Is personal taste bigotry?

[twocows]

https://www.npr.org/2014/05/12/3118...-tv-hypocrisy-aiming-scrutiny-back-at-himself

I can't link the comments section on the Facebook post for this, but there's a lot of outcry from overweight people about how the fact that most people are not attracted to them and tend not to date them is a sign of bigotry.

So let me pose the question to you all. Is it bigotry to only be attracted to certain kinds of people? Do you think worse of people because of what kinds of things they are attracted (or not) to? Do you think it is shallow of someone to narrow down their dating pool based in part on appearance? Should we only judge potential mates on aspects not related to sexuality?

I'll state my opinion in a later post.

 

[Keiran]

Is it bigotry to only be attracted to certain kinds of people?

Preferences aren't formed in a vacuum free from influence, so yes, it is technically bigotry. It depends on what kinds of people we're talking about, I assume you mean large differences such as race, nationality or weight (instead of specific stuff such as height and hair color etc). An individual isn't always a bigot, though, as long as they're not saying things like "I don't find black women attractive, I'm not racist it's just a preference!" and accept that their preference is probably due to generations of racism, for example. Disgust towards "fat people" is learned and can be unlearned as well.

Do you think worse of people because of what kinds of things they are attracted (or not) to?

Rarely. Only in cases where people are sexualizing things they shouldn't be sexualizing (such as Bronies). Yuck.

Do you think it is shallow of someone to narrow down their dating pool based in part on appearance? Should we only judge potential mates on aspects not related to sexuality?

No and no. Date whomever you want for what ever reason; just don't write off large groups of people as a preference.

 

[Dakotah]

The human race, by its nature, is a discriminating species. That cannot be avoided, no matter how much we try to "train" ourselves to be otherwise. More often than not it will be the little things that turn us off a person. I personally am attracted to people with darker skin and with little to none body hair. It doesn't, of course, mean I might not find that person to be a good friend, it's just that I would likely not see that person as a potential partner.

That being said, however, I believe overt discrimination should be countered. That is, discrimination that could potentially cause harm to another person, or be considered offensive. Not associating yourself with someone simply because they may have a different ethnic background, or a different religion, or a different sexual orientation, isn't just offensive to the person you're discriminating against, but also that person's family, friends, and possibly even your own. Of course it is that person's right to be discriminatory, but it really has no place in a civilized society. It's ugly and certainly one quick way of losing friends. Except those that share similar beliefs, of course.

 

[maccrash]

I'll disagree with Keiran and say that it's completely ok to disregard any person as a sexual partner due to race, age, appearance, gender, even if it is bigotry. I don't find other men attractive and would refuse to consider dating one, it's just my preference! Does that make me homophobic?

Well actually I am, to answer the second question yes I would think differently about a gay man and would have difficulty being friends with them. Some gay men anyway.

I'm bigoted as hell and don't think we should be forcing people to unlearn any of their biased, potentially racist, sexist etc behaviour. I should be completely free to say I don't like a fat person simply because they are fat. To further define the discussion your choice to be someones friend/sexual interest can be based upon changeable or non-changeable factors. I think it is completely okay to discriminate based on either. It's a universally accepted fact of life that you can pick and choose your own friends or sexual partners. I want to maintain that freedom, even if it is based on bigotry. That's their choice and I don't think it's okay to be shaming people who are not 100% open and loving to everyone. The only exception I can think of is discrimination in a professional environment, not hiring someone because they are a certain thing, unless that certain thing negatively impacts their ability to do their job.

welcome to 2014 enjoy your stay

this line of thinking isn't welcome in this day and age I don't think. I'm gonna preface this by saying that I'm not trying to ♥♥♥♥ On You or anything, nor am I specifically addressing this to you, but I think this is silly.

if you dislike a fat person because they are fat then that's bad and you should fix that. what if you were overweight and you heard someone say "yeah I can't be friends with you because you're fat soz m8?" wouldn't that just be a brilliant feeling? that person doesn't know you at all, that person has never had a conversation with you that went past generic niceties and that person has automatically written you off without making any ♥♥♥♥ing semblance of an effort to get to know you. that's pretty terrible, and there's no place for that in 2014.

you can absolutely pick and choose your friends but if you're picking them using such silly, trivial external things like weight and race and ♥♥♥♥ then that's absolutely ridiculous. it's not freedom, it's being an ass. it's not okay to shame people who aren't 100% open and loving to everyone, okay, sure, but I still think lower of people who write off entire groups of people because of something like that.

moving along I don't think it's bigoted to not be attracted to a certain race of people or something only because there's really nothing you can do about that. if we try to fix it we merely get a bunch of people saying "oh yeah I guess I'd date a black woman.......... haha yeah sure man....." and then promptly go court a bunch of white girls. it's pointless and there isn't ♥♥♥♥ you can do about it, really, and there's far better things to be focusing on really.

I only think worse of someone if they're attracted to like young children or animals or something.

finally, anyone who says that sexual attraction/good looks doesn't contribute in some way, shape, or form to who they end up dating, then they're full of poop because there's no way you can deny that it plays some role in it.

 

[dogtree]

yes it is a bigotry. i notice that most people when it come to race especially African american tend to stick together. They think they are different. but what different? they born in america and most
don't know their countries of orgin. they are the same as white american!!! one weakness of american people is many of them has race mentality.

 

[Oryx]

I think it strongly depends on your definition of 'bigotry'. Is it indicative of the person who feels that way having overt negative feelings towards fat people? Not necessarily. Is it indicative of a society that idealizes thinness and, through media and social conventions, subtly pushes forward the idea that fat isn't attractive until it becomes ingrained in a person's psyche? Yeah.

We have to remember that tastes change regularly when it comes to what is attractive, which makes it pretty clear that this isn't something inherent in human nature, despite the claims of many evolutionary psychologists. In past cultures, and some remote cultures today, fat is attractive (my initial draft of this post speculated on why but I don't know enough about the history of fatness to really know). If we accept that this is a socialization issue, the question becomes "how do we fix it so people of all weights are treated equally?" Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, the solution isn't with people forcing themselves to date people they find unattractive - the solution is with the media. The solution is the media shifting how it portrays fat people, making them more than just the butt of a joke on their fatness or the comedic sidekick. The solution is advertising plus size lines with actual plus size people, not size 8s. The solution is giving fatness just as much a chance to be sexy as thinness. Will it change the minds of people our age, who have been raised in a different culture? Probably not. But it will change the minds of the young people who are inundated with these messages every day.

I do commend anyone who puts forth any effort to reach beyond their internalized biases about relationship attractiveness, but I don't judge anyone who does not. That kind of thing is difficult, sometimes impossible, and often irrelevant if your parameters are wide enough that you can find someone to date.

 

[Nah]

I'll disagree with Keiran and say that it's completely ok to disregard any person as a sexual partner due to race, age, appearance, gender, even if it is bigotry. I don't find other men attractive and would refuse to consider dating one, it's just my preference! Does that make me homophobic?

Well actually I am, to answer the second question yes I would think differently about a gay man and would have difficulty being friends with them. Some gay men anyway.

I'm bigoted as hell and don't think we should be forcing people to unlearn any of their biased, potentially racist, sexist etc behaviour. I should be completely free to say I don't like a fat person simply because they are fat. To further define the discussion your choice to be someones friend/sexual interest can be based upon changeable or non-changeable factors. I think it is completely okay to discriminate based on either. It's a universally accepted fact of life that you can pick and choose your own friends or sexual partners. I want to maintain that freedom, even if it is based on bigotry. That's their choice and I don't think it's okay to be shaming people who are not 100% open and loving to everyone. The only exception I can think of is discrimination in a professional environment, not hiring someone because they are a certain thing, unless that certain thing negatively impacts their ability to do their job.

Not sure if just playing devil's advocate or is serious....but racism, sexism, etc, are not good no matter how you look at them, and should be discouraged.

However, personal preferences does not equal bigotry. If it did, we'd all be bigoted ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s, wouldn't we? We all have personal preferences. There's nothing wrong with having preferences, so long as it doesn't turn into unjustified discrimination.

 

[Oryx]

Not sure if just playing devil's advocate or is serious....but racism, sexism, etc, are not good no matter how you look at them, and should be discouraged.

However, personal preferences does not equal bigotry. If it did, we'd all be bigoted ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s, wouldn't we? We all have personal preferences. There's nothing wrong with having preferences, so long as it doesn't turn into unjustified discrimination.

What do you mean by "so long as it doesn't turn into unjustified discrimination"? It seems that a lot of people in this thread have a vague line where it's okay to have preferences but not if you go "too far", but the definition of "too far" is so nebulous that it can never really be applied to a person. For everyone who is arguing that there is a line, that it's okay to have preferences to a certain point, where is that certain point?

 

[Nah]

What do you mean by "so long as it doesn't turn into unjustified discrimination"? It seems that a lot of people in this thread have a vague line where it's okay to have preferences but not if you go "too far", but the definition of "too far" is so nebulous that it can never really be applied to a person. For everyone who is arguing that there is a line, that it's okay to have preferences to a certain point, where is that certain point?

Forgive me if this is unclear or doesn't seem to answer your question; I often have trouble articulating my thoughts on these things.

What I'm trying to say is that its fine to have personal preferences, but your personal preferences shouldn't cause you to shun, exclude, or harm someone else. I prefer somewhat thin women. Does that mean its ok for me to exclude fat people from my circle of friends simply because they are fat? No. Does it mean that I should deny fat people employment because they are fat? No. People who do not fall within your preferences are people too, and should be treated as such. But if I had to choose between a fat girl and a thinner girl for a date, I'd go with the thinner one, assuming all other things are equal. It's not as if I hate the fat girl; I just happen to have a aesthetic preference for non-fat girls. That doesn't necessarily make me a bad person, does it?

Does that help, or did I make it worse?

 

[Nah]

I'm starting to think that posting in here was a bad idea. I keep telling myself to just lurk and not post, and I really should do just that. You guys are on a totally different level than me with this stuff. Y'all are scary serious about these topics in D&D. So I'll go back to my corner now....

 

[twocows]

Preferences aren't formed in a vacuum free from influence, so yes, it is technically bigotry. It depends on what kinds of people we're talking about, I assume you mean large differences such as race, nationality or weight (instead of specific stuff such as height and hair color etc). An individual isn't always a bigot, though, as long as they're not saying things like "I don't find black women attractive, I'm not racist it's just a preference!" and accept that their preference is probably due to generations of racism, for example.

So would you say, for instance, that it is bigotry for homosexual men to say they are not attracted to women because of their preference? Or is it different for preferences based on sex (or gender)? What makes something all right for us to select for in a sexual or romantic partner and what makes something not all right?

Disgust towards "fat people" is learned and can be unlearned as well.

I'm assuming we're still talking purely about sexual attraction here.

You may be right. Do you also think that people can unlearn attraction to other attributes, then? Or is it just attraction or lack of attraction toward people with a specific body type or race? What do you think would be required to "unlearn" such things? Is it something we should be trying to do to begin with?

I'll disagree with Keiran and say that it's completely ok to disregard any person as a sexual partner due to race, age, appearance, gender, even if it is bigotry. I don't find other men attractive and would refuse to consider dating one, it's just my preference! Does that make me homophobic?

Well actually I am, to answer the second question yes I would think differently about a gay man and would have difficulty being friends with them. Some gay men anyway.

I'm bigoted as hell and don't think we should be forcing people to unlearn any of their biased, potentially racist, sexist etc behaviour. I should be completely free to say I don't like a fat person simply because they are fat. To further define the discussion your choice to be someones friend/sexual interest can be based upon changeable or non-changeable factors. I think it is completely okay to discriminate based on either. It's a universally accepted fact of life that you can pick and choose your own friends or sexual partners. I want to maintain that freedom, even if it is based on bigotry. That's their choice and I don't think it's okay to be shaming people who are not 100% open and loving to everyone. The only exception I can think of is discrimination in a professional environment, not hiring someone because they are a certain thing, unless that certain thing negatively impacts their ability to do their job.

Is there a distinction between choosing sexual or romantic partners based on personal preferences such as these and choosing your friends based on these same metrics? What about taking it a step further? Is it acceptable to have a meeting where only whites are allowed? A commercial establishment? A political party? What about for actions? Is it all right to base some or all of your actions on these kinds of prejudices?

The human race, by its nature, is a discriminating species. That cannot be avoided, no matter how much we try to "train" ourselves to be otherwise. More often than not it will be the little things that turn us off a person. I personally am attracted to people with darker skin and with little to none body hair. It doesn't, of course, mean I might not find that person to be a good friend, it's just that I would likely not see that person as a potential partner.

That being said, however, I believe overt discrimination should be countered. That is, discrimination that could potentially cause harm to another person, or be considered offensive. Not associating yourself with someone simply because they may have a different ethnic background, or a different religion, or a different sexual orientation, isn't just offensive to the person you're discriminating against, but also that person's family, friends, and possibly even your own. Of course it is that person's right to be discriminatory, but it really has no place in a civilized society. It's ugly and certainly one quick way of losing friends. Except those that share similar beliefs, of course.

When you say "discrimination that can cause harm," what do you mean? Harm can mean many things and sometimes it is well-deserved or, at the very least, not something to be avoided. I might be harmed by being turned down for a date, for instance, but I am not entitled to have a date with whomever I choose. When you say discrimination that is harmful is bad, what kinds of harm are you talking about? When specifically does it become not all right to discriminate?

Also, as I asked a few lines above, is it different to discriminate in your love life than it is to discriminate who you do or do not befriend? Do you think we should be free to associate with whom we wish?

 

[twocows]

I think it strongly depends on your definition of 'bigotry'. Is it indicative of the person who feels that way having overt negative feelings towards fat people? Not necessarily. Is it indicative of a society that idealizes thinness and, through media and social conventions, subtly pushes forward the idea that fat isn't attractive until it becomes ingrained in a person's psyche? Yeah.

We have to remember that tastes change regularly when it comes to what is attractive, which makes it pretty clear that this isn't something inherent in human nature, despite the claims of many evolutionary psychologists. In past cultures, and some remote cultures today, fat is attractive (my initial draft of this post speculated on why but I don't know enough about the history of fatness to really know). If we accept that this is a socialization issue, the question becomes "how do we fix it so people of all weights are treated equally?" Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, the solution isn't with people forcing themselves to date people they find unattractive - the solution is with the media. The solution is the media shifting how it portrays fat people, making them more than just the butt of a joke on their fatness or the comedic sidekick. The solution is advertising plus size lines with actual plus size people, not size 8s. The solution is giving fatness just as much a chance to be sexy as thinness. Will it change the minds of people our age, who have been raised in a different culture? Probably not. But it will change the minds of the young people who are inundated with these messages every day.

I do commend anyone who puts forth any effort to reach beyond their internalized biases about relationship attractiveness, but I don't judge anyone who does not. That kind of thing is difficult, sometimes impossible, and often irrelevant if your parameters are wide enough that you can find someone to date.

You're suggesting that what we find attractive is something learned, whether or not it is something we can change past a certain point. That might be the case (I'm not sure), but as I've mentioned before, that implies a lot of things that are worrying to a lot of people. Is homosexuality learned? What about other, less common sexual attractions?

I only think worse of someone if they're attracted to like young children or animals or something.

If it is, as you say, something people do not have control over, shouldn't that be something to be pitied, not abhorred? Those are people with mental states that, should they wish to lead a morally upright life, they cannot ever engage in. If it is as you say and you can't blame them for what they are attracted to, it seems like there would be no reason to think worse of them unless they actually engaged in those behaviors.

I'm starting to think that posting in here was a bad idea. I keep telling myself to just lurk and not post, and I really should do just that. You guys are on a totally different level than me with this stuff. Y'all are scary serious about these topics in D&D. So I'll go back to my corner now....

No, I largely agree with what you've said, moreso than anyone else who has posted yet. My point of view, which I haven't mentioned yet, is that sexual and romantic attraction are things that we do not have control over, and as such, it's not fair to say people are being unethical for choosing their sexual or romantic partners based on those kinds of preferences. I personally think that the outrage some of these overweight folks are showing over lack of sexual or romantic interest in themselves is misplaced. Either it's as Oryx said and it's something learned but still not something we have control over, in which case it's society's fault, or it's as I believe and it's something that's just part of us from the very beginning, in which case it's no one's fault. I highly doubt our sexual preferences are something we have direct control over; if they were, it wouldn't screw people up so much when they go to "straight camp," for example.

Also, while being overweight is not always something you have control over, for many people, it is. The mere fact that Americans are disproportionately obese suggests that something we're doing in our lives is the cause for at least a significant portion of us, not some factor beyond our control. That means there is an obvious solution to the problem. If you are overweight for reasons within your control and it bothers you that people don't find you attractive, the best solution is to get in shape. As an added bonus, you'll be healthier as a result. I'm overweight and the decision I've made is that I really don't care enough to get into shape (though I have cut a few things out of my diet, mostly for health concerns). However, I don't think less of women who aren't attracted to me just because of that.

 

[Oryx]

You're suggesting that what we find attractive is something learned, whether or not it is something we can change past a certain point. That might be the case (I'm not sure), but as I've mentioned before, that implies a lot of things that are worrying to a lot of people. Is homosexuality learned? What about other, less common sexual attractions?

I might be wrong, on further thought. I was going to argue that we can look to the animal kingdom to see "unsocialized" creatures still wanting to screw the opposite gender most of the time, but in the animal kingdom there are still "preferences" to an extent, like peacocks with colorful feathers and certain birdsongs.

I did a bit of quick Googling and found a couple of studies that, though old, find results showing that there is variation within populations of animals when it comes to sexual preferences, and one of the studies even argues that the variation is directly due to genetic causes. Even with this, though, I can't come to the conclusion that our entire race evolved over the course of...what? 100,000 years? to completely change preference from fat women to thin women completely through evolution. I think I'll amend my opinion to people will still have preferences if the media socialization was removed, but the preferences would be far more varied instead of conveniently falling in line with what society advertises as the ideal look.

 

[Keiran]

So would you say, for instance, that it is bigotry for homosexual men to say they are not attracted to women because of their preference? Or is it different for preferences based on sex (or gender)? What makes something all right for us to select for in a sexual or romantic partner and what makes something not all right?

No, that is not bigotry. I figured we were just talking about preferences people have within their pool of desirable genders of people.

Pretty much anything is okay for you to select for. As long as you realize the cause of most preferences aren't natural but are taught. If you search through certain dating apps you will commonly see a saying like "no blacks, no fats, no femmes"; this isn't a naturally occuring preference, it occurs because (in this example) we are taught that dark skin is undesirable, overweight people aren't desirable, and femininity is bad. It's okay to have such a preference, but the 'bigotry' arises when someone announces they don't like a certain group of people - because this normalizes prejudice. Just judge someones date-ability to you seperately and respectfully okay? Fat people are more than just fat. :)

Edit: I mean..women that were normal weight in the 1900s were considered the most desirable...now it's underweight/thin women...that's not natural or evolution...that change is caused by a problematic standard of beauty.

 

[Dakotah]

Anyone mind explaining how "not associating" with a particular group actually hurts them? I am speaking logically, without emotion because quite frankly it's not up to the rejected person to be friends/in a relationship. If one person does not like another person for whatever reason I feel we should respect that. There are some people you will not like, whether it's an unpleasant personality or appearance makes no difference to me.

The harm caused to others is offense. But more importantly the most harmful aspect of such exclusion is actually done to yourself. If you purposefully isolate yourself from people that you don't wish to, you prevent yourself from learning about other people. We don't learn anything new by associating only with the people we know and are comfortable with.

I think all of us can learn something about someone else by talking to them. But I think that is especially true of people who we may find difficult to be around. You personally may have difficulty being around people who are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender. But should how uncomfortable you might feel about them prevent you from getting to know them? You never know. One may end up being the best friend you ever could have. But I guess you'll never know unless you try.

It is, as I said, your choice who you associate with. But my parents had always encouraged me to get out and meet all sorts of people, from all sorts of backgrounds. They told me it is the only true way to get to know them and where they come from. They also said it would allow me to understand them which would make me think twice about judging them based on some pre-conceived notion of who they are based on some stereotype.

It's clear from your post that you have some definite pre-conceived ideas about the people in the LGBT community. I suggest you broaden your horizons and get to know us before automatically lumping us all into a single negative stereotype.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I think it's important to note something. Most times, when someone says "I'm attracted to [...]", it means a general guideline. I am, on average, more attracted to black men who are between the 160-220 lb range, who are a little on the chubbier side for their size, and below the height of 6"2'. However, this doesn't mean that I would never have interest in someone outside of those characteristics, in fact, the person who I am currently really attracted to in real life doesn't fit that description. It's important to note that, at least sexually, most people do not judge people based on a set "rule" of not wanting to date certain kinds of people, but the individual and all of their traits stacked together. It's unfortunate to say the least, but people who have a weight problem are usually not considered attractive by most people, but most people also base this attractiveness on their whole self, not just the fact that "they're not attracted to overweight people". The sum of their parts is not attractive, and unfortunately, their weight has a big toll on this factor.

When does it become bigotry? When you fail to look at people as individuals. It's one thing to say that you aren't attracted to [whatever]. It's another to not give [whatever] even a glance because you believe you aren't attracted to it. There is one exception to this, however - genitalia. Because of the sexual nature of genitals, if you are attracted to one set but not the other, it is pretty natural and normal to reject dating that person based on that. That's where sexual orientation comes from. PervertedPikachu's statement about "not being attracted to men because I'm not gay" is a false analogy because of the fact that, unlike most traits, attraction to genitalia is almost always defined by your sexual orientation, which is usually pretty well defined.

 

[Kanzler]

I'm starting to think that posting in here was a bad idea. I keep telling myself to just lurk and not post, and I really should do just that. You guys are on a totally different level than me with this stuff. Y'all are scary serious about these topics in D&D. So I'll go back to my corner now....

Please don't feel this way. Posting here is never a bad idea. D&D is for everybody to learn and discuss. Read, swallow, and digest (maybe regurgitate), but don't take anybody's opinion too seriously. If you do feel uncomfortable posting here, then I sincerely apologize because D&D (ideally) shouldn't be a place where people fear posting.

As for answering the OP, no, people not attracted to fatness and even those who make the conscious choice not to be romantically involved with fat people are not bigots. Bigotry comes from prejudice. But fat people are clearly fat.

When you treat a person poorly because of their religion or ethnicity or whatever, it is bigotry because you are judging the entirety of their personality from their religious or ethnic status. It is prejudice because religion and ethnicity do not mean anything per se. I could be a person who forces my religion onto you, talk annoyingly non-stop about my religious beliefs, hate you because you offend my religious sensibility, or not. The fact that I am Christian has nothing to do with that. Similarly, I could be a drug dealer, have kids I don't know about, love fried chicken, or not, but the fact that I am black has nothing to do with that. I'm not black or Christian.

However, physical attraction is more important when it comes to romantic relationships than its significance in platonic relationships - personality is not all that matters. I am not attracted to fat women because that's not a body type I find beautiful. What's to be bigoted about when the image of one's body is so easily seen? It's one thing to make judgements about somebody's personality based on the shape of their body, it's another to dislike it for what it is.

Although it may be questionable for a person to have certain physical preferences in their romantic partners, that is no reason to call them a bigot. Bigotry is about prejudice. Bigotry is about intolerance to ideas. The bigot is not the person who would never date a fat person - the bigot is the person who can't possibly understand how somebody else could be.

 

[shortsboy]

Treat all people with respect.

But I choose who I am close with, doesn't matter if my criteria is fair or not. My life, my time, my feelings, my choice. After all, if I am wrong it's my loss right?

 

[twocows]

No, that is not bigotry. I figured we were just talking about preferences people have within their pool of desirable genders of people.

Pretty much anything is okay for you to select for. As long as you realize the cause of most preferences aren't natural but are taught. If you search through certain dating apps you will commonly see a saying like "no blacks, no fats, no femmes"; this isn't a naturally occuring preference, it occurs because (in this example) we are taught that dark skin is undesirable, overweight people aren't desirable, and femininity is bad. It's okay to have such a preference, but the 'bigotry' arises when someone announces they don't like a certain group of people - because this normalizes prejudice. Just judge someones date-ability to you seperately and respectfully okay? Fat people are more than just fat. :)

Edit: I mean..women that were normal weight in the 1900s were considered the most desirable...now it's underweight/thin women...that's not natural or evolution...that change is caused by a problematic standard of beauty.

Is that the case, though? There are people with all sorts of preferences. Some people are more attracted to Asians, for example. Maybe there is some cultural factor specifically regarding black people, but I think it's also the case that different people just have different preferences. Even if we eliminated such a bias, I think there would still be people who are not attracted to blacks or not attracted to any other easily visible aspect a person might have.

Dating sites are an entirely different question. Part of what you're trying to do on a dating website is narrow down your choices; there are a LOT of people on those sites. So people set some basic filters, if you will, to narrow things down. Now, it's probably not fair to completely discount people because of some of these factors, but there need to be some basic filters on sites like those, and it's a lot more obvious what race or body type someone has than it is to know whether they're interesting or intelligent or charming or whatever.

I think when it comes to personal preferences, people should be able to choose based on whatever criteria they want. That said, I think they're doing themselves a disservice if they aren't willing to go at least a bit out of their comfort zone. Sexual attraction is important in love, but it's not all-consuming. There are other important things, too.

When does it become bigotry? When you fail to look at people as individuals. It's one thing to say that you aren't attracted to [whatever]. It's another to not give [whatever] even a glance because you believe you aren't attracted to it. There is one exception to this, however - genitalia. Because of the sexual nature of genitals, if you are attracted to one set but not the other, it is pretty natural and normal to reject dating that person based on that. That's where sexual orientation comes from. PervertedPikachu's statement about "not being attracted to men because I'm not gay" is a false analogy because of the fact that, unlike most traits, attraction to genitalia is almost always defined by your sexual orientation, which is usually pretty well defined.

As I've said, I think it's fine for people to choose their partners on whatever criteria they like. I don't think we're obligated to give people a chance romantically, it's one of those things I think we can decline to someone for any reason whatsoever. Granted, it's stupid, and anyone who does it is discounting people based on things that probably aren't as important as they think. But if they want to do that, I think it's their right to do so.

Now, you mention that sexual orientation is an exception to your argument (that people need to consider more than just individual features that they may or may not like, they need to consider the whole person). Your rationale for this exception is that it is normal and natural for people to select their mates based on "sexual definition," if you will. Additionally, selecting based on sexual definition is more tolerable than selection on other features because it is based on sexual orientation, a well-defined (and presumably normal and natural) concept.

I find this exception questionable. Is a distinction made on a factor that is normal and natural better than a distinction made on a factor that is not? That suggests that there is inherent value in being "normal and natural." Is that the case? What about factors that are well-understood? Are they more valuable simply because we understand them?

It may be that narrowing down our partners based on our preference for a particular sex or a particular gender, a preference that is normal, natural, and well-defined, is something that society tolerates more than narrowing down our partners based on other preferences that don't meet those criteria. But do any of those criteria make sexual definition a more "worthy" filter in our romantic pursuits?

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Is it bigotry to only be attracted to certain kinds of people?

Not really, as long as it's not based on discrimination. Everyone's got tastes. Some people like their mates having a pot bellies, while others find hairy bodies attractive.

Do you think worse of people because of what kinds of things they are attracted (or not) to?

Most certainly, no thanks to deviantART (and 4chan to a certain extent). The overweight people would feel appreciated about some of the artists' fetish for fat, but even they might feel their fanart could cross the line. In response to Keiran's Brony comment, the Pokemon fanbase is no different either. *points to Gardevoir R34*

Do you think it is shallow of someone to narrow down their dating pool based in part on appearance?

Narrowing down your dating pool is like finding the diamond in the rough. You will eventually find that mate that meets your personal tastes. This isn't limited to just appearance either, but also on personality traits and interests.

Should we only judge potential mates on aspects not related to sexuality?

Not entirely, it's important to find a balance between the two that fits your own criteria.