Last week, a brief history of racism among participants in the Washington Post Magazine Date Lab inspired some spirited defenses of racial preferences in the boudoir—and some polite rejections of the idea that one's blind date is merely acceptable "for an Asian guy." Let's take a look!:

Kim Chi Ha says it's about preference, not ethnicity. (I say it's about preference for ethnicity! But I digress):

I really think it’s a matter of preference and not a matter of ethnicity. You’re attracted to who you’re attracted to. Some people prefer blondes, others prefer brunettes. It’s not discrimination. You can’t help what features you’re attracted to. Some people are attracted to Asians, some are attracted to whites, some are attracted to them all. Just because you have a preference on the basis of someone’s ethnicity, doesn’t make you racist. It’s like having a preference for someone who’s tall versus someone who’s short. If you’re going to prefer an Asian over someone who’s white, it’s probably because of the culmination of looks that tend to occur more among Asians.

Why does everything have to come down to being about racism?

Katie says it's not natural:

you can’t help who you’re attracted to, but you can help making blanket statements about entire races of people that are probably based on stereotypes and subconscious or overt racial discrimination (you being used generally here). We have to at least be willing to consider what informs our attitudes and ideals of what makes a person “attractive.” It’s not just genetics.

Kit-Kat says the daters are doing it wrong:

If it was really just about looks, that might be one thing–we’re attracted to what we’re attracted to. If I have a thing for dark skin, or blond hair, or green eyes, then I’m likely to find myself attracted to people from ethnic or racial groups in which those features are more common.

But (1) not all people in the same ethnic group look the same. There is a *huge* amount of variation in terms of hair color, skin color, facial features, etc. among Caucasians, Hispanics, African-Americans, Indians, Asians, etc., which makes a statement like “I don’t find Indians attractive” just stupid.

And (2) not all of these daters are speaking purely in terms of looks. Some of them are pretty open about their prejudices. Plus, to not even really give someone a chance because of their race is discrimination.

. . . My real objection though, is that it’s stupid dating behavior. Sometimes a good match for you is someone you are not initially head-over-heels for, or who doesn’t match your superficial checklist. Sometimes attraction grows over time, as you get to know someone. Sometimes looks become less important as deeper connections develop. Even if it’s not racist, it’s pretty shallow and self-limiting.

chris sets some ground rules:

Litmus test for whether something you’re saying is racist or not: Would you be willing to say it face-to-face to someone of the race/ethnicity you’re talking about? If not, it’s probably racist. If so, it might still be racist and you might be a colossal asshole. . . . protip: Saying “All x people always/never do y” is not really helping you look not-racist.

upk on the effects of bedroom racism:

. . . some people might be applying the idea that racism is a combination of prejudice and power. Even if they choose not to date a person because of his race, they are not depriving him of something he is legitimately entitled to (sex with them).

Matt is like, does being straight make me sexist? (In other news, commenter Matt is straight, everyone!):

Is it sexism if, as a heterosexual man, I don’t want to date a dude??? Give me a break!

Photo via George Eastman House

As a past date lab participant, I want to vomit every time this beaten to death subject arises. Luckily none of the above mentions my particular article, but I have to chime in. As with any reporting, as I’m sure Ms. Hess knows, the interview process which took about an hour and a half over two days was boiled down to about 45 seconds worth of quotes pieced together to make an ‘interesting’ story.

Most questions are fairly run of the mill to try to get a dialogue going (what did you do before the date? How did you feel about blah blah blah), but a fair number were very specific and in hindsight an attempt to lead the interviewees toward a particular topic. I recall being told that a certain application question answer was used to set us up, and was asked if I was happy with the looks and race of the date since they thought he would be ‘my type’ . . . then the interviewer linked my response to this question to a totally separate one in which she asked me to describe in detail what my date looked like physically ‘because she hadn’t seen photos yet.’

Yes, obviously in retrospect after reading the final product I should have foreseen this, but at the same time it’s kind of ridiculous of readers to take these stories as truth and divine prejudice/racism/whatever. Maybe, City Paper, if this is newsworthy, you should create a better date lab type column? Or highlight something actually new and different for a change?

Interesting. Any eager applicants for the Washington City Paper's Race Lab?

So how many local Date Lab daters discriminate based on skin color? Plenty! A brief history:

A lot of daters set up by the Washington Post just don't want to date white people. Set up last March, professor Steven Kelts requested anyone but a white lady: He asked for "An Asian, Indian, Latino or black woman who is educated, likes to talk about ideas and wants to travel the world with me!" Another dater told Date Lab, “I tend to like girls that show signs of being foreign-born or maybe have something ethnically awesome about their looks.” Sadly, the Post matched him with a woman with a “Midwestern” appearance.

Other daters are looking to date exclusively white. In 2009, Patrick Chang stated a preference for “Tall, Caucasian women." Unfortunately, his date told the magazine this: “I tend not to find Asians attractive." When she met Chang, "With a name like Patrick I was kind of expecting an Irish guy," she admitted. "I tried to be as open-minded as possible." The pair declined to pursue a second date.

Chang's date isn't the only one to nix the entire continent: In one 2008 date, both Asian daters didn't date Asians. "I thought he was attractive and well put together, but you always have to end it with 'for an Asian guy,'" Stephanie Villaflor told the Post. "I don't usually date Asian guys." Her date, Christopher Dum, admitted: "I've only really dated white girls." Daters are generally open about their intra-racial racism: In 2006, a half-Filipino, half-Indian guy revealed a prejudice against Indian women—he finds them “a little snobby.”

Most racial preferences are aired out of disappointment—when the date who arrives is a little too white or a little too Indian. But sometimes, racial preference makes a match. Son Vang told the paper his date has "gotta be Asian, preferably Vietnamese." When Caroline T. Nguyen arrived, "I wasn't sure if my date was going to be Asian, so I was pleasantly surprised when she was," he said. Later, Vang told the paper: "At first we were trying to figure out why The Post set us up. We thought it might be the Asian thing." They hit it off.

Dater prejudice isn't limited to race, of course. After being set up with a man who uses a wheelchair, one dater reported being “really mad” at Date Lab for refraining from disclosing her date's disability prior to the meeting. “I felt like I was set up . . . I'd look like a jerk, and he'd just be ‘the handicapped guy,’" she told Date Lab. "I also didn't think it was fair to him—what if I had turned out to be a mean, tactless person?” What if.

For the record: Date Lab's gays daters can be prejudiced, too. “He's attractive, but [he has] this whole aura [of] your basic white guy,” Bob Baden said of his 2008 same-sex date. “I go for a more ethnic or foreign look.”

* Happy birthday, "post-racial America"! Writing in the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker does not see race. In response to criticism that calling Barack Obama the first woman president was (among other things) racist, Parker pens a column explaining that she can't write racist things, because she is white, and white people have the luxury of not being racist, like black people are:

But I also recognize that my life experience is different from that of most African Americans. And that experience allows me both the luxury of seeing people without the lens of race, but also (sometimes) to fail to imagine how people of other backgrounds might interpret my words.

She also has trouble seeing Obama as "exclusively black" because she has learned that she and the President are eighth cousins once removed—a genealogical "nugget" she had previously intended to write an entire column about.  That detail alone strikes me as a fireable offense.

* Via Figleaf: Holly at The Pervocracy on the douchebaggery behind calling women "females":

I hate it when people call women "females." I have one friend who does it because she was in the military and it was standard practice there, and occasionally I'll say it when I specifically mean biological females rather than women, but 98% of the time it's douchebaggery. Rule of thumb: if you say "females and males" it's okay, but if you say "females and guys/men," you're probably a douchebag.

* Virginia resident Andrea examines U.S. immigration laws through the lens of her attempts to get her British fiancee a visa. In short, they have it easy, and they still don't have it easy:

One of the things I hear a lot in any discussion of people who come here illegally is some permutation of “Well why don’t they just do it legally?” If they know that I’m currently going through the immigration process with my fiance, people will often ask “Doesn’t it make you mad that you’re going to all this trouble and people are just coming over here illegally?” The answers to these questions are, in reverse order, “No, I am thankful that we are able to do it legally fairly easily” and “Wow, you have never dealt with immigration, have you?”

* In Newsweek, Julia Baird tells us to "stop ogling Republican women":

It’s odd to see how some men insist that when women start to grasp power, we should think of them primarily as playthings and provocateurs. Is this the best way to explain their success? They aren’t challenging the status quo. They’re being wild! They’re not trying to lift the ban on offshore drilling. They’re being naughty! When four women beat a field of men on the same night recently, competing for primary and gubernatorial nominations, it was widely referred to as “ladies’ night.” Aren’t ladies’ nights those promotions where women are allowed free entry into bars to provide fodder for the men?

* Scarleteen continues its "queering sexuality in color" series, this time with Dharshi, a 25-year-old South Asian lesbian:

The problem is that the queer community where I live is predominantly white, and tend not have familiarity with issues such as my marriage predicament. Sometimes I do feel pressure from the queer community to come out, as if that will be the solution to all of my problems. I do have some wonderful white gay and lesbian friends though who make an effort to listen and understand. One woman in particular is my mother's age and her advice and sharing of her life experience has really helped me through the hard times. Also when I watch her with her partner and her kids, I feel optimistic that maybe that kind of future is also possible for me. I love meeting other queer people of colour, particularly from the South Asian community, but I don't often get this opportunity.

Photo via Beverley & Pack, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Three Georgetown students (and another from NYU) have launched WorstHookUps.com, a website for anonymously airing your greatest sex fails. “After a traumatizing hookup experience, [we] looked for a place to post the story online and realized that no such website existed," a site creator (they won't reveal their names) told Chris Heller at Vox Populi. Of course, some of the entries are horrifying for all the wrong reasons—like this one, in which our anonymous contributor complains about hooking up with an "older black woman" whose breasts he describes as "straight-up National Geographic shit." The hook-up takes a turn for the worse when she expects him to help her orgasm, and employs a vibrator in this pursuit. Also? This "older black woman" is 27 years old.

Photo via rachelkramerbussel.com, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The video for Erykah Badu's latest single, "Window Seat," is a stunning recrimination of the policing and exploitation of black women's bodies in America. Hey, what a great opportunity to sell a bikini wax!

In the video, Badu walks through the city of Dallas, removing her clothes piece by piece as she passes the city's confused, gawking tourists. Badu's stage is not far from the site of the JFK assassination; the video is shot in the faded colors of the Zapruder film. After she strips down to naked skin—with only blurring pixelation covering her breasts, genitals, and eyes—Badu falls to the ground, and a blue substance reading "GROUPTHINK" oozes from her head.

District beauty salon D'Brows, which offers eyebrow design, eyelash extensions, and a $68 Brazilian bikini wax, decided to capitalize off of the buzz around Badu's video with a promotional press release. "Erykah Badu must have read this before shooting this video," the release said. "Erykah Badu has the confidence that comes with a good waxing and so can you. . . .  Watch this Erykah Badu video [VIDEO] and then arrange your waxing at D'Brows today!!"

A few thoughts:

(a) How could Badu have read this e-mail before shooting her video? This e-mail is about her video.

(b) Since Badu's genitals are obscured by pixels in the video, you really can't tell what's going on down there.

(c) To my knowledge, Badu hasn't delivered her opinions on genital waxing, but she has said this: "I love my natural hair, I love my skin the way it is, I love my breasts the way they are . . . I don't want to be augmented in any way."

(d) Badu hasn't said much about the intent of her video, beyond clarifying that JFK "was one of my heroes, one of the nations heroes . . . He was not afraid to butt heads with America, and I was not afraid to show America my butt-naked truth." But I'll go out on a limb here and say that Badu's message has little to do with razing your pubic mound in order to achieve a socially acceptable vulva, and more to do with defying a social order that exploits black women's bodies as dangerously sexual. Badu's point was confirmed when Dallas police stuck her with a charge of disorderly conduct for performing the shoot in public. John Cheney-Lippold, writing on the differing cultural responses to Badu's video and the similar Matt & Kim video on which "Window Seat" was based, notes that Badu's strip was seen as a disturbing erotic display, while Matt and Kim's disrobing in Times Square was regarded as a childlike and lighthearted stunt:

So is it that our society still reads sexuality through blackness, providing an eroticization of Badu that Matt and Kim’s video doesn’t have? (Yes). Is it that two scrawny naked white musicians can appear to us as childish in Times Square, while one naked black musician can appear dangerous and disorderly in Dallas, Texas? (Yes). And is it that race still matters in our society—that we should constantly think not just of how we personally understand race and racism but how race itself is constructed to mean things other than a group of people with a certain skin color? (Of course). Here’s to hoping Badu fights the disorderly conduct charge.

[youtube:v=bJkymylTNU4]

(e) In an unrelated note, Wanda Sykes is hilarious:

[youtube:v=mdV80sOdZHg]

Bad news, parents: YOUR BABY IS PROBABLY A RACIST, and that means that you've got a whoooole lot of explaining to do. According to a Newsweek cover story, studies show that children as young as six months old "judge people based on skin color." And children as old as six years old will refuse to accept the possibility of a black Santa—but will eventually concede that "black Santa could fill in for White Santa if he was hurt." White people: Why are your widdle babies so racist?

a)  My kid isn't racist: We watch Sesame Street, and there are some very, very diverse Muppets on that program.

b) SHHHH! Don't say the R-A-C-E word around Jimmy! Everybody's equal, Jimmy. I'll explain that vague sentiment when you're older.

c)  Mall Santas.

d) As Sady of Tiger Beatdown and Amanda of the Sexist discussed in this week's edition of Sexist Beatdown: Uhh, maybe Newsweek is kind of exaggerating about the whole racist baby thing, since the real problem appears to be progressive hippie parents scared shitless about even raising the issue of race with their children. Okay, also mall Santas.

AMANDA: hey, racist baby.

SADY: hey there!

AMANDA: are you ready to discuss how modern equality-minded parents have all taken to blaming their latent racism on their impressionable young children?

SADY: ha, yes. the babies, they are all RACISTS! sort of. first of all, i think the very RACIST BABY tagline is kind of hilariously off, in that the actual "children as young as 6 months old discriminate on the basis of skin color" thing is, apparently, literally wrong. what children as young as 6 months old do is look longer at photos of people who are not the same race as their parents, according to the article. but, you know, that is not SENSATIONAL. so let's just imply with our headline that six-month-old white babies are already full of societally determined anger and hate.

AMANDA: but, importantly, it is also The Longer Gaze at People Who Are Not the Race of Their Parents That Shall Not Be Named. since the main parenting tactic unearthed in this story is: as long as I never mention race or racism, my child will come out unracist. to the point that some ostensibly nonracist parents DROPPED OUT OF THE STUDY when they found out they would be forced to discuss race with their children. "not under my roof."

SADY: yeah, exactly. and the result, apparently, IS that the four and five-year-olds end up with pretty fucked-up ideas about race.

AMANDA: and also, hilariously, report that they think their parents are racists, too

SADY: right. "do your parents like black people?" and 14% are like, "nope!" which makes sense, if the kids are getting shushed every time they ask about the existence of race. (1) They get the sense that race is a forbidden topic, and maybe therefore a Bad one, and may project their parents' fears of race discussion onto people of different races, concluding that THEY'RE what the parents are scared of. (Behold my extrapolation of in-no-way-expert conclusions!) (2) If you don't have someone TALKING about race, and pointing out the existence of racism and why it's bad, you're just left to soak up all the messed-up cultural stereotypes and racism like a little kindergarten-enrolled sponge.

AMANDA: yeah, and I think this points to a lot of the assumptions that these parents have about their children for no apparent reason. like Chris Brown's mom expressing shock that her child attacked his girlfriend, when that kind of thing was in the home and probably not addressed in any significant way. or parents insisting that their child would never rape someone, even though they failed to bring up in sex in any conversation. and I think this also goes back to the fear that, like, if you talk to boys about preventing rape, you somehow magically turn them rapists through the expectations you've laid out.

SADY: right. well, i think a lot of it is also the nature-vs.-culture thing, and this messed-up expectation we have that kids are inherently pure of all culture. like: if you never MENTION injustices, your kids won't be aware of them, and then they will somehow progress into childhood without ever noticing that people are treated differently and drawing their own conclusions about that! whereas the fact is that a large part of childhood is not only learning what your parents and teachers explicitly, verbally teach you, but getting socialized and learning to reflect the norms around you.

AMANDA: and it's such an obvious cop-out when you just state it like that. "I thought if I never MENTIONED why Santa was always white, my children would never shun the black Santa that entered their classroom." It doesn't make any sense! and so the burden of talking about this shit lies on the groups who are going to be most affected by it, which is why minority families talked about discrimination with their kids, and why girls get a shitload of advice on how not to get themselves raped.

SADY: right. exactly. it's about the comfort of privilege. like: kids who experience discrimination, on any level, are going to naturally bring it up with their parents, and parents are going to be more responsive to that. like, i think i was four years old when i first asked my parents why some people said certain things were not for girls, and why boys wouldn't let me do those things. (the things in question were pretending to be the Ninja Turtles* and/or soccer, but still, I THINK MY POINT HOLDS.) but if you ARE privileged, and you never directly experience discrimination, and all you have are these vague messages that certain aspects of your life (like, say, your race) are Not To Be Talked About, you're of course going to grow up completely blind to your own privilege and also unreflectively participating in it.

AMANDA: yeah, and another interesting thing that separates race from gender is that, if you're a girl, and you play the best fucking Raphael on the block, boys on your street may have the opportunity to recognize that and understand that girls can play Ninja Turtles. but if you think that Hispanic kids can't play Ninja Turtles – stay with me here – and you don't have any Hispanic kids on your block, you may grow up always assuming that Hispanic kids are shitty at impersonating superhero mutant sewer denizens. and that injustice cannot stand. so while gender becomes problematic through constantly reinforced roles, the problem with race is that there's sometimes just a vacuum.

SADY: right. the article does, to some level, address what happens in diverse schools. because the thought was, if kids are not raised in these mono-racial environments, they'll associate across races more and be less likely to make judgments based on race. but, nope! what happens, more often than not, is that even within a diverse environment like a school, kids only hang out with or form relationships with people of their own races. and that's complicated; i mean, i imagine that there are white kids having all-white friend groups because their parents are uncomfortable with dealing with non-white people and they're consequently uncomfortable with it as well. but i imagine there are also kids of color who are like, "oh, God, i do not want to deal with the white kids that are clueless and/or hurtful about race, i cannot educate anyone in the lunch room today, i just want to have my peanut butter sandwich and chocolate milk in peace."

AMANDA: and the interesting thing is that kids are pretty ready to accept it—to the point that when they watch a multicultural Sesame Street episode, they do not notice the message enough for it to change their habits. Santa, apparently, is untouchable, though.**

SADY: ha, yes. "even the little girl the most adamant that the Real Santa must be white came around to accept the possibility that a black Santa could fill in for White Santa if he was hurt."

AMANDA: Christmas is even more racist than babies are

SADY: I'm dreaming of a non-exclusively-white Christmas, myself.

* Incorrect! There were no Ninja Turtles when Sady was four. There were, however, Ghostbusters. And Sady was not allowed to play. NOT EVEN AS JEANINE.

** Upon further reflection, I can totally understand why some white kids would not accept a black Santa. To adults, Santa is just whoever puts on the suit, and there's no reason a black dude can't put on the suit. To children, Santa is one real dude who becomes very important to their well-being each December. And for their whole lives, they'd seen that dude reproduced in malls, on television, and in storybooks as the same rosy-cheeked white dude. At that point, it's against that kid's best interest to accept that Santa could be black. Because if Santa could be black, that means there is more than one dude being Santa. And if there's more than one dude being Santa, that means that Santa isn't really real. And once you acknowledge to yourself and your immediate family that Santa isn't really real, there's always the fear that the presents will stop mysteriously dropping through the chimney. The only way to circumvent the racism of Christmas, in my opinion, is to introduce black Santa to children at a very early age,

Photo by soulchristmas

Franks previously introduced a different version of the bill, known as the "Susan B. Anthony Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2008," in the last session of Congress, but the session ended before action was taken.

The Intellectual Conservative Arizona blog notes that 87 percent of Americans support a law to "ban sex selection abortion." The race thing is a little trickier. Barring some sort of hidden interracial extramarital affair—an unlikely scenario—why would any woman abort a baby based on its race? Isn't the fetus' race known before the baby is even conceived?

That's where eugenics arguments become confused with demographics. According to the ICA:

It is estimated that as many as 50 percent of African-American babies conceived in the U.S. each year are eliminated by government subsidized abortion providers. Following the unearthing of the nation-wide race-targeted abortion donations, civil rights activists and African-American pastors from across the country protested government acquiescence in race-targeted abortion and the government funding of clinics that they believe are purposefully placed in the inner city and targeted to minority women.

Ah, of course! This is not about preventing eugenics (itself a scare tactic used to rile up the anti-abortionists). Nope, this is about denying women the right to choose. Those government-funded clinics are not "purposefully placed in the inner city" to target black babies; they're purposefully placed there to give poor women an affordable abortion option. The fact that many of those non-white fetuses are carried by poor women is a reality that Trent Franks, apparently, is not eager to address.

So, Franks would like to take away a black woman's right to choose, lest she choose to abort her black fetus? Yep, there's only one way to fight eugenics, people, and it's with unapologetic racism.