« White men, Asian women | Main | How to win arguments »

March 13, 2005



Dude. You are a fucking idiot. You were a lot more interesting when you were the dimwitted bride-for-sale Libertariangirl.


You are on to something here. A few statistics would help to nail down the generalizations. iSteve has pointers to sources on intermarriage rates.


Some of the Internet dating sites reveal racial prefrences. A random sample could be taken and a statistical breakdown by race associated to stated racial prefrence could be generated.


On Internet dating sites, Asian women are less likely to mention adjectives like "outgoing" (and its synonyms) than Caucasian women are in their profiles. And Asian women in Asian countries are less likely to use those terms than Asian women in America.


I don't know...I'm in a relationship a half black, half Dominican broke actor who is 10 years older than me and who has never finished his college degree. He's extroverted, charismatic, and very sexual. I've hardly ever seen him be meek or take an interest in IT. Needless to say, my parents don't approve. And sometimes, his behavior does leave me somewhat bewildered.

Does this mean I've broken some of your general assumptions? I'm probably not the only one in this generation to do so. Love is supposed to transcend all racial and financial boundaries.

Maybe if we broke up, I would try a Chinese IT geek.


I gather you are Asian.

In this case, your relationship is no exception to the rule. The original post was (1) about Asian/Caucasian pairing patterns, and (2) a generalization (recollect, exceptions prove a rule). You are no exception.

The overall pattern is that males, as a group, prefer feminine females while females, as a group, prefer masculine males. Blacks, as a race, are more masculine (higher testosterone levels, greater body-muscle percentage, higher levels of extroversion, etc). Asians, as a race, are more feminine. Caucasians are in between. In a multiracial population where interracial pairing patterns are not taboo (or illegal) Black women and Asian males have the odds against them. And when we look at interracial marriage patterns, this is what we see.

Your relationship is in keeping with the pattern. And even if it weren't, it still wouldn't disprove the generalization.

There are also anatomical reasons for the skew of desirable interacial pairings. Some pairings are more ... enjoyable. Black males and Asian females are favored for this reason.


You should listen to your parents.


That is the oddest argument. Although I don't disagree that it's...enjoyable. I live in LA too, where interracial couplings aren't such a big deal.

I just tend to think that if you want to make an assumption to get a blog audience, you should be careful, because assumptions are broken more and more every day, until the rule becomes the exception. By the time you make an assumption, it might already be on its way to being out of date!

My parents should listen to me. The world would be a better place if parents listened to what their kids wanted more often.

;) take care for now


By the time you make an assumption, it might already be on its way to being out of date!

Tell you what...

I will bet you 5,000 renminbi that males, as a group, will not start preferring masculine girls and females, as a group, will not start preferring effeminate guys at any time in either your lifetime or mine.

Since you are an Asian female who has paired off with a Black male, you are doing nothing to increase your odds of winning.


I'm not disagreeing with your point of view about masculine males and feminine females.

I'm disturbed by the sweeping generalizations that seem to be rampant in this weblog though. As an Asian (and specifically Chinese) female, I feel like it is my duty to explain some things about generalizations about people who are the token few, since few=a small voice generally. Cuz in the end, black men and asian females are minority, right?

I quote the soc writer Kanter:
"The characteristics of a token tend to be distorted to fit the generalization. Tokens are more easily stereotyped than people found in greater proportion. If there were enough people of the token's type to let discrepant examples occur, it is eventually possible that the generalization would change to accomodate the accumulated cases. But in skewed groups, it is easier to retain the generalization and distort the perception of the token...So tokens are, ironically, both highly visible as people who are different and yet not permitted the individuality of their own unique, non-stereotypical characteristics."

The comments to this entry are closed.