Thursday, April 27, 2006

Why so much preference for vanilla over chocolate? (Or coffee, for that matter). From earlier discussions, it is safe to say that black men are much more attracted to white women than white men are attracted to black women. So what is the most important reason for this? The possibilities that come immediately to mind are:

1. Men in general prefer feminine women, and whites, on average, are more feminine than blacks (both in looks and behavior).

2. Black men, along with everyone else, are socialized to believe that white women are the most beautiful.

3. There is such a thing as objective beauty which all people appreciate, and white women are, on average, more beautiful.

4. Since white women have historically been a taboo to black men, this makes them more appealing.

5. Black men don't find them to be more beautiful, but to have other more appealing traits like cooperativeness.

6. Black men want to be with white women as a form of racial revenge.

What evidence do we have to support or contradict these ideas? Do people have other explanations in mind?


Compost Books said...

This is a partial "repost" of something I posted on a different thread today. In short, I disagree completely with the notion that white men somehow "aren't" attracted to black women. I think they are attracted fairly strongly, however there may be cultural reasons why fewer white men court black women, most likely because of the perception they are intimidating.

I believe most human sexual behavior is driven by men - basically men get the courtship ball rolling. Black men are culturally, and perhaps genetically, more aggressive than whites, so they probably successfully court more white women.

Anyway, here's the repost and what I feel is a more intellectually satisfying explanation for what is going on here:

On some evolutionary level the individual set of genes strives to achieve some sort of hybrid vigor. I imagine this will be proven at some point through research.

I further suspect it's men that drive it, in that men are more "susceptible" to the charms of a woman of another race than women are to the males of a different race. Of course, it takes two to tango, I suspect the male initiates the courtship as they usually do in same race relationships.

The hybrid vigor impulse likely manifests even in Anglo-Anglo relationships - for example, I am of Irish (supposedly so-called "Black" Irish)-French American descent, my wife is of Dutch-German. I'm fairly dark complected with brown eyes and hair, she is pale-complected blonde with green eyes. All her past boyfriends were dark-haired, dark-eyed; my most serious relationships before marriage were with blondes and in one case a Vietnamese-American, the only brunette I ever dated.

It would be interesting for someone to try to quantify this stuff, for all I know they have.

Tino_G said...

Compost to be honest all of your argument is based on you having seen black women give white men lap dances. Fine, but what does that prove? Also note that most research points that we are attracted to people that look like ourselves (and women we are exposed to as children).

Evidence that white men on average are not attracted to black women (and vice versa, nota bene):

1. Adult literature/porn/movies. If white men were attracted to black women and for social reasons did not approach them (or because black women don’t like white men) that should not stop them from looking at picture. The amount of very black looking women in white porn is all but non-existent.

2. Racial intermarriage rate, look at Sailers data

3. The extremely low rate of sexual contact between white slave owners and African women. Remember they did not have effective contraception back than, we KNOW they did not mix that much given the very low share of mulattos by 1860.

One reason was that having sex with black slaves reduces working morality, but even black prostitutes were not much in demand.

I definitely go for explanation 1 and to a lesser degree 3 (although that only applies to certain types of white women, such as Nordic girls, clearly not to unattractive English girls for example. No offence.)

Socialization is liberal nonsense, with no evidence. A lot of things are taboo that we don’t want, black women were taboo to white owners in the south (because one white having sex would harm working morality among many slave populations). I can’t judge 5, maybe, but knowing men looks matter more than anything else. Also few blacks have asian girl friends, and asian women are most cooperative and submissive of all, on average.

6 is also clearly false, if black men didn’t find white women attractive there is no way they would sacrifice themselves to “get back”. You also have the collective action problem here, not to mention the fact that if you hate whites enough to use your personal life to marginally harm them, the cost of having a white women would be high (unless you only hate white men).


Fair women are more feminine.

Attractive women can be flaunted as a status symbol. White women have a higher currency in this respect.

(White)women prefer darker men(not necessarily black). So they are up for it.. Makes them more amenable to approaches from black men.

White women are slimmer.

Unlisted said...


Noone is saying that NO white man is attracted to black women. You just don't find it that often. In spite of the fact that black women are in more contact with white men, you still find it to be rare.

As to the points:

1. No doubt white women are viewed as more feminine than black women. Asian women are viewed as more feminine than white women. Why? Part culture, part hair length. Asian women tend to be smaller too.

2. Socialized to believe white is more beautiful? Probably because whites are the majority in this country, this MAY be true. But then again why is skin lightener so popular amongst women in black African countries??? It is sold at toxic levels, the demand for lighter skin is so great.

In India, the most popular actress is Aishwrya Rai...A GREEN EYED Indian (And a knock out by the way)

3. There IS such a thing as objective beauty which all people appreciate, and white women are, on average, more beautiful. Things like long hair and less masculine features seem to be burned in. Green, blue or hazel eyes are gorgeous. Just the facts.

4. I'm not sure the taboo comes into play anymore. In the 50's, 60's and 70's, this was perhaps true especially since the black men for the most part only got the rejected (i.e., fat) white women. Nowadays, it's on TV alot and average black guys are pulling knock-outs. It is all about looks now. Taboo is not there.

5. Not sure I *completely* buy #5 although it IS stated by black men. One of the most famous reasons given, but it goes back to looks.

#6 is not true at all. Never seen evidence of that from Black men. Plus, they are not a monolith borg-like force. They are men like every other man. There is a premium on Caucasian features around the world.

Also note that "EuroAsian" (half Asian/half European) models now dominate the ASIAN fashion industry.

Tyler said...

"1." is definately true. I think we all agree on this and have talked about it at length.

I was going to write a longer reply responding to the other items and elaborating, but I have a lot to do. Instead, you guys might be interested in reading this article, which is some what related to this topic.

It's very interesting!

Compost Books said...

Tino, actually, my argument is not derived from having seen black women give white men dances at strip clubs, but it's a great place to see the phenomenon of which I speak in action. And it seems just as valid an argument as saying that Sailer's marriage info (which is interesting) somehow can be transferred on to the idea that just because white men don't marry black women they aren't attracted to them. You don't have to marry a person to find them attractive, make a pass at them or sleep with them.

If you want to convince me of this point, then show me the data where the number of times white men fantasize, hit on, seduce, sleep with AND marry black/latina/asian women. Because that will show you the totality of sexual behavior, not one facet of it.

I do agree that just as there might be an impulse towards hybrid vigor, there is an impulse towards genetic stasis, or, what I think Steve Sailer would call a very diluted propensity towards inbreeding (if you accept his assertion that a "race" is merely an enormous extended inbred family).

But let's carry this a little further - do we all agree that if these tendencies exist (either towards diversity or towards homogenity) they are evolutionary in nature?

I assert that the only real thing that attracts a male to a female is whether their is a mutual attraction based on reproductive fitness.

So in the end, I think skin color and facial features are pretty secondary to men, when weighed against:

Facial symmetry (lots of theories why; mine has always been it's just some deep rooted indicator of genetic fitness; also, if the person has a broken nose, scarring, etc. it might indicate clumsiness or stupidity; as in, they are too stupid/clumsy to walk and always falling down)
Skin quality (not color, but quality of complection; an indicator again of health)
Breast size (can the woman nurse a baby?)
Hip size (can a woman deliver a baby?)
Healthy, relatively lean arms and legs, but not too skinny (can a woman run away with the baby is a large predator approaches?)
And finally, not too fat (lots of reasons this is bad) and not to skinny (too skinny you won't menstruate or be able to nurse, probably can't carry the baby to term)

And I think that's pretty much it. Now, sure, you find guys with fatties or skinnies, but that's probably because the lookers are with someone else, and in the end those guys take what they can get - probably because they are pencil necked, fat, dumb or just general losers (which, because my carpal tunnel is acting up now, is my crude shorthand for saying they couldn't defend their women from other men, predators, or be very good at the whole hunting gathering thing.

Anyway, that's what is in the back of my mind as I make my hybrid vigor argument - I'm not statistician, but I do understand evolution, and I have read a lot about evolution's bastard step child sociobiology (which I am not certain could really be called a "science" but it's sure interesting).

I don't know if my argument is right or wrong, but it is logically consistent, which I can't really say about a lot of the desperate attempts I've seen on this site to argue that white men aren't attracted to black women.

In almost-closing - does anyone have any theory about what the evolutionary benefits would be of generally limiting yourself to your large, extended, inbred family? And might there possibly be some evolutionary benefit to the "selfish gene" in seeking out another set of genes significantly different from it?

Finally, two coda comments -

Re: black porn actresses for whites - have you ever been to a porn aggregator site? Not to bring things down to the gutter, but there's tons of sites devoted to white men having sex with black women (and vice versa) and there's a number of black porn actresses. Why do I know this? Because as I mentioned in another post, I have access to national market data about pay per view movie viewing in a national chain of business-traveller hotels. Trust me when I say that whites consume plenty of porn that features black porn actresses. All you have to do is look at the most popular titles on the menu, and compare this with the overwhelmingly white clientele.

Also - please cite your assertion that there was a low rate of sex contact between white slave owners and slaves. This flies in the face of everything I've read about slavery and the Civil War, and I've read a lot. I mean, there weren't that many slaveowners as an overall percentage of the southern population, but it's obvious from primary sources and the genetic heritage of American blacks that there was a great deal of sexual contact going on between whites and blacks. So again, I'd be very interested in the source for that.

Also, there's a great deal of apocryphal/culural evidence that black women in America today exert enormous pressure on one another to not date white men. This may partially explain the low marriage rate.

Anyway, I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I'm just saying I need better evidence before I can agree that there is preference for "vanilla over chocolate."

Tino_G said...


Thank you for you well reasoned answers.

My source for the low contact rate is Nobel price winners Robert Fogels groundbreaking book “on the cross” (I read the figures in an article where Fogel summarizes some findings from the book). As you may or may not know this book is the most complete quantitiave investigation of Slavery, and punctured many myths beside this one. For examples slaves often liven in their own houses, were encouraged to have nuclear families, had more calorie than whites (even though of somewhat lower quality), lived roughly as long and had roughly as high infant mortality as white southern working class.

This is from my memory, but it said in 1850 or 1860 only 7% where mulatto (they also go back and calculate the rate of sexual contact over 200 years that would have produced this figure, it is very low). The article also contained data about black prostitution and the lack of interests from white.

As you understand this is not widely known, because it would look like an “apology” for slavery (which it is not, of course it was a horrible historic crime). But blacks would lose a lot of their grievances with a more ‘nuanced’ view of slavery.

About Adult porn:

Well, If there was proportional as much demand for black in porn as for say blondes or Asians I would see it as the optimal test. I agree that marriage alone does not prove everything, for example whites could like black women but not vice versa.

But just skimming though porn you really very few black female porn actors. What you do have is a lot of black MEN in white porn, having sex with white women. This is definitely not proof of whites liking black women, but supports the stronger black masculinity theory. I just did a random

If you can give me data that shows there is as much black porn as white I would accept it, but I am very skeptical.

I just did a random search of 400 adult stars in a port database, of which 14 were black women, mostly light mulatto. 3.5%, but 14% of poulation

Not all sexuality is fitness, much is sexual selection (breast size and the arse are an obvious ones, monkeys don’t have big breasts all the year). Lightness of skin has nothing to do with fitness, but it may for example signal high levels of estrogen. Within each race women are 10% ligher than men, and dark men are more masculine than light.

Vol-in-Law said...

I think it's important not to ignore the possibility that white women like black men more than black women like white men. After all, most men will sleep with almost anyone; as Darwin pointed out, it's the females who are choosy.

Anonymous said...

You are very ignorant and stupid as hell if you really believe white women are more beautiful than Black women. I guess thats probably why white women run to the tanning salons and try to get their hair braided all the time.
Get your facts straight!

Tyler S. Bass said...

From my readings about slavery, there was a fair amount of sexual contact between slave owners and slave women. "African-American" is the jargon for describing the yellow tones present when Europeans and Africans started mixing in America.

Look at modern Sub-Saharan Africans today: much, much darker. As far as I am concerned, as an American living in Richmond, Va., there is certainly nothing resembling colorblindness; however, there are people who could choose based on physiological appearance alone to enter cliques largely composed of whites or blacks.

That said, in pornography, there appears to be a larger preference for white women in general, but this may reflect the computer owning population on the English-speaking web (Again, we can alude to how people generally desire to mate with those who resemble them.) I am a long-time viewer of pornography, and aggregators tend to put blondes at the top. (I tend to prefer brunettes, and prefer blacks to Asians for whatever reason.)

The "black," "white," "Asian," "Hispanic" titles are becoming increasingly meaningless with time, however, as do most racial terms.

I would be very interested in hearing the evidence that black women exert intense social pressure not to be with white women. What would be the cause of such a thing?

Anonymous said...

Wow. I cannot believe the ignorance I have found on this page. Beautiful women come in all shapes, sizes, and races and have all differenct personality types. Nobody's personality or beauty is predetermined by their race. All relationships are unique, and black men may be attracted to white women for all different reasons. Several black men are attracted to black women. In true, loving, meaningful relationships, race is a non-issue. All people are beautiful regardless of race. The fact that you believe black men are attracted to white women because they are "skinny" "more beautiful" and "more feminine" shocks me. I am a young, straight white woman, and I find black AND white men to be beautiful. What is not attractive is the ignorance, racism, and utter stupidity I have found on this site.

Anonymous said...

"I think it's important not to ignore the possibility that white women like black men more than black women like white men. After all, most men will sleep with almost anyone; as Darwin pointed out, it's the females who are choosy."

I have to disagree with this. I think both men and women have particular likes and it's not so much that men will sleep with anybody.

Anonymous said...

To be honest, I think the racism goes both ways. I see a lot of white men who hate the idea of 'their' white women with black men. I also see a lot of black women who hate seeing a black man ('their' men)with white women. Both are racist, IMHO. I like seeing biracial couples. It is a sign that race is no longer an issue if people truly like- or are attracted to- each other.

Blode032222 said...

"I cannot believe the ignorance I have found on this page. Beautiful women come in all shapes, sizes, and races and have all differenct personality types."

Haha! Yes, anonymous, you're right that there are plenty of people who are "ignorant" of the "fact" that all of your opinions are correct.

Proofreader said...

When two ethnic groups meet they can roughly either:
a) ignore each other (a la Jim Crow)
b) cooperate and mix BOTH ways (South America)
c) clash (ethnic competition, not necessarily through war alone)

In the latter case, the dominant group usually tries to prevent the males from the other group from mating, by capturing or seducing their women.Think of the "Rape of the Sabine women".

If you reproduce with your own women as well as with those of the competing ethnic group, the genes of your rivals either die out or are subsumed by yours.
It's one of the more cheerful sides to ethnic cleansing.
Now, apply the above to the relationship between Blacks and Whites over the ages in the USA and draw your own conclusions.

If Blacks aren't really the dominant group today, their behaviour clearly tells a different story. Shades of Mencius Moldbug!