| quote: |
Originally posted by Domesticated
Why do you say that? Do you believe media really controls our perceptions of each other that much? |
Yes and no.
Firstly, I'm not talking exclusively about the media, but about the cultural discourse as a whole. In this thread (which is hardly a representative, but anyway), it's hardly a coincidence that an Australian thinks black girls have perky arses, while North Americans in jest talk about "Shaniquas" and girls that "read Jet magazine while eating fried chicken and getting [their] nails done while chewing some 5 hour old bubble gum and start calling everyone 'girlllllllll'". I'm not North American and even
I know this stereotype: can that be a coincidence? Many a true word is spoken in jest, and it may well be a sign that there's something wrong with their PR campaign
In that sense, I truly think that social meaning plays an active role in attraction. For example, as you can see on the right, there were products to help you
gain weight in the end of the 19
th century, and that was sure commercialised in order to satisfy a social demand. It's no secret that society plays a role in what is to be considered attractive and what isn't: if you take a look at some paintings from the Renaissance, you can see that women were almost always portrayed with charming love handles. When was the last time you opened a magazine and saw a chubby model?
As you can see, you can not help but recognise that there is a certain influence regarding what is to be considered attractive to any society, and these values are quite often arbitrary. For example, why the hell do the Japanese even care about
double eyelids? She looked better before applying that damn thing! If that's not social, and with the sole intent of mimicking the shape of the eyes of pretty much everyone else in the world, then the next paragraph shouldn't make sense.
The fact is that we're rarely exposed to beauty that doesn't conform to what I'd call "European". That's not just because Whites (Hispanic or otherwise) are a majority in developed countries, but because we still haven't welcomed other peoples aesthetically, so to speak. Why do Americans have expressions like "jungle fever" and "yellow fever", for example, and nothing like "white cracka fever"? I almost feel that being attracted to white people is considered to be the norm (reason why white males fared so well) even if you're not white. That's what our culture oozes, and the consequences are sometimes
quite funny. Anyway, take a look at Slylee's "Hot" thread to see what I mean.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be so absolute as to deny the possibility of an underlying biological bias towards fair-skinned women. "
Fair Women, Dark Men", written by an anthropologist at Université Laval in Quebec named Peter Frost seems to have an argument in favour of a less cultural interpretation. In the foreword, U. of Washington sociologist Pierre L. van den Berghe states:
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.
Honestly, I know very little about this book, but I'm humble enough to know this may play an influence. And this maybe why black woman, rather than black man, are prejudiced against. However, should culture not play a role, white men wouldn't be so popular either. So there,
| quote: |
Originally posted by Domesticated
What about the fact that many white men just don't find black women attractive? |
Lack of exposure, plus other social implications. And, there may be the biological variable I posted above, but that's not a determinant factor.
