Why is bisexual racism considered bad, while heterosexual nonracism isn't?

Consider two hypothetical women.

Woman A is a bisexual racist. She advertises for a romantic companion: "Gender unimportant, but must be white."

Woman B is a heterosexual nonracist with no racial preferences. She advertises for a romantic companion: "Race unimportant, but must be male."

What makes one more acceptable than the other? (Other than the fact that bisexuality is itself unacceptable to some people).

It doesn't make enough sense to be controversial.

If you have a specific question, then I will attempt to answer it.

You seem to be assuming there's some kind of dichotomy regarding a matter of taste, about which most folks don't give a shit.

You can criticize without reservation and without making any provisos. However, others do that and take the opposite of your position. You can't both be expressing the majority view. Of course, even if you were expressing the majority view, you would not necessarily be right.

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

:popcorn: :popcorn:

:popcorn:

"They're both sluts!"

sexual preference is not.

How can a test reveal a hidden bias that a person cannot control if such bias is allegedly a deliberate choice?

Edited to add link:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/

:eyes:

Racism is culturally determined. Culture is changeable, biology generally isn't.

Also, it is perfectly natural to believe all people have an inalienable right to equality of opportunity without necessarily wanting to sleep with them.

Preferences in one's choice of bed partners is usually pretty idiosyncratic. (At least mine are.)

--p!

then I could have posted it in General Discussion: Politics.

Exercising a preference in a romantic partner is hardly the same thing as seeking to deprive someone of his or her rights in a social, political, or economic situation. I'm trying to imagine a hypothetical personal ad: "Romantic companion wanted. Race, gender, age, height, weight unimportant." It doesn't work at all. I say this as a disinterested non-bisexual, non-heterosexual human being. :hi:

I don't see either as racism or as offensive in any way. Not the way stated in your post anyways.

It's most likely not racism just a sexual fetish, I myself am white but prefer Asian women.

Just a preference on their part, not racism.

If they are only attracted white women, black men or old Asians. Whoever turns you on.

Love who you love.

whatever turns you on, right?

and they're not black....are they racist?

People have different preferences. BFD

Though it can be debated, I do think it's considered an acceptable preference in single's ads. Single White/Black/Latino/Asian/Jewish/even Catholic Male or Female is a common thing that people specify.

The answer is, it is not in itself racist. People have innate preferences that form the basis of attraction, or "chemistry."

Edit: It could be that the OP is not suggesting that the preference for race in dating is inherently racist.

The Original Post focuses on a very specific situation: one hypothetical individual having and expressing a racial preference in romantic partners. What if the majority of people in some town all agree upon a particular racial preference when it comes to neighbors, co-workers, etc?

I think that the issue would be prohibiting an owner from renting or selling land based on the ancestry of the people who want to rent or buy the land. People who want to rent or buy would then be affected by that restriction on the owner.

It is perhaps analogous to laws in some places against competing with public transit. Someone who has no intention of creating a transit business is not directly affected by such laws. However, such laws will have an impact indirectly because they restrict the services available.

or, when some belief such as what would underlie your example is accepted.

But attraction within groups or within individuals which occurs largely on its own might lack diversity, but would not inherently be racist.

whereas the other has more to do with hardwired sexuality.

Just when I think DU has plumbed the ultimate depths to which it can descend...

:popcorn:

This would be a good time to admit that I prefer brunettes over blondes.

By contributing to this thread, you make this thread more prominent so that others may make contributions more substantive than your contribution to this thread.

Link to a thread that you didn't participate in:
Lessons from Reagan's Savings and Loan Crisis?

But the premise of your post remains absurd. Tell me, do you like fucking fat people? If not, why not? If so, what do you have against skinny people?

It's about people having and advertising a policy of excluding people. If you own a home and decide that you will never accept an offer from an African-American who wants to buy it, then nobody can force you to accept such an offer. However, if you were to advertise "Home for sale. Offers from African-Americans not accepted", then you would be taking racism to a higher level.

That people should be prevented from specifying in their own personal ads what they prefer? What would be the point of that? I'm white, but if I were black and were looking in personal ads, I'd want to know before responding that someone wasn't considering black people. If the magazine/paper/website had a "no racial preference" policy, all it would accomplish would be to waste people's time who didn't know that they were contacting someone with a preference against their race.

Selling a house means that you will not be living there anymore and what goes on in the house is not any concern to you. There is no excuse to have a racial prejudice about who buys your home, and in many (all?) states, it is illegal to specify that in your ad.

Advertising for someone that you would presumably want to live with, or sleep with, DOES have a direct effect on you. You can't legislate people's personal lives.

...but would you like to get a cup of coffee sometime? :evilgrin:

People have certain physical characteristics that they are biologically attracted to. Hetero people aren't going to be attracted to every single member of the opposite sex, gay people aren't going to be attracted to every specimen of the same sex, and bisexuals aren't going to be attracted to the entire adult population. And in general, we all tend to like certain "types" of people, physical types.

I am bisexual. I like feminine-looking women and classically handsome men. Overweight turns me off... but I don't look down on overweight people in the wider world. I just don't feel sexual attraction to them. Does that make me "sizist"?

Racism has ZIP to do with what, or who, a person finds to be sexually appealing. Whether people want to admit it or not, different races DO tend to have different physical characteristics, and some of those will not be sexually appealing to everyone. It's ridiculous to label someone SEEKING A MATE as a "racist" because of it.

Am I supposed to be equally open to everyone as a potential (let's just say it) sexual partner?

I've scanned the crowd, I've sorted out men I find attractive from those I don't. I don't know if they are straight/gay/bi, but something intrigues me and why should I bother with men I'm not attracted to?

In my case, chances are my scaling down had nothing to do with skin color (I'm married to a brown-skinned man as it is and I'm about as white-skinned as it gets). Any of these men may be bi/straight/gay but I don't know that. But I've eliminated the need for finding that out about every guest at the party.

A personal ad works the same way--you simply are narrowing down the field by eliminating anyone you already know holds no interest for you.