Since I don’t watch these television shows, it’s a bit dicey to comment on the spate of shows featuring romances between black men and asian women, so I’ll let Rinku Sen do it for me: 
The sugary romance between the excessively noble characters played by Parminder Nagra and Shafiq Atkins on ER follows the much hotter one between Ming Na Wen and Mekhi Phifer that ended two seasons ago. GreyÂ’s Anatomy features Sandra Oh in an up-and-down relationship with Isaiah Washington.
What accounts for such interest? ItÂ’s as though these couples have been pouring out of medical schools and producers decided to capture the trend.
The representations tread the line between cultural authenticity, sometimes considered stereotype, and colorblindness. The women exhibit some level of conflict with their cultures and are slightly neurotic: Ming Na dreaded telling her immigrant parents that she was having a baby out of wedlock; Nagra quit her job in a bout of rebellion against family expectation to work as a convenience store clerk. The men are dangerous but tender. Phifer grew up without a father and has a temper; Gallant went off to serve in Iraq. I did laugh at the effort to bridge cultures, though, when NagraÂ’s character got married wearing a white sari. White is the Hindu color of mourning.(link)
If it’s on TV, is it a reflection of a real sociological trend, or simply a convenient image of happy multiculturalism from television fantasy-land? Sen’s article gets into some sociological explanations for the phenomenon, none of which are terribly convincing (I don’t think these romances have much to do with “American Empire” or colonialism). But she does argue that it goes beyond “submissive Asian woman”/”sexualized black man” stereotypes:
HamamotoÂ’s theory would suggest that such a preference was grounded in a sexual stereotype of submissive Asian women. I am familiar with our so-called seductress image. My Asian girlfriends and I spent our college years snottily rejecting the few white men who came around as “rice lovers.” While I did experience an American man mentioning the Kama Sutra within five minutes of meeting me recently in New York, my adolescent self-image was much closer to nerd than slut. To see all these Asian women who might also have been high-school nerds paired up with the most sexualized actors in American culture has been, I will admit it, a thrill. However, in real life, Asian women and Black men donÂ’t get to be both equally sexy and smart. “ItÂ’s easier for a Black man to get his foot in the door when heÂ’s with me,” said Aarti, “especially if weÂ’re working.”(link)
Class dynamics may be important in the appeal of Asians to some African Americans. And the “bad boy” image (stereotype) may make people of African descent more attractive to children of immigrants traditionally considered too studious and repressed (spelling bee/ math team champions) to be generally attractive.
Or maybe not: since there are no hard statistics, this could be just another Dubious Trend Story in line with infamous New York Times stories about baby gyms in Manhattan, or Ivy League women who decide to drop out of the rat race to become trophy wives. The next time you see an East or South Asian woman dating a black man … it may simply be that they are two people who happened to meet, and fall in love — irrespective of Parminder Nagra, and sociology be damned.
(Incidentally, for Bollywood fans, guess who played Nagra’s parents in a recent episode? Anupam and Kirron Kher, of course.)
Yeti – bitter, much? Can’t you accept that for some people, their preferences have nothing to do with their view of races? Perhaps desi women who prefer white men, are those who prefer tall, angular, lean men, and most desi men don’t fit those criteria?
Janeofalltrades,
No problem, I wasn’t jumping at you either 😉 My thoughts as a whole were referring to people (both men and women) who engage in such behaviour because they view the other party as a commodity and/or as a way of acquiring a certain lifestyle, rather than basing their marital preferences on mutual love (or the potential of it developing). I should have stressed that earlier and perhaps more explicitly in my previous posts.
Technophobicgeek,
Apologies for the delay in replying to your question. There may be some transatlantic differences here (again), but in my experience here in the UK, the answer is No (in fact, in some circles it’s sometimes the women who engage in such behaviour more than the men, broadly-speaking). However, the women concerned are often less open about their behaviour in this regard in front of desi guys, unless they’re trying to be provocative (for whatever reason) or they know that the guy isn’t going to judge them negatively about their “casual” behaviour due to the usual Indian cultural attitudes about such matters (either if the guy is interested in such an encounter with them himself or if the girls just know him socially).
Following on from the latter point, I think that sometimes if desi women here feel like some no-strings action, they may be slightly ambivalent about doing it with desi guys (due to wariness about the “judgemental” factor) and therefore pursue such activities with non-desi guys instead, who may also be perceived to be more straightforward about such things in terms of their personalities and the general dynamics of the liaison. Nevertheless, casual relationships amongst desis do happen here too.
Amitabh,
because looks are not everything…shared culture and background and common set of shared references are also very important.
Correct, but mutual chemistry and compatible personalities are more important than absolutely everything else.
I found the “tribe” reference earlier in this thread to be curious. If one views one’s “tribe” as being the human race first and foremost, then that does put a slightly different spin on the matter, in terms of people’s dating/marital choices. Just something to think about.
Apologies, my message to Amitabh wasn’t formatted properly:
Amitabh,
Correct, but mutual chemistry and compatible personalities are more important than absolutely everything else.
I know I am super late to thread, but hey, better late than never.
Living NYC and being a 20 some “banker”, IÂ’ve noticed a few things in terms of desi dynamics here. (not sure how it would apply elsewhere). Anyways, I there is a good amount of the desi population in to other desi people. Which is cool, if that’s what you want (I am basing this on the fact there always seems to be some desi party happening somewhere which are basically meat markets..) Then there are several other desi organizations which claim to operate under a different agenda but are just glorified meat markets as well.
I also know a fair amount of desi people into non-indians as well, which is cool too. I mean whatever floats your boat. In terms of attractiveness of desi women, I find most desi women more attractive on average compared to other groups, but thatÂ’s just me, and really thatÂ’s no one else business if you think about. I think your preference for the opposite sex has a lot to do with your environment. I recall reading about in The Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond a while ago. I think it said your preference is set between the ages of 4 to 6?
In terms of desi guys chasing desi women. I have to say, I see a lot of that, (primarily in vein though lol). In terms of being a women and not going up to a guy who you may potentially find attractive because social norms dictate otherwise, I think is just plain stupid. ItÂ’s so hard to find anyone that your intellectually attracted to, why self select yourself out of opportunities?
Oh. Isn’t it easy to understand? If a woman breaks the code by approaching someone she’s interested in, I think the union does this to ’em:
-loss of group bathroom privelages. -being blacklisted from Oprah. -must abstain from watching Julia Roberts movies. (with the exception of the Ocean’s 11 series)
not to mention the “men chase women choose” postulate is so inherent in the very fiber of our beings, if a woman opened her mouth first, every molecule in her body could possibly implode and/or explode, simulatenously causing a spatio-temporal paradox from which the entire galaxy would cease to exist.
Do you want that to happen? Are you 12 years old? is your reproductive system functioning in a substandard manner?
Sure, Jai, I’ll think about that simplistic notion the next time some white guy tells me to go back to my own country or when I read about some Sikh guy beat up by a bunch of white kids screaming “towelhead”. They’re part of my “tribe”, right? Please, please, please don’t tell me who my tribe is; this is about power dynamics and race, which is a lot more complicated than your notion of “tribe”.
Amitabh- last comment on this thread? Why’s that? You say that you think that a female child with a white woman would be more attractive if she were to inherit more of your “Indian features”. However, in post #267, you stated you find white women more attractive because of “Their features, their hair, their eye color, their (general) body type, their height, their complexions?”
So, let’s go down this list for this hypothetical daughter of yours, who has inherited more of your “Indian features”:
So I guess I’m just not seeing your logic here. It seems awfully convenient when you say Indian women are not as attractive, on average, as white women, and yet if you had a female child with a white woman and that child were to inherit more of your “Indian features”, she would be “more attractive”. This really doesn’t make sense when looking at your own arguments. I mean, go down your own list of reasons why you find white women more attractive and you’ll see that you will be uglifying your own daughter with your “Indian features”. Take the same list and compare it to this hypothetical daughter with a white father instead of yourself, and I’ll bet you’d consider just about everything on that list to be improved. What does this say?
In terms of attractiveness of desi women, I find most desi women more attractive on average compared to other groups, but thatÂ’s just me, and really thatÂ’s no one else business if you think about.
I agree! And since we are now making Some General Observations About the World’s Principal Races and Tribes, I will also say that besides having better eyes, they also age much better than white women. A fifty year old Indian woman is far more attractive than her white counterpart.
Hell yea, the DESI milfs are hot as shit!!
desitude,
LOL! also, ego trip’s Big Book of Racism is required reading for anyone who’s made it this far on this thread.
Thats a dark skin trait. We have a saying: “Black don’t crack”
She isn’t desi, but I still think its amazing that this woman is past 40 years old.
BrooklynBrown,
re: post #356.
Thank you for your response.
Of course, those of us who have grown up in the United Kingdom (along with the older generation who migrated here from the subcontinent and East Africa 35-40 years ago) have had no experience of being on the receiving end of racism, along with “power dynamics” and so on.
And no-one is “telling” you who “your tribe” is. If you wish to psychologically subdivide the human race further into “tribes” in terms of how you view yourself, your fellow “tribal members”, and those who do not belong to “your tribe”, and thereby perpetuate an “us vs. them” mentality, that is of course entirely your prerogative.
AMfD, That’s a rather hateful statement. Do you also advocate women becoming buleimic and anorexic (in the West) or forcefeeding (in Mauritania), or getting their genitals mutilated (Africa) so as to conform to messed up ideals of beauty set by the majority of men around them?
Was this statement really necessary?
As for the whole courting men issue. I court them. Of several men I have dated, I have done 90% of the asking out/making the first move. I wish more women would. It gives you control over the situation. Sure you may have tons of men fawning over you, but what’s the point IF the one YOU WANT to fawn over you doesn’t. If you want to talk about choice, hun, pick your prey and join the hunt. You’re more likely to end up with the prize 😉
I forgot to add to the end of my post…
“and THEN he can fawn over you all you like”
I can’t believe this discussion is still going strong…
That said, I have to defend chitrangada here. Fellas, be you red, yellow, black or white, the approach is key. If you can’t get up the nerve to come talk to me, we’re going to have serious problems later on. It is simply the first in a long series of other things you probably won’t have the nerve to do either.
If for some reason, I am SO ridiculously taken with you as to cross the room and initate a conversation–to really put myself out there–it is not going to be just because you “look good” (although that will give you 10 points) but probably because I was impressed by your dissertation defense, the short film you’re producing, your latest album, photography or art. Or, maybe, just maybe, a wonderfully eloquent passage on your blog. ;0) Even then, it’s up to you to make sure I don’t slip out of your grasp before our conversation is through.
Why? No, not because I’m some overly narcissistic, playing hard-to-get primadonna. Nope. Exactly the opposite. I’m pretty straight foward and down to earth and I’ve got a strong personality. I’ve learned over years of trial and error that if you can’t get this part right, I’ll steamroll you before 6 months is over or we’ll spend our entire relationship in a rollercoaster of passive-agressiveness (not on my part, I might add).
Bottom line, I’m not 100% committed to “non-approach” on the part of females but there is a wealth of reason behind it.
AMFD:
You know, I decided that I agree with Manju. People’s self-concept is so complex, so influenced by so many factors, that there’s no way any kind of thought or action could really affect it. I’m going to sit back and polish up on my academic language and equivocating style of argument so that I can be a real model minority. Al, you obviously put this up as a joke, but for those of you who thought for a moment that skin lightening creams are indicative of a larger issue in our community, think again. No one’s going to change, because this stuff is so complicated that you can’t change it! Am I right? Am I right?
I use copious amounts of these products and I can vouch for their effectiveness. Also when I was growing up, I followed my moms advice and never drank tea or ate dark meat. She also had some more conventional home made remedies to beautify my skin tone. The result is that today I stand as proud man with a clear complexion. Instead of fighting the ‘man’ we need to start playing the game. Avoid drinking tea, standing out in the sun, playing outdoor sports and start taking other precautions. Peace.
I think its less a matter of capability to change. I think all a person can do is put the information out there and hope that someday that person will process it.
I’ve gone through a variety of phases that first started with me only wanting to date black men, to only really dating white men, back to briefly dating only black men, and finally getting to where I am now: Being open to dating anyone… but I STILL have a bias against white men. And all these changes have come about as a result of my own personal experiences. And not because other people warned me about x/y/z races of men.
My own personal tastes have gone from this to this. I don’t regard either one to be better than the other (actually, i still find both to be very attractive… and would have a hard time choosing between the two… ), but anyway, I can understand how Al’s tastes could have changed so much over time without it necessarily being related to media influence.
I do agree with you, Yeti that it is very important for these types of conversations to take place… provided all the players involved be willing to openly participate and hear each other out.
Sure. The “attractive sensor” part of your brain “guy who approaches” can definitely be a criteria. I never said it shouldn’t. But again the general complaint that a certain type of guy ISN’T approaching, and they SHOULD, devoid of your own action, is frankly, illogical.
Kenya’s statement makes more logical sense:
To address this point of yours:
I think socialization is a huge component here. Most desis have parents that had no clue, or even reason to develop these skills. (And let’s be clear, these are skills like any other) I’m not about to assume how your parents met, but my guess your dad didn’t saunter over to your mom while she held an apple martini and wore a low cut top. So developing these skills aren’t necessarily in our “social genetics” if that makes any sense? but I agree they are worthwhile, and sometimes indispensible to develop.
But to imply someone is doomed to be a life failure because they don’t know what exactly to say and when approaching a total stranger, is a little strong don’t you think?
Yeti:
Social perceptions of beauty do change over time, the Marilyn Monroe ideal body type has been replaced with something more athletic and androgeneous…just take a look at vogue. (though I haven’t been affected by it)
But on an individual level, willfully changing sexual prefernce has proven to be extremely difficult. While pedophilia may seem like an extreme example, it is actually very generous to those who hold your (former?) point of view–since the behaviour is not innate (as far as we know) and is universally condemned by society. Yet they still have proven highly resistant to any psychological interference.
So I agree there is truth to your premise, that the media and social hierarchies in general affect our perception of beauty, and even that these hierarchies are the same ones underlying institutional racism.
But I would argue:
Beauty is not purely a social construct. Nature plays a large role. Studies show newborns are almost universally attracted to certain characteristics (like facial symmetry). Whether these characteristics are equally distributed among various groups or races I do not know, but it’s certainly not distributed equally among individuals. Nature is not known for her egalitarianism.
Even a realizaton of your premise is not enough to overturn deeply ingrained preferences resulting from sexual conditioning and imprinting that go back to early childhood.
I would argue that even if a desi morally wants to be attracted to another desi, if he’s not that’s his “nature”, and forcing the issue is just going to result in a grotesque psychological experiment. Sorry to sound like Oprah, but ALMFD’s outlook is probably much more healthy; he’s accepting himself the way he is…which is the opposite of self hatred.
Over at Feministing, they are having a related discussion.
Apparently, some feminists prefer to humiliate themselves during sex. Are they liberated or have they internalized the patriachy? What role does nature play in a woman’s desire to be dominated? And should this nature inform our politics?
I could go all out and say most of my generation was born to parents who weren’t exactly “consciously raising perfect” children but simply following behavior patterns they knew and that were handed down. No child comes with a book of instructions and every child requires attention in different areas and fostering but most desi parents only attempt to foster a child’s intellect thru study (understandble because of the environment in India). I think my generation is the first one having children overseas making a conscious decision to be a better parent thru learning and choosing to socialize their children differently than their parents.
It isn’t just limited to sexual conditioning. Think of how we approach someone from another race in the context of a significant other. We break the ‘conditioning’ we were raised with with a conscious effort but when it comes to core issues find it hard to break free. So we make friends of all races and religions but limit ourselves to only a few when it comes to settling down.
can someone please delete my last comment, formatting is messed up and i don’t wanna take up more space than i already am, thanks Manju: You fail to account for how sexual preferences can vary from being very deeply ingrained (like those that are classified as mental disorders) to very superficial. At no point have you actually stated anything about how race plays into sexuality, nor do you seem to have any analysis on that or clue as to how it may or may not work.
Those studies you cite are almost invariably paired with the fact that the preferences for symmetry, etc, are consistent across racial groups. Obviously nature is not egalitarian, but race is not a natural construct, it’s an entirely social construct. That’s also been established over and over again. How we deal with it is another matter – do you start by acknowledging that it exists or do you start by behaving as though it doesn’t? But the argument that “beauty is not purely social” really has no relation to racialized conceptions of beauty.
Again, you actually haven’t made it clear that racial preferences come from sexual conditioning and imprinting that go back to early childhood. In fact, I very much doubt that these kinds of things are rooted in the formative years.
Social perceptions of beauty do change over time, the Marilyn Monroe ideal body type has been replaced with something more athletic and androgeneous…just take a look at vogue. (though I haven’t been affected by it)
Neither have most men – because Vogue, Harper’s and other high-end fashion magazines do not reflect the tastes of heterosexual males. For a certain segment of gay men, that sought their career opportunities in high fashion when many other avenues were off limits, their preferences for the type of men they are attracted to is reflected in the clothes they design for women. Thin, no hint of fat, no hips. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have those gay men who work out in the gym constantly, working out any part of the body that makes them more masculine, and more attractive to other men.
Compare this to the laddie magazines like FHM and Maxim, geared towards heterosexuals, where a woman’s cleavage and curvy butt are featured prominently on their covers.
As for “black don’t crack” – that can also be due to wealth. Who’s going to look better, a 47 year old working class black woman raising a family, with no spare money for health clubs and spa treatments? Or this 47 year old NYC local news anchor (Dana Tyler)? She’s been doing the local news in NY since I was a teenager, and is still stunning.
I think what we are arguing about is whether one can change their attraction to an entire race, not individual. If a preference is deeply ingrained, I say no; though I recognize the possibility you bring up that it may just be superficial…though I see no reason to assume racial prefernces are defacto superficial.
The body does not easily follow the mind, and there is much we do not know, as the old aristocrat (and fascist )Yeats understood:
I whispered, ‘I am too young,’ And then, ‘I am old enough’; Wherefore I threw a penny To find out if I might love. ‘Go and love, go and love, young man, If the lady be young and fair.’ Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny, I am looped in the loops of her hair.
O love is the crooked thing, There is nobody wise enough To find out all that is in it, For he would be thinking of love Till the stars had run away And the shadows eaten the moon. Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny, One cannot begin it too soon.
I agree that would be a bit much! It’s not that this particular person would be a failure but our relationship inevitably would.
Just wanted to refer y’all to the book review at this site, which is quite pertinent to the topic at hand.
In my humble opinion, while colonialism, hegemonic media, socialization, etc most definitely play a part in both shaping and perpetuating color prejudice, the enduring resistance to its eradication in the vast majority of human societies throughout history begs a more compelling explanation. One that you may find highly unpopular and deeply unsettling (“unfair”) perhaps. But it serves as one indisputable subtext to all male-female attraction, exerting its influence in the background.
“In his foreword to ‘Fair Women, Dark Men’, U. of Washington sociologist Pierre L. van den Berghe summarizes: ‘Although virtually all cultures express a marked preference for fair female skin, even those with little or no exposure to European imperialism, and even those whose members are heavily pigmented, many are indifferent to male pigmentation or even prefer men to be darker.’ Frost reports that out of 51 different cultures in the anthropology profession’s famous Human Relations Area Files, 44 cultures favored lighter complexions on either only women (30) or on both sexes (14). In only 3 cultures was fair skin preferred on men only, and in just 4 cultures was darker skin desired. Lighter ladies were favored in many countries with little exposure to Western beauty standards, such as medieval Japan, Ethiopia, Aztec Mexico, and Moorish Spain, where the dominant culture was darker skinned than the conquered natives. Frost discovered that the reason women were called ‘the fair sex’ is because women are indeed fairer on average after puberty. He notes that 50 out of 54 anthropometric studies from around the world have shown that women’s untanned skin, such as under the upper arm, reflects more light than men’s. Women have more subcutaneous fat, which gives them a lighter look. The gender difference in color is not large, but before Europeans came into frequent contact with sub-Saharan Africans and others of highly different hues, it was noticeable.”
Since women, due to their physiological (lower hematocrit) and hormonal make-up (more fat deposition) are on average a tad lighter than their brothers, even within a society composed of only one ethnic group, lighter skin is an attractiveness plus point in women. Of course, this is true up to a point: don’t start hitting me over the head with near-albinos and saying “well then logically this would be your ideal of feminine beauty right? I draw my own line at olive-skinned women. Fairer than that and I’m not as attracted. Not surprisingly, my sister goes the other way i.e. darker than her, but only until about The Rock’s color she tells me ;-). Men darker than that and she will balk, unfortunately.
Now this is assuming all other things are even, which they rarely are: there’s no denying that with maturity one becomes more and more able to date someone on the basis of personality and mutual values rather than skin color. But let’s not forget the influence of other “superficial” factors e.g. among women, height and more masculine facial features like stronger jaw, etc usually seem to trump the (presumed) attraction for slightly darker men. Hence women may gravitate toward statuesque men of any race, even pasty white men. And men may prioritize shapely figures in women, leading them to the sistas 😉
As for posters who want to factor in the color of their potential children, it depends how dark you are to start with of course. Anecdotally, I notice that people at the extremes of either dark or light are more open to dating each other. Whereas Indian people, who have medium complexions already, tend to just want to go a tad lighter or darker (a debatable point I guess). Anyway, read the book about the effect of this sort of societal selection over time and you may see things differently 😉
I’ll end with this anology: if I am disenfranchised due to any reason, e.g. I am a little short, it doesnt help much for me to rage at how superficial, unfair, etc womens’ preference for height is. Some physical assumptions about the opposite sex are just so engrained in our psyche that its kinda futile to try to change. I can only understand and accept it, and then find a way to develop other talents to my advantage in the dating scene e.g. charisma, personality, status, etc.
I am sure the highly perceptive folks who post on this board will point out ways that my analogy doesnt apply when it comes to dark women, or indeed, pasty men: and you will be right, since an independent mind and a sense of social justice is all you really need to drown out the “biologic determinism” at work in the back of our minds. Sadly, society as a whole will never be as obliging, and it shows.
Yes, I agree. Vogue does represent a certain dsexualization of the female form…probably due to the fact that gays are imposing their own aesthtics on women. Intersesting that many men have not been affected. Are we naturally wired to like large breasts and birth giving hips? But some have, and probably most western women have too (anorexia), so social constructionism does exist…which should please Yeti.
I see the discussion has moved in interesting directions.
Two observations/questions: One, do you find, as desis, that you are more or less comfortable making the move on a fellow desi? i.e. do you feel less inhibited because it’s “one of your own” or more so because “we desis don’t normally do that” and you’d feel silly getting all suave on a fellow desi?
Two, whether or not you feel more attracted to those of other ethnicities due to their conformity with hegemonic norms etc etc, do you still want your baby to look desi? I.e. do you wince a little bit at the thought that your baby might be all pale if you marry a firang? (I must admit I think that sometimes – briefly, and with shame – and a superbabe top model woman I was once acquainted with confessed to not wanting to marry her extremely eligible European suitor for that reason).
That’s a pretty bold statement too.
I thought it was obvious, but given the context of the discussion, I meant failure as it pertains to relationship maintenance. But I’d be interested to know what incapabilities these non approaching boyfriends of yours exhibited, that destroyed your relationship? (You claimed trial and error as your teacher, so my guess is you actually did approach someone?)
Perhaps you don’t comprehend the severe disadvantage many Indian men have, as Jane stated, most of us are implicitly or explicitly taught to ignore social dynamic skills in favor of getting into a good college, earning high grades, etc… I’m not saying we deserve any kind of concession because, well, we ain’t gonna get it. I’m just explaining it.
I’ll wait for a response, but personally I feel you’re encroaching on our ol’ pal CG’s reasoning that perhaps, it would be lowering oneself for a woman to talk with those she’s interested in.
How are you socializing your children?
We—my wife and I—have often thought about our daughter’s socialization. We have attempted to make friends with non-desis, in particular, with non-desi parents at the school my daughter goes to. These non-desi parents are friendly, but they are not warm friends. Their children call my child to playdates, but not to playdates and sleepovers.
From the temple, we have made desi friends who are warm friends. Their children do call our child to playdates and sleepovers.
Perhaps an impression is forming in her mind that other second generation (ABCD) children are the crowd she should hang out with—the crowd where she is most comfortable, the crowd that is warm to her, the crowd where she can share her confidences.
Hence my question to you: How are you socializing your children?
The sentence “Their children call my child to playdates, but not to playdates and sleepovers.” in Post 381 should read “Their children call my child to birthday parties, but not to playdates and sleepovers.”
But some have, and probably most western women have too (anorexia), so social constructionism does exist…which should please Yeti.
No – I think it largely an American phenomenon. In other Western nations, which are also large consumers of American media (TV, film, magazines) you do not see the same obsession with body image that American women have. I still have trouble understanding the thinking of upper-class or fashion-minded American women who believe that they can attract a man if they follow the advice given by gay men.
Ignorant commenters are about to be struck down by the wrath of that Great Khan! Where is he anyway?
Swarthy # 377 thanx for the interesting snippet about Dark men & Light women. It is interesting and reflects some of the attitudes in the Indian culture. The preference of lightness is something I have personally experienced. My mother’s side of the family are whiter then my whitest friends with green, blue or gray eyes. My mother was the only sibling among 6 that married a darker man and hence us kids and we never ever heard the end of it when we were children surrounded by light skinned blue eyed cousins. My brother at least had a redeeming fact going for him. He was a man! I was doomed for life and some in the family have deduced still single because I’m dark! Yeah education and progress be damned.
I have to strongly disagree. Having worked in the industry for over 10 years queer guys are not making the rules. The women in FHM and Maxim are STILL skinny. The only difference between them and the women in Vogue is that they have bigger butts and asses. Lets not try to convince ourselves that the women in Maxim are any less skinnier. If you put a size 8 woman on it men will be the first one to call her fat. And yes the women that have been in Maxim or FHM are a sz 0 – 6. It is women who are making the rules fueled largely by the film industry and the women in celluloid. It’s the Angelinas and Lindseys and Paris’s of the world that dictate the rules of the norm. Marilyn was hot and she had big boobs but she wasn’t exactly a fat woman either. She was just as slim but simply had a bigger rack. If men simply liked women with more meat on them women wouldn’t be puking their guts out after lunch and resorting to surgeries. So lets not get carried away with the “men like bigger women” notion.
With a desi man the rejection hurts more than with a non desi. Also previous encounters sometimes taint future encounters. If you get high and mighty ‘You aren’t good enough’ attitude (and both desi men and women are guilty of this) it’s a massive turn off. Essentially it’s more baggage approaching a desi brother than a average white guy.
Holy shit I don’t think about babies at all. I just love brown hairy men. It’s the idea of beauty in my eyes that I grew up with and that is what appeals to me aesthetically and mentally. I like my own skin so I prefer a man with the same.
I went to an all girls convent school in India. I was 14 when I moved here and seriously believed that holding hands or kissing would get me pregnant. I was sheltered and grew up with the “don’t go near boys” notion. I think a vast generation of mine is fucked up because of this upbringing and it taints our interaction with the opposite sex. Of course decades went by and we made progress but we still see this fucked up notions among desis who are freshly here from India and grew up in that environment. That hangup of “boys and girls” is diluted here IMO.
Finding warmth in others means opening ourselves up to them, to criticism, to dilution, to disappointment and to hurt. We take a lot of the notions of warmth in our culture for granted that we have to earn and work towards outside the desi culture. That might explain why you’ve felt more warmth in your temple group. I strongly believe that your child as a result of growing up in this country and going out and meeting more people in life will find warmth from all kinds of people.
College is a huge determining factor, up until then I was always defined by how I was raised, dictated by my parents and finding warmth among Indian friends. It wasn’t till I got to college and met a lot of different kinds of people and later thru work that I found commanality among non desis. One of my best friends is a very conservative Episcopalian from Minnesota and we could swear our parents were twins. We had the same upbringing. The key is to allow your children those experiences and not project your notion of warmth and acceptance on them based on your own experiences because you are an adult and it’s already tainted. I know easier said than done.
Jane:
Putting aside the ? of who, gays or women, are the hegmonic culprit…I’d have to say there is strong anecdotal evidence of a male prefernce for larger (than models) women. Just take a look at porn, in comparison to Vogue, it is a virtual egalitarian world. Granted, slimmer women are still on top (though they are heavier than the fashion models) but the others, including the fat, are well represented. I’d provide links but I’d hate to distract Abhi when he needs to study for exams.
I think women are doing it to themselves, though the fact that u live in NYC may explain much of theis. NY men have been brainwashed, unless you go north og 96th st.
SP,(don’t know if my vote counts) but I’m terrified that my babies are going to come out ridiculously white if I marry “too light.” I’ve watched it happen to my cousin and 3 other black & white/asian couples I know. Sidenote: Why do people think it’s okay to say. That’s not your baby! after you just told them that’s your child?!
Dert, if I were looking for a fling, sure I’d run up on an interesting-looking guy and give him a sales pitch. Why? Because it doesn’t really matter what happens afterwards if all I’m interested in is fun.
On the other hand, speaking only for myself mind you, my tolerence for short-lived frivolous relationships has expired. Any guy who can’t “man up” enough to say “hello” is probably not going to be able to stand up to his family if the need arises, negotiate difficult situations at work, or express his honest opinion when he disagrees with me. That doesn’t make him a bad person, it just means he needs a really patient girlfriend. I ain’t her! It is better for both of us if we don’t get involved.
The only other logical explaination–allowing for the benefit of the doubt–is that aforementioned unapproaching males are well, just not interested. If that’s the case, far be it from me to encroach on their space trying to convince them otherwise. If I don’t light your fire, may you light it elsewhere.
LOL yeah. We were talking today about how superficial it is on a daily basis in the building. Everyone is checking everyone out and the thought of not measuring up is what makes NYC as superficial as it gets. I found LA just as superficial though on a different level. Everyone was a skinny treehugger. Miami is another super superficial town but there the divas are all fake, fake boobs, fake asses, fake hair but skinny alright.
I’m not disregarding that men want women with fullness but I still believe they prefer the fullness in all the right sexual places not anywhere else on the body. They still want slim women.
I have to strongly disagree. Having worked in the industry for over 10 years queer guys are not making the rules. The women in FHM and Maxim are STILL skinny. The only difference between them and the women in Vogue is that they have bigger butts and asses. Lets not try to convince ourselves that the women in Maxim are any less skinnier. If you put a size 8 woman on it men will be the first one to call her fat. And yes the women that have been in Maxim or FHM are a sz 0 – 6. It is women who are making the rules fueled largely by the film industry and the women in celluloid. It’s the Angelinas and Lindseys and Paris’s of the world that dictate the rules of the norm. Marilyn was hot and she had big boobs but she wasn’t exactly a fat woman either. She was just as slim but simply had a bigger rack. If men simply liked women with more meat on them women wouldn’t be puking their guts out after lunch and resorting to surgeries. So lets not get carried away with the “men like bigger women” notion.
There is a wide gamut between bone-thin and big-boned. There are plenty of shapes in between, and that is where mest men’s preferences lie. The main point was that if a woman is interested in finding out what straight guys are interested in – put down the magazine and just strike up a conversation. Whereas Vogue reflects a disproportinate influence of gay men, FHM and Maxim reflect the lives of 5% of young straight men, and the aspirations of the other 95%.
Chris Rock – “What do men want? Three things – food, sex, and silence. Feed me, F* me, shut the f* up.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, but to be honest there’s really no basis for those conclusions. And whats with the “probably”, are you speculating? Whatever happened to “trial and error”? Your personal business is your business, but you’re the one that said your personal experience backs up your claims. It strikes me as evading the question.
Anyway, back to your conclusions, every one of them involves a man dealing with familiar elements (maybe not the last one, so I’ll concede that a guy who doesn’t approach may not give you an honest disagreement in the beginning, but as he gains more familiarty, will gradually shed that behavior) And the real issue here is approaching a total stranger, correct?
And I love how women in general (don’t take this personally, you aren’t the only one to do it) are free to define what a “real man” is, and decide what behavior constitutes “having balls” but If a man says “have some ‘eggs’, and shutup” or “woman up and clean the house” or something like that – well that discussion is for another time and place I guess.
“If the natural features of white women are so attractive, then why do they spend so much time and money tanning to become brown, fattening their lips with injections, and getting plastic surgery? Also, I have never met a white woman who looked naturally beautiful without makeup.” Apparently you wouldn’t want to, either. The All American Girl/English Rose icons seem to be bete noires for you. Don’t be bitter. Clear, healthy skin is beautiful, whatever its color, but the environment lends it function. Speaking as a student of art and culture who has studied changing fashions and styles as well as cultural anthropology, I suspect that collagen injections are towards a caucasian ideal, not African. “Lips like cherries” are an old European fairy-tale ideal. Just as the preference for “apricot eyes” among the Chinese of old had nothing to do with exposure to caucasoids. A certain wide-eyed look was prized among the Chinese for women, but not for men. I recall a very flamboyant Algerian Jewish lady who expressed dislike for the looks of far-east Asians because she only liked very wide-open eyes. Make-up as we know it has only been around a few decades yet the attributes it endows have been described for eons. Euros managed to find each other attractive long before CoverGirl came on the scene, just as Indians managed to come up with skin-color preferences long before they set eyeballs on any white person. I doubt Africans were into hair straightening when they were in Africa. For changing styles as far as western culture, check out art history, from Botticelli to Renoir. It’s always possible, however, that the firangis were wearing make-up–in fact they did sometimes. It was made from white lead. Anyway, tanning is an interesting development and may actually show dark-people influence, correlating well with everyone suddenly wanting to spend time on the beach. If you’re hanging out on the beach, tan certainly makes more sense, and you show up better. If you’re hanging around by candle light in a manor house, the paler the better.
dert:
I need to call you out on this. Women want us to be ASSERTIVE, not dominating and aggressive. As men we don’t really understand that there is an alternative between vacillating from passivity (suppressing all emotion, not expressing critical or negative feeligns) to aggression (b***h shut your trap and get in the kitchen).
ASSERTIVE doesn’t mean we boss them around, we force them to do shit, we act lazy and macho in the house, etc. Assertive means we express negative and positive emotions directly and non-abusively; that we express needs and desires; that we check them on their bullshit without being verbally or physically violent; that we do approach them and behave proactively in sexual/social situations; etc.
I say this not as a man who has somehow mastered any of this – or even comes close – but who at least has gotten a start by recognizing the issue (thanks to women in my life).
I guess I could agree with #377, but this really makes me wonder: What about white people? I’ve met quite a few white women who absolutely hate the fact that they are so pale and cannot tan. I see tons of white women running out to tan, but I rarely see men do it (maybe thats just a matter of location though). If a desire for light skin is natures default, and not a result of media/racial programming, then why aren’t white people following suit?
I think there is fault in thinking that there are very many cultures around the world that are unaffected by white-dominated media or white influence. An area doesn’t have to be colonized to be affected by a global racial heirarchy.
This sentence is misleading. Are they just talking about medieval Japan, or are they talking about medieval times in all the places listed? Also, they author is ignoring the fact that in certain cultures/races, fair skin is the relative norm and is something that a person is capable of having. Japanese people really aren’t that dark. I get that the author is trying to find genetic reasons for societal “norms” but to use the same system of measurement across cultures and not control for different societal variables is bad science. It makes any conclusion he’s come up with sketchy at best.
And the one positive review for that book is by Steve Sailer… I don’t normally play into the conservative/liberal war, but this guys is a jackarse.
To add: if nature/genetics is really the case, why do SO many white men date dark desi/black/asian women? I am significantly darker than my fair (can’t get a tan to save his life) skinned, clear eyed SO… what happened to “nature” there?
Oh, and for those of you who don’t want to have to scroll through a whole wiki article about Steve Sailer, here’s a snippit of his intelligent commentary:
“What you won’t hear, except from me, is that ‘Let the good times roll’ is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society. … In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan — because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks.”
I think my point got fuddled a little bit. Women can want what they want, and have it subtle and nuanced as possible (aggressive and assertive are synonyms according to Roget’s Thesaurus), but my point was that society accepts it when they question, define, and pretty much have their run on the very nature of manhood. What it means to be a man. There’s a difference between saying, “I want this” and “I want this and if you’re not this, you’re not a man” Get me?
And like I said, it wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, just a general observation.
I think atleast when it comes to people from the subcontinent, obsession with fair skin is a more recent phenomenon. The reason I arrive at this conclusion is from past from literary sources.
Though I am not expert, I have had a little exposure to literature in native Indian languages (Sanskrit/Telugu) which was essentially poetry or religious texts. For example Kalidasa’s works ,Mahabharata,Ramayana, etc. From these I distinctly remember two things.
1) Many Gods or reincarnations of Gods like Shiva,Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Venkatesa, Murugan; Many prominent figures like Vyasa, Arjuna; Heroes, kings were depicted to be dark skinned. This was something that was portrayed as a positive and there were highly eloquent lines about the charm in their face and the grace in their movements etc.
This is the reason why many picture books like Amar Chitra Katha depict them in a bluish skin tone(perhaps because Neel(blue) is the word used for dark skin in these historic texts?) And this is also the reason why idols of these are made of dark stone vs some which are made of light stone.
2) There are numerous stanzas, poems of immense beauty which describe the physical attributes of the various leading ladies of plays and even Goddesses. All these are very explicit about eyes, lips, waist, hips etc etc. I clearly remember one poem about how Shiva sees Parvati for the first time and how he falls in love. In that poem the poet describes a raindrop as it moves down from her forehead all the way down – very erotic. However in none of these poems is skin colour a big deal. Men then were more into T&A I Presume 🙂
So, it is really interesting to see how modern Indian society fetishises fair skin and how it has a higher social status, whereas in the past having a dark skin did not prevent men from being elevated to the status of Gods or women from being objects of beauty.
I clearly remember one poem about how Shiva sees Parvati for the first time and how he falls in love. In that poem the poet describes a raindrop as it moves down from her forehead all the way down – very erotic. However in none of these poems is skin colour a big deal. Men then were more into T&A I Presume 🙂
I touched on this from my very limited knowledge in post #310, at the very least, I think the issue is debatable…
Check Ch. 9 from Marco Polo’s travels, etc., his description of Malabar Kerala circo 13th cent.: “The darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better than the others who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and their idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say that God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white. That is why they portray them as I have described.”
I think the dark skinned heroes in Hindu epics are a little bit more of a complicated tale. “Neel” is not the only attribution for dark skin, “Kala” is also used to describe “black” characters. There is apparently a distinction between black and blue people (the latter being good, the former usually bad, evil, or scary) in ancient Hindu mythology, which to me is evidence of some level of co-optation of dark-skinned indigenous gods by a dominant belief system – hence the invention of blue gods and heroes, to distinguish them from the “black” ones.
Pair that with the fact that some of the oldest, pre-Hindu gods are the ones currently depicted in Hindu mythology as “blue”, and you have to wonder why they were changed to “black”.
Whether or not you believe that the Aryan invasion occurred, I believe that there is strong evidence in our own stories of a color-related system of dominance in India.
Yeti – I agree there was a difference between blue and black (like the devils/asuras were black?), but I think essentially it was semantics to seperate good from evil. My instincts say, they were all just darker skinned dudes. The main point being, skin color was not important in judging a man/woman and idolizing/worshipping him.
You need to be more clear about what you mean by oldest, pre-hindu gods. I dont think many of the names I mentioned above would qualify for that. For example the famous Balaji temple in Tirupathi is around 1000 years old if I remember correctly.
Also, Sage Vyasa is not called blue skinned, but dark skinned, so is the lady who Bhisma’s dad marries(i forget the name) and so is Arjuna and many others. This is not something that is related to the Aryan invasion per se, for example I remember a story about Chandra Guptha Maurya(of the famous Maurya dynasty, also to which Asoka belongs) in which he is described as dark skinned. Maybe casting Shahrukh Khan was Bollywood’s attempt to be historically accurate? 😉
Ofcourse I agree things were more complicated, but again the essential point is that skin colour was not central especially for ideals of beauty.
I think colonialism/foreign rule – both central asian and european as well as other caste based racism institutionalised the color complexes of the subcontinent.
This thread has 400 comments!