Is it rare for a white men to be attracted to black women?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Posted by lightleggy (16085 posts) 1 year, 1 day ago

Poll: Is it rare for a white men to be attracted to black women? (77 votes)

Yes 40%
No 56%
4%

I was talking about this with a friend and she ended up dismissing it as "fake".

Anyway, most of my life, I've found that the majority of men do not consider black women to be especially attractive. This has nothing to do with racism, it's simply the fact that they don't consider going after that ethnicity because they simply don't find the features to be attractive.

I want to see how many folks in OT think that way, again this is no place for a racist discussion, it's simply a poll to see if white men generally go after black women or not,

#51 Edited by Ariabed (1482 posts) -

@lamprey263: you can't chip paint off a brand new car just by climbing onto it, you're lying or your neighbour was lying exaggerating what ever.

#52 Edited by Ariabed (1482 posts) -

@Alienware_fan: what a ridiculous statement you made, I think we have a Nazi white supremacist here lol, "white is more attractive" I can't believe you actually typed that and then pressed post lol it's all down to personal preferences, and more times than not races stick to their own race it's simple.

#53 Posted by pariah3 (966 posts) -

In my experience and based on what I've seen ugly men tend to stick with ugly women while pretty-looking men tend to stick with pretty women.

It's just how human attraction works and I don't think that this will ever change. It's human nature to be attracted to someone who is on the same league in terms of looks.

#54 Posted by Ariabed (1482 posts) -

@pariah3: that has nothing to do with this thread, this thread is talking about the colour of a woman's skin being the motivating factor of wether or not she is attractive, TC is trying to get people to say bad negative things about black women.

In his own words he said, where he comes from most guys don't find "black women" attractive, he didn't say some black women he didn't say most black women, he said black women, in general as In all black women.

#55 Edited by helwa1988 (2118 posts) -

I think the issue is that a lot of black women aren't interested in white guys because they think they are weak. and a lot of black women act too ratchet which white guys don't like.

I'm and black and have had tons of white guys hit on me. I've never dated a black guy.But I grew in the suburbs and don't act or talk ghetto like most black females do.

#56 Edited by bowchicka07 (1104 posts) -

I have found plenty of black woman attractive so no I don't think it's rare.

I can't be that picky to dismiss a girl on the color of her skin.

If she is into me and we have some compatibility then I would give her just as far of a chance as a white girl or any other race.

The truth is that most black girls aren't into the stuff I'm into though so I usually don't even bother.

#57 Posted by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@bowchicka07 said:

I have found plenty of black woman attractive so no it's not rare.

I can't be that picky to dismiss a girl on the color of her skin.

If she is into me and we have some compatibility then I would give her just as far of a chance as a white girl or any other race.

The truth is that most black girls aren't into the stuff I'm into though so I usually don't even bother.

What makes you think that just because you do something it's not rare? That's not how the world works, kiddo.

#58 Posted by bowchicka07 (1104 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@bowchicka07 said:

I have found plenty of black woman attractive so no it's not rare.

I can't be that picky to dismiss a girl on the color of her skin.

If she is into me and we have some compatibility then I would give her just as far of a chance as a white girl or any other race.

The truth is that most black girls aren't into the stuff I'm into though so I usually don't even bother.

What makes you think that just because you do something it's not rare? That's not how the world works, kiddo.

That's not what i was implying. I think it's more demographics than anything.

Plus this poll points to it not being rare. Don't start with your troll bs again, "kiddo"?

#59 Posted by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg said:

@bowchicka07 said:

I have found plenty of black woman attractive so no it's not rare.

I can't be that picky to dismiss a girl on the color of her skin.

If she is into me and we have some compatibility then I would give her just as far of a chance as a white girl or any other race.

The truth is that most black girls aren't into the stuff I'm into though so I usually don't even bother.

What makes you think that just because you do something it's not rare? That's not how the world works, kiddo.

That's not what i was implying. I think it's more demographics than anything.

Plus this poll points to it not being rare. Don't start with your troll bs again, "kiddo"?

I know it's not what you were implying, it's what you flat-out posted. "I have found plenty of black woman attractive so no it's not rare."

No one is trolling here.

#60 Edited by bowchicka07 (1104 posts) -

@thegerg

I edited it because I know you are a stifler like that. I never said it was a fact so you should assume it's just my opinion and nothing else.

If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?

That is pretty much trolling; to only post to invoke a response, not really sharing any opinions or adding any ideas to the thread.

So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?

#61 Posted by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg

I edited it because I know you are a stifler like that. I never said it was a fact so you should assume it's just my opinion and nothing else.

If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?

That is pretty much trolling; to only post to invoke a response, not really sharing any opinions or adding any ideas to the thread.

So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?

Of course it's your opinion, but it's out of touch with reality. That's my point, simply because you do something doesn't mean it's not rare.

"If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?"

Again, because it's out of touch with reality. You made a statement that doesn't make sense. Are we only supposed to comment on the implied meanings of posts, and not their actual content?

"So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?"

I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread.

#62 Posted by bforrester420 (1984 posts) -

The few black women I've found myself attracted to had very Caucasian features. Halle Berry, Stacy Dash, Karyn Parsons, Vanessa Williams, Alicia Keys...

#63 Edited by bowchicka07 (1104 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg

I edited it because I know you are a stifler like that. I never said it was a fact so you should assume it's just my opinion and nothing else.

If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?

That is pretty much trolling; to only post to invoke a response, not really sharing any opinions or adding any ideas to the thread.

So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?

Of course it's your opinion, but it's out of touch with reality. That's my point, simply because you do something doesn't mean it's not rare.

"If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?"

Again, because it's out of touch with reality. You made a statement that doesn't make sense. Are we only supposed to comment on the implied meanings of posts, and not their actual content?

"So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?"

I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread.

I give up. Again. You win. Wtf do you want from me man? I'm 100% aware that because I do something doesn't mean it's not rare however it does mean it's less rare is it not?

"I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread."

Sorry for missing that but if we had a poll on the biggest troll on GS you would be a lead candidate so you really can't tell anyone to stop trolling.

#64 Edited by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg said:

@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg

I edited it because I know you are a stifler like that. I never said it was a fact so you should assume it's just my opinion and nothing else.

If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?

That is pretty much trolling; to only post to invoke a response, not really sharing any opinions or adding any ideas to the thread.

So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?

Of course it's your opinion, but it's out of touch with reality. That's my point, simply because you do something doesn't mean it's not rare.

"If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?"

Again, because it's out of touch with reality. You made a statement that doesn't make sense. Are we only supposed to comment on the implied meanings of posts, and not their actual content?

"So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?"

I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread.

I give up. Again. You win. Wtf do you want from me man? I'm 100% aware that because I do something doesn't mean it's not rare however it does mean it's less rare is it not?

"I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread."

Sorry for missing that but if we had a poll on the biggest troll on GS you would be a lead candidate so you really can't tell anyone to stop trolling.

It's not big deal. You made a silly statement and it got pointed out. Get over it. It's not trolling, it's how the world works, it's how people communicate.

#65 Posted by bowchicka07 (1104 posts) -

Yet you're the only one who does this to me. This isn't how the world works man, this is how you work. Don't be delusional on top of being a mega-troll.

I'm over it but like yourself I like to argue and like yourself I like to have the last word unless it's futile which in the case with you it usually is.

#66 Posted by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@bowchicka07 said:

Yet you're the only one who does this to me. This isn't how the world works man, this is how you work. Don't be delusional on top of being a mega-troll.

I'm over it but like yourself I like to argue and like yourself I like to have the last word unless it's futile which in the case with you it usually is.

I'm the only one that points out when you make a logically flawed statement? That must suck for you, I'd hate to live in a world like that.

Anyway, calling someone on their bullshit is not trolling. It's clear that you don't know what that word means.

#67 Edited by themajormayor (24159 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg said:

@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg

I edited it because I know you are a stifler like that. I never said it was a fact so you should assume it's just my opinion and nothing else.

If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?

That is pretty much trolling; to only post to invoke a response, not really sharing any opinions or adding any ideas to the thread.

So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?

Of course it's your opinion, but it's out of touch with reality. That's my point, simply because you do something doesn't mean it's not rare.

"If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?"

Again, because it's out of touch with reality. You made a statement that doesn't make sense. Are we only supposed to comment on the implied meanings of posts, and not their actual content?

"So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?"

I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread.

I give up. Again. You win. Wtf do you want from me man? I'm 100% aware that because I do something doesn't mean it's not rare however it does mean it's less rare is it not?

"I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread."

Sorry for missing that but if we had a poll on the biggest troll on GS you would be a lead candidate so you really can't tell anyone to stop trolling.

It's not big deal. You made a silly statement and it got pointed out. Get over it. It's not trolling, it's how the world works, it's how people communicate.

You're a (bad) troll that have no idea about how people communicate.

#68 Edited by themajormayor (24159 posts) -
@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg said:

@bowchicka07 said:

@thegerg

I edited it because I know you are a stifler like that. I never said it was a fact so you should assume it's just my opinion and nothing else.

If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?

That is pretty much trolling; to only post to invoke a response, not really sharing any opinions or adding any ideas to the thread.

So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?

Of course it's your opinion, but it's out of touch with reality. That's my point, simply because you do something doesn't mean it's not rare.

"If you knew I wasn't implying it then why say anything?"

Again, because it's out of touch with reality. You made a statement that doesn't make sense. Are we only supposed to comment on the implied meanings of posts, and not their actual content?

"So, are you white? Do you find yourself attracted to black women?"

I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread.

I give up. Again. You win. Wtf do you want from me man? I'm 100% aware that because I do something doesn't mean it's not rare however it does mean it's less rare is it not?

"I already answered these questions. Stop trolling and read the thread."

Sorry for missing that but if we had a poll on the biggest troll on GS you would be a lead candidate so you really can't tell anyone to stop trolling.


http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/ot-troll-database-29339315/?page=1

#69 Posted by thehig1 (3155 posts) -

There are black women I find attractive, however most the time I'll find white women more attractive. I cant really explain why I feel like that either.

#70 Posted by bowchicka07 (1104 posts) -

@themajormayor said:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/offtopic-discussion-314159273/ot-troll-database-29339315/?page=1

Lol. This explains everything for me. Thank you.

@dave123321 : That thread could have been beautiful but it looked like it had a spam overdose.

#71 Edited by GTA_dude (18355 posts) -

Surprisingly, biologically all animals are attracted to their opposites, or atleast are supposed to be.

As in, the more different your mate is from you the more diverse your children will be. And that's what natural selection works on, diversity. So that atleast one will have a better chance of survival and to pass on your genes. Soo, it is natural for a white guy to be attractive to a black girl, asian, indian, just something other then whatever they are. And the same goes for women.

The most attractive pheromones given off by the opposite mate are always the ones that are furthest from your own.

I love being a biology major....

#72 Edited by hippiesanta (9984 posts) -

Sometimes the media makes black woman as a Villian, loud mouth and amazonian behaviour ...... just look at MEL B a.k.a Scary spice from spicegirl. ......

or not so feminine Bond Girls like Rosie Carver and Grace Jones

or

Mammy Two Shoes (from tom and jerry)

which potray black woman as (whole lot's of meaning)

while white woman are always potray as Angelic (it's natural that this genre are prefered by man)

#73 Posted by MirkoS77 (8147 posts) -

I'm white and find black women to be the most attractive out there. I oftentimes wish I was black so I could have an easier time meeting them. Black's beautiful.

#74 Edited by Ariabed (1482 posts) -

@hippiesanta: you chat some shit boy, it has nothing to do with the way the media portrays black women, compared to white, it's just people's preferences and the fact that in any race men women will prefer their own race,THATS what's natural, mixed race couples are a minority.

"It's natural that the genre is preferred by man"

What a retarded statement.

#75 Edited by hippiesanta (9984 posts) -

@ariabed said:

"It's natural that the genre is preferred by man"

woman that r usually are potray as feminine, motherly, angelic, modest, caring ..... fyi

Kwan Yin

Mother Mary

Sita

I don't include oprah because she don't even care her stepmother

Oprah Winfrey’s stepmother homeless

#76 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (6090 posts) -

ill say this but all women are beautiful, race doesn't really come into it. Only when they're fat and don't take care of themselves or are naturally ugly, and that can apply to any woman really.

My preference is for tanned woman, or darker woman from light brown to dark brown and in some cases to darker brown. Dark black and pure white is less of a turn on to me. I especially get turned off when I see a white girl with a tatoo, looks trailer trashy to me. But yeah alot of pretty white girls as well, its easier to see their nice facial features too. A pitch black woman with a nice body is also really sexy, just makes you want to slap that azz all day. But yeah, if you put a pretty white/indian/black/chinese/hispanic girl side by side together, id be drawn more to the indian/black first then hispanic/white/chinese all tied for second. Maybe the hispanic can be first as well as long as shes a bit darker skin tone.

Brown/golden skin really is the sexiest, on men and especially on women. Im indian myself so maybe im biased, but tbh im pretty subjective.

#77 Edited by The_Last_Ride (74207 posts) -

@sonicare said:

Halle Berry is hot.

This

I think all races are attractive, but i tend to like girls that aren''t colored. It's just a preference

#78 Edited by Marth6352 (50 posts) -

@bforrester420: The funny thing about africans is that you can find pretty much any other phenotype that is expressed by any other"race" in africa, except of course really pale skin.

Blond hair, thats in africa

Pointy slender noses, thats in africa

The epicanthic fold is also found in africa as well

and so on and so forth. "Caucasian" features when you break them down aren't exclusively Caucasian.

Race isn't a biological thing.

#79 Posted by Ariabed (1482 posts) -

@hippiesanta: yeh okay clever man I don't doubt that black women are not portrayed well in films programmes and light skinned women are portrayed more positively, but that has absolutely nothing to do with why some white men don't go for black women. Your trying to say if the media presented black women more positively more white men would have a black girlfriend? Get out a here with that bull. Now I know your not stupid so please stop trying to prove otherwise.

#80 Edited by pariah3 (966 posts) -

@ariabed said:

yeh okay clever man I don't doubt that black women are not portrayed well in films programmes and light skinned women are portrayed more positively, but that has absolutely nothing to do with why some white men don't go for black women. Your trying to say if the media presented black women more positively more white men would have a black girlfriend? Get out a here with that bull. Now I know your not stupid so please stop trying to prove otherwise.

What you wrote is extremely superficial. If out of all of the black women in the world you cannot find even one that is attractive then I think that you are just being shallow.

Now seriously: Why are most of the posters in Gamespot so superficial?

#81 Posted by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@GTA_dude: What? All animals are "supposed to be" attracted to their "opposites"? At what fucked out school do you study biology?

#82 Edited by GTA_dude (18355 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude: What? All animals are "supposed to be" attracted to their "opposites"? At what fucked out school do you study biology?

This is pretty easy to support. If people didn't want diversity in their population then we would just reproduce asexually, and not sexually. I'm not finding articles to prove what I said, because this is just a online forum and not worth my time, but if you think about it it is true. Besides, this is just a more logical approach. The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes. This is how animals can evolve, through slight changes over time. If everything only mated with other things that are EXACTLY the same, then nothing would change until a mutation occurs. But you also have to figure there Are more variables in finding a mate, but this does fall under sexual selection which is a sub category of natural selection. Not everything will look, or even think about going for their opposites, but you never know whats going on in your subconscious. But as I said there are many other variables to consider.

And I'm talking about Animals, and only in finding mates within the same species. Humans just so happen to also be animals though, so we can fall under all the same things. And it doesn't matter what race you are, every human is still the same species.

#83 Edited by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@GTA_dude: What is the "opposite" of a native American male human, and what biological mechanism dictates that he is supposed to be attracted to it?

#84 Edited by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@GTA_dude: "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild"

Uh, no. Producing offspring is physically taxing and time-consuming (especially on female animals). Dedicating time and energy to making offspring is not the type of thing that will always increase your chances of surviving in the wild. Again, where do you study biology?

#86 Edited by Ariabed (1482 posts) -

@pariah3: what are you talking about, you tell me where I even hinted that I don't find black women attractive.

#87 Posted by hippiesanta (9984 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@hippiesanta: yeh okay clever man I don't doubt that black women are not portrayed well in films programmes and light skinned women are portrayed more positively, but that has absolutely nothing to do with why some white men don't go for black women. Your trying to say if the media presented black women more positively more white men would have a black girlfriend? Get out a here with that bull. Now I know your not stupid so please stop trying to prove otherwise.

My job is to give explaination to the stupid to understand better (do u want me to say that?)

#88 Edited by Ariabed (1482 posts) -

@hippiesanta: erm,,,,no?

#89 Posted by GTA_dude (18355 posts) -

I like all of your responses against what I'm saying. Overall I think you are all looking too much into it

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude: "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild"

Uh, no. Producing offspring is physically taxing and time-consuming (especially on female animals). Dedicating time and energy to making offspring is not the type of thing that will always increase your chances of surviving in the wild. Again, where do you study biology?

First off, producing offspring is the #1 thing that all animals want. Their own survival isn't what they're going for, it's the survival of their genes. So yeah, producing offspring is the type of thing that increases their chances of survival. Once again, not their own survival, their species survival. Humans are really the only species that care more about themselves verses their species. Every other species, one member will give themselves up if it means their genes carry on. Look at male black widows. They are willing to perform sexual cannibalism just because it increases their chances at producing offspring. Letting the women eat them gives them just a few more seconds to put more sperm into her. So they're all for it. They even compete for it against other black widows knowing what will happen. I've even watched male black widow rivalry, it's pretty entertaining. Bees and ants are also an example, the individuals will do anything for the queen.

Yeah, producing offspring is very taxing and time-consuming, but it's really all they have to do in life. If they don't give off to any then their life was useless. Practically every action an animal does, has to do with ways to attract a mate and raise an offspring, such as intrasexual or intersexual acts. You've heard bird singing right? That's an example, they only do it to attract a mate. It's a concept of "sexy genes", indirect way of attracting (It is an Intersexual act btw). The better they sound, the more well fed they must have been, and the better their brain must be developed to have learned the specific song. They have a better chance of pulling a female if they sound good. The mate who puts more work into rearing a child is usually the one who chooses the opposing mate, usually female, but could be male. The other mate will compete in some way to attract the choosy mate.

#90 Edited by tocool340 (20650 posts) -

Maybe. I know here in Chicago, there are a lot of interracial relationships. Even though I see it often, it still seems odd seeing a "White" dude in a relationship with a "Black" chick..

#91 Posted by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@GTA_dude said:

I like all of your responses against what I'm saying. Overall I think you are all looking too much into it

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude: "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild"

Uh, no. Producing offspring is physically taxing and time-consuming (especially on female animals). Dedicating time and energy to making offspring is not the type of thing that will always increase your chances of surviving in the wild. Again, where do you study biology?

First off, producing offspring is the #1 thing that all animals want. Their own survival isn't what they're going for, it's the survival of their genes. So yeah, producing offspring is the type of thing that increases their chances of survival. Once again, not their own survival, their species survival. Humans are really the only species that care more about themselves verses their species. Every other species, one member will give themselves up if it means their genes carry on. Look at male black widows. They are willing to perform sexual cannibalism just because it increases their chances at producing offspring. Letting the women eat them gives them just a few more seconds to put more sperm into her. So they're all for it. They even compete for it against other black widows knowing what will happen. I've even watched male black widow rivalry, it's pretty entertaining. Bees and ants are also an example, the individuals will do anything for the queen.

Yeah, producing offspring is very taxing and time-consuming, but it's really all they have to do in life. If they don't give off to any then their life was useless. Practically every action an animal does, has to do with ways to attract a mate and raise an offspring, such as intrasexual or intersexual acts. You've heard bird singing right? That's an example, they only do it to attract a mate. It's a concept of "sexy genes", indirect way of attracting (It is an Intersexual act btw). The better they sound, the more well fed they must have been, and the better their brain must be developed to have learned the specific song. They have a better chance of pulling a female if they sound good. The mate who puts more work into rearing a child is usually the one who chooses the opposing mate, usually female, but could be male. The other mate will compete in some way to attract the choosy mate.

Nothing you've posted supports your claim that "[t]he more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild". In fact, what you've posted ("[l]ook at male black widows")shows how producing offspring can lead to having a LOWER chance of survival.

Now, back on topic. You mentioned what animals are supposed to be biologically attracted to. Please try to answer the question: What is the "opposite" of a native American male human, and what biological mechanism dictates that he is supposed to be attracted to it?

#92 Posted by GTA_dude (18355 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude said:

I like all of your responses against what I'm saying. Overall I think you are all looking too much into it

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude: "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild"

Uh, no. Producing offspring is physically taxing and time-consuming (especially on female animals). Dedicating time and energy to making offspring is not the type of thing that will always increase your chances of surviving in the wild. Again, where do you study biology?

First off, producing offspring is the #1 thing that all animals want. Their own survival isn't what they're going for, it's the survival of their genes. So yeah, producing offspring is the type of thing that increases their chances of survival. Once again, not their own survival, their species survival. Humans are really the only species that care more about themselves verses their species. Every other species, one member will give themselves up if it means their genes carry on. Look at male black widows. They are willing to perform sexual cannibalism just because it increases their chances at producing offspring. Letting the women eat them gives them just a few more seconds to put more sperm into her. So they're all for it. They even compete for it against other black widows knowing what will happen. I've even watched male black widow rivalry, it's pretty entertaining. Bees and ants are also an example, the individuals will do anything for the queen.

Yeah, producing offspring is very taxing and time-consuming, but it's really all they have to do in life. If they don't give off to any then their life was useless. Practically every action an animal does, has to do with ways to attract a mate and raise an offspring, such as intrasexual or intersexual acts. You've heard bird singing right? That's an example, they only do it to attract a mate. It's a concept of "sexy genes", indirect way of attracting (It is an Intersexual act btw). The better they sound, the more well fed they must have been, and the better their brain must be developed to have learned the specific song. They have a better chance of pulling a female if they sound good. The mate who puts more work into rearing a child is usually the one who chooses the opposing mate, usually female, but could be male. The other mate will compete in some way to attract the choosy mate.

Nothing you've posted supports your claim that "[t]he more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild". In fact, what you've posted ("[l]ook at male black widows")shows how producing offspring can lead to having a LOWER chance of survival.

Now, back on topic. You mentioned what animals are supposed to be biologically attracted to. Please try to answer the question: What is the "opposite" of a native American male human, and what biological mechanism dictates that he is supposed to be attracted to it?

Apparently you never understood the original statement "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes". They don't care about their own survival, they only care about the survival of the offspring they produce. I said this repetitively in my last post The way they see it, if you live a long life but produce no offspring then their life was useless. The black widow example is perfect for this. I don't think you're reading through my posts very well...

And I dunno? There isn't a genetic code in every person that says they MUST be attracted to a certain type, as I said in the first post. It is common for animals to be attracted to something other then what they are, like an opposite. As stated in the 3rd to the last sentence in my first posts, "Soo, it is natural for a white guy to be attractive to a black girl, asian, indian, just something other then whatever they are. And the same goes for women." Do you not understand?

It's obvious what you're doing, trying to be a devils advocate and calling out on the other people who post. Trolling, and trying to feel smart. You have to read and understand what the other person says though first, or else you just look like a dumbass. And don't you have anything better to do with your time?

#93 Edited by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@GTA_dude said:

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude said:

I like all of your responses against what I'm saying. Overall I think you are all looking too much into it

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude: "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild"

Uh, no. Producing offspring is physically taxing and time-consuming (especially on female animals). Dedicating time and energy to making offspring is not the type of thing that will always increase your chances of surviving in the wild. Again, where do you study biology?

First off, producing offspring is the #1 thing that all animals want. Their own survival isn't what they're going for, it's the survival of their genes. So yeah, producing offspring is the type of thing that increases their chances of survival. Once again, not their own survival, their species survival. Humans are really the only species that care more about themselves verses their species. Every other species, one member will give themselves up if it means their genes carry on. Look at male black widows. They are willing to perform sexual cannibalism just because it increases their chances at producing offspring. Letting the women eat them gives them just a few more seconds to put more sperm into her. So they're all for it. They even compete for it against other black widows knowing what will happen. I've even watched male black widow rivalry, it's pretty entertaining. Bees and ants are also an example, the individuals will do anything for the queen.

Yeah, producing offspring is very taxing and time-consuming, but it's really all they have to do in life. If they don't give off to any then their life was useless. Practically every action an animal does, has to do with ways to attract a mate and raise an offspring, such as intrasexual or intersexual acts. You've heard bird singing right? That's an example, they only do it to attract a mate. It's a concept of "sexy genes", indirect way of attracting (It is an Intersexual act btw). The better they sound, the more well fed they must have been, and the better their brain must be developed to have learned the specific song. They have a better chance of pulling a female if they sound good. The mate who puts more work into rearing a child is usually the one who chooses the opposing mate, usually female, but could be male. The other mate will compete in some way to attract the choosy mate.

Nothing you've posted supports your claim that "[t]he more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild". In fact, what you've posted ("[l]ook at male black widows")shows how producing offspring can lead to having a LOWER chance of survival.

Now, back on topic. You mentioned what animals are supposed to be biologically attracted to. Please try to answer the question: What is the "opposite" of a native American male human, and what biological mechanism dictates that he is supposed to be attracted to it?

Apparently you never understood the original statement "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes". They don't care about their own survival, they only care about the survival of the offspring they produce. I said this repetitively in my last post The way they see it, if you live a long life but produce no offspring then their life was useless. The black widow example is perfect for this. I don't think you're reading through my posts very well...

And I dunno? There isn't a genetic code in every person that says they MUST be attracted to a certain type, as I said in the first post. It is common for animals to be attracted to something other then what they are, like an opposite. As stated in the 3rd to the last sentence in my first posts, "Soo, it is natural for a white guy to be attractive to a black girl, asian, indian, just something other then whatever they are. And the same goes for women." Do you not understand?

It's obvious what you're doing, trying to be a devils advocate and calling out on the other people who post. Trolling, and trying to feel smart. You have to read and understand what the other person says though first, or else you just look like a dumbass. And don't you have anything better to do with your time?

"They don't care about their own survival, they only care about the survival of the offspring they produce."

That does not mean that producing more offspring means surviving better in the wild. It means passing on one's genes. Those two things are not the same. A spider's cares and desires have no bearing on that. Again, where do you study biology?

"There isn't a genetic code in every person that says they MUST be attracted to a certain type, as I said in the first post."

That's not what you said in the first post. What you said was, "[s]urprisingly, biologically all animals are attracted to their opposites, or atleast are supposed to be." I'm simply asking you to support this claim, and to support the premise that humans have "opposites."

I'm not trolling. I'm simply asking you to support your claims.

#94 Posted by themajormayor (24159 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude said:

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude said:

I like all of your responses against what I'm saying. Overall I think you are all looking too much into it

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude: "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild"

Uh, no. Producing offspring is physically taxing and time-consuming (especially on female animals). Dedicating time and energy to making offspring is not the type of thing that will always increase your chances of surviving in the wild. Again, where do you study biology?

First off, producing offspring is the #1 thing that all animals want. Their own survival isn't what they're going for, it's the survival of their genes. So yeah, producing offspring is the type of thing that increases their chances of survival. Once again, not their own survival, their species survival. Humans are really the only species that care more about themselves verses their species. Every other species, one member will give themselves up if it means their genes carry on. Look at male black widows. They are willing to perform sexual cannibalism just because it increases their chances at producing offspring. Letting the women eat them gives them just a few more seconds to put more sperm into her. So they're all for it. They even compete for it against other black widows knowing what will happen. I've even watched male black widow rivalry, it's pretty entertaining. Bees and ants are also an example, the individuals will do anything for the queen.

Yeah, producing offspring is very taxing and time-consuming, but it's really all they have to do in life. If they don't give off to any then their life was useless. Practically every action an animal does, has to do with ways to attract a mate and raise an offspring, such as intrasexual or intersexual acts. You've heard bird singing right? That's an example, they only do it to attract a mate. It's a concept of "sexy genes", indirect way of attracting (It is an Intersexual act btw). The better they sound, the more well fed they must have been, and the better their brain must be developed to have learned the specific song. They have a better chance of pulling a female if they sound good. The mate who puts more work into rearing a child is usually the one who chooses the opposing mate, usually female, but could be male. The other mate will compete in some way to attract the choosy mate.

Nothing you've posted supports your claim that "[t]he more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild". In fact, what you've posted ("[l]ook at male black widows")shows how producing offspring can lead to having a LOWER chance of survival.

Now, back on topic. You mentioned what animals are supposed to be biologically attracted to. Please try to answer the question: What is the "opposite" of a native American male human, and what biological mechanism dictates that he is supposed to be attracted to it?

Apparently you never understood the original statement "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes". They don't care about their own survival, they only care about the survival of the offspring they produce. I said this repetitively in my last post The way they see it, if you live a long life but produce no offspring then their life was useless. The black widow example is perfect for this. I don't think you're reading through my posts very well...

And I dunno? There isn't a genetic code in every person that says they MUST be attracted to a certain type, as I said in the first post. It is common for animals to be attracted to something other then what they are, like an opposite. As stated in the 3rd to the last sentence in my first posts, "Soo, it is natural for a white guy to be attractive to a black girl, asian, indian, just something other then whatever they are. And the same goes for women." Do you not understand?

It's obvious what you're doing, trying to be a devils advocate and calling out on the other people who post. Trolling, and trying to feel smart. You have to read and understand what the other person says though first, or else you just look like a dumbass. And don't you have anything better to do with your time?

I'm not trolling.

Sure......

#95 Posted by GTA_dude (18355 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude said:

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude said:

I like all of your responses against what I'm saying. Overall I think you are all looking too much into it

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude: "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild"

Uh, no. Producing offspring is physically taxing and time-consuming (especially on female animals). Dedicating time and energy to making offspring is not the type of thing that will always increase your chances of surviving in the wild. Again, where do you study biology?

First off, producing offspring is the #1 thing that all animals want. Their own survival isn't what they're going for, it's the survival of their genes. So yeah, producing offspring is the type of thing that increases their chances of survival. Once again, not their own survival, their species survival. Humans are really the only species that care more about themselves verses their species. Every other species, one member will give themselves up if it means their genes carry on. Look at male black widows. They are willing to perform sexual cannibalism just because it increases their chances at producing offspring. Letting the women eat them gives them just a few more seconds to put more sperm into her. So they're all for it. They even compete for it against other black widows knowing what will happen. I've even watched male black widow rivalry, it's pretty entertaining. Bees and ants are also an example, the individuals will do anything for the queen.

Yeah, producing offspring is very taxing and time-consuming, but it's really all they have to do in life. If they don't give off to any then their life was useless. Practically every action an animal does, has to do with ways to attract a mate and raise an offspring, such as intrasexual or intersexual acts. You've heard bird singing right? That's an example, they only do it to attract a mate. It's a concept of "sexy genes", indirect way of attracting (It is an Intersexual act btw). The better they sound, the more well fed they must have been, and the better their brain must be developed to have learned the specific song. They have a better chance of pulling a female if they sound good. The mate who puts more work into rearing a child is usually the one who chooses the opposing mate, usually female, but could be male. The other mate will compete in some way to attract the choosy mate.

Nothing you've posted supports your claim that "[t]he more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild". In fact, what you've posted ("[l]ook at male black widows")shows how producing offspring can lead to having a LOWER chance of survival.

Now, back on topic. You mentioned what animals are supposed to be biologically attracted to. Please try to answer the question: What is the "opposite" of a native American male human, and what biological mechanism dictates that he is supposed to be attracted to it?

Apparently you never understood the original statement "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes". They don't care about their own survival, they only care about the survival of the offspring they produce. I said this repetitively in my last post The way they see it, if you live a long life but produce no offspring then their life was useless. The black widow example is perfect for this. I don't think you're reading through my posts very well...

And I dunno? There isn't a genetic code in every person that says they MUST be attracted to a certain type, as I said in the first post. It is common for animals to be attracted to something other then what they are, like an opposite. As stated in the 3rd to the last sentence in my first posts, "Soo, it is natural for a white guy to be attractive to a black girl, asian, indian, just something other then whatever they are. And the same goes for women." Do you not understand?

It's obvious what you're doing, trying to be a devils advocate and calling out on the other people who post. Trolling, and trying to feel smart. You have to read and understand what the other person says though first, or else you just look like a dumbass. And don't you have anything better to do with your time?

"They don't care about their own survival, they only care about the survival of the offspring they produce."

That does not mean that producing more offspring means surviving better in the wild. It means passing on one's genes. Those two things are not the same. A spider's cares and desires have no bearing on that. Again, where do you study biology?

"There isn't a genetic code in every person that says they MUST be attracted to a certain type, as I said in the first post."

That's not what you said in the first post. What you said was, "[s]urprisingly, biologically all animals are attracted to their opposites, or atleast are supposed to be." I'm simply asking you to support this claim, and to support the premise that humans have "opposites."

I'm not trolling. I'm simply asking you to support your claims.

No dude, you're trolling. You're looking too deeply into what I'm saying, and Trying to find something to oppose to. Which is why I asked, don't you have anything better to do? I know I do, so I'm not going to go all out in trying to support my claims, because I dont have to. I know what I know is all true, and it doesn't matter where I'm studying at because everything I know is backed by texts from around the world. You just look like a kid who doesn't know what he's arguing against. In the future go study at a university before you try and argue with someone who probably knows it better. This is just an internet forum, and as far as I know going by the persona you're creating for yourself in my view, you're just a 16 year old with very little to no friends, probably not liked by many because you're trying too hard to question everything and trying to appear like you know everything (girls don't like that btw, makes you look arrogant). So I'm not going to waste too much of my time supporting anything to you. Plus, whatever I say you're gonna look into it wrong and argue against it. So whats the point? I mine as well be playing chess with a pigeon. This is why people dont like other people who act like you're acting, so I hope you're not like this in real life

Producing more offspring means the odds of atleast 1 surviving in the wild is increased (Duh). So yeah, producing more offspring does increase the odds of your genes surviving. But Notice I put BOTH terms in there, "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes". Both terms of being more and diverse are included and are independent of each other (notice the oxford comma), and both outcomes are stated, better chance and surviving and passing on genes. So obviously, the more diverse the offspring then the better chances they have of surviving. And the more sperm an animal puts into the female the better odds she'll get pregnant (Don't you know any biology?), hence why a male black widow is willing to be eaten to give his junk a few more seconds inside of the female. If he doesn't even produce 1 offspring, then there is 0 chance it'll survive in the wild, because it doesn't even exist. Do I have to explain everything for you to understand? Read through and understand before you argue, cause it looks like you only read half.

And yes, that is what I said in the first post. Go back and read it. "Soo, it is natural for a white guy to be attractive to a black girl, asian, indian, just something other then whatever they are. And the same goes for women." Meaning something other then what they are (Opposite is more of a shorthand way of saying it, 1 word verse 7 words. The term varies based on preferences, but as I said, You are looking too deeply into it). Specifically what they're attracted too isn't in their genetic code, just something other then what they are is more appealing to them. And I said within the same species. You don't need to find the opposite of humans, it's the opposite of whatever you are. Black is the opposite of white (Duh), so it looks like if a white man is attracted to a black girl, that that's pretty close to his opposite.

If you don't believe me and you think everyone should mate with their equal, then why don't you just go sleep with your sister to prove me wrong.

#96 Posted by thegerg (15892 posts) -

@GTA_dude said:

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude said:

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude said:

I like all of your responses against what I'm saying. Overall I think you are all looking too much into it

@thegerg said:

@GTA_dude: "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild"

Uh, no. Producing offspring is physically taxing and time-consuming (especially on female animals). Dedicating time and energy to making offspring is not the type of thing that will always increase your chances of surviving in the wild. Again, where do you study biology?

First off, producing offspring is the #1 thing that all animals want. Their own survival isn't what they're going for, it's the survival of their genes. So yeah, producing offspring is the type of thing that increases their chances of survival. Once again, not their own survival, their species survival. Humans are really the only species that care more about themselves verses their species. Every other species, one member will give themselves up if it means their genes carry on. Look at male black widows. They are willing to perform sexual cannibalism just because it increases their chances at producing offspring. Letting the women eat them gives them just a few more seconds to put more sperm into her. So they're all for it. They even compete for it against other black widows knowing what will happen. I've even watched male black widow rivalry, it's pretty entertaining. Bees and ants are also an example, the individuals will do anything for the queen.

Yeah, producing offspring is very taxing and time-consuming, but it's really all they have to do in life. If they don't give off to any then their life was useless. Practically every action an animal does, has to do with ways to attract a mate and raise an offspring, such as intrasexual or intersexual acts. You've heard bird singing right? That's an example, they only do it to attract a mate. It's a concept of "sexy genes", indirect way of attracting (It is an Intersexual act btw). The better they sound, the more well fed they must have been, and the better their brain must be developed to have learned the specific song. They have a better chance of pulling a female if they sound good. The mate who puts more work into rearing a child is usually the one who chooses the opposing mate, usually female, but could be male. The other mate will compete in some way to attract the choosy mate.

Nothing you've posted supports your claim that "[t]he more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild". In fact, what you've posted ("[l]ook at male black widows")shows how producing offspring can lead to having a LOWER chance of survival.

Now, back on topic. You mentioned what animals are supposed to be biologically attracted to. Please try to answer the question: What is the "opposite" of a native American male human, and what biological mechanism dictates that he is supposed to be attracted to it?

Apparently you never understood the original statement "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes". They don't care about their own survival, they only care about the survival of the offspring they produce. I said this repetitively in my last post The way they see it, if you live a long life but produce no offspring then their life was useless. The black widow example is perfect for this. I don't think you're reading through my posts very well...

And I dunno? There isn't a genetic code in every person that says they MUST be attracted to a certain type, as I said in the first post. It is common for animals to be attracted to something other then what they are, like an opposite. As stated in the 3rd to the last sentence in my first posts, "Soo, it is natural for a white guy to be attractive to a black girl, asian, indian, just something other then whatever they are. And the same goes for women." Do you not understand?

It's obvious what you're doing, trying to be a devils advocate and calling out on the other people who post. Trolling, and trying to feel smart. You have to read and understand what the other person says though first, or else you just look like a dumbass. And don't you have anything better to do with your time?

"They don't care about their own survival, they only care about the survival of the offspring they produce."

That does not mean that producing more offspring means surviving better in the wild. It means passing on one's genes. Those two things are not the same. A spider's cares and desires have no bearing on that. Again, where do you study biology?

"There isn't a genetic code in every person that says they MUST be attracted to a certain type, as I said in the first post."

That's not what you said in the first post. What you said was, "[s]urprisingly, biologically all animals are attracted to their opposites, or atleast are supposed to be." I'm simply asking you to support this claim, and to support the premise that humans have "opposites."

I'm not trolling. I'm simply asking you to support your claims.

No dude, you're trolling. You're looking too deeply into what I'm saying, and Trying to find something to oppose to. Which is why I asked, don't you have anything better to do? I know I do, so I'm not going to go all out in trying to support my claims, because I dont have to. I know what I know is all true, and it doesn't matter where I'm studying at because everything I know is backed by texts from around the world. You just look like a kid who doesn't know what he's arguing against. In the future go study at a university before you try and argue with someone who probably knows it better. This is just an internet forum, and as far as I know going by the persona you're creating for yourself in my view, you're just a 16 year old with very little to no friends, probably not liked by many because you're trying too hard to question everything and trying to appear like you know everything (girls don't like that btw, makes you look arrogant). So I'm not going to waste too much of my time supporting anything to you. Plus, whatever I say you're gonna look into it wrong and argue against it. So whats the point? I mine as well be playing chess with a pigeon. This is why people dont like other people who act like you're acting, so I hope you're not like this in real life

Producing more offspring means the odds of atleast 1 surviving in the wild is increased (Duh). So yeah, producing more offspring does increase the odds of your genes surviving. But Notice I put BOTH terms in there, "The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes". Both terms of being more and diverse are included and are independent of each other (notice the oxford comma), and both outcomes are stated, better chance and surviving and passing on genes. So obviously, the more diverse the offspring then the better chances they have of surviving. And the more sperm an animal puts into the female the better odds she'll get pregnant (Don't you know any biology?), hence why a male black widow is willing to be eaten to give his junk a few more seconds inside of the female. If he doesn't even produce 1 offspring, then there is 0 chance it'll survive in the wild, because it doesn't even exist. Do I have to explain everything for you to understand? Read through and understand before you argue, cause it looks like you only read half.

And yes, that is what I said in the first post. Go back and read it. "Soo, it is natural for a white guy to be attractive to a black girl, asian, indian, just something other then whatever they are. And the same goes for women." Meaning something other then what they are (Opposite is more of a shorthand way of saying it, 1 word verse 7 words. The term varies based on preferences, but as I said, You are looking too deeply into it). Specifically what they're attracted too isn't in their genetic code, just something other then what they are is more appealing to them. And I said within the same species. You don't need to find the opposite of humans, it's the opposite of whatever you are. Black is the opposite of white (Duh), so it looks like if a white man is attracted to a black girl, that that's pretty close to his opposite.

If you don't believe me and you think everyone should mate with their equal, then why don't you just go sleep with your sister to prove me wrong.

"everything I know is backed by texts from around the world."

No. There is no textbook that says animals are "supposed" to be biologically attracted to their "opposites."

"The more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then they will have a better chance at surviving in the wild and carrying out your genes".

OK. I agree. However, that does nothing to support your claim that "[t]he more offspring you produce, and the more diverse they are, then you will have a better chance at surviving in the wild." Do you not understand the difference between an animal and the offspring of that animal?

One major issue here is that you seem unable to keep your arguments consistent. I'm quoting you directly, but you are failing to address what you've posted.

"Black is the opposite of white (Duh), so it looks like if a white man is attracted to a black girl, that that's pretty close to his opposite."

Haha. Wow, your understanding of race is even dodgier than your understanding of biology.

"You don't need to find the opposite of humans, it's the opposite of whatever you are."

OK, then please try to answer the question that you've been avoiding. What is the opposite of a native American male? Also, by what biological mechanism is he supposed to be attracted to that opposite?

"If you don't believe me and you think everyone should mate with their equal, then why don't you just go sleep with your sister to prove me wrong."

What in the world makes you think that I think that?

#97 Posted by iwilson1296 (2214 posts) -

I don't think it's rare at all now days, I'm very attracted to black women, unless she's racist or or something.

#98 Posted by Barbariser (6761 posts) -

There are ~200, 000 marriages between white males and black females in the U.S., that isn't really that "rare".

#99 Posted by PSP107 (12216 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

There are ~200, 000 marriages between white males and black females in the U.S., that isn't really that "rare".

Where you get that stat from?

#100 Posted by chernoalpha527 (169 posts) -

No I find certain black women attractive.