... |
... |
@@ -647,6 +647,287 @@ |
647 |
647 |
|
648 |
648 |
= Dating = |
649 |
649 |
|
|
650 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}} |
|
651 |
+**Source:** *Social Forces* |
|
652 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2016* |
|
653 |
+**Author(s):** *Stephanie M. Curington, Kevin K. Anderson, and Jennifer Glass* |
|
654 |
+**Title:** *"Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace: Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"* |
|
655 |
+**DOI:** [https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007](https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow007) |
|
656 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Race and Dating, Multiracial Identity, Online Behavior* |
|
657 |
+ |
|
658 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
659 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
660 |
+ - Data drawn from **over 1 million messaging records** from an online dating site. |
|
661 |
+ - Focused on how **monoracial users** (especially Whites) interact with **multiracial daters**. |
|
662 |
+ |
|
663 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
664 |
+ - **Multiracial Black/White and Asian/White women** received **fewer responses from White men** than their monoracial counterparts. |
|
665 |
+ - White daters showed **stronger preferences for monoracial identities**, particularly **own-race pairings**. |
|
666 |
+ |
|
667 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
668 |
+ - **Multiracial men** fared worse than multiracial women across most pairings. |
|
669 |
+ - **Latina/White and Asian/White multiracial women** were **more positively received by Black and Hispanic men**. |
|
670 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
671 |
+ |
|
672 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
673 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
674 |
+ - White users demonstrated a clear pattern of **in-group preference**, preferring other White users (monoracial or partially White) over more ambiguous multiracial identities. |
|
675 |
+ - Authors suggest this reflects **"boundary-maintaining behavior"** and **"latent racial bias"**. |
|
676 |
+ |
|
677 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
678 |
+ - **Multiracial women with partial minority backgrounds** were more acceptable to non-White men than White men. |
|
679 |
+ - Multiracial daters were **often treated as ambiguous or “less desirable”** in ways the authors frame as **resistance to racial integration**. |
|
680 |
+ |
|
681 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
682 |
+ - The most rejected group? **Black/White multiracial men**, especially by **White women**, which the authors do not frame as bias in the same way. |
|
683 |
+ - The study shows **asymmetrical concern** — when Whites select inwardly, it's seen as racial boundary policing; when minorities do it, it's not pathologized. |
|
684 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
685 |
+ |
|
686 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
687 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
688 |
+ - Large, real-world dataset gives useful behavioral insight into **racial preferences in dating**. |
|
689 |
+ - Raises legitimate questions about **how race, desire, and group identity intersect**. |
|
690 |
+ |
|
691 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
692 |
+ - Frames **normal in-group preference among Whites as "resistance to multiraciality"**, rather than neutral human patterning. |
|
693 |
+ - Ignores **similar or stronger in-group preference among Black and Asian users**, which could indicate *universal patterns*, not White exceptionalism. |
|
694 |
+ - Uses CRT framing to subtly **morally indict Whites for preferring Whites**, while exempting other groups. |
|
695 |
+ |
|
696 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
697 |
+ - Treat all in-group preference equally across racial groups — not just when Whites do it. |
|
698 |
+ - Disaggregate by age, education, and regional variation to control for confounds. |
|
699 |
+ - Consider whether **multiracial identity is ambiguous** by nature and if that ambiguity reduces clarity of signals in dating. |
|
700 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
701 |
+ |
|
702 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
703 |
+- Provides a data point in the **ongoing academic effort to pathologize White selectiveness**, even in private, personal domains like dating. |
|
704 |
+- Demonstrates how **racial preferences are only considered “problematic” when they preserve White group boundaries**. |
|
705 |
+- Supports analysis of **how DEI-aligned narratives seek to dissolve in-group loyalty under the guise of openness and inclusion**. |
|
706 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
707 |
+ |
|
708 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
709 |
+1. Investigate how **media and dating platforms reinforce multiracialism as normative** despite evidence of natural in-group selection. |
|
710 |
+2. Study the **psychological effects of being told your preferences are morally wrong if you're White**. |
|
711 |
+3. Explore how **multiracial identities are strategically framed** depending on political or cultural goals — exoticization, integration, or guilt projection. |
|
712 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
713 |
+ |
|
714 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
715 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Curington et al. - Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Websit.pdf]] |
|
716 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
717 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
718 |
+ |
|
719 |
+ |
|
720 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"}} |
|
721 |
+**Source:** *Porn Studies* |
|
722 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2015* |
|
723 |
+**Author(s):** *Noah Tsika* |
|
724 |
+**Title:** *"The White Man’s Burden: Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity"* |
|
725 |
+**DOI:** [10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389](https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2015.1025389) |
|
726 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Pornography Studies, Race and Sexuality, Cultural Critique* |
|
727 |
+ |
|
728 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
729 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
730 |
+ - This is a **qualitative content analysis** of gonzo pornography, particularly interracial porn involving Black men and White women. |
|
731 |
+ - The author reviews **select films, not a dataset**, using them to extrapolate broad cultural claims about race and sexuality. |
|
732 |
+ |
|
733 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
734 |
+ - Claims that **interracial porn “others” and dehumanizes Black men**, yet selectively **frames Black male sexual aggression as liberatory**. |
|
735 |
+ - The author accuses White male consumers of **fetishizing Black men** as both threats and tools for their own “colonial guilt.” |
|
736 |
+ |
|
737 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
738 |
+ - No empirical evidence, just interpretive readings of scenes and film dialogue. |
|
739 |
+ - Repeatedly criticizes **White directors and actors** as complicit in perpetuating “White supremacy through porn.” |
|
740 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
741 |
+ |
|
742 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
743 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
744 |
+ - Argues that **gonzo interracial porn functions as racial propaganda**, reinforcing White guilt while commodifying Black masculinity. |
|
745 |
+ - Portrays White women as willing participants in a fantasy of racial domination that allegedly “liberates” Black men. |
|
746 |
+ |
|
747 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
748 |
+ - White male viewers are pathologized as both sexually repressed and voyeuristically complicit in anti-Black racism. |
|
749 |
+ - Black male performers are framed as both victims of racial commodification and **agents of resistance through hypersexuality**. |
|
750 |
+ |
|
751 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
752 |
+ - Cites scenes where Black male actors degrade or dominate White women as **“transgressive acts” that destabilize White power**, rather than examples of racial hostility or objectification. |
|
753 |
+ - The narrative treats **racially charged sexual violence as deconstructive**, only when it reverses traditional racial dynamics. |
|
754 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
755 |
+ |
|
756 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
757 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
758 |
+ - Useful in showcasing how **critical race theory invades even the most apolitical domains** (porn consumption) and turns them into race war battlegrounds. |
|
759 |
+ - Offers insight into how **White heterosexuality is recoded as colonialism** in activist academia. |
|
760 |
+ |
|
761 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
762 |
+ - **No statistical basis**, relies entirely on biased interpretive analysis of fringe media. |
|
763 |
+ - Presumes **intent and audience motivation** without surveys, viewership data, or cross-cultural comparison. |
|
764 |
+ - Treats Black aggression as empowering and White sexuality as inherently oppressive — a double standard. |
|
765 |
+ |
|
766 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
767 |
+ - Include comparative data on how different racial groups are portrayed in pornography across genres. |
|
768 |
+ - Analyze how **minority-run porn studios frame interracial themes** — not just White-directed media. |
|
769 |
+ - Address how racial fetishization **harms all groups**, not just Black men. |
|
770 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
771 |
+ |
|
772 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
773 |
+- Exemplifies how **racialized sexual narratives are reinterpreted to indict White identity**, even in consumer entertainment. |
|
774 |
+- Shows how **DEI and CRT frameworks are applied to pornographic material** to pathologize White maleness while sanctifying non-White hypermasculinity. |
|
775 |
+- Highlights the **academic bias that treats transgressive content as empowering when it serves anti-White narratives**. |
|
776 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
777 |
+ |
|
778 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
779 |
+1. Study how **interracial porn narratives differ when produced by non-White vs. White directors**. |
|
780 |
+2. Examine **how racial power is portrayed in same-sex vs. heterosexual interracial porn**. |
|
781 |
+3. Investigate whether the **fetishization of Black masculinity fuels unrealistic expectations and destructive stereotypes** for both Black and White men. |
|
782 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
783 |
+ |
|
784 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
785 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:Dinest - The White Man's Burden Gonzo Pornography and the Construction of Black Masculinity.pdf]] |
|
786 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
787 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
788 |
+ |
|
789 |
+ |
|
790 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"}} |
|
791 |
+**Source:** *Social Science Research* |
|
792 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
|
793 |
+**Author(s):** *Cynthia Feliciano, Belinda Robnett, Golnaz Komaie* |
|
794 |
+**Title:** *"Gendered Racial Exclusion Among White Internet Daters"* |
|
795 |
+**DOI:** [10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.04.004) |
|
796 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Online Dating, Racial Preferences, CRT Framing of White Intimacy* |
|
797 |
+ |
|
798 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
799 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
800 |
+ - Based on data from **Love@aol.com**, analyzing **over 6,000 profiles** from California. |
|
801 |
+ - The study investigated **racial preferences listed explicitly** in dating profiles. |
|
802 |
+ |
|
803 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
804 |
+ - **White women were least likely to express openness to interracial dating**, particularly with Black and Asian men. |
|
805 |
+ - **White men also showed exclusion**, but were more open than White women. |
|
806 |
+ |
|
807 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
808 |
+ - The authors labeled preference for one’s own race as **“racial exclusion”**. |
|
809 |
+ - Profiles by non-White users expressing same-race preferences were **not similarly problematized**. |
|
810 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
811 |
+ |
|
812 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
813 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
814 |
+ - **White in-group preference was framed as discriminatory**, regardless of intent or context. |
|
815 |
+ - Dating preferences were interpreted as a **“reinforcement of racial hierarchies”**. |
|
816 |
+ |
|
817 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
818 |
+ - The study suggested **White women’s selectivity** stemmed from **cultural and structural advantages**, implying racial gatekeeping. |
|
819 |
+ - Did not critically examine **non-White preferences** for their own race. |
|
820 |
+ |
|
821 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
822 |
+ - Highlighted that **Latina and Asian women were more open to White men** than to men of their own ethnicity, which was not treated as exclusionary. |
|
823 |
+ - **No racial preference was criticized except when it protected White boundaries.** |
|
824 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
825 |
+ |
|
826 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
827 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
828 |
+ - Large dataset from real-world dating profiles. |
|
829 |
+ - Provides rare insight into **gendered patterns of racial preference**. |
|
830 |
+ |
|
831 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
832 |
+ - **Frames personal preference as political discrimination** when expressed by White users. |
|
833 |
+ - **Fails to control for cultural compatibility, attraction patterns, or religious values.** |
|
834 |
+ - **Double standard** in analysis — **non-White selectivity is ignored or justified.** |
|
835 |
+ |
|
836 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
837 |
+ - Should distinguish **racial animus from in-group preference**. |
|
838 |
+ - Include **psychological, aesthetic, and cultural compatibility data**. |
|
839 |
+ - Apply **equal critical lens to all racial groups**, not just Whites. |
|
840 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
841 |
+ |
|
842 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
843 |
+- Reinforces how CRT-aligned research pathologizes **White in-group dating preferences**. |
|
844 |
+- Supports the claim that **White intimacy boundaries are uniquely scrutinized** and politicized. |
|
845 |
+- Demonstrates how even non-political behavior (e.g., dating) is racialized when it involves Whites. |
|
846 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
847 |
+ |
|
848 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
849 |
+1. Study how **dating preferences vary by upbringing, media influence, and culture**, not just race. |
|
850 |
+2. Analyze **racial preferences across all groups** with equal rigor and skepticism. |
|
851 |
+3. Examine the **mental health impact of stigmatizing in-group preference** among Whites. |
|
852 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
853 |
+ |
|
854 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
855 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1016_j.ssresearch.2009.04.004.pdf]] |
|
856 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
857 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
858 |
+ |
|
859 |
+ |
|
860 |
+{{expandable summary="Study: Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World"}} |
|
861 |
+**Source:** *Journal of European Psychoanalysis* |
|
862 |
+**Date of Publication:** *2009* |
|
863 |
+**Author(s):** *Kristen Fink* *Jewish*)) |
|
864 |
+**Title:** *"Black Penis and the Demoralization of the Western World: Sexual relationships between black men and white women as a cause of decline"* |
|
865 |
+**DOI:** *Unavailable – Psychoanalytic essay publication* |
|
866 |
+**Subject Matter:** *Race and Sexuality, Psychoanalysis, Cultural Demoralization* |
|
867 |
+ |
|
868 |
+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}} |
|
869 |
+1. **General Observations:** |
|
870 |
+ - This is a **psychoanalytic essay**, not an empirical study. |
|
871 |
+ - Uses **Freudian and Lacanian theory** to explore symbolic meanings of interracial sex. |
|
872 |
+ - Frames **Black male–White female pairings** as psychologically disruptive to the White male ego and Western civilization. |
|
873 |
+ |
|
874 |
+2. **Subgroup Analysis:** |
|
875 |
+ - Positions **Black men as symbolic rivals** to emasculated Western (White) men. |
|
876 |
+ - **White women’s interracial attraction** is framed as rebellion or rejection of Western order. |
|
877 |
+ |
|
878 |
+3. **Other Significant Data Points:** |
|
879 |
+ - The essay proposes that **sexual representation in media** is demoralizing to White culture. |
|
880 |
+ - Uses **high theory language** to justify what is ultimately an anti-White cultural narrative. |
|
881 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
882 |
+ |
|
883 |
+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}} |
|
884 |
+1. **Primary Observations:** |
|
885 |
+ - **Interracial sexual dynamics** are framed as central to **Western decline**. |
|
886 |
+ - **White masculinity is portrayed as passive, obsolete, or neurotic** in contrast to hypermasculinized Blackness. |
|
887 |
+ |
|
888 |
+2. **Subgroup Trends:** |
|
889 |
+ - Suggests White men internalize emasculation through exposure to interracial symbolism. |
|
890 |
+ - Sees **cultural loss of confidence** in White society as stemming from racial-sexual symbolism. |
|
891 |
+ |
|
892 |
+3. **Specific Case Analysis:** |
|
893 |
+ - Analyzes media tropes (e.g., interracial porn, pop culture) through the lens of psychoanalytic guilt and transgression. |
|
894 |
+ - Never critiques the **ideological project of glorifying Blackness at the expense of White identity**. |
|
895 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
896 |
+ |
|
897 |
+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}} |
|
898 |
+1. **Strengths of the Study:** |
|
899 |
+ - Reveals how **elite academic disciplines like psychoanalysis** are used to mask anti-White narratives in esoteric jargon. |
|
900 |
+ - Serves as **ideological evidence** of demoralization tactics embedded in cultural theory. |
|
901 |
+ |
|
902 |
+2. **Limitations of the Study:** |
|
903 |
+ - No empirical data, surveys, or statistical analysis — purely speculative. |
|
904 |
+ - **Does not critique hypersexualization of Black men** or the dehumanizing aspects of the fetish. |
|
905 |
+ - Assumes **White masculinity must passively accept its symbolic erasure** as psychoanalytically “natural.” |
|
906 |
+ |
|
907 |
+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:** |
|
908 |
+ - Include **perspectives from White men and women** on how these portrayals affect their psychological well-being. |
|
909 |
+ - Disentangle psychoanalytic theory from **racial guilt ideology**. |
|
910 |
+ - Explore **mutual respect-based frameworks** for interracial dynamics rather than ones rooted in humiliation or power symbolism. |
|
911 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
912 |
+ |
|
913 |
+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}} |
|
914 |
+- Illustrates how **race, sex, and culture are manipulated to undermine White self-perception**. |
|
915 |
+- Demonstrates how **academic elites frame White decline as psychologically necessary or deserved**. |
|
916 |
+- Provides ideological background for modern media trends that eroticize racial power imbalance. |
|
917 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
918 |
+ |
|
919 |
+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}} |
|
920 |
+1. Analyze how psychoanalytic language is used to **justify racial inversion in cultural dominance**. |
|
921 |
+2. Examine the **role of pornography in demoralization campaigns** targeting White men. |
|
922 |
+3. Explore how elite journals create **ideological cover for overt anti-White sentiment**. |
|
923 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
924 |
+ |
|
925 |
+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}} |
|
926 |
+[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.Fink_Black_Penis_Demoralization.pdf]] |
|
927 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
928 |
+{{/expandable}} |
|
929 |
+ |
|
930 |
+ |
650 |
650 |
{{expandable summary="Study: Trends in Frequency of Sexual Activity and Number of Sexual Partners Among Adults Aged 18 to 44 Years in the US, 2000-2018"}} |
651 |
651 |
**Source:** *JAMA Network Open* |
652 |
652 |
**Date of Publication:** *2020* |