‘No Blacks’ Is Not a Sexual Preference. It's Racism.

[LostOne4Ever]

23. Makes sense

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]There is a big difference between preference and racism.

For instance, say someone has a preference for red hair color. Would such a person say "no blondes" and "no Brunettes" on their profile? Preference just means they find it more attractive, it does not mean that they would actively discriminate against blondes and brunettes.

Saying "no blacks" is saying that skin color is so important to you with regards to your mate selection that you won't even consider them is very racist. Again, imagine if this was hair color. Someone refusing to even consider blondes probably doesn't have a preference for non-blondes as they would have bigoted opinions against people with blonde hair color.

Comparing it to sex/gender preference is disingenuous as there is a biological component that repels some people from certain genders. For instance, being repelled by both genders is pretty common in the asexual community...it is part of the reason many of us are asexual.

[hr]
That said, despite my scoring high on the test, I see a few problems with it. For instance, if one was born and raised in a racially non-diverse area, then they would have a high probability of having a racially non-diverse set of friends.

Similarly, if one has SAE/ is social phobic (or possibly have a schizoid personality) like me, then they probably can count the number of friends they have on one hand (and have fingers left over). For us, it going to be pretty common for their friends list to be anything but diverse.

I think a better question would have been would you be WILLING to become close personal friends with another race. This is, unless, of course, they mean acquaintances when they say friends. That is probably what they meant but I personally do not consider those things the same.[/font]