As I get older and explore the world around me more and more. It seems that for some reason, Ive dated a large variety of races and I never really "connect" with my own race. Anyone have stories of mixed couples really working out?

I know of quite a few of them that have worked out, good luck in your search.

It's 2011, it's not such a big deal anymore.

anyone notice the ads at the top? black and white dating, interracial dating, and mixed singles...

It's called contextual ads, they pick up keywords from the content on the page, which is the posts in the forums.

I don't know how to relate myself in a sort of generalization. I am a Hungarian Jew, and I did have one Hungarian Jewish girlfriend. All Hungarian women, and all Jewish women turned me down all the time.

Some Canadian women went for me, and I had quite a time having platonic friendships with British women. German women were great -- blonde, softly skinned, and soft spoken. They are aloof, laugh easily (but not so easily to listen to it) and they loaf and leaf. (In the fall. Maybe it was a Linden tree I dated, not a German woman?) I never had a girlfriend who was a member of the so-called "visible minorities", unless you count the Chinese or Black, coz all my girlfriends would have been a visible minority in China and in sub-Saharan Africa.

If you want to connect with your own race, read the roster schedule for the athletic event you want to attend. For instance, if you are short-distance sprinter, don't go to the Boston Marathon.

My Great-great-great grand uncle Salomon did that. He came to Canada and ran in races for Homesteads (they used to do those, giving free land to those who came in the top three), and five times he came second, eleven times first, but all he wanted was actually an ice-cream, so after the sixteenth time he ran the race he came back to Hungary and told everyone What a huge disgrace Racing for Ice-cream in Canada was.

It pays to learn the local language.

You don't seem that old to me.

Wait until you become my age. You're going to be in for a big surprise.

Dude I have known for years (white guy) married a black girl, they had five kids, and are still together. And he had to deal with his Mom not liking the marriage at all. She felt that mixed relationships were not healthy, and not "right". Course, the moment she held her first grandbaby, that all changed.

I feel that if two people love each other enough, then nothing can break them a part. The only thing that can is if they ALLOW circumstances, or other people's feelings to control them. Trust me. I went out on a date.....just one date, with a black woman, and my family was all up in arms over it. So was hers. But I laughed it off and was like "Honestly, if you guys keep this crap up, I will marry a black woman who is a satanist." They shut up.

david bowie and iman, cuba and sarah gooding, heidi klum and seal,,,


I imagine race has little to do with whether a couple survives, so much as how they get through rough times together(whatever the rough times stem from)

I dont understand that thing about "races", different culture yes, but "race"?

race can sometimes IMPLY a similar cultural or ancestral history,,,so people use them interchangably,,,

I dont agree with it, but I get it

Absolutely.

Prejudice is always based on something, sometimes on the false thing, sometimes on the right thing, but always on something.

Like it's safe to assume that a Harward law professor is intelligent, and coal miner in Wales is not.

But it is still a prejudicial assumption, as you can only be sure by identifying which is intelligent in person.

Some prejudice is justifiable, I believe strongly, like the fact MIT professors are smart. It is unjustifyable to believe that all MIT profs are black, or chinese.

Humans got to where they are, because of their ability to recognize patterns. Without pattern recoginition there would be constant figuring out the world, from each minute to each minute. No useful work could be done.

An inherent part of the mechanism of pattern recognition is that the patter-recognizing human will take his extant data as complete. This can't be circumvented, as it is a very necessary integral part of human pattern recognition.

The smaller the sample that a human makes his observation on, the larger the chance that his prejudice formed on that will be ill-fitting. Thus, if a human goes to three different dentists, and each kicks him in the elbow during the work, the man will necessarily form the opinion (prejudice?) based on his observations, that dentists kick patients in the elbow.

His ENTIRE sample of dentists did that. He is justified as a biologically sentient and thinking and intelligent being to come to that conclusion.

Are we right in judging him to be a short-sighted, bigoted feller, because his judgment is obviously wrong, as we all can attest that very-very few dentists kick their patients in the elbow.

---------

This is the biggest misunderstanding of prejudice, and the biggest difference between prejudice (justified or unjustified) and misinformed judgement made on groups because the samples provided consisted of otherwise non-reperesentative data.

--------

Take a man who hates Jews. He says Jews love money, are ugly, and want world hegemony. He may or may not have met any Jewish people, but this is his very strong opinion. This I call prejudice.

Take another man who comes from Burma, and for him Jews are not a separate race, but yet another European nation, or at least Indo-European nation. His getting in contact with three jews: a history teacher, an accountant and a doctor, will make this man from Burma form the opinion that Jews are learned, smart people. He is making this judgement on direct personal evidence, and his own personal pattern recognition mental mechanism will make him make this opinion.

I say both men can be wrong. The first one, the prejudiced one, because most Jews never think of world hegemony, most don't even know what hegemony means. (Come to think of it, I don't, either; it has to do with domination, but it's a certain kind, of which I can't tell how it's different from other dominations.) The second one, because there are lots of Jews who don't even have highschool education, and 83% of jews don't attain a university education, much like 83 percent of other races in my locale don't attain a university education.

There is one difference, though, betweent he two. The first guy bases his prejudice not on a pattern recognition, but on an unsubstantiated personal belief. The second guy bases his prejudice on a personal pattern recognizing.

We, humans, in North America, in the 21st century, are tought to believe and most or all of us internalize the belief, that prejudice is wrong.

But we sometimes call people wrong who are not prejudicial in the sense of the above, but instead, their own pattern recognition ability makes them opine one thing or the other (about a defineable group of humans, positively or negatively, that doesn't matter) about a subset of humans. THIS IS NOT WRONG. This is my thesis. We must not and ought not demand wisdom of people who rely on their own patter recognition, as we do it too, as it is human nature to do it.

To call people wrong who base their opinions on humans due to their pattern recognition, is to call human nature wrong.

Whether human nature is wrong or right, is not a matter of decision. A natural, set, unchangeable course in nature can't be called wrong or right. Is it wrong for Jupiter so much bigger than Earth? Is it wrong for things to fall towards the Centre of earth when dropped? Is it wrong for the seas to have a level, or ought to have sees have their waters arranged to form one-mile-long edged cubes? Is it wrong for humans to form an opinion when there is no evidence to doubt that opinion?

-------

Because we are humans, on human beings we can only collect non-representative data. If you call all blonde people together, and want to establish their average height, and base a judgement on that, you can't ever find the average height of ALL blondes, whether you collect two blondes and measure them, or a hundred of them, or a million of them. You need ALL of them.

But we, as humans, do not have the resources to measure the heights of all blondes. Heck, I can't collect two blondes together in one room and get them to allow me to measure their heights.

So all truths on pattern-recognition is theoretcially false, but the degree of error decreases with the increase in the number of different specimen one has in his observed sample.

---------

Please don't call a man prejudicial when his opinion is based on his observation. Please don't call a man to have based his opinion on observation, when he has done that based on prejudice.

This is one important lesson, I believe.

-----------------------------

Edit: There is a third major way of making judgment (psyching out abilities, talents, or lack thereof) of human groups. It is by reasoning. It is safe to reason that most math professors are good at math, and most doctors care for others.

This judgment can be made without the employment of pattern recognition or of prejudice. This is judgment can be arrived on purely logical deduction.

------

Therefore we must be VERY careful to be aware and not unfairly call someone racist or bigoted or prejudiced or sexist, if his or her judgment was made on a logical basis, or on observation.

We must not call a man or a woman logical if his or her judgment was based on prejudice and with corresponding personal observations that agree with her prejuduce.

We must not call a man or a woman a being who based her judgement of personal observation and pattern recognition, when that person based her opinion on coinciding results yielded by prejudice and by intelligent logical deducing.

We must not call a woman unintelligent when her deducing consists of removing the men from the room. (Un-duking, de-ducing, or de-duding the room.)

This is one example which tells me I have been left behind by the forging ahead of the race of technology.

iMan. Is that an artifical man, manufactured by iApple? and if yes, why are there no iWomen?

I want an iWoman, a four-isWoman and then another one still, the third-iWoman.

Unless you are talking animals, I do not,
personally, think any match is mixed.
We are all the same.

LOL, Iman(pronounded Ee Mon) is the name of a fairly famous somalian model,,,she was a supermodel in her youth and appeared in michael jacksons 'remember the time' video

huh... and i thought bowie was gay....

huh... i thought it was somekind of magic or something...

wow so did I

yeah, I think there are alot of bi folks confused as gay based in who they are seen with at the time

IM pretty positive this is one of those cases, that bowie was/is bisexual