Race Relationships

January 18, 2011

Seems only fitting that after we celebrate the great Martin Luther King, Jr. that we talk about racism within the gay community. This is something that's been rearing it's ugly head in our community for a very long time and it's easy to see in our bars how much of a segregated minority we've become. It's not like there's a lot of us, so for there to be a divide within our own community has always struck me as odd. But what I really want to address is a new kind racism that's been popping up as of late.

I first came across this kind of behavior on Grindr, but it seems to have leaked into dating/sex profiles across the web (including our beloved Daddyhunt). You click on a profile and right at the top reads: No Asians. This kind of caveat extends to any and all races and types, similar to the no twinks, no +40 claims, but its the way in which its said that comes off as deeply offensive. I understand trying to be upfront and honest about what you're into, but it seems like maybe there's a better way to say it. Instead of starting off with limitations, maybe a better way to get what you want it to do just that, list what does get your motor running. I know we all can be set in our ways in terms of what we're into, but the truth is you never know, and while its fine to know what you want, allowing yourself to remain open to the possibilities can only help your cause.

One of the things I love about Daddyhunt is the level of honesty that our members bring to the table, and while I hope we never lose that, I also hope that we can be a little more respectful in the ways we go about it.

Have any stories to share when it comes to race and the gay community or an MLK dream for us? Bring it on below.

gay personals

Tags: honesty, Race Relations, Respect
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this
Post written by RobHeartsDH (View Author Profile)
About this author: Rob lives in Manhattan with his black pug Riley. When he’s not thinking about daddies, he enjoys writing, eating burritos, watching copious amounts of television, and thinking about his next meal.
View all posts by RobHeartsDH


I think you are mixing up "racism" with "preference" and that is a very fine line to cross. Personally, I'm one of those guys that has a very small window of guys I'm (sexually) attracted to (R-E-A-D my profile and you'll see) but that doesn't mean I H-A-T-E people that are of different races of nationaly origins or are simply different than myself. THAT'S racism!

Understand: Sexual Preferences vs. racism. There is a difference. You're blog is clearly attempting to blur that distinction in my opinion and I am deeply offended by your words and actions.

If you cannot date someone because of the colour of their skin...that is RACISM!

So if we don't date women is that sexism?
It IS simply sexual preference, and nothing more. I personally have very rarely (almost never actually) found Asian men sexually attractive, and only find Black men attractive slightly more frequently. There is nothing racist about that at all. Just as no one questions a dislike for redheads, or heavy men, there is no basis for questioning racial preferences.

I choose not to put that in my profile, and generally say no more than no thank you to men who send messages (as I would to men who I was not attracted to for any reason, but i respond to all messages and all gropes). I don't list my racial preferences because people tend to get the wrong idea. I live with an Asian man, I have Asian friends and relatives, i have Black friends. I just don't have sexual feelings for those ethnicities. I fail to see how that is racism, any more than my homosexuality in general is sexism/antifeminism.

Are ALL of the people in your life, socially or otherwise, ONLY those you feel sexual desire for? I see many "gay" men with women. They are not having sex with them and yet there is still a mutually beneficial relationship. This is the point being made here--that "gay" men seem reluctant to embrace a social relationship with another (gay) man who they may not be sexually attracted to AND who is of another race.

If you are responding to my post, it states quite clearly that I am only talking about dating and sex, as is the blog entry in question. My oldest and closest friends are heterosexual men and women. My circle of friends and acquaintances includes different races and genders. I enjoy meeting people from different backgrounds and cultures.

Obviously dating choices are based on different criteria than those that influence purely social interaction. Obviously the component of sexual attraction in boyfriend/lover/partner choice is strong for everyone; though of course sexual attraction is not entirely based on physical characteristics. In choice of friends and associates it has no bearing. I am no less likely to seek out someone as a friend, because of race or my physical attraction to them.

We are talking about "race relationships"--social mixing on any level. This is not just about dating or finding someone sexually appealing. It's your openness to know someone across racial lines.

The title of the blog entry is "Race Relationships". The entry itself addresses only the sexual preferences for specific racial types within ads on Daddyhunt. That it posits these as perhaps some "new racism" does not make it so. I am commenting on the content of the post, not its title or the title's implications. There is no discussion of "social mixing on any level" in the posted article.

Is there racism and other forms of prejudice within the Gay community, of course there is! Is that racism intolerable? Of course it is. Is racial preference as regards sexual partners and dating a form of racism ? No one has yet presented a convincing argument that it is that stands up to logical examination.

In a post later on this thread i mention the difference between preferring lighter skin in sexual partners regardless of race, and requiring an excessive number of picture IDs from black men in order to enter certain gay bars. Are these two things equivalent to you?

"Is racial preference as regards sexual partners and dating a form of racism ? No one has yet presented a convincing argument that it is that stands up to logical examination."

Perhaps you and those like you (other white men) feel this way because you have not been on the receiving end of it (casual exclusion) enough to have developed empathy. We are not having a philosophical discussion, we are speaking of hurtful behaviors performed by men because they can get away with it. The rejections might be largely avoided if people made it clear in advance who they wish to hear from.

"In a post later on this thread i mention the difference between preferring lighter skin in sexual partners regardless of race, and requiring an excessive number of picture IDs from black men in order to enter certain gay bars. Are these two things equivalent to you?"

Both are examples of bigotry, but the requiring of several IDs is blatant racism--I've experienced that a number of times in the 70s and early 80s.

Culturally, especially in the west, "white" equates to light and purity and "black" to dirt & evil. This kind of thinking has permeated the psyche. "Gay" slur wit call whites who like blacks "dinge-queens" and blacks who like whites "snow-queens". What is being said here? Even blacks have demonstrated a tendency toward lighter skin versus darker skin "brothers".

I am sorry, you misunderstand everything I have said, and insert the meaning you prefer to be there. You have not the slightest idea of the exclusions I might have experienced in my life, or what I feel. Simply lumping me in as "other white men" shows you are yourself unable to see beyond your own racial stereotypes.

I have nothing further to say to you, you are just going to twist it around to make me the "bad white man" I must be in your mind.

Then we are at an impasse. I'll leave it to Life and Circumstances to clear things up.

Racism is that mistaken belief that a certain race is less or more than another. Racial prejudice is what you refer to.

Mistaken belief? Such sophistry...when you are on the receiving end of the attitude (whether racism/racial prejudice), there is no difference.

I think you hit the nail right on the head here. Just like you said "you never know" and if you don't try you may miss out on a lot of fun and good people.

Thanks Rob

You don't "never know". You know what your preferences are, and they determine who you date (as dating is ALWAYS predicated on some level of sexual attraction, OR IT IS NOT A DATE, it is just going out with a friend or acquaintance). As an example, look at the most recent Daily Daddy image posted on this blog. The man is incredibly handsome, there is no denying that. Would he ever be a sexual fantasy of mine? Never. Would I consider dating him (considering my looks, would he consider dating me is a more realistic question)? No. Would i be interested in meeting him to talk or hang out? Of course, he's probably quite interesting.

I agree with the first post; there is a difference between preference and racism.
The other comment above which states "you never know" and if you don't try you may miss out on a lot of fun and good people." could also be used and has been used towards gay men in the context of "you just haven't met the right girl" etc..
I may not be sexually attracted to all, but I would never vote to take away any one groups civil liberties.

The shade between preference 'in favor of' versus ' in dislike of' is used to rationalize and soften what may actually be racism. It's safer to say one likes something over something else. What's not being said is why. That's where the problem comes in.

That is pure 100% grade A bullshit.

I agree with "littleita" and "alex38".
I see this as another veiled attempt to accuse, mainly white men, of racism. ( since whites are still the majority race and it's "OK" to call whites racist about anything and everything). "RobheartsDH" doesn't seem to understand, ( to put it crudely ) that if it doesn't make your putter stand up, you're not going to want to stick your putter in it.
I find it outrageous that he equates sexual preference with racism.
Many straight men have a similar experience when a woman makes unwanted advances toward him and he rejects her. The first thing out of her mouth is usually, "You must be a fag to not want me". So here we have the same sentiment expressed as, "You must be a racist to not want me".
Personally, I'm sick and tired of this sort of overly PC tripe thrown at gay men to try and make them feel guilt and shame about their sexual preference. Don't straights do that to us enough that we shouldn't do it to each other?
So...if I'm not attracted to your "look" including race, get over it and move on! No amount of PC nagging, brow beating, berating and name calling is going to make me want to fuck you!

You're absolutely right!
And what about the reverse case? What about the white man who is ONLY interested in men of color, regardless of the color. Is he a racist because he doesn't want to have sex with a white man? What about the Asians who want only white, or the Blacks who only want Hispanics or Asians, or the Blacks who only want white? By the author's definition, then, all gay men are racists except for those who would have sex with any man who wants them, regardless of color.
I, too, am offended by what the author implies here, and will stop reading his posts from now on.

Not being sexually attractive isn't the problem, is when someone throws the WHOLE of another person away because there is no sexual attraction. OR has no interest in the person beyond sexual fantasy.

Exactly. Well said.

I agree with FitBlackCuddle.

What I find interesting is that when it comes to race, it's ok to say you're not into Asians or black right off the bat. How is this different from an HIV negative man saying he prefers to only date other negative men.
I have seen HIV positive men get all up in arms when a negative man states his preference. Oftentimes, it's put in condescending ways like "Get educated" When positive men state their preference it's called "sero-sorting, but when a negative man does it, it's discrimination.
Why should someone feel assaulted just for looking at someone's profile.
If you stated, no wheelchairs allowed, you'd come across as an ass.
You can state preference without making someone felt that they are not worth even talking to because they are not the right race, age, body-type.
If I am not attracted to you because you're a douchebag, no amount of nagging, brow- beating, or name calling is going to make me want to fuck you!

I understand the basic idea of what you are trying to say. However, in practice it is really not the same thing. I'm saying this as an HIV+ man living with a virus that can potentially kill another human being if not handled correctly. Theroetically, I can understand an HIV - man not wanting to get involved with someone who, eventually will lead to sex. This is different from "tricking" with someone who is knowingly HIV+. Yes, I know, there are all the precautions out there and at this point in time we are , I HOPE, all familiar and aware of them and can recite them from memory. However, condoms break, cuts appear on our hands and mouths and elsewhere that we forget about and aren't even aware of...There are potential dangers of sero-conversion and , beleive it or not PEOPLE ARE STILL DYING OF AIDS in 2011!!! So, yeah, I can see that. Fear is a real emotion we carry as humans and it is what has kept us alive as a species. Fear is different from intolerance and bigotry/hatred...

It is still a matter of preference over racism. On a personal level: As stated previously: Being HIV+ for more than 2 decades and in excellent health for all of those years sans one year more than 15 years ago I prefer not to date guys who are not HIV+. Its my choice or preference. Why? Because I don't want to take the chance, however minute that chance might be, to endanger another person's health and their life and have them go through the horror and trauma I experienced (as well as most of my friends) in years past. I couldn't take that chance and wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I did that to someone, even by accident. Its a CHOICE and PREFERENCE. Not racism or predjudice...

Whether one is HIV positive or not, you should assume everyone you meet is positive, unless they have their test results and a doctor's certification that's about 24 hours old and can be verified.

About race, yes, racism exists in the gay community just like everywhere else in society. There is preference, especially amoung gay men. But I think some gay men are glossing over preference to downplay their real feelings or bias. That said, gay men are the most selective group of people on earth. It's stands to reason since our affection for one another weighs heavily on fantasy and the superficial. Looks are important when engaging in recreational sex. All one has to do is watch an adult movie to verify this. It's all about gratification in the short term.

True we all have a 'type' we are attracted to, however I do think some men i.e. people in general cannot get past skin color, it's just part of the cultural conditioning humanity has yet to evolve away from


Right on the money, Hairyfuck !!

The bible-thumping "religious right" and the conservative heterosexuals will rejoice to know that you think this way. They will feel easier denouncing YOU. Bible-thumpers see you as just a twisted pedophile sinner on your way to Hell and the heterosexual conservative sees you as a mentally-ill deviant with a disgusting "UnAmerican" personal agenda. Both would cheerfully take all of YOUR rights away, including your job and housing.


Thank you for your thoughtful post. I'm not offended by your words, and I certainly believe that people should seek more positive ways of expressing their preferences. For one thing, that denotes a level of grace, maturity and stability in the writer, which in themselves tend to be attractive features (or at least that is what many profile writers claim to be the case). That being said, it really is up to each individual to state their preferences as they see fit (so long as they do not violate the TOS). Men will either respond positively to their wording or not.

I think in the context of a personal ad, the line "No
Asians" pertain to sexual preference similar to "Tops only".

If this was posted on the door of a bar, then it would be racism.

However, listing a set of Likes than Dislikes lessens the probability of anyone taking the list as an attack to his person / race / any other subgroup he identifies with.

My two cents! And good luck hunting everyone.

P.S. Before I get accused or perpetuating a stereotype, I'm Asian and a bottom and I like being me. I've also had sex with Asians who are tops. Ugh! I hate this PC crap..

Heartily AGREE.

i don't have sex with asians because i'm horney again a hour later.

:) just trying to add a little humor to these posts.




... you guys need to calm down and READ THE ARTICLE PROPERLY.

He is NOT saying it is racist to not fancy a certain racial group.

He is saying: Think about how you EXPRESS your preferences.

Saying "I like white guys" is much more polite than saying "No blacks" etc. The former is a simple statement of preference. The latter, if you are black, is like a slap in the face.

I DID read the blog correctly. It is a matter of opinion. Saying "I like white guys" definitely eliminates everyone else as well...Again a matter of preference. My meaning is that the author is attempting to confuse "preference" with "racism". I believe you need to read the replies again and comprehend what is being said. It is what it is...

Maybe you read the blog, but perhaps your view hasn't been sifted enough by the emotional experience of being excluded. Empathy is a powerful aid to understanding.

A thought-provoking subject that is ignored too often in the gay community. Many times even our own community organizations don't represent our diversity with disproportionately higher involvement by whites (frequently upper-middle class). There may be a fine line between racism and preference, but if people weren't a little racist, their preferences would likely be more encompassing. But it is always easier to say you aren't racist than to actually be non-racist.

I've been considering adding a "not attracted to" item in my profiles, as it would be easier to list one racial non-attraction than the many I am very attracted to. I haven't because I try to keep things positive. However, as an older, hairy, white man I've noticed an attitude by some other older, hairy, white men of how could I possibly NOT be attracted to them, almost like I'm betraying my race to not be interested in them. I now live in the land of white racist bullshit (AZ), so even more want to be around non-whites in and out of the bedroom.

There are so many beautiful men or all colors in our world it is impossible for me not to want to experience it all.

I'm not one of those "I can do anything with a dick" types! I like what I like! If that's racist then so be it! I have standards like everyone else. As humans we naturally segregate ourselves. Gays/ Lesbians, Butch/Fem, Bear/Chub/Chaser, etc, etc. Thats just life!

"As humans we naturally segregate ourselves."

Don't agree. Humans are SOCIAL and naturally mix. Segregation? If it was the dominant condition, then there would never have been any problems with it and all humans would be happily segregated still.

Both desires seem equally at work. The persistence of cultures for thousands of years, even in the various diasporas, demonstrates the desire to self-segregate. But the exchange of ideas, and more importantly, the exchange of genetic material demonstrated by recent DNA studies shows the desire of groups to mix.

They seem to operate on different levels though. The GROUP desires to maintain its identity. The INDIVIDUAL seeks to expand his or her horizons. Racism/Antisemitism/Ethnic prejudice always seems to be encouraged by a group or society as a whole. The repudiation of it seems to be an individual repudiation.

Those who prefer segregation then are the remnants of OLD cultures and peoples who may want to preserve what is left of their heritage. Peoples who are on the wane and will die out soon because they refuse to introduce fresh blood among themselves. Their offspring usually take a more modern viewpoint and leave to join the masses. All sub-races of humanity are hybrids, so it is natural to mix, to find some commonalities.

Culture, tradition and custom persist. I think you do not understand what i have posted, either the science or the history. Humans have ALWAYS mixed, even as they self-segregated. It is written in our nuclear DNA, and our mitochondrial DNA. As soon as we left Africa we BOTH isolated ourselves as ethnic/cultural groups and mixed as individuals. We've been doing it for the past 150,000 years I don't think the past 100 years of history is going to change that at all. As for "Hybrid" humans, we are all the same species, there is not even enough consistent taxonomic difference to warrant sub-species designation! As far as science goes, your view is the less modern. Race is more a cultural construct than a taxonomic reality.

But we are so off topic here. The only point of the blog post is that having some sexual/dating preference based on what are considered racial characteristics might constitute some "new form of racism". And in that regard the post is incorrect.

Interesting, but you are utterly dispassionate.

A healthy dose of long term casual exclusion by those you want to make contact with might help you to see a bit more with your heart and not with your books and theories.

"Seeing with your heart" is not a useful too for analysis. It leads to taking assumptions, stereotypes and wishes as reality. You have not the slightest idea what discrimination or exclusion I may have suffered in my life.
Exclusion hardens your heart, it does not foster empathy.

""Seeing with your heart" is not a useful too for analysis. It leads to taking assumptions, stereotypes and wishes as reality..."

Seeing with the heart IS reality...much more humanely enriching than your clinical results. As I said before, we are at an impasse. I'll leave it to Life and Circumstance to help you see an alternative viewpoint.

Politically Correctness... a sore point with each and every race on the planet as well as human sexual orientations. It has gone too far in this day and age trying to please all and sundry being PC and make everyone happy. Get a life there are billions of people on this planet pleasing them all will never happen in our species.

For example look at the negroid desendants of the slaves in the US they have been called Negroes, Blacks, Coloured, Afro Americans, People of Colour and that's just in the past 50 years, they still are not sure on the whole what the hell they want to be called today.... This jumping from one PC label/word to another is just a sign of foolishness and someone trying to be trendy.

Sexual preferences are just that PREFERENCES correct phrasing is all a matter of interpretation. Some just prefer to make things crystal clear... using the word NO followed by what they do not desire. Not everyone would think to say something like "I am not into dark meat or foreign food" which while PC might raise eyebrows and puzzle far too many readers of the posted ad.

What offends one may not offend the next 20 or so who read the posting. If saying NO Asians or NO whatever bothers you move on to the next posting. Because someone making a posting has chosen to use words that he feels makes things clear or that he understands because of possibly a limited vocabulary/education, you should not judge him or label it racism.

No tact, no empathy, no human grace at all. This kind of thinking is a reason I believe there may NEVER be solidarity among "gay" men.

FitBlack, you are so right. These bigots who say that they just have "preferences" are one of the reasons why the gay "community" is so divisive and has lost eons of time regarding social justice. Let's face it: gays are just as bigoted as everyone else.

It is a simple matter of respect to address people as they choose to be addressed, even where confusion and differences exist within that group. That issue is totally separate from the subject of the original blog entry. For most of the history of black people in this country, how they were referred to was someone else's choice, not theirs. Negroid, Negro, the original use of black, colored, and the various epithets were all terms devised (or imposed) by whites. No different really than the use of fag, faggot, queer, nance, catamite, sodomite, homosexual, and so on to refer to us. Is the current "jumping from one PC word to another" just a sign of foolishness or a desire to be trendy?

Certainly people need a thicker skin when out on the "meat rack", but we all also need to think before we speak (or post in this case).

EVERY "gay" online social site may as well be porn. Perhaps "gays" might remember they (and those they fancy) are humans and not pieces of meat in the market to be hunted. This is our biggest problem, this lack of "sexual checks & balances" to help shape and deepen us as humans.

But we are generally not on Daddyhunt to be deep human beings. The overwhelming majority of men are there to get off. I fail to see anything wrong with that, so long as people recognize it for what it is, and have other venues where they indulge other sides of themselves. For those who have no aspects to their lives other than sex, I pity their narrowness. But indulging shallow pursuits is perfectly fine as one aspect of a life. Being a piece of meat is fun, and not intended to be anything more than that!