0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/26 03:09

From version 119.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 05:50
Change comment: Uploaded new attachment "Cultural Voyeurism A New Framework for Understanding Race, Ethnicity, and Mediated Intergroup Intera.pdf", version 1.2
To version 120.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/06/19 06:04
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -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*