Can we be tolerant, please?

[Alcibiades]

You can simplify it that far, but that doesn't mean it's as complex as it gets. Being gay is a chemical state. It's pure nature. A fetish is based on personality, and personality is not pure nature, there's a lot of nurture in it.

If you're using the terms 'Nature' and 'nurture' in the classical way of inherited (genetical) factors vs environmental factors, you're way off.

There's strong evidence for biochemical differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Whether or not that's the cause of an inherited or environmental factor is undetermined.

There's some evidence for the existence of certain genetical factors, but it's still fairly controversial. And even if it wasn't, it would not mean sexuality is pure nature. There's no reason to think there's not an important environmental factor at play.

More importantly, I think Nature vs. Nurture isn't even all that relevant for the discussion at hand. 'Nurture' is, for the most part, determined by the early formative years of our personalities. What environment we grow up in is not really any more in our control than the parents we're born to. Whether being gay is a result of inherited factors or environmental ones doesn't change that's who this person is and that it is not their choice.

[Liquor Box]

It is progress when everyone self-analyzes their preferences and biases on a regular basis, whatever they are. I submit this as self-evident, by the definition of "social progress".

I do agree with this to some extent, but in the context of sexual preference it has to be a personal thing. I don't agree that outside pressure to "self-analyze" is a good thing in any context except harmful ones.

[Crow]

The problem you have with Jon doesn't come from liking brasilians, but there are plenty of us who do find problem in that fact exactly.
I am incredibly uncomfortable with your frequent insistence that people facing social consequences (which amounts SOLELY to being "called out") for public confessions of racism, homphobia, sexism, etc is "tyrannical"
People have a right to state their opinions, but it does not prevent them from facing the consequences.

Good, I am happy you are uncomfortable. Because that is exactly how you should feel when you make a serious accusation (in this case racism) against somebody, and somebody calls you out on it. Social consequences for public racism, sexism, or homophobia can be fine, if they are founded. Consequences such as accusations of racism for just happening to be attracted to people of a certain nationality are not.

Jon fetishizes Brasilian women. This is a fact.

Thanks for that clarification.

It makes several of us judgemental, because it's a fetish with a racial/ethnic component

This doesn't matter by itself.

a point which is commonly characterized as a micro-aggression, because it shapes your opinion on someone based on a grouping they cannot prevent, rather than the kind of person they are.

So if you had blonde hair (a condition you cannot prevent), and I found your blonde hair to be very attractive, this qualifies as a micro-aggression? I don't think what you are saying is what Jon is doing. For crap sake he stated himself that he loves how you can take a large sample of brasilian women and find that they have very little in common. He likes their diversity.

Jon is free to have this bias, but to publicly speak about it is to open himself up to criticism.

Even unfounded criticism.

Whether or not he wants to take anything from that criticism is up to him, but if he doesn't want the criticism, maybe he should go to a more like-minded group of people to discuss the issues he continually puts himself into, rather than a group of people who have already established they do not appreciate the consistent talk of his fetishistic view of Brasilian women, to the exclusion of anything else.

Agreed. I think Jon mistook this community for a place where he could discuss his fetish; probably due to how everyone here bends over backwards to be accepting of other peoples' preferences.

Everyone has preferences-- but like idealizations of a perfect significant other, we know that some of those preferences may give way in the face of love. Who you fall in love with might have crooked teeth, or hair styled in a way different than you normally like, or may not be Brasilian, but you've fallen in love and suddenly those things don't seem important.

Yeah, that's true. Jon hasn't met that person though. Maybe he will someday, and he will look back on his fetish as silly. Or maybe not.

To me, everything about Jon_Dahl's continued problems strikes me as wrong. Everything you mentioned, Crow, plus the fetishization of Brasilian women, the way he treats all these women...
All of it.

Yeah, there's a lot wrong with it. I'll be the first to admit that. He's not a racist though.

And I honestly think it's gone to the point of ridiculousness that Jon_Dahl has become a Playgrounder meme unto himself.

I agree. I know that whenever Jon posts in RWA I am in for a read filled with tragic, wacky, and sad dating hijinks.


edit: Oh and by the way, I'm done with this thread as well. If anybody has any further bone to pick with me, feel free to PM. Good luck Jon; I hope you've learned a valuable lesson here.

[Bohandas]

So your problem with Jon Dahl is that his sexual preference is discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity? Do you also have a problem with the majority of the population whose sexual preference is discriminatory on the basis of gender (everyone who is not bi)?

That is an extremely good point. I was about to bring that up myself.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Whatever. I don't really have any ability to argue about orientation vs fetishes, and judging from Alice's post that isn't even the real problem. I just wish I could stop seeing this thread on the main page.

[golentan]

There's a difference between a preference for a trait (For example, I like the way asian folks look because epicanthal folds are sexy to me) and associating that trait with unrelated issues (For example, cultural stereotypes) and again a gulf of difference between treating a physical trait as an emotional requirement (I will only date people of X ethnicity because they are Y emotionally and I need that).

If you don't see the point where this is going from a preference to playing into the objectification of people who should be partners, and the way it plays into the whole Madonna/Whore complex where the moment people slip from this unattainable ideal... plastic cutout of a person they...

I dunno what to say at this point. I really don't.

Like, as a person with some pretty clear fetishes of my own, this goes beyond the realm of attraction and into objectification.

And the crazy thing is, this isn't even a topic I had an opinion on until it was protested that people have opinions. I have learned about this argument as a result of morbid curiosity after this thread caught my eye.

...

I too, am out. There's no productive discussion to be had here that I can see, certainly not without going way more into real world politics than I already have.

[Serpentine]

As someone pointed out earlier, it isn't his preference for Brasilians which is the problem. It is his insistence on long distance relationships with multiple women at one time; yet for some reason people latch onto his love of brasilians as some potentially racist motivation.

A cursory skim of this thread reveals that for the most part this isn't true at all, and in fact the situation is the opposite. With only one or two exceptions (who have themselves not even come close to just saying "Jon is racist because he has a preference for Brazilian women", but have rather gone into great detail about the background, both with Jon and more generally, that causes them to consider it an issue), multiple people have repeatedly explained clearly, explicitly and in great detail how it is the language he uses when he talks about Brazilian and other women, how he treats Brazilian and other women, and his constantly repeated pattern of behaviour that keeps on hurting both himself and the objects of his desire over and over again in blind pursuit of his "preference l" at the exclusion of all else, including his own happiness. It is largely only Jon and people such as yourself who are insisting on reducing the whole issue to just him having a thing for Brazilian women, as seen in Jon's first post and in the posts in defence of his misrepresentation of the situation.

To offer another analogy, I, myself, have a thing for skinny, pretty, nerdy boys. That, in itself, is fine, just as Jon having a thing for Brazilians is fine. But if I were to talk about skinny, pretty nerd boys like Jon talks about Brazilian women, and if I described treating them as Jon does - about having multiple "candidates" lined up according to qualities such as "submissiveness" that offer no insight into their personalities, interests or anything that indicates they're an independent human being with motivations and value outside of pleasing me, talking about which one I will "keep", telling multiple people I love them when I'm still picking which one to pursue, etc - just as many people would, quite rightly, be just as quick - and in some cases a lot less patient and polite - to call me out on my behaviour, my attitude, and, yes, my obsession with that "preference".

[2D8HP]

IJUST LIKE people stopping me on the street to yell at me for not liking sports, or sending me to a re-education camp to learn to play volleyball.

"Volleyball re-education camps"??!!

That truly sounds dystopian!

Iit's a common stereotype in the US (as is guys complaining that Western women are too cold

He lives in Finland!
So from what I've learned of Finland:
1) Reindeer (cousins to the North American Caribou) roam there.
2) They can out drink Russians (at least according to a couple of my coworkers who grew up in the Soviet Union).
3) They like saunas.
From these "facts" I believe it's safe to infer that Finnish women are indeed cold, because everyone who is not drinking in a sauna is cold, especially the ones herding Reindeer!
While useless, since long-distance psychoanalysis is just so much fun, my diagnosis is that if he just would move somewhere warm (Spain and southern California come to mind), he wouldn't desire Brazil and Brazilians so much.
For my fee he should tell us what Finland is really like.

[Bohandas]

I think your problem is that, despite how the argument has been posed, on some level many of you see this comparison as a denigration or vilification of homosexuals. This is not the case. So called "fetishes" are every bit as inconsequential as preference for men or women. If you had wisdom you would see that your values and norms are a meaningless attachment and an illusion.

[Lethologica]

So your problem with Jon Dahl is that his sexual preference is discriminatory on the basis of ethnicity?

No, RabbitHoleLost explicitly stated several other aspects of their "problem" with Jon. I happen to agree with you that liking Brazilians is not in itself an issue.

I think your problem is that, despite how the argument has been posed, on some level many of you see this comparison as a denigration or vilification of homosexuals. This is not the case. So called "fetishes" are every bit as inconsequential as preference for men or women. If you had wisdom you would see that your values and norms are a meaningless attachment and an illusion.

I'm glad we've descended to "Your disagreement with me is the product of your personal failings" and "values are an illusion" as arguments. Even when I agree with y'all, you make it really hard to agree with you.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread closed for review.