AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat


View Poll Results: Which is your preffered mating race?
Same/Own Race 33 49.25%
White(Caucosoid) 12 17.91%
Asian(Mongoloid) 15 22.39%
Black(Negroid) 1 1.49%
Hispanic 0 0%
Arab 2 2.99%
Other Hybrids (describe the racial mixture) 4 5.97%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Old 2009-08-16, 19:08   Link #141
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The dog gossips too much.
Same race, preferably same country and same cultural background+religion. No offense to anybody else, but I know myself and I know myself and how fussy I will be about how and where I live, and how and where my kids are brought up.
AnimeFangirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-16, 19:09   Link #142
A Priori Impossibility
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Age: 27
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
I'll make it plain. Supermodels(today) are visibly unhealthy, (an evolutionary sytemized trait you say repels men) and yet they're portrayed in magazines in a different way. How do you explain this?
Originally Posted by Lathdrinor View Post
I like to use eye color as a classic example. Blue eyes are considered beautiful and attractive. Does that imply there has to be some objective evolutionary benefits associated with blue eyes? No, not really. It could be that the preference for blue eyes is simply a product of the preference for the color blue, which might not have had anything to do with eyes to begin with. What else is blue? Well, water, and one could easily see how an affinity to sources of water would be beneficial for an organism.
The funny thing about models and media hype is that few people consider modeling to be an art form for entertainment, not simply a sample of the population's shared beliefs in beauty.

First of all, models are often chosen for their striking looks and their presence on stage and in photos. If you see a professional model walking down the street, you may often see that their faces look very different when they're seen directly from the front. Often, the first word that comes to mind might not be "beauty" in the physical sense, but other descriptors. Be it their eyes, cheeks, chin, or whatever, many of these models have particularly interesting features that may be emphasized and abused by the camera, by colors in the dresses, by aspects of their outfit, etc. In fact, many beautiful girls cannot become models just based on their looks alone.

Blue eyes are more striking than anything. As a recessive trait (most likely resulting from some long ago mutation or something), they catch people's attention easily. Does this mean they're beautiful? Not necessarily. Ledgem already provided a good amount of information on it, so I just wanted to illustrate the similarity between model selectivity and the existence or rarer traits among individuals.

And while it's true that many models look like sticks, you can think of it this way: what the models are aiming for are not anorexic-looking bodies, but they're trying NOT to have non-slender bodies. For example, the refusal to eat anything, which thus leads to anorexia and weight loss, is reinforcement in response to potentially negative feedback from loved ones, friends, or the general public. Thus, models are trying to avoid the negativity associated with being over-weight or even slightly chubby, because of society's perception of that type of physical attribute as being unattractive. They don't necessarily believe that being ultra-thin is beautiful, but more that if they don't continually try and maintain their bodies, they'll be out of a job. But this doesn't necessarily mean both their employers, the public, or they desire women to look like sticks, but rather a behavioral mechanism that may have roots elsewhere.
Kylaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-16, 19:38   Link #143
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Age: 29
Monogamy is not a hallmark of living organisms, yet it is something that ebbs and flows with the change in society. Clearly monogamy may be a construct of human societies but it has some underlining base in nature, if you look at the homosexual phenomena, with out any biological needs to fulfill in your defined world it would be normal for homosexuals to entertain polygamous relationships yet many choose to be in monogamous relationships. Animal models may give us a picture of what we might be, but with knowledge and sentience we clearly have biological traits that not sentient creature have.

My point is that with all the new fangled ways we attract mates, many of the underlining reasons why we chose them do live in the realm of biological needs. Humans much like other animals inately do not want to be cuckolded hence the value in virginity which is derived from the biological bases of monogamy. At least from a male perspective. Again the polygamy that you refer to is centered around men, which are the selective ones in the past and in these polygamous relationships, guaranteeing the fidelity of their offspring.
Nosauz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-16, 20:03   Link #144
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: East Boston, Massachusetts
Age: 28
I've read some interesting ideas on humans concerning monogamy: that humans are half-assed monogamists. Like Ledgem mentioned, our ancestors were probably organized by harems and a dominant male, but we evolved towards more monogamous relationships for the purpose of collaboration for child-rearing. This leaves us with some inherent monogamous preferences, but they aren't set in stone and our 'primal urges' still come into play sometimes. I can't verify the truth to this, but I think it's worth pondering. I don't think we can make it into a black-and-white issue either.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-16, 22:09   Link #145
Join Date: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by escimo View Post
To the actual topic at hand.
I think the poll is missing no preference option. While I tend to lean towards caucasian and asian, I consider race a non issue.
There are simple reasons why. Firstly,(with bland words) I have no idea how to fix my grammatical(caucosoid), scientifical(the three race concept), and lack of choices errors(the massively named races). "Where's the edit button?" Secondly, I chose the"one choice option" so that I may force you to honestly select only one as many people may have conditionally opposing sentiments. Yes, I believe preferences have ranks or "one is always greater than the other"- or " no equality"( now I'm hoping for a strong opposition towards this belief).

"There is no universal standard of beauty" is an unequivocal(well-nigh to the point of labeling it "common sense") axiom. But what is, at present and by generality(or even slight), the most appealing race? Perhaps the preponderant race of "white"(term used for simplifying purposes) because of media, historical changes, and ethnic beliefs, would be the appropriate allegation.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-17, 11:36   Link #146
Ermes Marana
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
I want a female version of myself. Mainly because I hate myself and I want someone to take it out on.
Ermes Marana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-17, 12:19   Link #147
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Ultra-thin wasn't actually ever that popular..... except with the fashion designers hiring women models (who I suspect kind of hate women anyway). Now, I do think their choices misled some women into thinking guys liked the skeletal concentration camp look... but most guys seem to like a reasonable X+/X-/X+ shape.
Yeah, I didn't think so either. Me likes shapely plus size girls with cute faces up to Holon sizes in RD.. but not beyond that.. although I don't mind a X+++/X-/X+ shape

However it is good for your health to slim down as you get older
npcomplete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-17, 13:47   Link #148
Join Date: Apr 2004
Originally Posted by Ermes Marana View Post
I want a female version of myself. Mainly because I hate myself and I want someone to take it out on.
That is so wrong in so many different ways.

Having sex with a female version of yourself.
Abusing women.
Yourself in the mirror with long hair and boobs.

jonli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-19, 11:18   Link #149
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Northern VA
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I've read some interesting ideas on humans concerning monogamy: that humans are half-assed monogamists. Like Ledgem mentioned, our ancestors were probably organized by harems and a dominant male, but we evolved towards more monogamous relationships for the purpose of collaboration for child-rearing. This leaves us with some inherent monogamous preferences, but they aren't set in stone and our 'primal urges' still come into play sometimes. I can't verify the truth to this, but I think it's worth pondering. I don't think we can make it into a black-and-white issue either.
Given the rise, and acceptance of polyamoury, which BTW I do not attribute to "primal urges", but that's a whole other conversation I have gotten into with others on this forum, I have to lean towards humans not being monogamous by nature. I think it's more a learned behaviour than instinctive.

Then again, I'm poly and therefore my mindset doesn't work the same as a mono person. It may also explain why I have absolutely no preference to my partner's race, etc, so long as I find them attractive and pleasant to be around. My husband is black-haired brown eyed half Japanese (5'6, 130 lbs soaking wet), while my other male partner is 5'10 caucasian w/ blue eyes and a bit of extra meat on his bones. Women're the same way, one's tall with dark hair and light eyes, another's blonde/blue eyes, etc. Their differences never really struck me as anything to think about; I love them for them, why would I care much what their racial background was?

I have never dated someone of Latino, Indian (not native american) or African descent, but that's merely because the opportunity hasn't come up. I have encountered individuals of all ethnic backgrounds and mixes to be attractive.
"...we are wolves in a flock of sheep. We are the hunters. We are the Alphas and we are on this Earth to conquer."

RIFT | Division | Side 7 Art Archive
cheyannew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-19, 19:49   Link #150
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: East Boston, Massachusetts
Age: 28
Well, if they aren't primal urges what do you suggest they are? I consider eating a primal urge (which it is), so think in that context. We cannot separate ourselves from the fact that we are animals, as much as some people love to think. Our dedication towards monogamy is certainly cultural, the 'natural monogamy' for humans to which I was referring probably wouldn't have been permanent (you know how early love fizzles for most people?). Also, we should keep in mind that hunter-gatherers traveled in small tribes so it is likely they all functioned as a single familial unit.

I don't think race matters to the majority of the people in this thread beyond the initial preference for looks.

Last edited by ChainLegacy; 2009-08-19 at 19:59.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-22, 20:15   Link #151
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: CH aka Chocaholic Heaven
Age: 34
Errm. I think that comparing human behavior with that of a male rat left in a cage with a bunch of females is a bit (actually way) simplistic (if not insulting).

The thing is that this example removes two (actually 3) key factors that rule human (and a lot of animals) instincts and seduction mechanisms:
-food availability, typically, a cage will have abundant food, whereas in nature (and human biomes), providing first for oneself is the dominant instinct, sharing or providing with/for another comes seconds (at least before reproduction for most animals). If there was only food enough food for one, I'm pretty sure the rat would kill the females pretty soon.
-a proper gender ratio: life, even a rats life (in the wild at least), is not that of a harem-anime protagonist: a weakling doesn't naturally get all the pretty girls at his knees: all the other guys WILL compete with him for the females.
-and competition works also the other way, especially when resources are limited: females will compete among themselves for the best male

On whether monogamy is a social construct versus instinct. We do have to remember that the gregarious nature nature of our specie make the existence of a social context nearly unescapable.

This social context may vary widely, but the origin of most patterns (monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, age differences, etc...) can be traced to contextual factors:

-climate: tundra, desert, temperate forest, tropical forests, all these are totally different biotopes for homo sapiens, and affected our morphologies as well as our behavior.

-how food is obtained/produced, and wether it is abundant or scarce (related to environment and technology): depending on the scarcity, work or technology needed, the dependence relationships vary greatly, not only between the genders but also regarding social status, also especially it may also greatly affect the:

-gender ratio: depending on living conditions (hunt or wars claiming young males lives most notably), the balance can shift so abruptly that the society will have to adapt in order to survive (see Paraguay history for a modern example).

To put it (extremely) simply, as homo sapiens (with a paleolithic culture developed from the inheritance of our predecessors), we most likely were hunter gatherers at first, with the males focusing on dangerous large game hunting (leading to their extinction), and the females and weaker ones (juveniles most notably) foraging. Social pattern was most probably that of small familial groups following large game.
Direct comparison with modern hunter gatherer is quite risky, as paleolithic technology and culture (knowledge of the environment) was most likely far behind.
High mortality among young males (due to hunting), as well as females (pregnancy, especially in a nomadic lifestyle is not too good one can assume) would probably result in a small desequilibrium: very little "greymanes" led by an alpha male, some younglings taking a heavy toll from the hunt, a little more nubile females, mostly very young, and finally a variable number of juveniles of little importance. The alpha and the "greymanes" probably had one or more mates, and huntproven younglings probably could have one (becoming greymanes as time flew). But the concept of lifemate was probably unknown, given the notable differences in life expectancy between and within genders (adulthood being reached).

The Neolithic revolution, with the Holocene warming and the development of new technologies lead to a significant demographic explosion and to considerable changes in the population composition and its social mechanisms. As their environments were (sometimes drastically) changing, homo sapiens populations adapted their technology, lifestyle and improved their knowldege of their (relatively new, and generally more comfortable) environments; inventing agriculture, pastoralism or modern hunter-gatherer technologies.
All those, especially agriculture allowed more balanced population. A balanced gender ratio and narrowing of the life expectancy contrast led to monogamy becoming being much more common as a dominant pattern.

Later, interactions between groups had in their turn their consequences in social model evolutions: diffusion of trade but also of warfare as tension grew between groups, especially in stressed environments (think middle east, you now, the whole area that was dotted with cities for a long already in 3000 BC, some of them burned to the ground dozen of times).
Long distance trade is extremely old, as prized flint, obsidian, jade and later amber, copper and tin were in high demand and available only in limited areas. It lead to people acquiring new means of making a living, with some specializing in it. The specialization in trade creating a whole new, if not several "niche": Eg: traveling male plus sedentarized female or whole long distance nomad groups. The Tibetan merchants polyandrism is an interesting example resulting from one of those patterns.
Warfare specialization is probably one of the well known "shifting" factor, in regards to ensuing dependency between and within both groups and genders.

Back to the evolution of living/food acquisition. Their nature and evolutions were deciding factors in the rise of major social contrasts, especially where pasture, fields of cattle ownerships were restricted or requiring a long time, favoring patriarchal societies (males having to spend time being dependent before being able to provide for a mate). For example, the Industrial Revolution greatly contributed to change this in densely populated Europe, as it allowed a 16 if not 14 year old boy to earn a living in a factory, instead of having to spend twice the time working to acquire a field, spending decades of aprencticeship, being a soldier or even simply removing himself from the competition (think about all those Monasteries that flourished in Europe during the Middle Ages). On the contrary accumulation of wealth allowed one to provide for several mates (it is still natural in some parts of the world to have as many mates as you can provide for, the cultural imprint being so strong that having less than what you can afford is frowned upon).

Cultural and religious preferences are, regarding their origins, a direct result of all these factors after millenias of evolution. And considering how the population balance, living conditions and social roles of the two genders of homo sapiens evolve, I'd say that it is only natural of monogamy to be/become the dominant model. But it's true that the duration is another issue, especially since the lifespan is overstretching so far these days.

As a final word, even if very special behavior have enough room in our urbanized, unrooted societies of millions of individuals, the majority will most likely never accept another model than the one that has the most chances of ensuring at least one mate per individual,

Now, historical and demographical discussion aside.

If I have preferences?

Yes I do, but first if I were to look for a mate, I would search for someone with:
-a: a strong character.
-b: a similar curiosity for (almost) everything, aka thirst of knowledge (it doesn't have to be in the same fields).
-c: a cultural background similar or compatible enough (as an educated roman catholic I might have some trouble with protestant christian confession, as well as Islam, less with Judaism I think and probably not much with secularized philosophies and animisms).
-d: being of mixed european (french, germanic, italian and spanish blood and cultures) and asian (filipino, ethnic chinese) heritage, I am mostly attracted by western and northern europeans, as well as filipino mestizas (filipino-chinese and old filipino-european), ethnic chinese and of course japanese womens (as well as vietnamese and koreans).

Oh and my choice is for life-long monogamy if that wasn't clear.

Last edited by JMvS; 2009-08-22 at 20:41.
JMvS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-23, 03:22   Link #152
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: JPN around Tokyo
i don't mind.

i think people tend to have the preference, but falling in love with someone and loving the person are most of the time, a result.
And most of the time, that result becomes the ideal.
Don't mind the small things. Optimists always win∮
rio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-23, 11:56   Link #153
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 60
Originally Posted by npcomplete View Post
Yeah, I didn't think so either. Me likes shapely plus size girls with cute faces up to Holon sizes in RD.. but not beyond that.. although I don't mind a X+++/X-/X+ shape

However it is good for your health to slim down as you get older
Of course, I'm defining "ultra-thin" as runway model concentration camp skeletal.
Conversely, I keep seeing a nasty trend of healthy fit women being trash-talked with stupid lines like "Someone get that woman a sandwich". In the case of Americans - they simply need a reality slap that most of them are unhealthily fat: morbidly obese is a medical term.

And actually... waiting til you get older to slim down is too late. Much of the damage to organs and circulatory systems accumulates from the beginning.

My wife is about 8lbs overweight at the moment -- but her target weight is 93lbs for her height. Her coworkers were perplexed as to why she goes to the gym "when she's so petite" .... as they sit there 50lbs or more overweight and snarfing Starbucks, donuts, and fries. She just answers "easier to fix earlier than later".
(disclaimer: last new years I had slipped up to 230lbs (6') ... I'm now at 200lbs and shooting for 190lbs so yeah -- move faster, eat less, fewer carbs)

Last edited by Vexx; 2009-08-23 at 12:10.
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-08-28, 17:01   Link #154
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
Is this not "mainly" just a matter of taste?

Though in real life I can understand that it can be seen as a delicate subject. For example, when you're a white girl, it's not easy to say that you are not attracted at all by black or arab men. It can easily be seen wrongly as a racist comment, and cause problems.
Narona is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We use Silk.