shouldn't be allowed to date who they like?

 

There are 100's if not 1000's of dating sites out there. So if a dating app wants to restrict a user based on their input which could be non truthful to begin with, then there are other options out there. People do what they want to do.

 

Another thing is Studies are a dime a dozen and can be skewed to make the news headlines.

 

Just look at the last prez election.

Studies said

Polls said

Trump will never win

Never ever will Trump win

People laughed and agreed

 

 

 

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Canada EH said:

 

There are 100's if not 1000's of dating sites out there. So if a dating app wants to restrict a user based on their input which could be non truthful to begin with, then there are other options out there. People do what they want to do.

 

Another thing is Studies are a dime a dozen and can be skewed to make the news headlines.

 

Just look at the last prez election.

Studies said

Polls said

Trump will never win

Never ever will Trump win

People laughed and agreed

 

 

 

Honestly think one of the reasons why he won was because nobody thought he could win. 

[Canada EH]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

nobody thought he could win. 

Actually there were people with strong opinions that thought he had a very good chance to win, and some of those people were democrats.

 

Everyone just went along with the "Studies" and the "Polls" which are always skewed to CNN's panel or Fox's panel. Those studies and polls can and are skewed heavily to whatever the buyer of the poll wants.

[ARikozuM]

I love how we're discussing a preference over a choice when it isn't mutually exclusive of the other.