Talk:Race and sexuality

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wkimmerling.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review 1
I really liked your article - I think it read very well and flowed nicely. It is fairly objective which fits well with the style of Wikipedia. I have copy edited the article a little bit - just for small grammar/phrasing changes.

Here are just a few suggestions on how to improve it/what I liked:

-Maybe include something else in the introduction to explain the term better - it's fairly short. You could maybe include an overview of what your article will talk about.

-I think its great how you added a lot of links to other pages for different terms - makes it really professional!

-I like the further reading section but am not 100% sure about the need for the bibliography section – don’t you just need references?

-It might be a good idea to add some pictures to make the page more interesting to look at

-Some of the terms are worded a little confusingly (might just be me!) for example 'unbridled lust'- is this a term they use in the theory or a book?

-I like how you’ve used terms such as Jezebel and then stated what this is/means - I also like how you’ve used an actual quote from the book.

-It may be a little wordy in some places which makes it a little tricky to understand for example - 'This collective stereotype is established through the perception that an individual’s sexual appeal derives entirely from their race, and is subject to the prejudices of said race, that influence the fetishisation.'

-Could you perhaps add any more to the homosexual or heterosexual community section? The homosexual section is a little short and it would be interesting to have more examples of sexual racisim in the real world as well as online.

Overall, I liked your article - I think you've sectioned it well and its really easy to read.

Lydiahextell (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Hi, good article so far, I just have a few suggestions you may find useful:


 * I think the introduction is a little brief- it would be useful to include more content, for example mentioning the different headings you discuss in the article so there’s a good overview for anyone short on time looking for exactly what the article will be about.
 * I like your section on history, there’s a lot of information and citations to back it up! I would just suggest perhaps expanding on the section by discussing the topic in other countries as well? E.g. the UK, or China and such.
 * There’s also a lot of mention of ‘whites’ in the history section – perhaps referring to them as Caucasian would be less controversial?
 * The heterosexual section is really interesting, it would be great if you discussed real world situations as well as online dating.
 * Some more images may be useful for making the article more appealing, for example a photo of an interracial couple or something relevant to what you have mentioned in your headings.
 * The homosexual section is a lot shorter than the heterosexual part – it would be nice if you could expand with some more examples!

Other than this, nothing much else to add – interesting article and a good read! BhavyaDutt1 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 3
I really liked this article overall. It provides a good background on the history of sexual racism and information on both homosexual and heterosexual communities. I have some comments/suggestions for improvement below:


 * You could make your introduction more detailed, to allow readers to have a grasp of what the main article is about. Maybe introduce a brief history of sexual racism, heterosexual/homosexual communities and outline fetishisation. You could also include an appropriate image here as there is a blank space towards the top of the page.
 * The history section is very detailed on the background of the USA and sexual racism, but you could include information from other countries if this is applicable. Potentially from an Eastern society? This section has lots of links to other Wikipedia pages, which is really helpful!
 * The online dating section is very strong as it has many links to other Wikipedia pages and a range of reliable references. The use of statistics really supports this section.
 * The whole article maintains a balanced view and you have written about a controversial issue in a dignified way.
 * You could add a 'See Also' section, to link your page to other similar pages.
 * Could you merge the bibliography with the references section?
 * The sections fits in well with Wikipedia's guidelines.

I enjoyed reading this article, well done!

Kroyds (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 4
Hi,

I enjoyed reading your page, it really flows and clear and easy to follow the content. It is an interesting page and includes a lot of information, Here are some suggestions from me: Overall, it is great! Well done! Good luck with your page! AnitaChen (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The introduction part is really short only contents one sentence, it would be useful to make it a little bit more detailed and includes more information so that people would have a clearer idea of the concept when searching online.
 * The history part of USA is great and detailed, including lots of evidence and from various aspects of view to look into the racism. It would be even better to include sexual racism histories from other countries, other cultures, e.g. Eastern or European countries.
 * In the homosexual community section, there’s one reference missing after the first sentence. Also, would it be helpful to include other evidence or more details to address this concept, perhaps some comparisons?
 * It is great to include lots of link to related wiki pages, but are there some links not that necessary in online dating section, such as ‘culture’?
 * In the online dating section, it appears that mainly talking about America, how about other areas?
 * The bibliography part might be able to merge with the references part?
 * It might be common in wiki to add ‘see also’ section to link some similar pages?
 * Would be more appealing if you can find some pictures to put on the page!

Our Contributions
Our contributions to this page included the history, fetishisation and online dating sections! CADudley (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Peer review 4 Hi guys – great piece!

Well done guys! Really well written, informative piece – I enjoyed reading it. Best of luck TanGND (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your layout is very clear and concise
 * You have added very relevant information in terms of online dating which is very significant in today’s day and age.
 * I know you guys may not have created the page – but I feel like you could possibly add the the introduction. It seems quite brief and vague.
 * The history was explained so well and included the roots of racist and prejudice views within the USA. It would be interesting if your group could look at sexual racism in other countries populated with high numbers of different ethnicities for example; South Africa or UK which include racially diverse areas such as London and Birmingham. However, I do understand research on the US may be the most prevalent in the literature.
 * The sentence under the subsection Online Dating – “Along with this, there has been a rise in online sexual racism, whereby partner race is now the most highly selected preference chosen by users when creating their online profiles, displacing both educational and religious characteristics” can be added to. Perhaps clarify that this finding shows a reluctance of interracial mixing/dating which is a feature of sexual racism. It may be good to reiterate this because upon first reading this, it seems like individuals just have a preference.
 * Furthermore, perhaps there could be more of an emphasis throughout the article that the reasons for these racial trends in dating found in the research, are not because of a preference towards your own race. But because discriminatory views are held towards people of other races causing a reluctance to interracial mixing/ dating.
 * You explained well the discrimination that occurs and the stereotypes and cognitions behind this discrimination which was backed up well by evidence and statistics
 * You also took into account how race interacts with demographic factors to explore the likelihood of sexual racism occurring e.g. if from a certain religion more likely or less likely to date interracially - which was really good

Peer Review 5 Hi! This article was really really well written and so easy to follow! I really enjoyed reading it and I learnt a lot as it was explained so well!


 * there was a really good use of facts and figures, especially in the online dating section, which were really informative
 * there was a very good use of links to other pages
 * despite it being a controversial topic, you really steered clear from promoting any controversies and avoided 'taking sides' as such, which is really professional
 * the online dating section was especially easy to follow, especially for people who don't have any knowledge about the subject
 * in the history section, you could include some information about racism in other countries, even if it's just to say it isn't as prevalent or prominent as it is in the USA
 * you could include a couple of images to brighten up the page a bit more
 * I found that the fetishisation section was quite wordy and I feel like you could simplify the sentences a bit more to make it easier for lay people to read - even if this is just splitting sentences up!

Fab article, well done!Jessica Owen (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 6
Hi Guys, first of all well done on creating a great article! Here are a few of the things I picked up on:


 * Both the history and and heterosexual sections seem largely based on research using American populations - would be interesting to see if the concept of sexual racism exists in other countries with different cultural norms (if there is little research from other cultures it may be worth putting this in as a bit of a disclaimer)
 * The use of objective data in the online dating section was very clear and gave a good objective summary of the race variation within the topic
 * The amount of different research you used and your citations makes it really easy for anyone wanting to look in to more detail about any of the different things that are mentioned - very good!
 * The 'Fetishisation' is very interesting and novel, though I found it a little hard to follow with the way that its worded (had to reread a few bits) - may be worth just restructuring this a little so its an easier read
 * There aren't yet any illustrations for the article (this is a fairly controversial topic, so it may be hard to find something appropriate), though perhaps even including a graphical representation of some of the data may be helpful!

Overall its a really well structured article with great content! LukeH1 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 7
Hi there, sorry this is a late peer review but I've had a read and the article looks great, much more information than before. I picked up on a few thing: - I like the U.S section, though feel like maybe there could be more information on cross-cultural differences (did sexual racism originate in the US?) - I also feel like the article lacks a biological explanation a little, maybe writing a few sentences on how evolution can explain that we tend to mate with people who look similar to us, or the psychology perspective of religious/cultural continuity, which might explain not being sexually attracted to particular races. - I like the graph and pictures, and I love that you have included fetishes and the angle on LGBT is great and different! - I also noticed that you have a references and bibliography section, not sure why there are two? All in all I loved the article, ,was really informative. Good luck! Sbamwarwick (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Extending the logic behind sexual racism
If it is considered racist to not want to date a certain race wouldn't this mean you would be homophobic if you didn't want to date the same sex? Aren't these both considered sexual preferences? Xanikk999 (talk)

Bias
Under the online dating section, the article originally stated that women of African descent are inherently more "masculine" than other women. This is completely untrue and, if anything, an example of the type of racism that the article tries to explain. The statement is especially jarring when contextualized with the statement before it, which claims Asian men fare worse in the dating scene due to perceived effeminateness rather than inherent effeminateness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.126.64 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Country mention
Needs to seriously be improved. Also no other country but the USA is mentioned anywhere in the article, this is extremely narrow minded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.109.100 (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

About page title: Sexual racial preference vs Sexual racism
I have moved the page to "sexual racial preference". If you insist it should be "sexual racism", that's a serious accusation against humanity, and you will have to find a Wikipedia administrator to approve this change. --Acyclic (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No the page will stay at the original title until you open a move discussion and get consensus for a move. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 07:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you link me a resource with an example that states how to open a move discussion? --Acyclic (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:RMCM 85.76.139.129 (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sexual sexism
I presume by the same 'logic' being espoused by this article that homosexuals refusing to date heterosexuals and vice versa is blatant sexism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8280:1F08:A138:805F:7D80:B9B4 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

opinions on interracial relationships vs attraction to people of other races
This article has two topics. One is people's opposition towards others being in interracial relationships. The other is people's attraction to people of other races. I'm trying to separate them clearly because just because you support other peoples right to interracial marriage doesn't mean you are attracted to other races.--Naddruf (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
Hello,

I removed a short section entitled "" recently added by User:CaribbeanBlue which is mostly a personal opinion, per our policy that Wikipedia is not a forum. The user's unattributed criticism citing political scrutiny, [...] (absence of) institutional barriers and (superfluous) matter of concern show a misunderstanding about the definition given in the article that the topic is individual sexual preferences, not racism in the usual sense of hatred and prejudice.

There is much criticism to be made both on the current state of the article and on the very notion of sexual racism, but that's not the way to do it. Among the obvious problems:
 * 1) It is mostly centered on the US. A Globalise tag may be appropriate.
 * 2) While about every human society probably has a variable level of cultural endogamy in its partner selection processes, the focus on the obsolete notion of race here says actually more on the obsession of the American society for racial topics than it says about sexual preferences. The fact that intercultural or exogamous relationships are called "interracial" there says a lot.
 * 3) The name of the article could be changed to something more neutral, such as Racial preferences in dating or in romantic relationships, or something avoiding the word "race" completely like Cultural sexual preferences in the United States.

However, this is matter of discussion for this talk page, not the body of the article. Place Clichy (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I wrote: "Some dispute the idea of sexual racism, arguing that ones subjective romantic preferences should not face political scrutiny and that the concept is contradictorily not extended by its proponents to other types of sexual preferences like homosexuality (which would be deemed "sexual sexism"). They point to the absence of institutional barriers to interracial relationships in modern society and widespread acceptance of interracial relationships as indicators that sexual racism is a superfluous matter of concern."


 * Can we rename the wikipedia page on "homosexuality" to "sexual sexism"? Can we delete this page? Ok, now I'm being serious. Can we just include the actual racist stuff like anti-miscegenation laws and past attitudes and get rid of the dating stuff? It does a big disservice to past racism people actually had to endure to equate it to someone's bad Tinder experience. And god forbid there is confirmation bias, where some poor soul reads this article and thinks their chances with someone are doomed, and swipes left pre-emptively...CaribbeanBlue (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This needs to be deleted pronto unless someone can source this as an established opinion of Psychiatrists.
This article is offensive on so many levels, Im not even sure where to start, right up there with telling lesbians they should be open to sex with anyone who identifies as male, which was a buzz a while ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisacole55414 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page not moved. There was no consensus for a move. (closed by non-admin page mover) --  Dane  talk  04:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexual racism → Sexual racial preference in the United States – This more clearly identifies the contents of the article. (1.) NDESC One person is not entitled to another's body or company. Qualifying a person's decision to enter a relationship or... relations with someone else as racism, regardless of the reason behind it, either from malice or negligece, is unwarranted. Ascribing negative connotations associated with racism to personal preference is unwarranted. (2.) PRECISION While a couple of other countries are mentioned, the vast majority of the article relates to the US, as several have already mentioned in Talk:Sexual racism Son of a T-14 Armata (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now but purge WP:SYNTH. I see this is your first edit. Basically, and as you can see from the existing tags, this article has a lot of problems. I was going to read through it and eject all the material that is not specifically about sexual racism per WP:Synthesis. I still need to do that. We would then see what remains and go from there. I think that is a better strategy. Crossroads -talk- 04:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your approach seems more thorough. Sounds good, though it will probably boil down to some poll results and a "some claim that these results are evidence of racism, not personal preference for specific physical traits commonly shared among certain groups". Or, what can objectively be defined as sexual racism? Son of a T-14 Armata (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. "Racism" is such a charged term that if this article is going to retain the current title, it must be strictly focused on sexual racism and not include material about the racial preferences of people in romantic relationships. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a second choice, delete as a first choice. Red   Slash  18:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as fatally flawed WP:OR. Or Draftify while completing the search for a quality overarching source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Listed at AfD here -> Articles for deletion/Sexual racism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I also support draftification as an option. The various "peer reviews" by inexperienced editors above show that it appears to have been written by WP:Student editors, who often commit OR. Crossroads -talk- 16:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serious issues with article
I am concerned that the title of this article is misleading, as the information is primarily related to the United States of America, most of the sources are from the US and similarly focus on the US. Until the content reflects a global view I would propose the article is renamed "Sexual Racism in the United States"; or words to this effect. --121.215.171.163 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This was just discussed above. Crossroads -talk- 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover)   SITH   (talk)   20:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sexual racism → Racial sexual preference – This article survived the AfD at Articles for deletion/Sexual racism, so deletion is off the table for now. But there were substantial concerns raised about the title, thus this RM. The proposed title communicates clearly and neutrally what the article is about. Whether or not racial sexual preferences are a form of racism is a controversial topic both among scholars and the general public, so I don't think we should be taking a stance on that issue in Wikipedia's voice when an alternative title that doesn't require us to do so is available. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pinging AfD participants feel free to weigh in. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There are over a thousand of articles on Google scholar that discusses sexual racism. There are only 12 that uses the euphemism "racialized sexual discrimination" and 41 that uses "racial sexual preferences". The abstract of one article convincingly argues that sexual racism indeed is a form of racism. If the researchers can call a spade a spade, so to speak, then so can Wikipedia. Im The IP  (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC) I should add that my view is based on reading about the subject for 45 minutes at most. If someone has convincing arguments about the purportedly offensive nature of "sexual racism," I'll change my mind.  Im The IP  (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with ImTheIP. Why change the WP:COMMONAME? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am as yet unsure whether the name should be changed, but at minimum, material from sources that are not about race and sexuality needs to be cut per WP:Synthesis. Any material that is a fork of interracial marriage doesn't belong here. And Sdkb is right that Whether or not racial sexual preferences are a form of racism is a controversial topic both among scholars and the general public, and I agree that I don't think we should be taking a stance on that issue in Wikipedia's voice. Crossroads -talk- 04:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "Racism" is a loaded term.★Trekker (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per ★Trekker: At some level, perhaps it is a form of racism, and many other aspects of personal judgments about sexual attractiveness may also involve deep-rooted elements that are objectively unjustified, but using that term as the article title would be an expression of overt condemnation that violates the NPOV goal of Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. It is superior to current title, but is "Racial sexual preference" grammatically correct?  It seems to imply the sexual preferences of races, rather than racial preferences in sexual behavior.  I would rather something like "Racial preference in sexuality". Walrasiad (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Split into two articles, one on sexual preferences and one on racism Red   Slash  17:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who moved this from "sexual racism"
"Sexual racism" was clearly the language used in social sciences, whereas "sexual preference" is some sort of euphemism. Was this a vote and did I miss it? Fluous (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to race and sexuality  (t · c)  buidhe  21:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Racial sexual preference → Sexual racism – The name of this phenomenon is "sexual racism." That's what's used in the scientific literature. "Racial sexual preference" is a euphemism that is not used in the scientific literature. As another stated, there are over a thousand articles on Google scholar that discuss sexual racism. There are only 12 that use "racialized sexual discrimination" and 41 that use the euphemism "racial sexual preferences." And there is support in the literature that people's attitudes towards general racism closely align with their attitudes towards sexual racism. See Callandar, Holt, Newman (2015). The current article title violates NPOV in this way. Fluous (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Our primary article on Racism defines "racism" in a much different way from the phenomenon that this article is talking about, and the way that most people define the term "racism". The proposed article title is also potentially offensive and judgmental, implying that anyone who has this type of sexual preference is racist. To avoid potential confusion and misunderstanding, this article should remain where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support It is not ours to define racism. Sure, we can use our editorial discretion to avoid confusion, but it's more important to use the naming that the RS use, especially when the proposed alternative is a euphemism which has a significantly different meaning and connotation. Since or the like is sometimes used by RS, we can have a redirect, but it shouldn't be the article title.  Sr ey Sr os talk 02:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the proposed alternative has "a significantly different meaning and connotation", just like green has "a significantly different meaning and connotation" than brown. Our solution on Wikipedia is for both green and brown to have their own articles. Is that not appropriate here, ? If not, why? Red   Slash  19:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether the terms sexual racism and racial sexual preference refer to two different concepts, or whether they are two terms used to refer to the same topic while carrying different connotations. If the latter is true then a fork would run afoul of WP:POVFORK. When I said that the terms had significantly different meanings, I think I wasn't quite clear. I don't mean to say that in scientific literature the two terms refer to distinct topics. From my cursory glance at the google scholar hits it seems like they refer to the same topic (people making sexual decisions based on race). What I meant was that the two terms, to a lay reader, lend significantly different summaries of the topic. An analogous example is the article title Scientific racism versus Race realism. It would be improper to fork that into two articles, because the terms refer to the same concept. Sr ey Sr os talk 19:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A very well-explained answer, thank you. I consider that making sexual or romantic decisions based on preferring certain races over the others in a sexual or romantic context is very well described as "racial sexual preference", which is a more precise and recognizable title, but I do understand your perspective here. Red   Slash  23:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The term “racial sexual preference” is technically inaccurate as the term used in the academic domain is “sexual racism.” Additionally, the term “preference” is itself misleading, implying a positive connotation where none should be present. The term implies that there can be no negative outcome of having such preference, this in spite of the fact that in almost nearly all other scenarios racial preference is described as discrimination. We are not redefining racism. Basing our terminology on the definitions of racism that are already available prove that racial preference in sexual relationships is in fact racism. Spawn666w (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC) — Spawn666w (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Complicated oppose What is this article about? I believe it to be about people including race as a factor when they choose a mate. If that is correct, then that is, quite literally, racial sexual preference. If I am wrong and the article is about a different thing, then the article might need a different title. The fact that "sexual racism" has more Google scholar hits is irrelevant. September 11 attacks has over 2 million hits on Google Scholar, but we aren't going to move the page to the title September 11 attacks, because that title does not convey what the article is about. What are you asserting that sexual racism is? Then we can assess if this article is actually about sexual racism, or if perhaps sexual racism is a different topic that requires its own article. Red   Slash  19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is to say, to me, "black women are hoes" sounds like sexual racism, and "I find myself more attracted to white women" sounds like a racial sexual preference. If the article is about the latter, which it primarily is, then I oppose. The former is currently included here in the article, however, and apparently is a more popular topic on Google Scholar, so maybe it should be split off. Red   Slash  23:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to Race and sexuality and merge Racial fetishism here. This cuts the Gordian knot. Race and sexuality is the topic. The fetishism stuff is a type of preference and is also discussed in some sources as a form of racism. The title is indisputably NPOV and ends the endless back and forth. Sizewise, it is completely workable even before the necessary cuts of then-redundant material and off-topic interracial marriage material (marriage has a different set of motivations and meanings than does just sexuality). Crossroads -talk- 07:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Boom, I support this - that's the title, perfect. Red   Slash  21:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support that as well. It basically turns it into a broad concept article that can address different aspects of race and sexuality. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Really well done. "Race and Sexuality" really does work for all the reasons cited. Fluous (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

US centrism
I feel like this article is very US and Western-centric, with the exception of a few parts, such as the section on how white women are perceived in China, and Seretse Khama's interracial relationship. Perhaps more work needs to be done to internationalize it Folx (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Race and sexuality#Middle Eastern women
Regarding the section Race and sexuality, a since-banned editor changed it to "Arab women", noting that Algeria isn't in the Middle East. That editor was reverted. While Algeria is not part of the Middle East, this distinction is often completely ignored by Orientalists, so the point might be worth handling more carefully. I adjusted the wording to be more comprehensive, but I don't like it and there's certainly a better way to handle this.

The cited sources do not exclusively focus on women from the Middle East, nor do they focus on Arabs. Browsing these sources, it does seem like they mostly mention being Muslim as a common factor in stereotyping. Since this connection is already supported by existing sources, I have included a 'see also' link to Cultural racism. Grayfell (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the other peer reviews, I think this article definitely has some biases, and could use a longer introduction section. Cassidybohne (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Black women and interracial dating.
The current single source about black people being most open to interracial dating is dubious. Black women are overwhelmingly the least likely to be open to interracial dating both offline and online. Anyone can see this is using a book as a source to avoid scrutiny! Better and wider sources, please!2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:D137:5C4B:EE5A:9B0F (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the source for your claim about black women? Crossroads -talk- 01:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t have the statistics at my fingertips but that’s probably back to front. Black women are unfortunately seen as inferior on the dating market in most American cities. It’s well documented that college-educated African-American women have the hardest time finding a partner of any major demographic category in the United States. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Issues with Sexual Preferences Introductory Section
The introductory section from "While discrimination..." to "not a commonly accepted view" is written as opinion rather than fact. Little information is properly sourced and relies heavily on a Huffington Post article by a white novel author, while there are no direct quotes from the Callander, Newman, and Holts article. The included quote is not useful. At minimum, this section is written with clear bias from a specific point of view and should be removed. Kdrets (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the intro is not well made and has a bias that is protecting racism. Perferences are the result of racism 2605:E000:5FC0:8E:F96A:B7AD:8B6:6965 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)