Why Asian Women Don't Date Asian Men

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Supersonic

But surely you can't deny that a person with say...cystic fibrosis is, at least speaking of only that gene in particular, genetically inferior to a person without it?

Which is certainly a grave example of not being adapted to the environment. But in which way does such a thankfully rare disease teach us something about how 99.999 percent of humanity is doing?

Originally Posted by Supersonic

To say that you are afraid that some people were given a "superior genotype" is to be afraid of reality. Some people are stronger, faster, smarter than others.

I said such talk gives me chills. Because I know where it roots and which people try to make it popular again and again. I'm not blaming you, you're just somewhere in the chain of thought.

I'm trying to bring two thoughts across.
1. The mechanics of evolution doesn't play a big role for our species in the 21st century. Still, people seems to be fascinated about it.
2. Evolution has its very own ideas about fitness (or superiority). Still, people try to impose their very own ideas onto it.

How strong I am depends first of all, and second, and third, if I train my body or eat fast food sitting on my sofa. Most people chose the latter anyway. Not that physical strength does help you at all in a modern society. The most successful people in is society are neither the strongest nor the fastest. They're not even the smartest. So why, I wonder, do make people such a fuss about something that has so little impact on real life? I never felt the urge to blame my successes or failures on my DNA.

Originally Posted by Supersonic

Which is interesting, as it's being shown that, in the Darwinian sense at least, smarter people are actually "less fit" as they seem to show more failure at passing on their genes.

Let's say "better educated" or "well-off". And why? Because they willingly decide against having (many) children. Which only proves that the rules of the game have changed. Culture influences our behavior much more than biology, and culture changes faster than biology could ever adapt.

Your view on "superiority" is hopeless romantic. Evolution doesn't care for stronger, faster, smarter or whatever human society declares to be superior. You'll find a lot of eagles in this planet nations' coat of arms. But out there, in the wilderness it is often of advantage to be a penguin instead of an eagle. IF our genetic makeup were still of importance for our reproduction rate here and now then too much muscles would certainly be a waste of energy.

Again: Bacteria are an example for a really "superior" species. Also cockroaches.

If you want to read a good story about what might happen in a situation where Darwinism kicks in again for homo sapiens then read Stephen Baxter's "Evolution".

Originally Posted by Supersonic

We all were dealt a different hand, it's how we use our hand to our advantage is what really seperates the men from the boys.

Do females play any role in this philosophy of life?

Originally Posted by Supersonic

To me, just go with the person who suits you, regardless of their race. To do otherwise would be racist, wouldn't it?

You have my full agreement here.

[WanderingKnight]

Cue Godwin's Law-compliant comments in 3, 2, 1...

(The troll that started this thread must be rejoicing by now).

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Supersonic

But surely you can't deny that a person with say...cystic fibrosis is, at least speaking of only that gene in particular, genetically inferior to a person without it?

There's an interesting part of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, a book about the development of human societies that touches on that, actually. Unfortunately I don't remember the details about the cystic fibrosis, but I do remember the other two: in Africans, there is a gene that makes the individual more resistant to malaria. When an individual becomes homozygous for that gene, they develop the condition known as sickle cell anemia.

The other example: in people of Ashkenanzic Jewish descent, having a certain gene makes them resistant to tuberculosis. Being homozygous with that gene gives them the fatal condition known as Tay-Sachs Disease.

But if you want to argue that an individual with a "doomed genome" (say, one in which cancer is more likely) is inferior to another person, you need to qualify it. To that extent, genetic therapy is a rather interesting science.

If you're interested in human society and superiority of individuals, I would recommend the book I mentioned above. It examines the factors behind why some societies emerged as the dominating socieities, while others lingered behind. A rather interesting read.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

There's an interesting part of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, a book about the development of human societies

One of the ten best books I've read in the past decade, maybe even longer. I never thought about any of the subjects Diamond treats, like the distribution of game animals and crops across continents. and how that shaped human civilization. Just the map of human migration history in the very first chapter is worth the price of admission.

A profound and important book and certainly worthy of its Pulitzer Prize.

[Whitemoon648]

Where does it say Why asian women dont date asian men?. Is there any evidence for that?

[Vexx]

There's not really any statistical evidence. Its just that in America the opportunity arises for inter-racial relationships more readily. It still comes down to individual preference. Some white guys find asian girls attractive, some asian girls find white guys attractive. Switch those races and genders around to any others for various options.

[Fome]

I have had 2 Asian female friends tell me that they think Asian guys just aren't very attractive usually. Not really evidence, but that's what I heard.

[Supersonic]

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/...ame-race-male/

Here's an interesting article...

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Your view on "superiority" is hopeless romantic. Evolution doesn't care for stronger, faster, smarter or whatever human society declares to be superior. You'll find a lot of eagles in this planet nations' coat of arms. But out there, in the wilderness it is often of advantage to be a penguin instead of an eagle. IF our genetic makeup were still of importance for our reproduction rate here and now then too much muscles would certainly be a waste of energy.

Genes determine a lot of factors that women look for, and I already confessed that people who I would view as "superior" probably aren't in a darwinist sense as those aren't the traits that society's women are selecting for (as I am not a woman, I cannot speak on whether or not women see their own sex being ruined by male selection, although I assume the situation is similar). And that some of the traits that improve ones odds at sexual selection may indeed put him at a disadvantage through natural selection, but obviously not enough so that he doesn't gain fitness on the whole.

(Like a peacock's feathers, our human society has chosen some genes that, while probably disadvantageous, make a person appear more "sexy.")

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Do females play any role in this philosophy of life?

I was using a common idiom like "the cream of the crop." Don't be pedantic. Females were implied to be a part of this as well.

But if you want to argue that an individual with a "doomed genome" (say, one in which cancer is more likely) is inferior to another person, you need to qualify it. To that extent, genetic therapy is a rather interesting science.

Mental exercise: Suppose a man, through genetic conditions, has only one leg, one arm, one lung, and is mentally disabled. Clearly luck has not favored this man, and I think it would be to ignore reality in favor of ideology to say that he, in one sense at least, is inferior to another person. Now, I'm not saying that we should discriminate against this person based on his defects, but I think it should be obvious to anyone that his utility to society is less than an able-bodied man.

[Shinoto]

For anyone saying survival of the fittest, strongest, best....


Pwned(Watch me

[Scarecrow*]

Originally Posted by hyperlion

I hope that's not true, because I am Asian . But as I think about it in New York (which is obviously one of the most diverse area in the world) most people would date their own ethnic group and didn't really see lot of white or black dating Asian. From what I seen people really don't date other ethnic group. So I really doubt what she say is true and where did she get all of her sources? I couldn't find them, so that site in the end is not really creditable.

Yup this is very true. Specially in NYC, you won't see people from different races dating much.

I see a lot of Asians dating Asians in nyc.
Maybe in California it's a different story

Stereotypes in this country is way pervasive.

[Moonscar.Aquarius]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Great post, TRL... had me laughing (no sarcasm here).

I agree completely on all points.
1) There's nothing wrong with being fascinated by other cultures while being proud of your own (as long as you're not denying all have their warts).
2) I'm sorry for your colleague ... she should learn to cherry pick the best of all cultures.
3) Asian women who have been *raised* in asian countries do tend to be a bit fearful of "monstrous" western men. And yes, body hair is not an instant "win" even for many western women

That superiority myth drives some of the japanese (and asian) fascination for things Western (they won the war, it must have been their cultural superiority.... <cough>). So both the West and the East have fascination for each other for various reasons. Lets just work to keep it on the positive side of fascination while deconstructing the myths of both sides.

I never said there was anything wrong with it, all I said was that white people and asians get along very well and you don't see black people adoption asains as much as whites :0. Not being racist cause Im black myself *looks around*. Anyways I was just saying that they get along well, nothing wrong with them wanting to get in other cultures.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Supersonic

Mental exercise: Suppose a man, through genetic conditions, has only one leg, one arm, one lung, and is mentally disabled. Clearly luck has not favored this man, and I think it would be to ignore reality in favor of ideology to say that he, in one sense at least, is inferior to another person. Now, I'm not saying that we should discriminate against this person based on his defects, but I think it should be obvious to anyone that his utility to society is less than an able-bodied man.

Depends on what genetic factors caused that to happen, as well as our current technology.

Counterexample: children born with X-linked SCID (severe combined immunodeficiency disease). People with this condition have a crippled immune system due to a genetic disorder. If left alone, many of them likely would not survive past young childhood. Are these people genetically inferior? In terms of natural survival, yes. However, we can now use, ironically, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, also called the AIDS virus) to correct this by inserting the corrected genes, through the virus, to cells that can then be injected to the individual. These cells may then become stem cells with the correct genome, correcting the disorder. For those interested, there has been a relatively high rate of success with this method; in a number of failures, the patient developed leukemia (due to the trans-gene landing next to an oncogene - the gene placement is random, and not something we have control over at this time with this method).

So going back to your initial example, what's the reason for the crippled development? An error in apoptosis during fetal development? We can't currently correct something like that, but if technology in the future allows us to regenerate (or here, generate) limbs, I'd be giving you the same lines that I did above. The issues of genetic superiority and utility to society are separate in my mind, though... you mentioned both of them.

(Like a peacock's feathers, our human society has chosen some genes that, while probably disadvantageous, make a person appear more "sexy.")

Pardon my ignorance about peacocks and other animals, but I think human culture has more to do with that. Many aspects of culture are trends, as well, quickly fading in and out, which doesn't offer enough time for "evolution" or major genetic trends. An example of such a trend is clothing/fashion - look at us, even in the 90's we were laughing at the styles of the 80's. I'd bet you that many of those styles were "sexy" back then. Yet there is a large difference in opinion, even though this is the same society/culture.

What about the aspects of culture that don't shift as frequently? There was an interesting study of sorts that examined the notion that blondes are the most highly sought-after women. The study stated that blondes were now facing greater competition due to the availability of hair dye - now, non-blondes could appear blonde, but they'd genetically be passing on genes for their true (darker) hair color. It's an interesting thought, but it's still arguable about whether blondes are more desired than brunettes or red heads. If it were true that all males within a culture, for an extremely long period of time, preferentially chose blonde women (or even vice versa) your point would hold true. I haven't seen any substantial evidence that would prove even that point, though. In my opinion, our culture seems to be undergoing a trend where Asians are more highly sought after. That's arguable as well, and a forum member who has lived longer than I have would need to verify that such a trend didn't exist before, but if it were true, then it'd support my stance that selection trends (what we may lightly call "fetishes") are truly just trends, not much different than fashion trends or musical trends.

[WanderingKnight]

^ There's also the fact that, in the 18th-19th centuries, chubby women were considered "sexier".

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Shinoto

For anyone saying survival of the fittest, strongest, best....


Pwned(Watch me

No one else has commented on this yet, but i found it hilarious. Especially the familty tree thing...

Back on topic, why has this conversation shifted so far from the original discussion? When did we stop talking about asian women & men and switch to an argument about the merits of natural selection, etc?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

Back on topic, why has this conversation shifted so far from the original discussion? When did we stop talking about asian women & men and switch to an argument about the merits of natural selection, etc?

That's not back on topic, that's questioning the current conversation! But I'll explain the relevance for you. Supersonic mentioned "genetic superiority" which is a very controversial topic, so Slice of Life and I refuted it. If you want to know what genes and natural selection have to do with whether Asian women are preferentially selecting against Asian men, read Supersonic's bit on peacocks and how humans have, over time, selected for "sexier traits." Also read the psuedo-study that I mentioned about people preferring blondes to non-blondes. If it were true (and that's what we're arguing), then it would also provide a possible scientific explanation and validation of a trend where Asian men were being selected against.

[Makito-chan]

I`m 1/2 Chinese, 1/2 Vietnamese & I don`t plan on dating or marrying an asian guy either... =)

*runs off*

Okay, just kidding. D= Sorry for my random post, but I agree that many people can have their own different opinions... & I`m sure everyone knows that. =)

[Shiemi]

I had two Japanese girlfriends a few years ago while in my undergraduate years. They both dated Puerto Ricans, but it was because there wasn't much of a choice in the dating pool. After all, they were exchange students and were surrounded by Puerto Rican guys.

One of them moved with her boyfriend to mainland U.S.A. while the other returned to Japan and later on broke up with her bf because they couldn't handle the long distance relationship. Curiously, she has never gotten a Japanese boyfriend after that and while I lived in Japan I always asked her why, but didn't receive proper answers. She had a friend with a Canadian boyfriend (in Japan) and it seemed to me like she still had hopes of getting a North American or a Hispanic as a boyfriend, still. She even started working hiring Hispanics in a factory and I wondered if she thought she could meet a new Hispanic bf.

Here in my homeland I normally see Asians with Asians in the case of the Chinese, for example. Same with the Indians. Maybe because they are not many they prefer staying together? No idea, but in general I see very different from the case of my two Japanese friends.

One thing is for sure though. I always liked dark haired guys so I've never really minded Asians. I think Phil (Yellow Fever) is very cute, although I'm certainly not Asian.

[Jazzrat]

Asian guys tend to be slightly more patriachal compare to their western counterpart. I think that's one of the major reason for most asian girls to date guys of other race.

[psycho bolt]

Ahh!! Let this thread die!!! You're making us asian dudes feel bad =(

[kitto-chan]

Asian guys are not more patriachal.....er at least no official studies had verified it.
And if we talking about asian from developed countries then this should definitely hold, that asian males are no more patriachal than say a hispanic male.