Not being attracted to people who look a certain way cannot be racist, transphobic, fat-shaming, sexist, hegemonic, or anything else that’s bad. Being attracted but not allowing oneself to be seen with them in public, for instance, that shit is definitely all the bad things. But genuine attraction knows no ideology. It’s entirely outside of our control and beyond the reach of any rationality. And that’s only scary to people who are terrified of sex and of themselves.
Trying to analyze attraction in terms of ideological concepts betrays a profound sexual dysfunction in those who do it.
Clarissa's Blog 
To tie it into your usual themes, it’s this all about misplaced consumerism?
For some people, if others aren’t automatically attracted to them it means they are faulty products headed for the mark down pile.
On the one hand, preferences as to size, color, age, plumbing etc are all barriers to mindless consumption – the opiate of today’s masses.
On the other, they are a rejection of consumerism since so many products (esp for women) are meant to make them more appealing as products – the fact that they don’t necessarily work miracles brings all faith in consumerism into question.
LikeLike
Wow, this is really insightful. I love this explanation.
LikeLike
Attraction or repulsion to specific physical features, I totally understand and get behind. That stuff’s innate and obviously has a biological basis. But there’s no biological basis for attraction to, say, vague groups classified by the US Census Bureau.
‘Asian’ is a meaningless category, as is ‘latino’ or any other race when it comes to physical features. There’s an unbelievable amount of variation within each category.
So, I totally support anyone who says they’re attracted to women with, say, blond hair, dark hair, blue eyes, or whatever. And anyone who says they’re not attracted to people with brown eyes or a specific skin tone. Good for you.
But if you say you’re not attracted to mexicans, that’s not biology speaking. It’s ideology.
LikeLike
And that’s only scary to people who are terrified of sex and of themselves.
Or maybe it’s just a basic case of trying to say, “It’s them, and not me” as a psychological coping mechanism with some sociological words spread in like mad libs. It serves the same function as “I’m so intimidating” and “I’m too nice”
Trying to analyze attraction in terms of ideological concepts betrays a profound sexual dysfunction in those who do it.
Ayn Rand’s idea of only being attracted to your ideological compatriots is totally dysfunctional, then. 🙂
Not being attracted to people who look a certain way cannot be racist, transphobic, fat-shaming, sexist, hegemonic, or anything else that’s bad.But genuine attraction knows no ideology. It’s entirely outside of our control and beyond the reach of any rationality.
True, but I think large swathes of people have no idea what genuine attraction is and whatever is there is buried under mountains of social mandates and conditioning. So it’s not enough to say or acknowledge to yourself, “I’m very attracted to thin women/tall men.” It’s often, “No fat women/no short men/how dare you approach me/rage!” Often the people who complain they can’t find anyone and nobody wants to be with them have people who are attracted to them. It’s just that they feel whomever approaches them doesn’t fulfill their social mandate more than anything. All of that gets collapsed into “People are -isist for not being attracted to me!”
LikeLike
Of course, the reason for being unsuccessful sexually should be searched for only in oneself. It’s easy to blame the inhospitable, sexist, racist, etc universe for this but that’s a dead end.
There is also the hilarious “I’m just to good for anybody to appreciate” approach. It’s usually created by a controlling parent who needs a perennially lonely child who can be controlled in perpetuity.
LikeLike