The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
Women as the Drivers of Between Cultural Distance?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
OK Cupid results

OKCupid results

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

– Genesis

41YlHxt+hUL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ The above is from a relatively widely circulated post from OKCupid. It has been argued that this post saved the dating website OKCupid, and launched the book Dataclysm. Over five years on the underlying biases have not changed, and if anything gotten more notable. I think the fact that OKCupid has become a more popular service probably explains this. From what I am to understand OKCupid had a more “hip” clientele in the late 2000s in comparison to the big dating sites, so it stands to reason that as its user base increased by many factors it would become more typical. This result is not isolated, but replicated in other surveys in experimental dating situations.

Unsurprisingly much of the male bias in race when it comes to dating comes down to perceptions of physical attractiveness. Once that is “corrected” for, the bias becomes very small. In contrast, this does not occur in women.* You can spin this in two ways. First, women are more racist. Or secondarily, women are less shallow, in that they are fixated on things beyond physical attraction. Though ironically that would definitely include physical appearance as it relates to race.

I thought of this when reading this piece in The Washington Post, Punjabi Sikh-Mexican American community fading into history. What happened is that because of anti-miscegenation laws and bans on the arrival of Indian women Punjabi farmers in the Central Valley of California married Mexican American women. The children had something of a hybrid identity, but are slowly being absorbed into the Mexican American and Punjabi Sikh communities. But this section jumped out at me because it seems an instance of a general pattern:

And when Punjabi women began coming to the United States, the Punjabi-Mexican community confounded them, Leonard said.

“They even kicked out the Mexican women from the gurdwara, even though those Mexican women helped fund it,” Leonard said.

This reminds me of what occurred at Fort Astoria, as the white women arrived the native women and their mixed-race offspring were quickly marginalized. In South Asia the same occurred with the ancestors of the Anglo-Indian community. For reasons of caste and religion they were excluded from assimilating into the native population (pairings between elite individuals, as depicted in White Mughals, differed from the majority of instances where common soldiers and lower caste women made arrangements which resulted in some censure from their respective communities), while the arrival of white women meant that the British men serving in India now had their preferred mating partners, and recreated England overseas in insular enclaves.

There seem to be two stylized extreme positions when it comes to cultural transmission as it relates to sex bias. One model holds that women are the fundamental culture bearers. In the United States for example children are more likely to adhere to the religion of the mother in mixed marriages. But there is another view, illustrated by the Islamic practice where men, but not women, could marry out. This is because it was presumed that culture would be passed down the paternal lineage. Not an unreasonable proposition in a hyper-patriarchal society. In the case of the New World, the mestizo populations clearly inherited language and religion from their male ancestors, but other aspects of their culture are indigenous (e.g., food). Though broad empirical patterns are interesting, the general expectations contingent upon theory are important in light of what we now know about mass migration in ancient history. Skewed distribution of Y and mtDNA seems to imply that migration which can not be modeled as isolation by distance diffusion tended to be male mediated, in the past as it is now. What does the uptake of Neolithic “First Farmer” mtDNA tell us about the dynamic of how the Corded Ware integrated to the local substrate, for example?

* By this, I mean that even when women give high ratings of attractiveness to men of other races, they still do not reciprocate in dating entreaties.

 
• Category: History, Science • Tags: Culture 
Hide 49 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Personal anectode: My taste for women changed according to age. Before age 22, I only consider classic ancient Han Chinese/Korean/Japanese women looks as most beautiful in the world. Only later afer exposure enough Western film and media, western looks started going up. At this moment, the taste for both east and west are about equal.

    For my grandparensts, they never rated Western looks as attractive. For the grandparents who lived all their life in countryside. They even thought Western looks as `ugly’. They really disaproved my first girlfriend (ethnic Russian in China) due to `bad look’ but they did like her kindness.

    My own experience is more of brain washing effect. I think I can easily revert back to old instinct feeling for the beauty. I still rate classic oriental beauty as the best. Well, it is like taste for pork or cheese. Persuasion only works to some extent.

  2. On this subject, in the U.S. black women marry out the least of any gender/ethnic group while about half of Asian and Indian women marry white men.

    So gender alone does not seem to be the main factor across all races/cultures.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    well, i think black women and asian men (to give two examples) have a better chance in real life than on dating sites. people have avowed preferences which serve as filters in that context, but in real life i think they take a more holistic view.
  3. @Hipster
    On this subject, in the U.S. black women marry out the least of any gender/ethnic group while about half of Asian and Indian women marry white men.

    So gender alone does not seem to be the main factor across all races/cultures.

    well, i think black women and asian men (to give two examples) have a better chance in real life than on dating sites. people have avowed preferences which serve as filters in that context, but in real life i think they take a more holistic view.

    • Replies: @Hipster
    Not that they have no chance, and my memory was incorrect, but:
    Black women marry out at a rate of 9%
    Black men 23%
    Asian women 36%
    Asian men 16%
    White men and women 9%
    Hispanic Men and women 25%


    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2012/02/sdt-2012-rise-of-intermarriage-06.png

    Everyone has a chance but you see some races women and men marry ijt at the same rate, some more, some less.
  4. Interesting. I just met one of the descendants of those Punjabi Mexicans a couple months ago and had no idea how he came to be.

    In the United States race is (traditionally) passed down from the father, with the exception of blacks. This was statutory in a number of jurisdictions, probably to ensure that half-Indian children of white fathers had rights to citizenship. And even among blacks, those born to white fathers usually seem to assimilate a lot more white culture than those born to white mothers.

    But who knows these days how things will turn out? One of the few East Indians I knew as a kid was married to a white woman and lived in a Catholic neighborhood in Seattle while teaching physics at the University of Washington. Their two sons hardly stood out from the rest of us, and one of them looked remarkably similar to John Lennon. Just about the only noticeably Indian thing about them was their names.

    By the way, I doubt California had any miscegenation laws that applied to Indians, who were classified as caucasian at the time, although it wouldn’t surprise me if “mongolians” were barred from marriage to whites due to the generally poor state of relations between whites and East Asians in California (caused by the huge influx of coolies imported to serve the robber barons of the 19th century). Washington state certainly didn’t have any such laws. Chances are the Punjabis married Mexicans because they were more available than white women, very few of whom would have married a non-Christian at the time.

    As for prejudice against darker caucasians, I can state with some certainty that it hardly existed even among the older Americans. If they were Christian, it wasn’t an issue; they were accepted as white just like Italians and Greeks. If they weren’t Christian, they were still white, but a bit too exotic for most people’s tastes. East Asians on the other hand, were fairly intensely disliked by the common people. Lots of people had bad memories of the war and the ethnic conflicts on the West Coast.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    so until now i never looked up what bhagat singh thind looked like. it makes sense now why he could credibly argue that indians were white. he was a very light skinned punjabi with blue eyes

    http://www.bhagatsinghthind.com/thind_photos.php

    (the website was put up by his son, from his white american born wife vivian)
  5. #4, it certainly existed in the first half the 20th century. sikhs were run out of the pacific NW in the same fashion as chinese. the physicist chandrasekar experienced a fair amount of anti-black discrimination in the lower midwest (i think was st. louis?). indians were understood to be technically caucasian, but non-white, so they fell under the same bans as other asians in regards to naturalization, property rights, and intermarriage.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagat_Singh_Thind

  6. otoh, sabhu’s life kind of supports your proposition. he was south indian so not even marginally white like some kashmiris and punjabis are

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabu_Dastagir

  7. If women are the drivers of cultural distance, children are the drivers of cultural unity. A child’s dialect is more strongly driven by his peers than his parents.

    And, mixed race children (i.e. children whose parents are different in race, regardless of how formally classified or identified) are often a key source of social linkage between single race social groups. For example, a study at Denver’s East High School (I’m not sure I could find a citation as I read a secondary source report of its results), which is about 45% white, 24% black, 23% Hispanic, 3% Asian (n=46)/Pacific Islander (n=3)/Native American (n=10) and 5% mixed race, found that social groupings tended to be mostly of one race, but that most of the bridging across the groups was by mixed race individuals.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    well, to be clear, i was explicitly alluding to the fact that evolutionary theory makes it hard to have large long term between group genetic distances between two groups, since ~1 migrant per generation rapidly equilibrates allele frequencies. BUT, between group cultural differences can be big. diff between vert and horiz transmission. so what's driving this? in the 'standard' model i have in my head i'm imagining patrilocality and men swapping women between their extended kinship units. the children would adhere to the paternal cultural orientation in language and religion. but then there is ethnographic data from places like the USA which show how strong mothers can be in shaping the views of children, and, there is strong data from other societies and within the USA that women are often frontline enforcers of various social norms which many liberal-minded people might find unappealing (e.g., honor killings/ostracism re: feminism, and racial exclusion).
  8. @Bill P
    Interesting. I just met one of the descendants of those Punjabi Mexicans a couple months ago and had no idea how he came to be.

    In the United States race is (traditionally) passed down from the father, with the exception of blacks. This was statutory in a number of jurisdictions, probably to ensure that half-Indian children of white fathers had rights to citizenship. And even among blacks, those born to white fathers usually seem to assimilate a lot more white culture than those born to white mothers.

    But who knows these days how things will turn out? One of the few East Indians I knew as a kid was married to a white woman and lived in a Catholic neighborhood in Seattle while teaching physics at the University of Washington. Their two sons hardly stood out from the rest of us, and one of them looked remarkably similar to John Lennon. Just about the only noticeably Indian thing about them was their names.

    By the way, I doubt California had any miscegenation laws that applied to Indians, who were classified as caucasian at the time, although it wouldn't surprise me if "mongolians" were barred from marriage to whites due to the generally poor state of relations between whites and East Asians in California (caused by the huge influx of coolies imported to serve the robber barons of the 19th century). Washington state certainly didn't have any such laws. Chances are the Punjabis married Mexicans because they were more available than white women, very few of whom would have married a non-Christian at the time.

    As for prejudice against darker caucasians, I can state with some certainty that it hardly existed even among the older Americans. If they were Christian, it wasn't an issue; they were accepted as white just like Italians and Greeks. If they weren't Christian, they were still white, but a bit too exotic for most people's tastes. East Asians on the other hand, were fairly intensely disliked by the common people. Lots of people had bad memories of the war and the ethnic conflicts on the West Coast.

    so until now i never looked up what bhagat singh thind looked like. it makes sense now why he could credibly argue that indians were white. he was a very light skinned punjabi with blue eyes

    http://www.bhagatsinghthind.com/thind_photos.php

    (the website was put up by his son, from his white american born wife vivian)

    • Replies: @Bill P

    so until now i never looked up what bhagat singh thind looked like. it makes sense now why he could credibly argue that indians were white. he was a very light skinned punjabi with blue eyes.
     
    Yeah, Singh Thind was facing religious - not racial - prejudice. If he were a Catholic Goan he wouldn't have had this problem. But he tried to introduce "exotic" spiritual ideas, which evidently provoked some serious resistance from what I see in the link.

    The US supposedly doesn't have a state religion, and allows for freedom of religion, but that's on paper and not really a reflection of reality. Look at what the Mormons went through, and there's no argument about Mormon whiteness. And even the Catholics faced problems to some extent (although I think Catholics whine a bit more than they should given their considerable clout, and I was raised Catholic myself).

    I have no knowledge of the Sikhs being run out of the Pacific Northwest. Not saying it didn't happen, but the notion just seems kind of strange to me -- I've never heard of it. What's the story on that? Was it based on allegations of white slaving (big hysteria over that back then) or something of that nature?

    I know I've run into some very different international communities in the NW and Alaska, including a Persian Jewish community in Sitka Alaska that probably has connections that date back to when Sitka was the Russian capital city of the territory. With the exception of some Chinese communities that were run out for competing with local laborers and the Japanese internments, I'm not aware of any expulsions.
    , @Bill P
    BTW, thanks for introducing me to this Singh Thind guy. I'm enjoying not only his spiritual ideas, but the fact that his family album takes me on a trip down memory lane. His American family is so much like my own that it's uncanny. The Davies are obviously Welsh Americans, like my grandfather (who looked very much like John Davies), and the hairstyles, the poses, the homes and even the colors bring back memories of my earliest childhood.

    Really something else. I'm glad people put some effort into preserving memories of this old way of life and documenting the folkways, which I sometimes fear exist only in my head these days.
  9. @ohwilleke
    If women are the drivers of cultural distance, children are the drivers of cultural unity. A child's dialect is more strongly driven by his peers than his parents.

    And, mixed race children (i.e. children whose parents are different in race, regardless of how formally classified or identified) are often a key source of social linkage between single race social groups. For example, a study at Denver's East High School (I'm not sure I could find a citation as I read a secondary source report of its results), which is about 45% white, 24% black, 23% Hispanic, 3% Asian (n=46)/Pacific Islander (n=3)/Native American (n=10) and 5% mixed race, found that social groupings tended to be mostly of one race, but that most of the bridging across the groups was by mixed race individuals.

    well, to be clear, i was explicitly alluding to the fact that evolutionary theory makes it hard to have large long term between group genetic distances between two groups, since ~1 migrant per generation rapidly equilibrates allele frequencies. BUT, between group cultural differences can be big. diff between vert and horiz transmission. so what’s driving this? in the ‘standard’ model i have in my head i’m imagining patrilocality and men swapping women between their extended kinship units. the children would adhere to the paternal cultural orientation in language and religion. but then there is ethnographic data from places like the USA which show how strong mothers can be in shaping the views of children, and, there is strong data from other societies and within the USA that women are often frontline enforcers of various social norms which many liberal-minded people might find unappealing (e.g., honor killings/ostracism re: feminism, and racial exclusion).

  10. @Razib Khan
    so until now i never looked up what bhagat singh thind looked like. it makes sense now why he could credibly argue that indians were white. he was a very light skinned punjabi with blue eyes

    http://www.bhagatsinghthind.com/thind_photos.php

    (the website was put up by his son, from his white american born wife vivian)

    so until now i never looked up what bhagat singh thind looked like. it makes sense now why he could credibly argue that indians were white. he was a very light skinned punjabi with blue eyes.

    Yeah, Singh Thind was facing religious – not racial – prejudice. If he were a Catholic Goan he wouldn’t have had this problem. But he tried to introduce “exotic” spiritual ideas, which evidently provoked some serious resistance from what I see in the link.

    The US supposedly doesn’t have a state religion, and allows for freedom of religion, but that’s on paper and not really a reflection of reality. Look at what the Mormons went through, and there’s no argument about Mormon whiteness. And even the Catholics faced problems to some extent (although I think Catholics whine a bit more than they should given their considerable clout, and I was raised Catholic myself).

    I have no knowledge of the Sikhs being run out of the Pacific Northwest. Not saying it didn’t happen, but the notion just seems kind of strange to me — I’ve never heard of it. What’s the story on that? Was it based on allegations of white slaving (big hysteria over that back then) or something of that nature?

    I know I’ve run into some very different international communities in the NW and Alaska, including a Persian Jewish community in Sitka Alaska that probably has connections that date back to when Sitka was the Russian capital city of the territory. With the exception of some Chinese communities that were run out for competing with local laborers and the Japanese internments, I’m not aware of any expulsions.

  11. @Razib Khan
    so until now i never looked up what bhagat singh thind looked like. it makes sense now why he could credibly argue that indians were white. he was a very light skinned punjabi with blue eyes

    http://www.bhagatsinghthind.com/thind_photos.php

    (the website was put up by his son, from his white american born wife vivian)

    BTW, thanks for introducing me to this Singh Thind guy. I’m enjoying not only his spiritual ideas, but the fact that his family album takes me on a trip down memory lane. His American family is so much like my own that it’s uncanny. The Davies are obviously Welsh Americans, like my grandfather (who looked very much like John Davies), and the hairstyles, the poses, the homes and even the colors bring back memories of my earliest childhood.

    Really something else. I’m glad people put some effort into preserving memories of this old way of life and documenting the folkways, which I sometimes fear exist only in my head these days.

  12. @Razib Khan
    well, i think black women and asian men (to give two examples) have a better chance in real life than on dating sites. people have avowed preferences which serve as filters in that context, but in real life i think they take a more holistic view.

    Not that they have no chance, and my memory was incorrect, but:
    Black women marry out at a rate of 9%
    Black men 23%
    Asian women 36%
    Asian men 16%
    White men and women 9%
    Hispanic Men and women 25%

    Everyone has a chance but you see some races women and men marry ijt at the same rate, some more, some less.

  13. Bill p, ask and you shall receive. Slate has just written a potted history of the 1907 Bellingham anti Sikh riots that drove Sikhs to BC and California. The reason for the pogrom? The usual — racism.

    (Slate article prompted by an unusual idiocy from bobby jindal. Is jindal a smart guy pretending to be stupid, or just a stupid guy?)

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2015/02/13/history_of_sikhs_in_america_violence_against_sikh_workers_in_bellingham.html

    • Replies: @Bill P
    Thanks for the info Ikram. I had never heard of Sikhs in Washington at such an early date. They must have come over via Hong Kong, which is where virtually all the local Chinese came from at the time. Now that I think of it, it stands to reason.

    But to put the event in context, labor riots were a major feature of the region at the time. Disputes between capitalists and workers were more or less constant, and neither would pass up an opportunity to gain an advantage wherever possible. So it looks like the Sikhs got caught in the middle of one there.
  14. I think that finding just reflects that females are more status-conscious, while males are driven much more by pure sexual attraction.

    So social consequences of mate choices weigh much more heavily with women than with men which makes intuitive sense (going back to women having to bear children v. men). What I’m saying may be trivial/obvious

  15. @ikram
    Bill p, ask and you shall receive. Slate has just written a potted history of the 1907 Bellingham anti Sikh riots that drove Sikhs to BC and California. The reason for the pogrom? The usual -- racism.

    (Slate article prompted by an unusual idiocy from bobby jindal. Is jindal a smart guy pretending to be stupid, or just a stupid guy?)


    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2015/02/13/history_of_sikhs_in_america_violence_against_sikh_workers_in_bellingham.html

    Thanks for the info Ikram. I had never heard of Sikhs in Washington at such an early date. They must have come over via Hong Kong, which is where virtually all the local Chinese came from at the time. Now that I think of it, it stands to reason.

    But to put the event in context, labor riots were a major feature of the region at the time. Disputes between capitalists and workers were more or less constant, and neither would pass up an opportunity to gain an advantage wherever possible. So it looks like the Sikhs got caught in the middle of one there.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    There's also the Komagata Maru incident.
  16. I have read there are lots of Sikh gangs in Vancouver. In the dope trade mostly

  17. Razib, I read that Asian Indians have the most difficulty on dating sites.

    Do you think it’s plausible that Asian Indians/Pakistani men do worse than Orientals in dating?

    They also seem to have lower intermarriage rates than Oriental men too.

    Also, they intermarry less in America too: http://www.asian-nation.org/interracial.shtml

    I recall reading that South Asians in the UK had lower rates of chlamydia infection than East Asian men. If we take chlamydia infection rates as a proxy for sexual activity and partners, it seems that South Asian men have be less sexually active than East Asian men. See below.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    Do you think it’s plausible that Asian Indians/Pakistani men do worse than Orientals in dating?


    no idea.

    the intermarriage and sexually transmitted disease stuff surely has to do with social conservatism and religious identity.
  18. @JohnnyWalker123
    Razib, I read that Asian Indians have the most difficulty on dating sites.

    http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/race_affects/Reply-By-Race-Male.png

    http://i.imgur.com/u3l3Wxh.png

    Do you think it's plausible that Asian Indians/Pakistani men do worse than Orientals in dating?

    They also seem to have lower intermarriage rates than Oriental men too.

    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2010001/c-g/11143/c-g001-eng.gif


    Also, they intermarry less in America too: http://www.asian-nation.org/interracial.shtml

    I recall reading that South Asians in the UK had lower rates of chlamydia infection than East Asian men. If we take chlamydia infection rates as a proxy for sexual activity and partners, it seems that South Asian men have be less sexually active than East Asian men. See below.

    http://i60.tinypic.com/256zj2w.jpg

    Do you think it’s plausible that Asian Indians/Pakistani men do worse than Orientals in dating?

    no idea.

    the intermarriage and sexually transmitted disease stuff surely has to do with social conservatism and religious identity.

  19. Raz

    Some of the discussion went into discrimination. This article[NPR] last year was kinda interesting concerning the perception of race and getting around Jim Crow.

    ‘A Turban Makes Anyone An Indian’

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/07/17/332380449/how-turbans-helped-some-blacks-go-incognito-in-the-jim-crow-era

  20. @ JohnnyWalker123
    I don´t believe this. If anything this could have something to do with that fact that people would not be interested in recent immigrants, thus this would have nothing to do with race. I would still guess that east asian males have the most difficulties on the parner market.
    I would be curious if the huge media coverage of rape cases in India gives south asians a bad credit in the eyes of some women

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I would still guess that east asian males have the most difficulties on the parner market.
     
    There is quite a bit of EAM/WF (and WM/EAF) pairs in Boston/Cambridge and they are exclusively elites in the STEM field (or other elite professional settings).
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    You might be interested in reading this article, which was written by a famous dating coach and author.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832366/posts

    Anyway, here is what I found in 23 years of interviewing singles, and I will attempt to communicate in my best "non-academic" language. When we interviewed prospective members, we always asked what their preferences were in terms of meeting people of different races.

    Overall, women of most races preferred to meet men of their own race. Most Caucasian women wanted only to meet Caucasian men, the exceptions being women who were more educated and well-traveled, who considered themselves somewhat "worldly."


    Of all the races, African-American women were the most insistent about wanting to meet only African-American men. But most of those women excluded black men who had recently moved to New England from Africa or the Caribbean.

    The one major exception to the finding that women wanted to meet men of their own race was Asian women, a vast majority of whom stated that they strongly preferred meeting non-Asian men.


    The primary explanation offered by most Asian women was that they wanted to be matched with tall men, and they insisted that practically all of the Asian men they knew were short. But when I would ask if they would be willing to meet an Asian man if he were tall, most would simply shake their head and say they would rather not.

    And what about Indian women? To be honest the sample of Indian women who joined my dating service more than 23 years was too small to determine any general statements about them.

    As for men, overall they were far more open to meeting women of other races. In fact, and I find this especially interesting, the race of women most in demand were, you guessed it, Asian women. Therefore, almost all of the Asian women in my dating service had a very high Dating Quotient.
     

    The two groups of men who were the most difficult to match (and therefore had the lowest DQ) were Asian men and Indian men. Like African men, this was especially true of Asian and Indian men who had grown up overseas and relocated to New England, usually to pursue careers either in computer science or medicine. In a few cases I could persuade women to meet men of different races, IF the men were totally "Americanized."

    Of course Asian men were difficult to match because, as I previously stated, the one group of women who did not want to meet men of their own race was Asian women.

    As for Indian men, they were the hardest people to match of any group of men or women of any race. And, with so many Indian men moving into the Boston area for jobs in high tech, rarely a week passed without several inquiries from men from India or Pakistan.
     
  21. @Erik Sieven
    @ JohnnyWalker123
    I don´t believe this. If anything this could have something to do with that fact that people would not be interested in recent immigrants, thus this would have nothing to do with race. I would still guess that east asian males have the most difficulties on the parner market.
    I would be curious if the huge media coverage of rape cases in India gives south asians a bad credit in the eyes of some women

    I would still guess that east asian males have the most difficulties on the parner market.

    There is quite a bit of EAM/WF (and WM/EAF) pairs in Boston/Cambridge and they are exclusively elites in the STEM field (or other elite professional settings).

  22. In my experience, a fair bit of the asian male bias, at least with east asians, is height bias. Women prefer to date men taller than they are. Tall asian dudes seem to have much less of a problem attracting white girls than short asian guys do.

    Seems a fairly universal preference of women to prefer taller men, and a universal bias against men shorter than themselves.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    a few years ago a study of the britain argued that once you control for height there's not much of a difference for south asians (the large bengali population depresses south asian height vs. blacks/whites).
  23. @Chang
    In my experience, a fair bit of the asian male bias, at least with east asians, is height bias. Women prefer to date men taller than they are. Tall asian dudes seem to have much less of a problem attracting white girls than short asian guys do.

    Seems a fairly universal preference of women to prefer taller men, and a universal bias against men shorter than themselves.

    a few years ago a study of the britain argued that once you control for height there’s not much of a difference for south asians (the large bengali population depresses south asian height vs. blacks/whites).

  24. @Bill P
    Thanks for the info Ikram. I had never heard of Sikhs in Washington at such an early date. They must have come over via Hong Kong, which is where virtually all the local Chinese came from at the time. Now that I think of it, it stands to reason.

    But to put the event in context, labor riots were a major feature of the region at the time. Disputes between capitalists and workers were more or less constant, and neither would pass up an opportunity to gain an advantage wherever possible. So it looks like the Sikhs got caught in the middle of one there.

    There’s also the Komagata Maru incident.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    While I'm sympathetic to Singh Thind, primarily because he served in the US armed forces, the incident you linked was brought about by a guy who was deliberately trying to circumvent the law with human cargo, apparently in an act aimed at furthering Indian independence. The Ghadarites may have had a noble cause (and they may not have -- I don't know the history), but Americans and Canadians had every right to keep themselves distanced from British colonial issues.

    Say a boatload of hundreds of Chechen separatists showed up in India today, demanding free entry so they could network with Muslims and agitate for Chechen independence. Do you honestly think India would just say "sure, come on in!" and roll out a welcoming mat?

    This smells like a manufactured grievance to me. If I'd been a Canadian official at the time I would have had the boat promptly escorted to international waters and sent on its way, too.
  25. “As for prejudice against darker caucasians, I can state with some certainty that it hardly existed even among the older Americans. If they were Christian, it wasn’t an issue; they were accepted as white just like Italians and Greeks.”

    You are comparing Indians to Italians and Greeks? You are overestimating how dark Italians and Greeks are and overestimating how light most Indians are.

    An Indian guy in Alabama got beat up by the police because he was mistaken for an African American thug.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=google&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

    I have never heard of any incidents of Italians and Greeks in the U.S being mistaken for African American thugs.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    i agree with your general point. but do note that italians and greeks in the south were in some instances assumed to be light skinned blacks during the segregation era (since the threshold for 'white' was held quite high due fears of people 'passing'). and of course jews and southern europeans were on occasion lynched, though their exotic character was secondary (e.g., see the sicilian incident in new orleans).
  26. 1. In South Asian culture, I’d assume that female sexuality is heavily sexually constrained, much more than male sexuality. Despite those constraints, young South Asian British females have a moderately higher rate of chlamydia infection than South Asian males. In my view, that seems to indicate that South Asian males face severe penalties in the sexual/dating market. Social conservatism may depress chlamydia rates, but I’d wager that low sexual market value is a major factor at work.

    2. 1.5&2nd generation Indian-American women have substantially higher rates of interracial marriage than Indian-American men. The same is true for British Indian women and British Indian men. In Britain, Indian males and Indian females have identical rates of premarital cohabitation.

    3. 70% of Indian-Americans are foreign born. In comparison, 60% of all Asian-Americans are foreign born. So it doesn’t seem like that’d make a huge difference in influencing results in these dating studies, which show Indian men receive lower response rates (and higher exclusion rates) than Asian men. I’d also assume that when women choose who to exclude from dating, they’re basing this on the sum of their social experiences. I’d say that very rarely do FOB Asian or Indian guys socialize with women outside their race. So it’s mostly American born and raised guys that these sampled girls have interacted with in their social circles.

    4. It’s particularly noteworthy that Indian women are particularly negative to Indian men in this survey.

    5. The mean height for Western-born Indian men is 68.6 inches, in comparison to 67.8 inches for Asian men. However, Indian men have substantially higher body fat and substantially lower lean mass. That’d suggest that Asian men tend to be more athletic and mesomorphic, but Indian men have more height. This might explain the relatively weak performance of South Asian nations in the Olympics and also scarcity of South Asian diaspora athletes.

    • Replies: @Numinous

    It’s particularly noteworthy that Indian women are particularly negative to Indian men in this survey.
     
    I think Indian mens' reputation of being Mama's boys who want their wives to replace their mothers in a patriarchal marriage arrangement has a lot to do with this. Hence the women's disinclination to meet Indian men (and I guess this applies to Asian men too) unless they are "Americanized", as you state in your other comment.

    But this generalization should apply only to Indian men and women who were raised in India, where patriarchal arranged marriages are the norm. If it applies to Indian-Americans too, I don't know what the reasons could be.
    , @Razib Khan
    i wonder how male bias in immigrants effects these results? the different s. asian communities differ here too in britain. pakistanis are mostly native. bangladeshis mostly immigrants. indians in the middle.

    I’d say that very rarely do FOB Asian or Indian guys socialize with women outside their race. So it’s mostly American born and raised guys that these sampled girls have interacted with in their social circles.

    don't know if i agree with that. but i don't have much personal experience to draw upon outside of a university context.

    The mean height for Western-born Indian men is 68.6 inches, in comparison to 67.8 inches for Asian men

    breaking down by subgroup might be interesting. people from pakistan and punjab for example have traditionally been pretty close to the european average even in the older anthro lit. looks like with diet many south indians are catching up. but east indians (mostly bengalis) are not. this may be genetic (more e. astian in bnegalis).
  27. @Erik Sieven
    @ JohnnyWalker123
    I don´t believe this. If anything this could have something to do with that fact that people would not be interested in recent immigrants, thus this would have nothing to do with race. I would still guess that east asian males have the most difficulties on the parner market.
    I would be curious if the huge media coverage of rape cases in India gives south asians a bad credit in the eyes of some women

    You might be interested in reading this article, which was written by a famous dating coach and author.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832366/posts

    Anyway, here is what I found in 23 years of interviewing singles, and I will attempt to communicate in my best “non-academic” language. When we interviewed prospective members, we always asked what their preferences were in terms of meeting people of different races.

    Overall, women of most races preferred to meet men of their own race. Most Caucasian women wanted only to meet Caucasian men, the exceptions being women who were more educated and well-traveled, who considered themselves somewhat “worldly.”

    Of all the races, African-American women were the most insistent about wanting to meet only African-American men. But most of those women excluded black men who had recently moved to New England from Africa or the Caribbean.

    The one major exception to the finding that women wanted to meet men of their own race was Asian women, a vast majority of whom stated that they strongly preferred meeting non-Asian men.

    The primary explanation offered by most Asian women was that they wanted to be matched with tall men, and they insisted that practically all of the Asian men they knew were short. But when I would ask if they would be willing to meet an Asian man if he were tall, most would simply shake their head and say they would rather not.

    And what about Indian women? To be honest the sample of Indian women who joined my dating service more than 23 years was too small to determine any general statements about them.

    As for men, overall they were far more open to meeting women of other races. In fact, and I find this especially interesting, the race of women most in demand were, you guessed it, Asian women. Therefore, almost all of the Asian women in my dating service had a very high Dating Quotient.

    The two groups of men who were the most difficult to match (and therefore had the lowest DQ) were Asian men and Indian men. Like African men, this was especially true of Asian and Indian men who had grown up overseas and relocated to New England, usually to pursue careers either in computer science or medicine. In a few cases I could persuade women to meet men of different races, IF the men were totally “Americanized.”

    Of course Asian men were difficult to match because, as I previously stated, the one group of women who did not want to meet men of their own race was Asian women.

    As for Indian men, they were the hardest people to match of any group of men or women of any race. And, with so many Indian men moving into the Boston area for jobs in high tech, rarely a week passed without several inquiries from men from India or Pakistan.

  28. @Numinous
    There's also the Komagata Maru incident.

    While I’m sympathetic to Singh Thind, primarily because he served in the US armed forces, the incident you linked was brought about by a guy who was deliberately trying to circumvent the law with human cargo, apparently in an act aimed at furthering Indian independence. The Ghadarites may have had a noble cause (and they may not have — I don’t know the history), but Americans and Canadians had every right to keep themselves distanced from British colonial issues.

    Say a boatload of hundreds of Chechen separatists showed up in India today, demanding free entry so they could network with Muslims and agitate for Chechen independence. Do you honestly think India would just say “sure, come on in!” and roll out a welcoming mat?

    This smells like a manufactured grievance to me. If I’d been a Canadian official at the time I would have had the boat promptly escorted to international waters and sent on its way, too.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    I wasn't trying to justify what the organizers of the Komagata Maru trip were trying to do so much as provide more evidence that Sikhs (and Punjabis in general) were well known in the PNW (and in BC) a century ago, and that more were trying to immigrate.

    That said, one of the points that sticks out from the Wikipedia entry is the Canadian immigration regulation that restricted immigration rights to people who "come from the country of their birth or citizenship by a continuous journey and or through tickets purchased before leaving their country of their birth or nationality." It was a transparent attempt to prevent Indians from immigrating, and was similar to the Grandfather Clause passed by many Southern states around the same time to prevent blacks from getting the right to vote.

    Now the US was well within its rights to prevent Indians from immigrating, but as a matter of law and politics, such exclusion from Canada was problematic. Both India and Canada were within the British Empire (no such supra-national body exists today to encompass Chechnya and India.) Allowing free movement and free trade, not to mention the equality of all subject peoples, was used as a morel justification by the British to rule what would otherwise be alien peoples. So one could reasonably argue that Sandhu was well within his rights to ship immigrants into Canada.
  29. @Bill P
    While I'm sympathetic to Singh Thind, primarily because he served in the US armed forces, the incident you linked was brought about by a guy who was deliberately trying to circumvent the law with human cargo, apparently in an act aimed at furthering Indian independence. The Ghadarites may have had a noble cause (and they may not have -- I don't know the history), but Americans and Canadians had every right to keep themselves distanced from British colonial issues.

    Say a boatload of hundreds of Chechen separatists showed up in India today, demanding free entry so they could network with Muslims and agitate for Chechen independence. Do you honestly think India would just say "sure, come on in!" and roll out a welcoming mat?

    This smells like a manufactured grievance to me. If I'd been a Canadian official at the time I would have had the boat promptly escorted to international waters and sent on its way, too.

    I wasn’t trying to justify what the organizers of the Komagata Maru trip were trying to do so much as provide more evidence that Sikhs (and Punjabis in general) were well known in the PNW (and in BC) a century ago, and that more were trying to immigrate.

    That said, one of the points that sticks out from the Wikipedia entry is the Canadian immigration regulation that restricted immigration rights to people who “come from the country of their birth or citizenship by a continuous journey and or through tickets purchased before leaving their country of their birth or nationality.” It was a transparent attempt to prevent Indians from immigrating, and was similar to the Grandfather Clause passed by many Southern states around the same time to prevent blacks from getting the right to vote.

    Now the US was well within its rights to prevent Indians from immigrating, but as a matter of law and politics, such exclusion from Canada was problematic. Both India and Canada were within the British Empire (no such supra-national body exists today to encompass Chechnya and India.) Allowing free movement and free trade, not to mention the equality of all subject peoples, was used as a morel justification by the British to rule what would otherwise be alien peoples. So one could reasonably argue that Sandhu was well within his rights to ship immigrants into Canada.

    • Replies: @Bill P

    Now the US was well within its rights to prevent Indians from immigrating, but as a matter of law and politics, such exclusion from Canada was problematic.
     
    In that case, then the Canadians had no right to stop the Hibernians from invading Canada following the US Civil War, since they were British subjects after all.

    In fact, the Hibernian raids were what prompted Canada to call for some independence from Great Britain, and therefore denying entry to other British subjects (who were also rebelling against the crown) was neither problematic nor a break with precedent. The matter had long since been settled.
  30. @JohnnyWalker123
    1. In South Asian culture, I'd assume that female sexuality is heavily sexually constrained, much more than male sexuality. Despite those constraints, young South Asian British females have a moderately higher rate of chlamydia infection than South Asian males. In my view, that seems to indicate that South Asian males face severe penalties in the sexual/dating market. Social conservatism may depress chlamydia rates, but I'd wager that low sexual market value is a major factor at work. http://i60.tinypic.com/256zj2w.jpg

    2. 1.5&2nd generation Indian-American women have substantially higher rates of interracial marriage than Indian-American men. The same is true for British Indian women and British Indian men. In Britain, Indian males and Indian females have identical rates of premarital cohabitation.

    3. 70% of Indian-Americans are foreign born. In comparison, 60% of all Asian-Americans are foreign born. So it doesn't seem like that'd make a huge difference in influencing results in these dating studies, which show Indian men receive lower response rates (and higher exclusion rates) than Asian men. I'd also assume that when women choose who to exclude from dating, they're basing this on the sum of their social experiences. I'd say that very rarely do FOB Asian or Indian guys socialize with women outside their race. So it's mostly American born and raised guys that these sampled girls have interacted with in their social circles.

    4. It's particularly noteworthy that Indian women are particularly negative to Indian men in this survey. http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/race_affects/Reply-By-Race-Male.png

    5. The mean height for Western-born Indian men is 68.6 inches, in comparison to 67.8 inches for Asian men. However, Indian men have substantially higher body fat and substantially lower lean mass. That'd suggest that Asian men tend to be more athletic and mesomorphic, but Indian men have more height. This might explain the relatively weak performance of South Asian nations in the Olympics and also scarcity of South Asian diaspora athletes.

    It’s particularly noteworthy that Indian women are particularly negative to Indian men in this survey.

    I think Indian mens’ reputation of being Mama’s boys who want their wives to replace their mothers in a patriarchal marriage arrangement has a lot to do with this. Hence the women’s disinclination to meet Indian men (and I guess this applies to Asian men too) unless they are “Americanized”, as you state in your other comment.

    But this generalization should apply only to Indian men and women who were raised in India, where patriarchal arranged marriages are the norm. If it applies to Indian-Americans too, I don’t know what the reasons could be.

  31. Some comments/queries:

    1.Does anyone have any data on Asian American mean height? I can find stuff on people in Asian countries (Japan, etc), but I can’t seem to locate studies on Asians who were born and raised in the USA.

    2.Latin/Latina dating preferences: Problematic.This is a rubric that encompasses a wide variety of racial types: Ricardo Montalban, Cheech Marin, Cameron Diaz, Eva Longoria, Jorge Ramos, Zoe Saldana, Jessica Alba, etc. Frankly, it would be more informative if the Latins were subdivided.That way we could compare White Latin preferences to Mestizo Latin preferences, etc

  32. @Jefferson
    "As for prejudice against darker caucasians, I can state with some certainty that it hardly existed even among the older Americans. If they were Christian, it wasn’t an issue; they were accepted as white just like Italians and Greeks."

    You are comparing Indians to Italians and Greeks? You are overestimating how dark Italians and Greeks are and overestimating how light most Indians are.

    An Indian guy in Alabama got beat up by the police because he was mistaken for an African American thug.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=google&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

    I have never heard of any incidents of Italians and Greeks in the U.S being mistaken for African American thugs.

    i agree with your general point. but do note that italians and greeks in the south were in some instances assumed to be light skinned blacks during the segregation era (since the threshold for ‘white’ was held quite high due fears of people ‘passing’). and of course jews and southern europeans were on occasion lynched, though their exotic character was secondary (e.g., see the sicilian incident in new orleans).

    • Replies: @syonredux

    i agree with your general point. but do note that italians and greeks in the south were in some instances assumed to be light skinned blacks during the segregation era (since the threshold for ‘white’ was held quite high due fears of people ‘passing’).
     
    Yeah, hypodescent (aka the one drop rule) made "Blackness" a rather virtual category at times:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Chesnutt

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

    and of course jews and southern europeans were on occasion lynched, though their exotic character was secondary (e.g., see the sicilian incident in new orleans).
     
    To the best of my knowledge, Leo Frank was the only instance of a Jewish person being lynched in the USA:

    After his death sentence was commuted by Georgia's governor, a mob stormed the prison where Frank was being held and lynched him. Frank became the only known Jew lynched in American history.
     
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/frank.html
  33. @JohnnyWalker123
    1. In South Asian culture, I'd assume that female sexuality is heavily sexually constrained, much more than male sexuality. Despite those constraints, young South Asian British females have a moderately higher rate of chlamydia infection than South Asian males. In my view, that seems to indicate that South Asian males face severe penalties in the sexual/dating market. Social conservatism may depress chlamydia rates, but I'd wager that low sexual market value is a major factor at work. http://i60.tinypic.com/256zj2w.jpg

    2. 1.5&2nd generation Indian-American women have substantially higher rates of interracial marriage than Indian-American men. The same is true for British Indian women and British Indian men. In Britain, Indian males and Indian females have identical rates of premarital cohabitation.

    3. 70% of Indian-Americans are foreign born. In comparison, 60% of all Asian-Americans are foreign born. So it doesn't seem like that'd make a huge difference in influencing results in these dating studies, which show Indian men receive lower response rates (and higher exclusion rates) than Asian men. I'd also assume that when women choose who to exclude from dating, they're basing this on the sum of their social experiences. I'd say that very rarely do FOB Asian or Indian guys socialize with women outside their race. So it's mostly American born and raised guys that these sampled girls have interacted with in their social circles.

    4. It's particularly noteworthy that Indian women are particularly negative to Indian men in this survey. http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/race_affects/Reply-By-Race-Male.png

    5. The mean height for Western-born Indian men is 68.6 inches, in comparison to 67.8 inches for Asian men. However, Indian men have substantially higher body fat and substantially lower lean mass. That'd suggest that Asian men tend to be more athletic and mesomorphic, but Indian men have more height. This might explain the relatively weak performance of South Asian nations in the Olympics and also scarcity of South Asian diaspora athletes.

    i wonder how male bias in immigrants effects these results? the different s. asian communities differ here too in britain. pakistanis are mostly native. bangladeshis mostly immigrants. indians in the middle.

    I’d say that very rarely do FOB Asian or Indian guys socialize with women outside their race. So it’s mostly American born and raised guys that these sampled girls have interacted with in their social circles.

    don’t know if i agree with that. but i don’t have much personal experience to draw upon outside of a university context.

    The mean height for Western-born Indian men is 68.6 inches, in comparison to 67.8 inches for Asian men

    breaking down by subgroup might be interesting. people from pakistan and punjab for example have traditionally been pretty close to the european average even in the older anthro lit. looks like with diet many south indians are catching up. but east indians (mostly bengalis) are not. this may be genetic (more e. astian in bnegalis).

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    The mean height for British-Indians seems to be approximately 68.5 inches, despite the population being ~40% Punjabi-origin. For British-Pakistanis, the mean height is about a quarter of an inch greater. For British-Bangladeshis, mean height is 66.7 inches. These figures are for 1.5 and 2nd generation South Asians.

    Interracial marriage rates may be influenced by family disapproval, but British South Asian men also have much lower interracial cohabitation rates than British Chinese men.

    It's interesting that British South Asian women have higher rates of chlamydia infection than the men. If I had to guess, I'd say that a certain liberal section of Westernized Indian women are having sexual relations with non-Indian men, but shun men of their race due to perceived low sexual market value. Indian and Pakistani men seem to be getting squeezed out of the sexual market, even more so than East Asian men, which results in these men having low rates of chlamydia infection.
  34. @Razib Khan
    i agree with your general point. but do note that italians and greeks in the south were in some instances assumed to be light skinned blacks during the segregation era (since the threshold for 'white' was held quite high due fears of people 'passing'). and of course jews and southern europeans were on occasion lynched, though their exotic character was secondary (e.g., see the sicilian incident in new orleans).

    i agree with your general point. but do note that italians and greeks in the south were in some instances assumed to be light skinned blacks during the segregation era (since the threshold for ‘white’ was held quite high due fears of people ‘passing’).

    Yeah, hypodescent (aka the one drop rule) made “Blackness” a rather virtual category at times:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Chesnutt

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White

    and of course jews and southern europeans were on occasion lynched, though their exotic character was secondary (e.g., see the sicilian incident in new orleans).

    To the best of my knowledge, Leo Frank was the only instance of a Jewish person being lynched in the USA:

    After his death sentence was commuted by Georgia’s governor, a mob stormed the prison where Frank was being held and lynched him. Frank became the only known Jew lynched in American history.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/frank.html

  35. It isn’t surprising that Asian women get such high scores, since they are the most neotenized race and therefore have the most appealing females. But when considering marriage, one must really think over whether they want their descendants to look Asian, especially their sons. From the table above, it seems like looking like an East Asian man is a terrible handicap in a multiracial dating market, perhaps as bad as being bald or fat (I say this as a balding ex-fatty who has dated both Asian and White women in the past).

    I think the Caucasoid races, from White Europeans to Middle Easterners to most Indians, have the best of both worlds. Their men aren’t too ugly, their women aren’t unbangable. Even here there is a cline, with European males being more attractive than Middle eastern males who are in turn more attractive than Indian males, and the reverse order being true for females.

    Of course my view may be influenced by my own genetic biases. Like the first commenter on this thread noted, East Asians may consider all other races to be too masculine/chimp-like.

    • Replies: @MKL
    I've seen the supposed neoteny and femininity of East Asians ("Mongoloids") regurgitated so often that I just had finally de-lurk to debunk a few flawed presumptions. This is my first time commenting on this site so try not to mind my hiccups.

    "It isn’t surprising that Asian women get such high scores, since they are the most neotenized race and therefore have the most appealing females."
     
    First of all, neoteny corresponds to human face size and not face shape or facial features: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11953945

    East Asians have larger faces and facial features than whites, Hispanics, and blacks: http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/03/10/annhyg.meq007.full Also, I doubt the prognathism and facial flatness typical to East Asians would be judged fairly by "Caucasoid" populations. (BTW: among so-termed "Caucasoids" Middle-Easterners/North Africans have significantly larger and more robust faces and features than Europeans, and semi-"Caucasoid" Indians, especially south Indians, have much smaller and gracile faces and features than Europeans/Caucasoids or any other race for that matter: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3886603/)

    Korean-American women whose faces were shifted to Caucasoid norms were judged more attractive by (an admittedly very small) sample of fellow Korean-Americans: 1) http://archfaci.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=480245 and 2) http://archfaci.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=481010

    It's apparent that East Asian beauty standards are very strongly shifted towards Caucasoid norms. And most common cosmetic surgeries popular in East Asians reflect that (small faces, surgery for smaller V-shaped jaw, smaller chin, less prognathism, larger eye to face size ratio, nasal augmentation, leg-lengthening surgeries, etc).

    As for neoteny in physique, I don't recall smaller breasts, high waist-to-hip ratios and short broad legs typical among East Asian women ever being correlates of female attractiveness. In fact, it's precisely the opposite. Sure they have slightly more gracile frames and higher fat%/muscle mass ratio compared to black and white women, but the difference isn't that great when only comparing white vs. Asian women. The difference between white/black people and Indians (who have significantly smaller, gracile frames and higher fat % to muscle mass ratio than even Asians) is, IIRC, much larger, but rarely as emphasized upon.

    Here's a 3D comparison of average Chinese vs. White-American faces: http://imgur.com/a/XRFYP taken from here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23623784

    Would most Western men judge the Asian female average as more attractive than the White female average? I would be genuinely surprised if they did.

    I don't know why Asian women are so appealing to American men, and frankly I don't really care. But I doubt it is because they're intrinsically more attractive than women of other races.
    , @jack shindo
    In USA, it is all about economic and the corresponding milieu. Regarding South Asians and preferences, just look at UK vs US view on assimilation. UK South Asians are more "ghettoized", have less of economic promise vis a vis US South Asians. One may overlook other preferences but in USA, economic priviledge allows for easier access to stuff.
    , @jack shindo
    The comment of Caucasoid races, to wit, "most Indians" is comical to say the least. We are confusing the Media TV image of South Asians vs the rank and file citizens, who are definitely not European. The bottom line for mate choice, is economic. No doubt that personal attributes, likes/dislike and affinity for the usual characteristics of decency, morality and some level of "niceness" of the two parties. Let us remember that the Japanese Americans were the most loyal of all Americans (immigrant group) but that did not prevent them from being villanized and sent of to camps because they were a threat to the white man's view of USA heaven.
  36. I also don’t think you can always use intermarriage rates as a proxy to determine dating success. Indian communities have a very very strong bias against outmarriage. I know at least two Indian men who broke off long term relationships with women of other races after relentless propaganda by their parents against miscegenation.
    However, it’s quite obvious (from personal experience) that FOB Indian males are amongst the lowest of the low on the sexual totem pole. I am not sure if this is true for second generation Indians though. Especially women. If anything, from what I can see, second generation immigrant Indian women are more attractive than native whites, hispanics and blacks, coming second only to second generation East Asians.
    A lot of the FOB disadvantage might also have to do with the natural lower status of immigrant males, especially immigrants from a perceived-inferior civilization. If you take two equally FOB-by Indians, one male and one female, of equal attractiveness, and put them in grad school in the USA, the woman will achieve far greater popularity and social success by the end of her stay. The male will probably spend most of his time closeted with other FOB Indian males.
    On the other hand, if the immigrant is from a perceived superior culture, he would probably get much greater success – if an American male went to India he would be assured of great sexual success, because of the perceived superiority of America. Although I don’t know if the same would be true if the culture in question were Chinese or Japanese – physically less attractive but culturally superior- which would win?

  37. @Numinous
    I wasn't trying to justify what the organizers of the Komagata Maru trip were trying to do so much as provide more evidence that Sikhs (and Punjabis in general) were well known in the PNW (and in BC) a century ago, and that more were trying to immigrate.

    That said, one of the points that sticks out from the Wikipedia entry is the Canadian immigration regulation that restricted immigration rights to people who "come from the country of their birth or citizenship by a continuous journey and or through tickets purchased before leaving their country of their birth or nationality." It was a transparent attempt to prevent Indians from immigrating, and was similar to the Grandfather Clause passed by many Southern states around the same time to prevent blacks from getting the right to vote.

    Now the US was well within its rights to prevent Indians from immigrating, but as a matter of law and politics, such exclusion from Canada was problematic. Both India and Canada were within the British Empire (no such supra-national body exists today to encompass Chechnya and India.) Allowing free movement and free trade, not to mention the equality of all subject peoples, was used as a morel justification by the British to rule what would otherwise be alien peoples. So one could reasonably argue that Sandhu was well within his rights to ship immigrants into Canada.

    Now the US was well within its rights to prevent Indians from immigrating, but as a matter of law and politics, such exclusion from Canada was problematic.

    In that case, then the Canadians had no right to stop the Hibernians from invading Canada following the US Civil War, since they were British subjects after all.

    In fact, the Hibernian raids were what prompted Canada to call for some independence from Great Britain, and therefore denying entry to other British subjects (who were also rebelling against the crown) was neither problematic nor a break with precedent. The matter had long since been settled.

    • Replies: @Numinous
    Are you suggesting a raider is identical to an immigrant? If so, your judgment is seriously compromised. I think you are projecting from the present day American experience, where illegal immigrants are referred to as "invaders" by every person who is anti-immigrant.

    I was talking only about what legal immigration rules ought to have been back then. Based on my knowledge (and please contradict me if you have facts to prove otherwise), white people from anywhere within the Empire had the right to go to India, buy land, set up businesses with administrative approval. Whites ran indigo and tea plantations in the north-east of the country, ran businesses in Bombay, etc. I am not aware of any visa arrangement or exclusionary rules preventing them from moving to India. But when Indians tried to move to settler colonies, all sorts of barriers were put in place. There was no attempt to facilitate a quid pro quo. It was not just Canada (or Australia, which explicitly restricted immigration to whites.) An established Indian population was gradually ghettoized, through explicit disenfranchisement, pass-carrying laws, and restriction of movement. That was what riled up Gandhi so much when he went to South Africa as a young lawyer, and it got him started on a political career. Now the only place that did not attempt to put barriers to Indian entry was England herself, but that seems to be an exception within the Empire.
  38. @Bill P

    Now the US was well within its rights to prevent Indians from immigrating, but as a matter of law and politics, such exclusion from Canada was problematic.
     
    In that case, then the Canadians had no right to stop the Hibernians from invading Canada following the US Civil War, since they were British subjects after all.

    In fact, the Hibernian raids were what prompted Canada to call for some independence from Great Britain, and therefore denying entry to other British subjects (who were also rebelling against the crown) was neither problematic nor a break with precedent. The matter had long since been settled.

    Are you suggesting a raider is identical to an immigrant? If so, your judgment is seriously compromised. I think you are projecting from the present day American experience, where illegal immigrants are referred to as “invaders” by every person who is anti-immigrant.

    I was talking only about what legal immigration rules ought to have been back then. Based on my knowledge (and please contradict me if you have facts to prove otherwise), white people from anywhere within the Empire had the right to go to India, buy land, set up businesses with administrative approval. Whites ran indigo and tea plantations in the north-east of the country, ran businesses in Bombay, etc. I am not aware of any visa arrangement or exclusionary rules preventing them from moving to India. But when Indians tried to move to settler colonies, all sorts of barriers were put in place. There was no attempt to facilitate a quid pro quo. It was not just Canada (or Australia, which explicitly restricted immigration to whites.) An established Indian population was gradually ghettoized, through explicit disenfranchisement, pass-carrying laws, and restriction of movement. That was what riled up Gandhi so much when he went to South Africa as a young lawyer, and it got him started on a political career. Now the only place that did not attempt to put barriers to Indian entry was England herself, but that seems to be an exception within the Empire.

  39. All of these dating statistics for asian males have to be alarming for they are still a tiny percentage of the population and if they’re struggling this bad now when presumably their scarce supply should give them a premium, then damn. The continued rise in their population spells even greater disaster for their prospects as there will be an even greater gap between supply and demand. Maybe as the affluent asian population rises they might exert greater cultural influence and shift preferences in their favor but I don’t think this process can occur fast enough. I’m thinking of the following worsening

    http://dailybruin.com/2014/02/07/ucla-groups-call-for-support-in-response-to-offensive-flier/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/ucla-racist-sexist-signs-asian-women-video_n_2212311.html

    Black people, well, poor black people

    As for hispanics, it all comes down to socioeconomic status even though they already overperform based on such indicators and despite the horrible stereotypes about them ( Machistas!) . This bodes well for hispanic assimilation so long as they can climb the socioeconomic ladder (though many people are skeptical of this: Gregory Clark, Reihan Salam).

  40. “2.Latin/Latina dating preferences: Problematic.This is a rubric that encompasses a wide variety of racial types: Ricardo Montalban, Cheech Marin, Cameron Diaz, Eva Longoria, Jorge Ramos, Zoe Saldana, Jessica Alba, etc. Frankly, it would be more informative if the Latins were subdivided.That way we could compare White Latin preferences to Mestizo Latin preferences, etc”

    I notice that among Hispanics who look stereotypically Hispanic and do not look White, the women on average fare better than the men when it comes to interracial dating. I don’t see too many George Lopez types dating Gwyneth Paltrow types. But I do see a lot of Michelle Rodriguez types dating Chris Hemsworth types.

    Where I live you are more likely to see a White woman with a Black guy than you are to see a White woman with an Aztec looking Hispanic male like George Lopez.

    Aztec looking Hispanic males are a major turn off for most White women. The reason Alex Rodriguez gets so many blond haired White women is because he is a Mulatto looking Hispanic and not an Aztec looking Hispanic, lots of White chicks dig Mulato guys.

  41. There are speed dating events in the Bay Area that cater to White guys who are into Asian women. Although they don’t outright say the words White men, the people who organize these speed dating events use the code word Western men who are into Asian women. But we all know what they really mean by Western men and it’s not Harold & Kumar that’s for sure.

  42. Russell Peters says that the Indian accent definitely hurts Indian men who are trying to get laid by American women.

    It’s true that the Indian accent does not sound sexy to American women. The Indian accent does not have sex symbol status like the British accent for example. American women love men with British accents.

  43. @Razib Khan
    i wonder how male bias in immigrants effects these results? the different s. asian communities differ here too in britain. pakistanis are mostly native. bangladeshis mostly immigrants. indians in the middle.

    I’d say that very rarely do FOB Asian or Indian guys socialize with women outside their race. So it’s mostly American born and raised guys that these sampled girls have interacted with in their social circles.

    don't know if i agree with that. but i don't have much personal experience to draw upon outside of a university context.

    The mean height for Western-born Indian men is 68.6 inches, in comparison to 67.8 inches for Asian men

    breaking down by subgroup might be interesting. people from pakistan and punjab for example have traditionally been pretty close to the european average even in the older anthro lit. looks like with diet many south indians are catching up. but east indians (mostly bengalis) are not. this may be genetic (more e. astian in bnegalis).

    The mean height for British-Indians seems to be approximately 68.5 inches, despite the population being ~40% Punjabi-origin. For British-Pakistanis, the mean height is about a quarter of an inch greater. For British-Bangladeshis, mean height is 66.7 inches. These figures are for 1.5 and 2nd generation South Asians.

    Interracial marriage rates may be influenced by family disapproval, but British South Asian men also have much lower interracial cohabitation rates than British Chinese men.

    It’s interesting that British South Asian women have higher rates of chlamydia infection than the men. If I had to guess, I’d say that a certain liberal section of Westernized Indian women are having sexual relations with non-Indian men, but shun men of their race due to perceived low sexual market value. Indian and Pakistani men seem to be getting squeezed out of the sexual market, even more so than East Asian men, which results in these men having low rates of chlamydia infection.

  44. @thinkingabout it
    It isn't surprising that Asian women get such high scores, since they are the most neotenized race and therefore have the most appealing females. But when considering marriage, one must really think over whether they want their descendants to look Asian, especially their sons. From the table above, it seems like looking like an East Asian man is a terrible handicap in a multiracial dating market, perhaps as bad as being bald or fat (I say this as a balding ex-fatty who has dated both Asian and White women in the past).

    I think the Caucasoid races, from White Europeans to Middle Easterners to most Indians, have the best of both worlds. Their men aren't too ugly, their women aren't unbangable. Even here there is a cline, with European males being more attractive than Middle eastern males who are in turn more attractive than Indian males, and the reverse order being true for females.

    Of course my view may be influenced by my own genetic biases. Like the first commenter on this thread noted, East Asians may consider all other races to be too masculine/chimp-like.

    I’ve seen the supposed neoteny and femininity of East Asians (“Mongoloids”) regurgitated so often that I just had finally de-lurk to debunk a few flawed presumptions. This is my first time commenting on this site so try not to mind my hiccups.

    “It isn’t surprising that Asian women get such high scores, since they are the most neotenized race and therefore have the most appealing females.”

    First of all, neoteny corresponds to human face size and not face shape or facial features: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11953945

    East Asians have larger faces and facial features than whites, Hispanics, and blacks: http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/03/10/annhyg.meq007.full Also, I doubt the prognathism and facial flatness typical to East Asians would be judged fairly by “Caucasoid” populations. (BTW: among so-termed “Caucasoids” Middle-Easterners/North Africans have significantly larger and more robust faces and features than Europeans, and semi-“Caucasoid” Indians, especially south Indians, have much smaller and gracile faces and features than Europeans/Caucasoids or any other race for that matter: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3886603/)

    Korean-American women whose faces were shifted to Caucasoid norms were judged more attractive by (an admittedly very small) sample of fellow Korean-Americans: 1) http://archfaci.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=480245 and 2) http://archfaci.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=481010

    It’s apparent that East Asian beauty standards are very strongly shifted towards Caucasoid norms. And most common cosmetic surgeries popular in East Asians reflect that (small faces, surgery for smaller V-shaped jaw, smaller chin, less prognathism, larger eye to face size ratio, nasal augmentation, leg-lengthening surgeries, etc).

    As for neoteny in physique, I don’t recall smaller breasts, high waist-to-hip ratios and short broad legs typical among East Asian women ever being correlates of female attractiveness. In fact, it’s precisely the opposite. Sure they have slightly more gracile frames and higher fat%/muscle mass ratio compared to black and white women, but the difference isn’t that great when only comparing white vs. Asian women. The difference between white/black people and Indians (who have significantly smaller, gracile frames and higher fat % to muscle mass ratio than even Asians) is, IIRC, much larger, but rarely as emphasized upon.

    Here’s a 3D comparison of average Chinese vs. White-American faces: http://imgur.com/a/XRFYP taken from here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23623784

    Would most Western men judge the Asian female average as more attractive than the White female average? I would be genuinely surprised if they did.

    I don’t know why Asian women are so appealing to American men, and frankly I don’t really care. But I doubt it is because they’re intrinsically more attractive than women of other races.


  45. you have stated indians have an even higher body fat / muscle relation than east asians, which I find hard to believe based on my observations in India and China. Do you have some data about this?
    Also one should not forget that probably more important than the body fat / muscle relation for males attractiveness is the size of the skeleton. For example heavy weight weightlifters also have a lot of body fat, but still that makes them not look feminine because the have big bones

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    https://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/385/WenJ.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y


    Go to page 63. This study was done on residents of New Zealand.

    Indians in NZ have much lower lean (Fat Free) mass than Europeans, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, and Maoris in NZ. They also have much a higher body fat percentage.
  46. @Erik Sieven
    @JohnnyWalker123
    @MKL

    you have stated indians have an even higher body fat / muscle relation than east asians, which I find hard to believe based on my observations in India and China. Do you have some data about this?
    Also one should not forget that probably more important than the body fat / muscle relation for males attractiveness is the size of the skeleton. For example heavy weight weightlifters also have a lot of body fat, but still that makes them not look feminine because the have big bones

    https://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/385/WenJ.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y

    Go to page 63. This study was done on residents of New Zealand.

    Indians in NZ have much lower lean (Fat Free) mass than Europeans, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, and Maoris in NZ. They also have much a higher body fat percentage.

  47. @ JohnnyWalker123
    thanks, thats very interesting

  48. @thinkingabout it
    It isn't surprising that Asian women get such high scores, since they are the most neotenized race and therefore have the most appealing females. But when considering marriage, one must really think over whether they want their descendants to look Asian, especially their sons. From the table above, it seems like looking like an East Asian man is a terrible handicap in a multiracial dating market, perhaps as bad as being bald or fat (I say this as a balding ex-fatty who has dated both Asian and White women in the past).

    I think the Caucasoid races, from White Europeans to Middle Easterners to most Indians, have the best of both worlds. Their men aren't too ugly, their women aren't unbangable. Even here there is a cline, with European males being more attractive than Middle eastern males who are in turn more attractive than Indian males, and the reverse order being true for females.

    Of course my view may be influenced by my own genetic biases. Like the first commenter on this thread noted, East Asians may consider all other races to be too masculine/chimp-like.

    In USA, it is all about economic and the corresponding milieu. Regarding South Asians and preferences, just look at UK vs US view on assimilation. UK South Asians are more “ghettoized”, have less of economic promise vis a vis US South Asians. One may overlook other preferences but in USA, economic priviledge allows for easier access to stuff.

  49. @thinkingabout it
    It isn't surprising that Asian women get such high scores, since they are the most neotenized race and therefore have the most appealing females. But when considering marriage, one must really think over whether they want their descendants to look Asian, especially their sons. From the table above, it seems like looking like an East Asian man is a terrible handicap in a multiracial dating market, perhaps as bad as being bald or fat (I say this as a balding ex-fatty who has dated both Asian and White women in the past).

    I think the Caucasoid races, from White Europeans to Middle Easterners to most Indians, have the best of both worlds. Their men aren't too ugly, their women aren't unbangable. Even here there is a cline, with European males being more attractive than Middle eastern males who are in turn more attractive than Indian males, and the reverse order being true for females.

    Of course my view may be influenced by my own genetic biases. Like the first commenter on this thread noted, East Asians may consider all other races to be too masculine/chimp-like.

    The comment of Caucasoid races, to wit, “most Indians” is comical to say the least. We are confusing the Media TV image of South Asians vs the rank and file citizens, who are definitely not European. The bottom line for mate choice, is economic. No doubt that personal attributes, likes/dislike and affinity for the usual characteristics of decency, morality and some level of “niceness” of the two parties. Let us remember that the Japanese Americans were the most loyal of all Americans (immigrant group) but that did not prevent them from being villanized and sent of to camps because they were a threat to the white man’s view of USA heaven.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS