And then we get things like Blatino porn
by guest contributor Luke Lee
Ugh. Who would’ve thought that a conversation about pheromones and guys from Eastern Europe would’ve led to talking about Mendel, evolutionary biology in terms of “interracial mixing” and accountants dating accountants. Such was the case on Episode 57 of Dan Savage’s Savage Love Podcast (“Lovecast” as it is officially called).
Dan Savage, a syndicated sex-advice columnist who I’ve always been a big fan of had The Stranger’s (a local Seattle newspaper) resident science expert Jonathan Golob on the podcast to answer the various listener questions that came up. As one person inquired about the legitimacy of pheromones and whether he (the listener) had a weakness to the pheromones for men from a certain country from Eastern Europe, the conversation somehow stumbled to:
[13:03-16-12] Dan: We know that mutts are healthier than purebred dogs, right
Jonathan: Oh yea, for sure
Dan: So genetic mixing, [lowers voice] race mixing…is actually good and healthy for human populations and human society.
Jonathan: Oh for sure. I mean The more mixed you are…the bigger the difference genetically between…you and…your parents…You just tend to do better. I mean everyone has two copies of the same genes, blah blah blah…
Dan: That’s why those Euroasian guys are so fucking hot.
Jonathan: Exactly, and so it’s F1…F1’s the key. It gets the biggest pea plants with the best peas..this is Mendel going back to…
Dan: OK, so I have a question about that…because we know that to be true…that dog mutts are healthier from dog mutts to human mutts. Is there something in us that compels us to…you meet people that are attracted to their ethnic or racial polar opposites. And some people think that’s all formed in a welter of racism. That it’s an objectification…you know a White guy only into black girls. You know, uh an Asian guy whose only into white women. You hear that this is ohh racism expressing itself. Is there some sort of like genetic compulsion there? Where there’s some people who there for the health of the greater population seek out the radically different…racially, genetically?
Jonathan: I think there is. It’s a really hard thing to test. Cause it’s hard to separate the genetic from the cultural and the race and all this stuff. And you tend to date the people you tend to see…
They then start talking about interracial dating preferences and some studies which Jonathan makes some references to which he says that women are basically more race-specific when it comes to choosing potential partners whereas men “will fuck anything.” Towards the end they start talking more in general biology terms with the whole hybrid vigor “race mixing is good for the planet” suggestion led by Dan and backed up by Jonathan. So prepare for eyeballs to be rolled, the three minutes of “race mixing talk”, very much unlike Dan’s usual podcasts and columns, are all over the place.
Check out his podcast here.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Peter wrote:
On one hand, yes, genetic diversity does enhance a population. On the other hand, the genetic differences between races don’t exist (See Templeton’s “Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective,”) and in many cases two people from the same “race” may be more genetically different from one another than two people from different races. Therefore, interracial sex/dating doesn’t promote a more diverse genetic pool and the conversation’s basis is bunk.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 9:12 am ¶
Katie wrote:
It’s awfully funny how “race mixing” to him is White+SomethingElse. Notice also the implicit message is that mixed W+SE people are more attractive than plain ol’ SE folks.
This is gross.
It’s also directly contradicted by my experience of dating discrimination by White people, who are certainly not all lining up to date me. As someone who’s mixed, I get the “what are you?” alot, but in primarily White environments I get far less love than in diverse ones.
Peter, your comment is spot-on.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 10:06 am ¶
Anon wrote:
So if I’m a black-eyed pea who meets a brown-eyed grrl…
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 10:59 am ¶
Ailurophile wrote:
Katie, if you are dating men, that contradicts the “women are picky Vickies while men will boink anything” idea, doesn’t it? This idea that women are racist, fussy gatekeepers while if men had their way everything would be one big happy interracial lovefest makes me want to scream and throw things. Not least because it leads to so much Nice Guy(tm) whining.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 11:20 am ¶
Katie wrote:
Ailurophile - generally men, yes. And it certainly does contradict that. Another place where Savage and Golob are way off base.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 12:45 pm ¶
David Wynn wrote:
It’s interesting to me that no one disagrees that genetic diversity for populations is a good thing, but that people can take that premise and run so wrongly with it. The two things I see in this piece are:
1) As stated above, there is often greater genetic diversity within races than between them. I think it’s interestic that many people presume science backs up on a genetic level whatever they identify on a higher level as “different.” I wonder when we’ll start to listen to science first, rather than working backwards from our conclusions.
2) I’m not wholly sure you can play the genetics card for attractiveness. That takes a macro level phenomena and presumes individual contributions to it all line up. Additionally, there are a whole host of factors that go into what we believe to be attractive so the statement is virtually meaningless. Fat and pale was attractive not too long ago in civilization, followed by increasing thinness and tan-ness, and while not impossible, I highly doubt genetic diversity played an integral part in the societal opinion of attractiveness moving from one point to the other.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 2:07 pm ¶
Luna wrote:
I usually like Dan Savage as well, and I really hate having to display my unhip preference for meaningful relationships, but my first reaction conversation to this was was: ick and double ick. Ick for the sexual notions contained within and ick for the racial notions.
Not that anyone asked, but I don’t find it flattering to hear that someone is particularly attracted to women of my race (white). All this talk about genetic diversity and breeding while appearing to be enlightened and to endorse interracial sex and dating just seems very unappetizingly similar to old, racist discussions about the dangers of ‘mixing’: ‘It’ll start with mixed dancing and before you know it we’ll have a nation of half breeds….’
My impression is that except for isolated populations that have intermarried over very long periods of time like the Amish in Pennsylvania, genetic diversity is a non-issue in most human communities.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 3:23 pm ¶
TierListE wrote:
*confused* What in the world? Guys are racially discriminating as a mofo in the dating world. At least 8/9 times out of 10 when I hear “I’m sorry, but I’m just not attracted to (insert race here)”, it’s usally a guy.
Women are probably just as likely to have such biases as well, but they are much more reluctant to admit it. And almost all of the people who’ve said they don’t believe they have a race preference tend to be women.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 4:34 pm ¶
Neil wrote:
TierListE, that’s a pretty silly generalization to make.
Not only do you say that women are less likely to admit their biases, but you then say most of the people who say they don’t have a preference tend to be women.
um, according to your own statement, maybe it’s because women are less likely to admit their biases?
i don’t agree with either generalization you made, but what point are you trying to make?
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶
Neil wrote:
… and in response to the article; in the words of dave chappelle, “pretty soon, the world is going to be beige.”
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 5:12 pm ¶
Ailurophile wrote:
Luna: you are correct, “genetic diversity” is an issue really only amongst small, inbred populations, such as the Amish or European royalty.
You get cousins marrying cousins for generations and *that’s* when you get ill-health, genetic malformations and so on.
I believe that in times past when people often didn’t move beyond their home villages, for generations, is when you’d get more of that deleterious inbreeding.
Now since race is a social construct without any biological validity, and there is more genetic diversity within the races than between them, AND the greatest genetic diversity of all is within sub-saharan Africa - really, as long as you aren’t having kids with your cousins (ick!) you’ll have enough genetic diversity to get by.
As far as which gender is choosier about the race of their partners - I did a little research on this and it’s all over the map. One study showed women were choosier, another showed that men were. I believe that the differences between genders are pretty small and it’s more an individual, personality thing - rather like genetic diversity, in a way.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 5:29 pm ¶
more cowbell wrote:
Wow. The sad thing is that many people will hear this and not even question the premise, but use it to bolster their place on the “I’m so down with diversity” bandwagon.
Ditto Peter, the first commenter. Another good one is the first of the 3 part series “Race: The Power of Illusion”. I recently requested my son’s history teacher show it in class, in response to an incident there. It follows a high school class which forms hypotheses about who they’re genetically linked to in the class, do DNA testing, and the results show that there is no more genetic similarity between members of a particular “race” than there is between any other members of the population. It also talks about how race is a social construct, not a genetic reality.
Anyway, I hate knowing that people will hear that podcast, and think it’s correct.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 5:54 pm ¶
Carpenter wrote:
I listened to that podcast and I was pretty pissed. Dan is usually better than that, esp since it kind of allows people to rationalize away a bunch of stuff. Maybe someone with the proper stats to send him a letter, he is pretty fair about putting out dissenting opinion and making retractions.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 6:03 pm ¶
Cara wrote:
Sigh . . . oh Dan. Why? For fuck’s sake, you say stupid shit every now and then, but god . . .
I’d really like to see him issue an apology over this. But I also know that he’s not always the best when it comes to admitting when he’s wrong. I don’t listen to his podcast, but like Carpenter said, I know that when he says something controversial in his column, he will at least print a bunch of dissenting responses. And sometimes they will change his mind.
Clearly, this is inexcusable. I’m just saying that this may be one of those instances where writing in might be meaningful, and that it has the chance to be a learning experience for an audience wider than those of us who deliberately read about race issues.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 6:30 pm ¶
Annie wrote:
Yeah, but this is the same Dan Savage who consistently puts down bisexuals. I’m disappointed, but not shocked.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 7:06 pm ¶
Dan Savage wrote:
Dear Luke,
Hm. Guess I screwed up. Care to come on the podcast next week and upbraid me for this, Luke?
Dan
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 8:17 pm ¶
lunanoire wrote:
Neil: as it can be hared to read sarcasm or humor in this format, I will take your quote from a comedian seriously. We are not going to be beige. Look up colorism on this site or google. Many people all over the world would be uninterested in having kids w/ dark-skinned people b/c they would not want to chance that their kids would be dark. Because of the frequent connections between color and class worldwide, this bias is persistent , far-reaching and includes self hatred for some.
Posted 29 Nov 2007 at 10:42 pm ¶
TierListE wrote:
I was just responding to that specific statement he made saying that men don’t have as many preference as women to race-wise and I was confused to how he’d got to that conclusion since culturally it’s more acceptable for a man to focus on physical aspect (thus more likely to say those biases out loud) than women (who are more likelyto keep them to themselves or be more selective to whom they say them).
I did not want to imply that I thought women were actually less biased then men were, but I do believe that men are more vocal about it when they are, of which I have all my life experienced to be true.
Posted 30 Nov 2007 at 4:09 am ¶
TierListE wrote:
I also did not contradict myself; I just made the connections unclear. That last statement I suppose should have come beforhand:
1)All of the people who are more likely to have pageant answers involving color/race in dating have normally been women in my experience.
2) Whether or not that 1 indicates actual tolerance from women or less willing to admit there own baises, it wouldn’t logically lead to the exact opposite conclusion, which is what he expressed imho.
Posted 30 Nov 2007 at 5:21 am ¶
TC wrote:
I don’t think this is all that unusual for Savage - he regularly pops out ludicrous “evolutionary” justifications for whatever practice he thinks people should be more tolerant of.
What’s especially ironic is that he’s a gay man, and not passing on any of his own genes, or (so far as I know) doing much to help his relatives pass on theirs. You’d think it would occur to him that maybe “does this kind of sex lead to healthy offspring?” is not the best test for deciding whether that kind of sex should be acceptable.
On the more general question of who people say they’d date vs. who they actually do … I think it was the Freakonomics book that cited a study of online dating services that compared the numbers of people who said race didn’t matter in a partner to the races of people who responded to personals. They found that although lots of people said race didn’t matter, they were predominantly only answering ads placed by people of their own race. The researchers speculated that saying “any race” was a way to look open-minded.
Posted 30 Nov 2007 at 10:20 am ¶
Katie wrote:
Ailurophile -
Just wanted to call out that “cousins - ick!” comment.
There is next to no chance of birth defects with cousin pairings - the incidence between first cousins is only slightly higher than average. Says good ol’ Wikipedia, “first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of birth defects as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 (roughly 6%) rather than at 30 (roughly 3%). ”
Your reaction may be “ick,” but especially on a topic that’s at heart about science vs. socialization, don’t forget about the facts.
Posted 30 Nov 2007 at 11:27 am ¶
Kat wrote:
Kate-
Actually, Ailurophile is right in that cousin breeding is suspected to become a problem and increase genetic abnormalities *after several generations.* Wikipedia does mention that, although it is not cited.
If “racial mixing” improves health, shouldn’t many populations that have historically become “mixed” be healthier already?
For example, black Americans are obviously are more likely to have mixed blood from fairly recent generations than black Africans. I’ve read that as many as 50% of African Americans have white ancestry (that’s the highest I’ve heard, but not the only. Other people may know more about this, please tell me). If this “mixed race theory” held any water, wouldn’t it be reflected in the health of black Americans vs. Africans without slave ancestry?
Or Latinos vs. European Spanish vs. indigenous South Americans? Is there any study anywhere that shows a genetic disease or defect being eliminated or reduced in “mixed” populations?
It seems obvious there should be at least one *anecdotal* case if people are holding to this type of theory.
Posted 30 Nov 2007 at 3:25 pm ¶
Katie wrote:
Kat -
I was responding to the disdain Ailurophile seemed to feel for the scenario. I certainly don’t disagree that closed communities in which first cousin pairings are repeated for generations would have a higher incidence of birth defects - that part seems obvious. But an incidental cousin pairing (Ailurophile does not specify what degree of cousin is problematic for hir) should generally be a non-issue.
Don’t mean to derail!
Posted 30 Nov 2007 at 4:36 pm ¶
Jay wrote:
to tc:
The sample size for the Freakonomics sample is limited to one city (San Diego I think) so it’s hard to extrapolate based on that trend. People will probably be more picky than their preferences indicate, if for no reason other than to be perceived as more socially acceptable.
Posted 01 Dec 2007 at 1:23 am ¶
anonymous wrote:
to Kat:
with regard to conducting studies that compare “fitness” of mixed vs. unmixed populations, it seems many people have forotten the very significant contribution that NURTURE (it’s not all about the nature) plays in all of this. interactions between genetics and environment are very intricate, nuanced and near-infinite…when it comes to the possibilities.
for example, i would have a hard time believing a study comparing african-americans to africans b/c the social, cultural, and health environments are so different, even for people of similar economic backgrounds: e.g. chronic stress is correlated to decreased longevity–a recent study invoked this particularly for african-american men who navigate living in a racist society on the daily; and another looked at dietary differences between african-american vs. african women to help explain why sisters here have higher incidences of breast cancer than sisters on the continent.
and as someone mentioned before, out of all geographic groups, africans are the most genetically diverse. the first humans to migrate out of africa comprised a mere snippet of the diversity that existed there at the time. eventhough on average we african-americans have roughly ~30% european ancestry from person to person, again our african ancestors represented a subset of the diversity extant on the continent, from south to north, west and east.
Posted 01 Dec 2007 at 5:51 am ¶
michelle wrote:
Did anyone read the book, “Breeding Between the Lines”? It is a book that makes an arguement about racial diversity and hybrid diversity.
Not being a student of genetics, I find myself floundering to rebute the issues regarding race being a social construct or a genetic reality. How can a lay person really begin to deconstruct the arguement that race is genetically real.
Posted 01 Dec 2007 at 11:39 pm ¶
Neil wrote:
lunanoire, it was a joke. the skit i’m referring to is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV2v37u39NY
Posted 03 Dec 2007 at 10:09 am ¶
ACS wrote:
On one hand, yes, genetic diversity does enhance a population. On the other hand, the genetic differences between races don’t exist (See Templeton’s “Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective,”) and in many cases two people from the same “race” may be more genetically different from one another than two people from different races. Therefore, interracial sex/dating doesn’t promote a more diverse genetic pool and the conversation’s basis is bunk.
That’s not quite the accepted consensus.
There are alleles that determine how someone’s race is viewed (such as those determining skin color); there are alleles that correlate with those alleles due to environmental factors, but also occur in those from people from similar environment s(such as those for sickle-cell anemia); there are alleles that occur in small, closely interbreeding populations (like Tay-Sachs/Ashkenazim); and there are alleles that don’t correlate at all because all the variations don’t matter.
If the only thing we cared about was genetic diversity, it would probably be better for Ashkenazim to only participate in outgroup sex, and for people from equatorial areas to only fuck people from Norway. In that very limited sense, Savage is right. In every other sense, he should probably leave the fucking biology to biologists, not sex columnists.
– ACS
Posted 08 Dec 2007 at 10:21 pm ¶