Inter-racial attraction

[bELyVIS]

Originally Posted by MMM

Both of you stop. Now.

OK, I'm done.

[ozkai]

Difference is always good on all sides..

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by bELyVIS

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and your sinks.
I think you are unsuccessful with all women so you take your aggravation out here. Try men, maybe they'll like you (probably not). Oh, and it's perceive, I before e except after c, King Genius.

You couldn't be more wrong. And big deal. I made a typo.

OK I'm done now.

[ozkai]

Like I said, difference is always GOOD or at least a change..

Inter racial attraction... Living in a multi cultural country, how could one help it.

I have a Greek Friend who just married a Chinese Girl!

On the other hand, go to a Chinese restaurnat, and the place s often filled with Jewish people.

Go to a Jewish restaurnat and you won't see a Chinese in sight!

Smae applies to other's in the cuisine category..

[Barone1551]

So back on topic. Personally I wont rule out that people like people because the image they see brings up stereotypes about this person (good or bad). Some guys may like Asians because they think they are nicer or less dominant. This happens and I wont deny that. But I find it hard to believe that you can think someone is good looking without creating a stereotype. Sometimes you cant quite figure out why you think someone is good looking. They just are to you.

[mercedesjin]

Originally Posted by bELyVIS

1. Yes, it's an honorary title.
2.No, but Hawaii is different and it's a state. Are you claiming there is no difference?
3.Yes, I am a counselor.
4.Someone needs to be the last word.

For someone with all the answers you sure have a lot of questions.

Uuuuugh. You're not making any seeeeeense. If it's an honorary title, then why does it exist? Why were you previously going on about how it's a traditional role to have men have this "honorary title" and still have more power? Why - IN THIS SAME POST - are you saying that someone needs to have the last word, and then say you believe in 50-50 relationships?

Hawaii is different, yes. Texas is also different. So is New York, and California. The US of A is a mix of cultures. To say that my culture makes me different from you, and you apparent ideal USA culture, is a little... well, ignorant.

... You're a counselor. So? I seriously can't make the connection. Is there a requirement of counselors to read modern-day discourses on sexuality?

EDIT: Actually, let me go into a little more detail about different cultures.

Being from the USVI makes me different from you. That's definitely true. However, you've suggested that my culture makes me so different from you that I can't imagine what it's like to be an American. I'm an American citizen. My experiences as a West Indian is American. You have, in effect, said that my culture either DOES NOT COUNT as an American experience or that there is an ideal American culture - what it is, I don't know - that I somehow DO NOT FIT. I'll say it again: that's ignorant. Very, very ignorant.

I've had enough of being a second-class citizen of the USA. I definitely don't need to experience BS ignorance on my culture and my heritage on some Internet forum too.

[mercedesjin]

Originally Posted by Barone1551

cool thanks

So just to be clear, Any one who is not Bi sexual is then sexist?

Sorry, I didn't see this again. I don't know how I keep missing your posts. :/

But no, not really. THIS is really what I meant: Frye, Marilyn (1941&#x2013 | Encyclopedia of Philosophy Summary

This is specifically what I was talking aboutfrom the above article)

Frye's book The Politics of Reality (1983) begins with one of her most important and most often reprinted essays: "Oppression." In this essay she seeks to clarify the term "oppression" and how women can be said to be oppressed. Oppression, on her analysis, is a network of (often microscopic) forces that bind and confine certain social groups within a defined place so as to benefit a privileged social group. She analogizes oppression to a birdcage, which is macroscopic and visible, even though each of the wires of the cage is itself small and seemingly inconsequential in itself. Frye describes two characteristic features of women's oppression. First, women hold positions that simultaneously make them responsible yet powerless to effect decisions to carry out their responsibilities successfully. Second, women internalize and self-police their limitations and restrictions. While men also face social restrictions (e.g., they cannot cry in front of other men), their restrictions are a part of a system that oppresses women and privileges men. In her essay "Sexism," Frye defines "sexism" as an institutional term characterizing social structures that "create and enforce the elaborate and rigid patterns of sex-marking and sex-announcing which divide the species, along the line of sex, into dominators and subordinates" (1983, p. 38). She uses the term "male-chauvinism" to describe the personal relations that men engage in as dominators with women as subordinates. Most of the essays of the book are devoted to illuminating the social and personal relations that serve to oppress women.

In her writings, Frye illuminates the oppression of sexual minorities by heterosexuals and the oppression of minority races, and she connects these to the project of feminism. In two essays in her first book and in the majority of the essays of her book Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism (1992), Frye takes up the theme of heterosexism as manifested in feminism and society at large. She carefully describes and analyzes the myriad ways in which heterosexuality is taken to be normative. In her essay "Willful Virgin, or Do You Have to Be a Lesbian to Be a Feminist," Frye argues, "The central constitutive dynamic and key mechanism of the global phenomenon of male domination, oppression and exploitation of females is near-universal female heterosexuality" (1992, p. 129). By the term "female heterosexism" she refers not to a preference to engage in heterosexual sex, but rather to the worship of men and maleness that heterosexuality has traditionally required of women. That is, sexism exists because most women willingly tolerate being subordinate to and serving men. Furthermore, because women are subordinate to "their" men, they often comply with whatever other oppression their men perpetrate, such as racism, classism, and ethnic oppression. Thus, not participating in the patriarchal institution of female heterosexuality is an important kind of resistance to oppression generally.

[MMM]

By the term "female heterosexism" she refers not to a preference to engage in heterosexual sex, but rather to the worship of men and maleness that heterosexuality has traditionally required of women.

So according to Frye, straight women are sexists, or are at least willing participants in the male oppression of women.

I find this man-hating drivel nearly vomit-inducing. It sounds like Frye needs to go outside and spend 10 minutes in reality before writing another essay.

[xYinniex]

That is, sexism exists because most women willingly tolerate being subordinate to and serving men. Furthermore, because women are subordinate to "their" men, they often comply with whatever other oppression their men perpetrate, such as racism, classism, and ethnic oppression.

EPIC FAIL.
Blaming women of the main problems in the world, yet she's exempt from it.
I thought feminism was female empowerment, not putting down other women in the process.

man-hating literature is great to study but as a female, I don't actually feel it's necessary to follow. It's great to be aware of the social difference, but to make it into something out of proportion is unnecessary.

[bELyVIS]

Originally Posted by mercedesjin

Uuuuugh. You're not making any seeeeeense. If it's an honorary title, then why does it exist? Why were you previously going on about how it's a traditional role to have men have this "honorary title" and still have more power? Why - IN THIS SAME POST - are you saying that someone needs to have the last word, and then say you believe in 50-50 relationships?

Hawaii is different, yes. Texas is also different. So is New York, and California. The US of A is a mix of cultures. To say that my culture makes me different from you, and you apparent ideal USA culture, is a little... well, ignorant.

... You're a counselor. So? I seriously can't make the connection. Is there a requirement of counselors to read modern-day discourses on sexuality?

EDIT: Actually, let me go into a little more detail about different cultures.

Being from the USVI makes me different from you. That's definitely true. However, you've suggested that my culture makes me so different from you that I can't imagine what it's like to be an American. I'm an American citizen. My experiences as a West Indian is American. You have, in effect, said that my culture either DOES NOT COUNT as an American experience or that there is an ideal American culture - what it is, I don't know - that I somehow DO NOT FIT. I'll say it again: that's ignorant. Very, very ignorant.

I've had enough of being a second-class citizen of the USA. I definitely don't need to experience BS ignorance on my culture and my heritage on some Internet forum too.

I wasn't going to answer any more of your questions, because you won't change my opinion and I won't change yours (if you are happy with it I wouldn't want to).
As I see it, you are a black female, with a sexual idenity crisis who is very angry. Get over it. As far as being a second class anything, you and you alone are responsible for allowing yourself to feel that way.