[Nemesis]

So, even after many prior allegations of poor-quality research and a written apology for the use of poor methodology and the drawing of erroneous conclusions by this guy, some of you still persist in buying into this crap? Funny.

Also, as with any single study in social-science you simply cannot draw these kinds if broad sweeping conclusions on sample sets of this size. If after a large scale meta-analysis of many studies across a relatively sizable chunk of time this pattern still emerges from the data, then... and only then... can you start to claim that there's something there. Of course, you'd still need to start with high-quality research... which we don't even have with this guy. I'm amazed at how willing many bright people on this board are willing to accept the results of measley poorly conducted single studes as statements of fact. I know you guys can think critically about this stuff... do it.

---------- Post added 11-09-2011 at 05:23 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by LaoTzu To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I find different looks attractive at different times.

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So now that China's become the rising star, assuming they continue to rise and then eventually dominate, wonder what "race" will be considered most attractive in the next century?

These are both excellent examples of very big potential confounds on this study. These are major things that need to be accounted for before any validity can be assumed.

[Delarge]

Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So, even after many prior allegations of poor-quality research and a written apology for the use of poor methodology and the drawing of erroneous conclusions by this guy, some of you still persist in buying into this crap? Funny. Also, as with any single study in social-science you simply cannot draw these kinds if broad sweeping conclusions on sample sets of this size. If after a large scale meta-analysis of many studies across a relatively sizable chunk of time this pattern still emerges from the data, then... and only then... can you start to claim that there's something there. Of course, you'd still need to start with high-quality research... which we don't even have with this guy. I'm amazed at how willing many bright people on this board are willing to accept the results of measley poorly conducted single studes as statements of fact. I know you guys can think critically about this stuff... do it. ---------- Post added 11-09-2011 at 05:23 PM ---------- These are both excellent examples of very big potential confounds on this study. These are major things that need to be accounted for before any validity can be assumed.

Do you really believe that something so central to an organism's reproductive success is susceptible to alteration by cultural forces? The forms of stimuli to which a human and non-human mammals are sexually attracted appear to be governed by neuronal circuits that are structured by hormonal factors in the womb and activated later on in life by increased circulating testosterone levels resulting from puberty.

I assume you believe that homosexuality is immalleable (cannot be extinguished or modified through conversion therapy), why do you suppose this isn't the case with heterosexuality (as evidenced by your agreeing with Distance's comment)? Generally speaking, heterosexual males experience arousal in response to visual stimuli that conform to certain patterns (the form of fertile females), whereas heterosexual females experience arousal and interest in response to certain behaviours (displays of power and dominance, humour, altruism, et cetera). This has been the case through all of recorded history (to the best of our knowledge) and remains the case across all corners of the world.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The innate explanation is probably inherently offensive to everyone who is PC so any research on the subject is likely to be stifled.

This is one of the weakest arguments I consistantly see thrown around. I mean, this pretty much implies a broad conspiracy among scientists and media around the globe... most of whom don't give a flying fuck about falling into North American standards of being politically correct. If this was really the case, there's nothing stopping these studies that "are too offensive to the PC crowd" from being published in journals based in nations with less PC attitudes. This "too PC" argument smacks of lack of understanding in how the scientific community works. Plus, if you actually read a lot of the research that gets published in the social sciences, you see many articles that posit very "unPC" conclusions. This study only made the press because this idiot is only trying to cause a stir in the public. He's not a good scientist, and he's doing what all shitty researchers do when the scientific community stops taking them seriously; try to capitalize off of puking hyperbole into the public domain.

/rant

---------- Post added 11-09-2011 at 05:47 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you really believe that something so central to an organism's reproductive success is susceptible to alteration by cultural forces? The forms of stimuli ...

Yes, I'm very aware of how sexual orientation develops in the brain. You are completely conflating sexual orientation with sexual preferences.

orientation =/= preference

[Delarge]

Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is one of the weakest arguments I consistantly see thrown around. I mean, this pretty much implies a broad conspiracy among scientists and media around the globe... most of whom don't give a flying fuck about falling into North American standards of being politically correct. If this was really the case, there's nothing stopping these studies that "are too offensive to the PC crowd" from being published in journals based in nations with less PC attitudes. This "too PC" argument smacks of lack of understanding in how the scientific community works. Plus, if you actually read a lot of the research that gets published in the social sciences, you see many articles that posit very "unPC" conclusions. This study only made the press because this idiot is only trying to cause a stir in the public. He's not a good scientist, and he's doing what all shitty researchers do when the scientific community stops taking them seriously; try to capitalize off of puking hyperbole into the public domain. /rant ---------- Post added 11-09-2011 at 05:47 PM ---------- Yes, I'm very aware of how sexual orientation develops in the brain. You are completely conflating sexual orientation with sexual preferences. orientation =/= preference

This is preposterous, sexual orientation isn't synonymous with sexual preference? You don't believe that orientation is mediated by the attraction to features that one sex is in greater possession of than the other? That it's something more than aesthetics?

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is preposterous

how dramatic

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	sexual orientation isn't synonymous with sexual preference?

Nope. Overlapping, I guess to some degree. Look at cross-cultural studies in sexual attraction (there's LOTS). Different cultures put different weights on what is considered attractive. That's why those guys in tribal Africa aren't walking around with hard-ons around all those topless women. The cultural perception of breasts as sexual stimuli is different. People also rate faces of those from their own ethnic group (not race) as more attractive.

---------- Post added 11-09-2011 at 06:09 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That it's something more than aesthetics?

Can you provide an argument that supports that sexual orientation is entirely aesthetic? I'm honestly curious as to how you are supporting that notion.

[Delarge]

Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

how dramatic Nope. Overlapping, I guess to some degree. Look at cross-cultural studies in sexual attraction (there's LOTS). Different cultures put different weights on what is considered attractive. That's why those guys in tribal Africa aren't walking around with hard-ons around all those topless women. The cultural perception of breasts as sexual stimuli is different. People also rate faces of those from their own ethnic group (not race) as more attractive.

Or alternatively, males of different races respond to cues for fertility to slightly different degrees on account of tens of thousands of years of reproductive isolation, which ties neatly into my view that, broadly speaking, every racial group finds members of their own race to be the most attractive and, apart from black males, black females the least attractive. The lower level of arousal elicited by black females probably results from the following:

Blacks appear to be the most genetically and phenotypically distant human race. Black males developed preferences that diverge to a greater degree relative to the divergence of preferences between males of other races, and these divergent preferences functioned as a form of pressure on the female population which ultimately contributed to the significantly different degrees of enlargement of the secondary sexual characteristics of black females (markedly enlarged lips and buttocks, sometimes cartoonishly so in the case of steatopygia). Consequently, black females are less likely to trigger the circuits that cause sexual arousal when viewed by Caucasian and Asian males.

[BellaBianca]

I dunno. I think it's more the poverty - association which is the big turn - off.

[Delarge]

	Originally Posted by BellaBianca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I dunno. I think it's more the poverty - association which is the big turn - off.

Try to avoid projecting female sexual preferences on males. Hypergamy.

[Megalomania]

Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is one of the weakest arguments I consistantly see thrown around. I mean, this pretty much implies a broad conspiracy among scientists and media around the globe... most of whom don't give a flying fuck about falling into North American standards of being politically correct. If this was really the case, there's nothing stopping these studies that "are too offensive to the PC crowd" from being published in journals based in nations with less PC attitudes. This "too PC" argument smacks of lack of understanding in how the scientific community works. Plus, if you actually read a lot of the research that gets published in the social sciences, you see many articles that posit very "unPC" conclusions. This study only made the press because this idiot is only trying to cause a stir in the public. He's not a good scientist, and he's doing what all shitty researchers do when the scientific community stops taking them seriously; try to capitalize off of puking hyperbole into the public domain.

It's not a broad conspiracy. No one is covering anything up. People are just discouraged from engaging in research on certain topics. Researchers get flack all the time for publishing anything involving race. Ever hear of the Bell Curve? Look up Richard Lynn or J. Phillippe Rushton. People who do research on race differences are pretty much despised and labelled as racists. You cannot tell me that this doesn't result in people not even wanting to touch subjects such as race differences.

[Delarge]

Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's not a broad conspiracy. No one is covering anything up. People are just discouraged from engaging in research on certain topics. Researchers get flack all the time for publishing anything involving race. Ever hear of the Bell Curve? Look up Richard Lynn or J. Phillippe Rushton. People who do research on race differences are pretty much despised and labelled as racists. You cannot tell me that this doesn't result in people not even wanting to touch subjects such as race differences.

Indeed, the discussion of differences in ability, physical or otherwise, between the races is one of the largest scientific and societal taboos in existence in Europe and North America. It even extends to things as seemingly trivial as the apparent superiority of African Americans at performing certain sporting events. Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, Murray, Flynn, Eysenck and numerous others are great men for broaching such an important, and unfortunately emotive matter.

[BellaBianca]

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Try to avoid projecting female sexual preferences on males. Hypergamy.

Nah. I don't have a turn on or off for money myself. So no, I don't think that's a gender thing. But I do know there are several successful blacks whom are considered attractive, so yes, I think it's a class - and poverty, which means problems and baggage - and baggage is unattractive. For not to mention history and the extremely low status of slavery which the blacks live with as a heritage in some areas of the world. This will of course also be a turn off.

You see - I try to understand this from the point of view that I, myself find them quite attractive, and therefore, I must understand why black people are, eventually, fore some individuals viewed differently.

That Black women are unattractive as a rule, is easy to dismiss, because there are people who have said that they find them attractive, therefore, the interesting part, is not wether or not black women are attractive - because it has been proven as a matter of individual taste. So what is left is: Why do some so desperately need them to be unattractive?

[Delarge]

Originally Posted by BellaBianca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nah. I don't have a turn on or off for money myself. So no, I don't think that's a gender thing. But I do know there are several successful blacks whom are considered attractive, so yes, I think it's a class - and poverty, which means problems baggage. For not to mention history and the extremely low status of slavery which the blacks live with in some areas of the world. This will of course also be a turn off. You see - I try to understand this from the point of view that I, myself find them quite attractive, and therefore, I must understand why black people are, eventually, fore some individuals viewed differently. That Black women are unattractive as a rule, is easy to dismiss, because there are people who have said that they find them attractive, therefore, the interesting part, is not wether or not black women are attractive - because it has been proven as a matter of individual taste. So what is left is: Why do some so desperately need them to be unattractive?

When males assess long-term and short-term partners, particularly short-term, they usually assign little to no importance to the social status to which a prospective mate belongs (apart from males entangled in highly judgemental social circles: royal families and the like). The male mate-selection algorithm is generally as follows:

Long-term:

Does she arouse me?

If yes, is she in possession of a temperament that I find agreeable and that is likely to lend itself to a long-term relationship of happy, satisfying and stable nature?

If yes, approach.

If no to either of the former two, avoid. Sometimes the arousal elicited by a prospective long-term partner is so intense as to cause a male to overlook personality, often resulting in a dissatisfying relationship.

Short-term:

Does she arouse me?

If yes, approach. If no, avoid.

I don't think anyone's claiming that all black females are unattractive, as there are many exceptions, but instead that, on average, non-black males find black females to be the least attractive group.

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Or alternatively, males of different races respond to cues for fertility to slightly different degrees on account of tens of thousands of years of reproductive isolation, which ties neatly into my view that, broadly speaking, every racial group finds members of their own race to be the most attractive and, apart from black males, black females the least attractive.

I can get behind that to some limited degree. Like does seem to attract like. Here's a hypothetical scenario, though; a child is adopted from one of those tribes where tits aren't considered as sexual stimuli and raised in the US by an entirely new family. Based on your assumption, do you think he'll find boobs hot?

[Delarge]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can get behind that to some limited degree. Like does seem to attract like. Here's a hypothetical scenario, though; a child is adopted from one of those tribes where tits aren't considered as sexual stimuli and raised in the US by an entirely new family. Based on your assumption, do you think he'll find boobs hot?

Doubtful, at least not to the extent that white males do. African Americans have retained their preference for large rumps over breasts (as have black Britons, or so it would seem), I would expect the same of a black child adopted out of the sub-Sahara by a white family at young age.

[BellaBianca]

Originally Posted by Delarge To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When males assess long-term and short-term partners, particularly short-term, they usually assign very little importance to the social status to which a prospective mate belongs (apart from males entangled in highly judgemental social circles: royal families and the like). I don't think anyone's claiming that all black females are unattractive, as there are many exceptions, but instead that, on average, non-black males find black females to be the least attractive group.

Well, I don't think it counts for males all around the world that they assign very little importance to the social status of their girl. Also - rich people - both sexes - are considered to be more attractive - not my personal taste, but that's how it is.

This means poor people are considered less attractive.

If there are more black people who are poor, they will therefore be considered less attractive.

[Nemesis]

Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's not a broad conspiracy. No one is covering anything up. People are just discouraged from engaging in research on certain topics. Researchers get flack all the time for publishing anything involving race. Ever hear of the Bell Curve? Look up Richard Lynn or J. Phillippe Rushton. People who do research on race differences are pretty much despised and labelled as racists. You cannot tell me that this doesn't result in people not even wanting to touch subjects such as race differences.

Fair enough. Nevertheless, there is plenty of cross-cultural research done on patterns of sexuality... I mean lots spanning nearly a hundred years. Hell, there's cross-cultural studies done on almost anything you can think of. It's pretty much standard practice in psychology, sociology, anthropology (obviously), and other fields to validate certain trends in the data by seeing if the effect in question holds true across a large array of cultural influences. The data published in these studies often shows very "unPC" things, and nobody is being crucified. The ones who end up on the cross are the ones who are playing martyr.

"Race" (if you want to distinguish it from culture) is widely rejected as a useful category, not because of its US-centric political stigma in science, but because the traits typically associated with it are better accounted for by cultural influence.

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most research done is basic research, meaning, it doesn't have any immediate application in the real world. To dismiss it because you think it's pointless is stupid.

Since it's a study of personal taste, I believe my personal taste is quite important in this research.
The study has no quantifiable data. Thus it is pointless.

If they're going to use the study data to select which races to save for Post-Armageddon repopulation, I want my voice heard.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by Uriel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Certainty is certainty. I accept this link and the information contained within.

I don't usually say this. But I agree completely with everything that you wrote here, including your criticisms of what I wrote.

[Urshulgi]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What race has dominated the world for so many centuries? Power and propaganda within media, can and does shape societal perceptions. The need to conform is also a driver in human nature, if only to survive. So now that China's become the rising star, assuming they continue to rise and then eventually dominate, wonder what "race" will be considered most attractive in the next century?

Blondes with blue eyes, the same as always.

Brown/black/yellow people with brown eyes are literally a dime a dozen, because those peoples have only begun figuring out birth control in the last twenty years or so.

Blonde/red hair and blue eyes are fading from this world, and scarcity is always attractive.

---------- Post added 11-10-2011 at 05:04 PM ----------

Originally Posted by BellaBianca To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, I don't think it counts for males all around the world that they assign very little importance to the social status of their girl. Also - rich people - both sexes - are considered to be more attractive - not my personal taste, but that's how it is. This means poor people are considered less attractive. If there are more black people who are poor, they will therefore be considered less attractive.

As a guy who has dated girls from several different economic demographics, allow me to dispel your notion that we discriminate against poor females.

We're willing to date a poor girl as long as she's compatible with us.

We're mostly not attracted to the average black girl for the simple reason that she's not attractive to us on any significant level. If she looks like Tyra Banks, she's not average, she's a goddamn super model level girl and we'd be fucking retarded if we weren't attracted to her.

Look for it to change in the future. Far more black women go to college and engage themselves in career jobs than black men do. Black women will be hunting white men, and white men will respond favorably to women who have their own money and aren't looking for a replacement for daddy, which is all too common among American white girls.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Urshulgi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	red hair... fading from this world, and scarcity is always attractive.

Inaccurate. Ginger-haired males aren't in high demand even though they're rare and naturally manifesting. Why not?

[LaoTzu]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Inaccurate. Ginger-haired males aren't in high demand even though they're rare and naturally manifesting. Why not?

I suspect Carrot-Top and Ron Weasley are behind it...

[freeeekyyy]

I find it ridiculous that anybody would even attempt to measure attraction. It may be that most people find women of other races more attractive than black women, but that's hardly the same as saying that these women of other races are objectively more attractive than black women.