http://www.metroweekly.com/news/opinion/?ak=5613

Don't Ask, Just Tell: Sexual racism is at the core of what many gay men believe to be ''preferences''

By Daniel W.K. Lee
Published on September 23, 2010, 1:11am

Perhaps it was inevitable that the gay community's commitment to New Left principles would splinter as gays became more mainstream. Or, perhaps more specifically, became visible in mass media and a coveted consumer market. As a whole, we gays have come to take our politics for granted: no longer are we street protesters and meeting organizers. Instead, we do our activism through consumerism (buy this to support that) or use the internet as a gay rights echo chamber (tweet one's way to the ''activist'' moniker).

The gay political battlefield has never looked stranger than it does now with not just the usual Left forces and the Log Cabin Republicans, but also those stranger-than-strange gay Tea-Partiers and über-conservatives like those at GOProud, who openly embraced racial scapegoating, classism, patriarchy, war-mongering and Ann Coulter.

But gay conservatives aren't the only ones internalizing the racism, misogyny and militarism antithetical to our movement's New Left roots. The ''gay mainstream'' has done so as well, in two very different ways.

First, our fight against ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' would not have been of much interest to many of our political forefathers of the late '60s and early '70s. To them, DADT would have been a short-sighted battle for a right that supports militarism. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that serving openly will transform the military from its contempt for the feminine in men and the masculine in women.

Second, and perhaps more insidious, gay men have become unapologetic sexual racists, gender purists and enforcers of a gay male body culture on par with the oppressive beauty myth that women have endured for decades, as manifested in the phrase, ''No fats, no femmes, no Asians.'' We gay men have seen it, or used it (or a variation of it) in endless personal profiles, but nonetheless, the disqualifying mantra is the un-critical acceptance of racial, gender, and body-biases often rationalized with the subsequent phrase, ''Just a preference.''

But it isn't ''just a preference,'' because why one is attracted to what one is attracted to wasn't written into one's DNA. We come to our desires because of a profound socialization process. People are taught to value one thing over another throughout our early lives. When parents say things like, ''Boys don't cry,'' ''Good is in the light, and evil in the dark,'' or when you are habitually exposed to certain kinds of bodies deemed attractive, the messages a person receives from those cues are internalized.

A ''preference'' for ''straight-acting'' men is not like Athena bursting out of Zeus's brain: it emerges in part because of how you evaluated femininity and how you eroticize bodies and behaviors associated with masculinity. Likewise, racial preferences aren't in-born. They are formed and entangled with associations about gender, body-type and behaviors that have been racialized and evaluated.

I once challenged a guy who told me he wasn't into Asian men. I asked him why was that? He said was into beefier men. I pointed out there are many beefy Asian and Pacific Islander men. He then said he liked hairy men. Certainly, a bit more difficult to find, but there are hairier Asian men out there.

So why make a blanket disqualifying statement like ''I'm not attracted to Asian men'' based on racialized assumptions about Asian male bodies when his preference is actually toward hairy and beefy men? The absolute refusal to deconstruct those racial biases and to declare ''No Asians,'' ''No Blacks,'' or whomever is sexual racism, and so many gays looking for love or a hook up aren't even embarrassed about it.

''Gaysian'' men ourselves aren't impervious to the self-contempt that would allow us also write, ''No Asians. I'm not sticky,'' on our profiles. I have heard gay Asian men express total mortification to the idea of dating or having sex with another Asian man, declaring their exclusive desire for white men as ''just a preference.'' It's to our own detriment to not question why one has dismissed entire racial groups from romantic and sexual possibilities. We gaysians cannot bemoan our exclusion from the territories of ''hot gayness'' if we practice the same kinds of sexual-racial exclusions.

Our sexuality and our sexual desires are not static. Someone who claims to only be into ''butch'' men could very well find himself unbearably attracted to a more effeminate man. Perhaps not as feasible, but not impossible. And that's the point: it isn't impossible, so why go shutting out the possibilities with inane disqualifiers?

This is a call to re-align our politics and our personal lives. It's hypocritical to say one is against racial or gender discrimination meanwhile your Manhunt profile says, ''Be a man. If I wanted to be with a woman, I'd be with a real woman,'' or ''No Black men. Just a preference.'' If you're an unabashed racist, a femininity-hater, or a body fascist, then be my guest and declare all your prohibitions. Just don't be shocked if you're called out for being an asshole.

Daniel W.K. Lee is a New York City-based poet, sex/relationship advice columnist at EmandLo.com, and blogger & editor of daniel extra at www.danielextra.net. Send him love letters and/or hate mail may be sent to daniel@danielextra.net or follow via Twitter @danielesaudade.

Don't Miss These Related Articles:

Battles Ahead: The end of DADT in September was celebrated, but Capt. Steve Hill's autumn sums up ongoing questions

Court Rejects LCR Rehearing: DADT lawsuit appeal rejected, Log Cabin to decide on appeal to Supreme Court

Frank Kameny Wins: Legendary activist leaves behind a world that's not perfect, but better for us all because of his accomplishments

Barack Obama's speech at HRC's National Dinner 2011 [video]: The President spoke for the second time about LGBT issues and accomplishments at the Human Rights Campaign's annual fundraiser

Memory Lanes: It's clichéd but true that understanding the past is the most important tool for reaching the future

A Mission Accomplished: The long-awaited end of DADT is a moment for celebration, as well as contemplation of where the
LGBT community goes next

The Caucus Awaits: Next week, Iowa's GOP voters give the country its first contest of the 2012 primary campaign

Log Cabin or GOProud? Who best represents LGBT conservatives?: Take our poll and then enter to win free movie passes!

An Outing – Or Not: GOProud's attack on Rick Perry's pollster led Andrew Breitbart to resign from the group, but underlying questions remain unanswered

Snark on a Sinking Ship: Amid the debt debate, the tea party its and gay allies are more insults than sound ideas

Gay New World: From Cairo to conservatives, the future is unfolding

GOProud's CPAC Splash: With friends like these, one wonders where LGBT conservatism is heading

Good article Rudeboy and thanks for posting this. I was reading on an U.S. based forum about sexual racism and it was interesting to read that a lot of attitudes are being challenged in the U.S. on this issue in the gay community and the various perspectives from African-American, Latin and Asian men on sexual racism, inverted racism and exotification. It really does impact the individual more than people care to realise.

One of the best pieces of advice which was given on the thread is that if a person is interested in your race or ethnicity that's not a person you should be associating with. At the end of the day you like the person for the person and their cultural and ethnic background is a part of the rich tapestry of who they are.

Yes we all have features we like in men, as most know on SameSame I'm a sucker for guys of mixed backgrounds or tanned olive complexion. Yet that doesn't prevent me from finding guys (and people) of all backgrounds attractive nor would that be the sole reason for me finding them attractive. It's how I connect with the individual is the most important thing.

Your perceptions about body image, what you find attractive in terms of look may vary over time as you age, mature and travel or meet new people. I don't necessarily believe 'race' exists, anyway. There are just certain people with different physical traits from varying places in the world. If you believe that 'races' exist then you have the power to be racist. I don't believe in sexual racism because I fail to understand the official concept of 'race'.

I'm not racist or even a sexual racist it's just that I know what I like. Find me a 6'4" Asian bear with more hair on his body than badamj has hair in his arse crack (difficult but not impossible) and I'll prove it.


Oh, and guys in dresses don't get me hard either. I guess I need to be taken out and shot.

First of all;

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrAsh

I was reading on a U.S. based forum about sexual racism...

At many points I have discussed with people I know, both gay and straight, how jaded gay people are. Preferences take a front seat because that's how people have come to believe what they are interested in.
I am the first person to admit what I think I like in a person is not necessarily who I am attracted to.
I have had relationships in the past, all good too, where I have been the top, the bottom, shared the load, with people very different not only from eachother, but also quite different from me, but then again, have also been with people very similar to myself.

Anyone who I speak to who either I have an interest in, or has an interest in me, will lose my attention immediately if they rest on these 'preferences'. It's a cop out for not being able to truly give yourself as a person to a partner.

This article is straight out of the 90s.

We've had this discussion numerous times in our community, as well as on this forum.

Being solely attracted to asian men, or black men, or european men, does not make anyone a racist.

Just like being attracted solely to one gender (in my case male), does not make one a sexist.

A much shorter article would've just gotten to the point that it's better to state your preference in a positive way. Ie. instead of "no asians", state "I prefer caucasian men", instead of "no femmes", state "I'm attracted to masculine men".

No one needs to feel guilty about who they are attracted to. The heterosexist world has put us through enough of that already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doolander

I am the first person to admit what I think I like in a person is not necessarily who I am attracted to.

Some people however are very sure about what and who they are attracted to.

For me there was never any confusion that I was attracted to men. For me there was none of that drama about whether I am gay or not. I always knew what I was attracted to.

Even as a child I showed distinct behaviours that made it obvious to others what my attractions were. My father commented about how i interacted with older males in my family even as a toddler.

For me my sexuality is innate. If its not genetic, then it was formed in utero, because at 18 month old does not have that much socialisation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asherbella

don't believe in sexual racism because I fail to understand the official concept of 'race'.

Think of it as breeds. just like dogs have various breeds but are all of the same species, homo sapiens also have different breeds which have different physical characteristics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrAsh

I was reading on an U.S. based forum about sexual racism and it was interesting to read that a lot of attitudes are being challenged in the U.S. on this issue in the gay community and the various perspectives from African-American, Latin and Asian men on sexual racism, inverted racism and exotification.

I went along to the Queer Thinking forum on this issue during last year's Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras Festival which had a forum on this topic.

One of the academic presenters contrasted how asian men are seen as submissive but that african american men "owned' the thug persona and that made them more powerful. All these porn sites have popped up over the years where african american men are portraying themselves as powerful by playing up the "thug" stereotype.

This academic somehow thought that placing oneself as a Top made african american men more powerful, but somehow asian men owning the submissive stereotype somehow doesn't make them powerful. I don't understand that idea unless you believe that being a bottom is not powerful. My personal experience with bottoms is that they almost always hold the power, they just don't need to do it in a dominating way.

That particular presenter also had a problem with the fact that Grindr and all those other man finding apps are presented in rows and columns and that this format made it look too much like a catalogue. I think he lost me at that, because it seemed such a petty thing to critisize. It reminded me of those annoying university activists who take exception to every single little thing. Even where punctuation is placed in a sentence because it's apparently oppressing someone.

Thankfully the last presenter at that forum was much more balanced and made the comment that if an older caucasian and a younger asian male couple are happy, who are we to tell them that they are not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazzarus

Oh, and guys in dresses don't get me hard either.

I think the "femme/butch" discussion is quite related to the transgender/drag queen discussion happening on the other thread.

the important discussion questions would be about where the line between an effiminate man and a trangendered woman lies, and following that, where the line between being a homosexual man attracted to men and being a bisexual man being attracted to feminity lie.

at some point along the scale a gay man who is attracted to effiminate men would have to consider themselves bisexual, even if the genetalia of the people they are attracted to are still male.

We are all individuals first.
You can't really say there are 'breeds' of human beings. That is convoluted.
There are skin tones, facial features, body types, differing hair distribution and/or volume.
There are bi-racial people. There's half Filipino/half Spanish; half Chinese half Indonesian. The combinations are endless.
I think there is classism especially within the gay community. Alpha gays versus westie gays versus the socio-economic/cultural issues that are more prominent. If you're Chinese; you're reserved; if you're Lebanese you're a troublemaker; if you're Maori you're rough and butch; if you're 'white' you're priveliged and wanna fake tan to attract the Meditteranean guys/girls you like.
It seems like we want a carbon copy of ourselves or the absolute opposite physically or culturally.
Seems like we want the same or exotica.
No. I don't think sexual racism exists. It's a construct.
You gravitate those you like regardless.
Only the superficial go for a ceertain 'type'.
On some level we have a subconcious checklist of FEATURES we find attractive.
....but physical traits are not people, though.
We have relationships with people; not feautures.

You know, I'd like to talk about culturalism.
Turkish gay men who don't like Armenian guys.
Closeted Muslim guys who secretly date Christian guys.
Sudanese lesbians who like Asian women.
Colombian women who only date Spanish speaking women.
White guys who are too ashamed to introduce their Asian boyfriend to their wider circle of friends.
Jewish guys who won't go out with any men who are not circumsized.
Greek gay men who dislike Macedonian men because the Alexander the Great debate about his nationality.
The Asian guy who refuses to date other Asian men because they don't go to the same gym or earn enough money.
The white guys who won't take a boyfriend who doesn't have a car.
This is far more interesting, relevant and real.
Is there such a thing as cultural sexism?
If someone doesn't find you attractive:
(a) Where are you going to meet them?
(b) Why are you wasting your energy trying?
(c) Are you looking for a relationship?
(d) How sensitive are you or open to dating differing people that are not like you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asherbella

We have relationships with people; not feautures.

so r u saying that someone who has a vagina won't affect what kind of relationship you'll have with them?

i use that as an example as that is where it's more obvious.

but there are other examples.

If someone has a hearing impairment and you are really into music, that'll affect the kind of relationship you'll have with them.

What about someone who loves watersports (the outdoor kind - jet skiing, paragliding, swimming etc). someone who is physically impaired and cant take part in those activities will have a different relationship with you than with someone who can.

What about people who can't tolerate the cold? If you love living in cold climates, then your relationship with them will be very much affected.

People forget that we are physical beings - people like to think that we are evolved creatures who just use reason all the time.

Well we aren't.

We are just animals. There is no divine inspiration within us. We have evolved from the same creatures that you might keep as a pet (and not that long ago in the grand scheme of things either!)

there ARE "breeds" of people. we just don't call it that because people find it offensive to be compared to a dog.

but there are definately genetic and physical characteristics that are particular to certain breeds of human.

Bone density, muscle mass, weight distribution, etc etc. all obvious when you watch the olympics and certain breeds of human beings dominating particular sports that require certain physical characteristics.

You shouldn't be ashamed of being attracted to certain kinds of physical characteristics just so long as you aren't rude to those who don't have the characteristics you are after in a partner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asherbella

You know, I'd like to talk about culturalism.

yes let's talk about culturalism - which is really what most racism is actually about.

Culture is about what people value and thus how they behave.

If a person holds modesty as a value, then they probably won't get along with someone who value exhibitionism. Both these 2 values/ideals can be found in one culture and not in another. Some cultures value modesty, being humble, not making a spectacle of yourself, and other cultures value being loud and greagarious.

Now it is racism if you come from a modest culture to find people from the loud greagarious culture to be unattractive?

After all they don't hold the same values you do.

What about the individualism/collectivism spectrum. If your culture values individualism and privacy, then is it racist for you to not be attracted to someone from a collectivist culture? I see this particular example played out in saunas all the time. People who go to saunas to have discreet sex with someone, are not going to be attracted to someone who is sitting in the corner gossiping with their friends. The discreet person wants to have sex without it being broadcast to the world. Obviously if he has sex with the guy who is there with all his friends, there is every possibility that their encounter will be relayed back to the group once it's over. Hardly the ideal situation for the person who wants some discretion and privacy. Now is it racist to not want to have sex with that cultural group because you don't want your personal encounter broadcast to others? It's got nothing to do with race. It's got to do with behaviour. and alot of our behaviours are heavily influenced by the culture we grew up in.

Not talking about gender but facial features, body shape, hairiness; cultural aspects to genitalia (uncut/cut because of culture or female genital mutilation in some African/Middle Eastern cultures).
By the way, Beethoven was deaf.
Geographical aspects of land effect performance at the Olympic Games.
Australia is surrounded by water, most of us live in coastal areas. We are a wealthy nation. Multicultural. Of course we are going to produce good swimmers. We even have a world champion now at darts. So what?
African/Saharan countries are inland desert areas bordered to other nations who experience draught or haven't the money to build Olympic sized pools. Some African countries can't afford to fill Olympic sized swimming pools with water let alone build them. Some Africans only bathe once per month....nothing to do with the way they look. I understand what you have written but my point is if you like someone enough and enjoy their company their physical features become secondary. Sure there's chemistry being a large component to attraction; but if you're in a third world country where you'll be stoned for being gay; don't you think that is far weightier a topic than a 'no Asians' disclosure written on a Gaydar profile?
Again: if someone doesn't find you sexually/romantically attractive; move on to someone who does - regardless of what 'race' or 'breed' you are. Gee whizz. It's a no brainer!
I don't believe in the official definition of 'race'. There are people with definable traits from certain geographical areas of the world.

Oh what a load of Donkey rape!

People are attracted to different appearances.

I am only attracted to Caucasian men, period.

This is another thread for the Socialist PC agenda to be spread like a cancerous tumour. Well this is one poofter who doesn't swallow this crap.

Quite frankly if I could, I would have every Socialist sent to an extermination camp.

If you like someone enough there is a thing called 'conversation' and 'boundaries' and 'compromise' and 'respect' and 'being open to falling in love' - regardless of what nationality or 'race' you are. We are all human. Penguins and baboons don't hold discussions about sexual racism, do they? You can't force someone to be attracted to you - and politisizing attraction is so unattractive.It's a turn off. It's self-defeating. Throwing a temper tantrum because some 'white' or 'latino' or 'asian' guy in a club politely turns you down won't exactly endear yourself to him, will it? Nobody can mind-read, ffs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazzboy

Oh what a load of Donkey rape!

People are attracted to different appearances.

I am only attracted to Caucasian men, period.

This is another thread for the Socialist PC agenda to be spread like a cancerous tumour. Well this is one poofter who doesn't swallow this crap.

Quite frankly if I could, I would have every Socialist sent to an extermination camp.

You come across as mentally unstable.

punxsutawney phil may have just popped his head outta the hole, but it seems pretty obvious what the article is saying, and it appears to have ruffled only the feathers of those that believe they deserve the right to generalise based on race or culture.

racism and the forms of cultural or sexual exclusion outlined in the original article are being questioned as there are always exceptions to every generalisation.

so shazzboy (surprise) and jaytee (shocked face) you're missing the point completely when you stomp your feet and insist if you don't like something about your perception of some people within that culture, that you should be allowed to write-off every individual you may meet whom you rightly or wrongly perceive to be belonging to said culture/race, etc.

regardless of what you have found attractive so far, you don't know who or what you may fall for or actually have a strong and loving bond with in the future. considering the repulsiveness of your personalities, i really don't think either of you should be cutting off your options, imho.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asherbella

Geographical aspects of land effect performance at the Olympic Games.
African/Saharan countries are inland desert areas bordered to other nations who experience draught or haven't the money to build Olympic sized pools.

so how come there aren't world class competitive swimmers of African descent from the US where they do have Olympic sized swimming pools?

Is it a coincdence that descedants from west africa dominate short distance athletic events whilst east Africans dominate long distance athletics?

All this points to breeds of humans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by punxsutawney phil

punxsutawney phil may have just popped his head outta the hole, but it seems pretty obvious what the article is saying,

It's saying what has been said lots of times before. Like that whole campaign in the 90s.

And this version didn't say it very well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by punxsutawney phil

and it appears to have ruffled only the feathers of those that believe they deserve the right to generalise based on race or culture.

Not to mention that it hasn't engaged most people, (because it is long winded and boring) therefore won't affect enough people to make a difference.

University activists have a way of alienating the majority which makes any effort they put into a good cause a waste of time.

The nasty people with "no femmes, fats or Asians" will continue to be that way because this article doesn't make it's point effectively.

So job well done on the pompous university activist who has only managed to preach to the choir!
I wonder if their wardrobe is still stuck in the 90s as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by punxsutawney phil

so shazzboy (surprise) and jaytee (shocked face) you're missing the point completely when you stomp your feet and insist if you don't like something about your perception of some people within that culture, that you should be allowed to write-off every individual you may meet whom you rightly or wrongly perceive to be belonging to said culture/race, etc.

Ironically you've got me completely wrong as I am a complete slut and am genuinely attracted to most men (yes I'm sexist like that).

But thanks for the free unbiased personality assessment. Say hi to Vlad for me.

lucky phil doesn't get you at all, he only makes his assessment of yourself based on your views as expressed here. as a non-sexist, non-racist, open-minded mammal, phil does tend to find bigots repulsive.

while a big fan of devil's advocacy, phil can't help but notice you raise the same perspectives so often you can't blame others for interpreting those maligned views as your own. reap what you sow, stroppy-trousers.

Another academic argument that has failed to engage the masses.

Why would you want someone who you regard as racist to find you sexually attractive, anyway?

Why be the object of affection for the 'enemy'?

I don't understand this reasoning.

Why try to convince someone you're attractive when they don't? Does that really come from a place of self-respect?

Couldn't get past the second paragraph.

Ohwell, their loss.

Is it possible to be thoughtful and entertaining?

There's too many men and not enough time. Gotta trim down thr list somehow...

Just visit the bars where your bodytype is liked. Problem solved.

So if some people believe that they were born attracted to one specific race for example, Caucasians - then is it possible that some people were born to hate specific races as well (if the argument is attraction is biological then hatred/repulsiveness should be biological as well right?)?

And if such people who were born to hate a specific racial group - then no amount of awareness or education can be done to reduce this hatred since it's biological - then we can't really blame people for being racists - they were born this way?

Am I right?

If it's not - can someone explain why not?